UFO: Target Earth

This is really a terrible movie. I remember years ago when 2001: A Space Odyssey came out. All the heads would go to it to see the colors when the guy goes through the star gate. This one has colored geometric shapes. Far out. There is this silly subplot with this guy hooking up with one of his own kind and morphing into another dimension. It actually sounds intelligent until you see it. It is dull, dull, dull. It is thoughtless, thoughtless, thoughtless. As this young man searches for his own meaning, others move around him, confused. Just like the audience. There are long, pontificating speeches. "I'll know it when I see it." "I know I'm destined for it." Gee, I wonder what it is. I'm sure that the makers of this really saw it as an artistic endeavor. However, Stanley Kubrick, they ain't.

This was an incredible sleeper that was hyped as some type of spooky, mysterious story regarding a UFO encounter. Instead it was a boring, painfully slow yarn lacking any special effects or visual excitement. The script called for the characters to talk about something in a lab; then go to a wilderness location, sit down and talk about something; then go to another location, sit down and talk about something; then go to another location, sit down and talk some more; then maybe decide to sit down in a forest location and rehash what they just talked about. Had the dialogue been any good or even slightly stimulating, then perhaps this would have been OK; but this dull script felt as though it had been written in haste or just ad-libbed by the actors in order to get it released quickly to take advantage of the UFO craze of the seventies.

By the time of the "climactic" final scene, the audience expected to maybe finally have a glimpse of some spectacular space craft relic or alien body part, but instead all that was presented was one character shouting "for god's sake" numerous times at another who decides to follow some "imaginative call" to go into a lake believed to be a UFO crash site. The ultimate fates of these two characters are not discussed here so as to avoid "spoiling" this for anyone desperate enough to sit through the whole thing; but suffice it to say, those still awake in the audience by this point yet again were not treated to anything interesting.

For a very good reason, this is a film probably never to be found on video.

I have always been very interested in the UFO phenomenon and i couldn't wait to see this movie when it came out in 1974, so my ex-wife and i went to see it at a drive-in movie, and at first i thought it was going to be OK, but as it dragged on, it got worse instead of better, the whole movie made no sense at all to me.

This movie was so bad i looked around and everyone else left, and we were the only ones left, i finally couldn't take it anymore and we also left, i can only hope this disaster of a movie never comes out on DVD or video, only someone who had never saw this sorry excuse for a movie would rent it or buy it!!!!

Thank goodness much better UFO movies came out later such as ''Close Encounters of the third kind'' and '' The interrupted journey'' and ''Fire in the Sky''

To say this movie is terrible is not only an insult to the word "terrible," it's also not quite accurate. I mean, don't get me wrong, it is terrible, but it's terrible in its own unique way. You've never seen terrible quite like this, and if you're lucky, you never well.

The characters are colorless, the story (if I may be so bold) slow-moving, the cinematography is murky and the camera work inexplicable. Just as an example, there are extreme close-ups and sudden shock zooms when nothing is happening on screen. The acting is competent, though it's hard to tell, given the script. The lead guy, who sounds like Kyle McLaughlin, reads his lines without any trouble. The others are just kind of there, except for the woman who plays the professor. She really bites the cake with her awful flat acting, easily outdistancing everyone else in smashing any interest into a thin, watery paste.

What really stands out, though, is the dialog. Not since Edward D. Wood, Jr, has such utter blather been essayed about with such abandon. In fairness to Mr. Wood, at least his dialog had some relevance to the story. Here, there are endless, pointless discussions about everything under the sun, only occasionally straying into relevant territory. "Would you like a donut?" "Can anyone really ever 'have' a donut? Don't we actually just take one more moment from a happy childhood and cloak it in our concept of 'donut'?" That's not actual dialog from the film, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a deleted scene out there....

The whole film strikes me as a movie made by someone who had never actually seen a movie, but had heard them mentioned casually by other people from time to time. One day, this person comes across a camera abandoned in the woods. Rather than tell a story, he just films his friends saying things. He invites them on a camping holiday and films them saying some more things. He gets a couple of them jump into the lake, because he'd heard people did those sorts of things in movies.

Really, the level of ineptitude on display is astonishing--unbelievable, almost. You would have to work hard to reach these heights (or depths) and I don't think anyone connected to this worked that hard. Thus, the incredible ending strikes me not so much as an obvious rip-off of "2001" but rather an attempt to remake that ending after only being told an incomplete, rambling description by someone who'd seen it while drunk.

Aside from a really cool title and a neato disco UFO trip movie opening titles sequence, this movie sucks. Ever hear of a movie called BOG about a swamp monster that goes on the rampage and starts tearing apart ply-board movie sets? BOG is a better movie that UFO: TARGET EARTH. Ever seen Larry Buchanan's ZONTAR, THING FROM VENUS? ZONTAR: THING FROM VENUS is a better movie than UFO: TARGET EARTH.

I very fondly remember the UFO craze that gripped Amercia around the time of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, and while a bit early (1974) this film is surely a part of that craze. There were a bunch of faux documentary films on UFOs & other worldly phenomenon at about the same time -- my favorite will always be IN SEARCH OF NOAH'S ARK -- and I was kind of hoping this would be one of them. It isn't, and the last 20 minutes of TV blending feedback color head trip space junk might be great free-form visual expression, but please.

I wish I could be kinder on this film: The only UFOs you see are still photos used for the opening credits, which I come back to again as the high point of the film. I suppose if you were zonked out of your mind on blotter acid this might be somewhat engaging, it has a sort of naive earnestness about itself that is charming in a slack-jawed kind of way. I also dig the cheapo 70s interiors, editing room (literally) production design, and the idea of trying to make a movie about UFOs that essentially consists of people sitting around talking about them, followed by endless sequences of pre CAD or Apple Mac computer renderings instead of showing us space aliens. Kind of like the end of 2001 (complete with an ambiguous close-up of a star person's eye) but without all the fuss & bother involved with getting us there.

Something tells me also that the three 8/10 votes dragging this movie's user ratings curve up to 4/10 are in on the plot to deprive target audience viewers of a film with a name like UFO: TARGET EARTH of 83 minutes of their life that could be spent doing constructive things like playing golf, masturbating, or strangling small animals.

3/10; I did just raise it a point after reconsidering the movie. It's awful but then again like eating snails, awful movies can be an acquired taste. Try lemon butter sauce, or better yet a case of beer.