Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaAn able-bodied scientist has found a cure for the plague from outer space which has eradicated almost all life on the planet. A mad general who wants to repopulate the planet with a new race... Ler tudoAn able-bodied scientist has found a cure for the plague from outer space which has eradicated almost all life on the planet. A mad general who wants to repopulate the planet with a new race sends a special female assassin to take him out.An able-bodied scientist has found a cure for the plague from outer space which has eradicated almost all life on the planet. A mad general who wants to repopulate the planet with a new race sends a special female assassin to take him out.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
Rob Tinkler
- Young Wallace
- (as Robert Tinkler)
Joseph D. Clark
- Soldier #2
- (as Joseph Clark)
Avaliações em destaque
Ok, so it is really that bad. But it's entertaining in a Mystery-cience-Theater-3000 sort of way. I mean, it's not just bad, it's awful. It makes you wonder what the writers were thinking. The special effects are a joke, the bright latex costumes are inexcusable, and, to appeal to the highbrows, the movie contains numerous references to Alice in Wonderland, for which the main character has some kind of wierd fetish. Look for Humpty Dumpty on the mantle during the sex scenes. Anyway, it's basically a 90's update of Plan Nine from Outer Space, only without aliens (the only space shot is of this satellite collecting cosmic dust, which is shown maybe eight different times). The movie is worth checking out, if only to know for yourself how bad it really is. But don't be disappointed when you find out that those tight guns and exploding spaceship on the cover are nowhere in the film.
An earlier comment already summed up how bad most of this film is, but one thing was left out: The plot.
Let me just add that the plot of this film is unrealistic, incoherent and extremely boring.
Let me just add that the plot of this film is unrealistic, incoherent and extremely boring.
The year is 2018. That is the only thing in the entire movie that is truly comprehensible. This is an unbelievably terrible science fiction film that isn't suitable for any viewer. Now, what about the plot, you ask? I like to discuss plots, but there just isn't one worth taking the time to explain, other than scientist Jeff Wincott wants to develop an antidote for a deadly virus, but a mad general has, for some reason, sent the scientist's wife to stop him. It all takes place in an underground compound with the cheapest sets this side of the 21st century.
Jeff Wincott, in a scene where he is standing, appropriately, in a pile of garbage, remarks that he is in "a poor man's Raiders of the Lost Ark." They even call some device an "Ark." What an insult to a great movie. But the whole film is an insult to us all, anyway. And why is a great actor like Stacey Keach trying to put a stop to his career? Except for the conclusion, he pops into the movie in shots by himself, spouting out nonsense. I guess that means he is describing the plot, huh? Well, I sure wish I had gotten a terminal virus a few hours ago. Then I wouldn't have sat through this terrible movie. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.
Jeff Wincott, in a scene where he is standing, appropriately, in a pile of garbage, remarks that he is in "a poor man's Raiders of the Lost Ark." They even call some device an "Ark." What an insult to a great movie. But the whole film is an insult to us all, anyway. And why is a great actor like Stacey Keach trying to put a stop to his career? Except for the conclusion, he pops into the movie in shots by himself, spouting out nonsense. I guess that means he is describing the plot, huh? Well, I sure wish I had gotten a terminal virus a few hours ago. Then I wouldn't have sat through this terrible movie. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.
Future fear is produced by our friend Roger Corman, who is recognized for producing very cheesy movies, and for directing some pretty bad movies featuring Vincent Price, long ago. But this review isn't about Roger Corman...First, let's start with what happens when you're at the video. You're walking and looking on the shelves to choose a movie. You see this one, with Jeff Wincott on the cover, holding a huge, killer gun, and a shot Maria Ford's face, with a couple of explosions. Then you look upper, and you see the DVD version (the one that is shown on the IMDb page, which has EXACTLY the same picture of Jeff Wincott, except he's wearing a futuristic suit and holding a bigger gun. The Maria Ford shot is also different. She is wearing a red leather suit with a gun. Now, the problem is that the biggest gun in this film is a Beretta 270 pistol. They also seem to have stolen one of the laser guns from James Bond's Moonraker. It looks exactly the same. Now, why am I spending so many words for something that is absolutely not important, the guns? Well, that is simply because the covers seem to be trying to show that the film's charms are the big guns, which are absent in this film. But let's continue the story of the guy at the video. He takes this movie, hoping so much action, explosions, guns, and brings it to his home. He puts it in the video, after paying 3 or 4 bucks for the rent. He watches it. The first explosion he'll see is also the last, and it is so very badly done, it looks like a video game's explosion on a real background, it really looks corny. Okay, the guy's deceived, but he continues watching it. He sees a dream sequence, which is surprisingly well filmed and moody. But then comes a scene of sexuality, including nudity of Maria Ford, and the guy asks himself this particular question:"Did the director try to save his film with some cheap nudity?". First, that director will have to learn some things; When you want to put special effects, such as spaceship effects and an explosion, make sure it doesn't look cartoonish or like a Reboot episode. He'll also have to learn that the names of our friends Jeff Wincott, Maria Ford and even Mr.Stacy Keach are not an advantage on the cover of a film. He'll have to learn that an idea that could make a 10 minutes short film should not be turned into a 89 minutes feature. He'll also have to learn that erotic scenes have to be shot in a different context than during a fight where you see flashbacks of sexual acts the characters had that can be compared to the way they are fighting. Finally, an action movie should at least contain an ingredient; some action. This one has none, just a brief fight at the end, but it's still very weak and lame action. This movie has no budget, and it didn't deserve any, don't give that director more budget for his next film, he should stop directing. This film is torture. I give it a generous 1/10.
I caught this one on late night Showtime, and unlike everyone else I didn't think it sucked. The acting was pretty good, and the story was passable for a late night sci-fi flick. The sets and FX were weak, but sets and FX aren't what makes a movie or TV show good, look at Dr Who! I'll grant you that this wasn't on par with Dr Who, but I'd watch Future Fear twice more before reading the back of Twister once. Maria Ford, as usual, made it all worth it. She's smart, a good actor, and drop-dead gorgeous. Stacy Keach and Jeff Wincott were both good as well, with some pretty funny lines and scenes.
I give it 6/10.
I give it 6/10.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesFuture Fear (1997) is the second of four sci-fi movies that Roger Corman produced with Starfield Independent Studios. The other three movies were Chuva de Fogo (1997), Pastores do Apocalipse (1998), and Cybermaster (1999).
- Erros de gravaçãoThe General is wearing his ribbons on the wrong side of his uniform.
- ConexõesReferenced in Adjust Your Tracking: The Untold Story of the VHS Collector (2013)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- CA$ 2.100.000 (estimativa)
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
By what name was Future Fear (1997) officially released in Canada in English?
Responda