Space Fury

I'm quite surprised by all the strangely negative reviews. I thought it was okay for the dollar it cost me to see it. I watched this directly after reading all the reviews here and don't even understand some of them after watching this.

My main complaint, if you can even call it a complaint, is the lack of a more coherent focus on the nuances of the plot, but basically it's just "crazy man in space" so who cares for plot? The plot involves some sort of brainwashing by terrorists - of the lead character, but also seems to involve his unstable nature once on the station.

In terms of acting and events, it is much like a comic book with regard to the intellectual (or lack thereof) facets, which doesn't immediately condemn a movie in my opinion.

In no way does this movie warrant such a low rating as a 1 when you consider some of the other films out there, so I gave it a 5.

I actually enjoyed this far more than "Event Horizon" (which I thought was utter rubbish), and the acting isn't any worse than a few of the scenes from any given "Star Wars" movie, seriously.

Yes, it is rather over-the-top silly (but I seriously doubt it was MEANT to be bad in that light as another reviewer suggested) mostly because of the stereotypes and plastic characters. I mean, how DO you play the role of a crazy person well or in a "convincing" way? Think about it. The acting is really not that much cheesier than that of Anthony Perkins in the psycho sequels.

If you're looking for a "crazy man in space" movie, THIS is it. In fact, if you've seen "Turbulance" (a pretty bad "crazy man on a plane" movie), it is very similar in some respects.

Again, 5/10. Seriously. There are hundreds of far worse movies than this, INCLUDING "Turbulance", which it would make a good double-feature with, regardless, haha.

Now, I LIKE bad movies. I particularly LIKE bad Science Fiction movies. But this was just completely unwatchable. It's not good in a bad way that, say, Army of Darkness was. If it's not the very worst movie I've ever seen it's definitely top five and the only thing keeping it from the top spot is that I've managed to mercifully block out the memories of the other four and can't quite remember what they are. The actors in this film quite possibly have the worst accents ever recorded on film. That is, of course, when they remembered that they were supposed to HAVE an accent. Here you have people who seriously over-act one minute and sound like a parody of an extremely cliched, stereotypical Russian only to then deliver a line later on that is beyond a doubt North American. The female lead, who is supposed to be French, sounds about as French as a native New Yorker. Then there's the plot - what there is of it. Speaking as a novelist, I can honestly say that I've come up with better, more cohesive and entirely more plausible plots on napkins in a bar while out drinking and partying heavily. The dialogue is bad, the science is worse, the sets are horrible (Galaxina looked better and if you've seen that film you will know what I'm talking about - even the Super-Marionation of the Thunderbirds looked better for that matter) and it doesn't even explain anything at then end. You know what happened, but the why is never even touched upon. I can only assume that the writers either had no idea or simply didn't give a damn. I think the movie can be adequately summed up by sharing a thought that kept running through my mind the entire time I was watching this thing: "These are the people who WON their auditions?? How bad were the people who lost out??"

Do you really want to know that badly?

As a lover of low-budget sci-fi films I was hoping for something better. It's not even bad enough to fall into the "it's so bad it's good" category. The acting isn't so bad, but the over-acting is awful. This is evident right from the start where the female lead, Lisa Bingley, attempts to show consternation at the task in hand by wearing a permanent contorted frown. It comes across as being a somewhat infantile expression, which kills the credibility of her character right from the start.

The most hilarious parts of the film are the carefully choreographed fight scenes. The acting for this is incredibly wooden, and you can imagine the director saying "No, that's fine - just do it in slow motion, and we'll speed it up in the editing". Then somehow they forgot to speed it up.

That brings me neatly to the worst part of the film - the editing. It may be a bit harsh on those involved, as a poor script may be partially to blame. However, the way it was edited made you feel that this was a 24 part TV series that had been edited down to 90 minutes. You often felt that you had missed something earlier on in the story that would explain things. In other parts I found myself rewinding to see if there was a glitch on the recording - the editing was that bizarre. It was hard to tell if there were some actual attempts at being creative or if it was just a rush job. I suspect the latter.

On the plus side the actual plot idea wasn't too bad and some of the special effects are reasonably effective, however someone decided to fill in with some bizarre low-res graphics. These were somehow meant to enhance the sci-fi feel of the film. Shame because it just resulted in me musing about how special effects would look if they were provided by a Sinclair ZX81.

I'll stop now, as I feel I've already donated enough of my time to this film. Any chance of getting the £5 I spent on the DVD release back?

Wait, I almost forgot. One of the crew is a guest sportman, as part of a PR exercise. He's supposed to be a top professional golfer. Check out his putting stroke in the middle of the film. I'll stake that £5 (and a whole lot more!) that he had never picked up a golf club before the film was made.

Possibly the worst film ever made, and certainly not worth the transfer to DVD. The acting is so wooden, that the only fair outcome would be if everyone on the cast list spent the rest of their career as a waiter.

The Science id bogus, the special effects laughable and the plot apparently made up on the spot. If I ever meet one of the producers, I'll ask for my money back.

This film was co-executive produced by Roger Corman, who has been producing unapologetically "low budget" horror and adventure films since the 1950s. He must surely know his stuff by now. (Another film produced by the same company was "Future Fear", starring Stacy Keach.)

I think it's likely that this film is to meant be taken as a send-up, or at least one of those films that are so bad they're good.