Avaliações de usuários

An alien race invades earth and holds it hostage in exchange for millions of human lives to save their species from a lethal virus. How it's decided is that people are chosen for this fate by some sort of lottery system organised by the world government, but a scientist, Steven Chase tries to save the life of his daughter, who has been accepted. He joins a resistance and they go out of their way to fight off the harvest.

"Alien Blood" is a cheap looking TV feature that's simply very lackadaisical and dead flat when it comes to the thrills. This story is one man's quest to save his daughter's life, and by the way maybe the rest of mankind along the way. Reading a lot of the reviews and I see it takes quite a bagging. Although I don't think it's extremely awful, but still it's bad. Plain and simple, the material was just far from stimulating, despite a decent concept. What we ended up with it is far from clever and unpredictable. The film's production looked glossy, but came across as quite shallow and mostly unexciting. When it gets going it just seems to rush on by, but it doesn't cover too much ground behind some workable facets that are brought up. It might think there's some sort of deep message within its material, but all I got was extreme corn and laughable dialogues. The insipid dribble they fumble out will choke you to death! Oh my, it was way too talkative with such wretched details and not to BRIGHT actions (just wait for the last 10 minutes!).

The direction is by the numbers and performances are pretty stilted. Brad Johnson was terribly uninspired in the lead role as Steven Chase and the foxy Erin Ross plays his daughter Heather. Yep, even Carl Weathers didn't get up too much. Watch out for the stiff looking aliens that look like they are dressed up in white business shirts and black trousers. Special effects were fine I guess for such a production, but they can only do so much and it wasn't enough here.

An undemanding Sci-fi yarn that pretty much had me yawning more often.

My wife and I started to watch this film the other night with the intention of just seeing 10 minutes or so before we went to bed, but ended up watching it all. My wife is definitely not a sci-fi fan (unlike me) but she still enjoyed this.

Yes, the effects are awful (the original series of Star Trek had better) and I would agree with others on how bad some of the acting was (funnily enough you could tell who the evil guys were by how bad their acting was, although even the good guys weren't that much better). However, it was definitely watchable and dare I say it, even mildly enjoyable.

In summary, the kind of film that is worth watching if it happens to be on air and nothing else worth watching is on, but not worth actively seeking out.

'Alien Siege' is more Sci Fi channel dreck, churned out by the UFO film company in Eastern Europe. I have to wonder why I actually bother anymore with these no budget cable movies that Sci Fi channel seems to put out every month. They show zero creativity, poor acting and the hokey computer graphics and stock 3D models just add insult to injury. The plot of Alien Siege is entirely derivative of alien invasion films like 'V' and 'Earth - Final Conflict' and brings nothing new to the genre. The only part worth watching is the trailer, which packs more thrills than the actual movie.

Maybe next time Sci Fi could give the quarter million dollar budget to some independent director to make a low budget science fiction movie with some original ideas, rather than waste it on yet another Saturday night disappointment like this one. The existence of a great low budget SF movie like 'Primer' is a perfect demonstration of why 'Alien Blood' is truly a cultural invasion, with or without aliens.

I've learned my lesson. I was going to skip this movie until I checked it out on IMDb. Wow, three people gave it a pretty good review. Maybe it's worth a chance. After watching the movie, it now appears these people had some vested interest in posting other than a fair review of the movie. Take, for instance, Jon H Ochiai. After I saw this terrible movie, I wondered who in the world would recommend an obvious stinker like this. So I took a look at some of Mr. Ochiai's other reviews. This guy appears to be someone with classical training as a movie reviewer, except there are no bad recommendations in his voluminous collection of reviews. I'm guessing there must be some cottage industry for people that can't land a steady gig for a real media outlet, so they pump these movies while they wait for an honest job.

Lesson one: Sci-Fi makes terrible movies. I'll not watch another premier.

Lesson two: There are people that pump these movies just like they have people pumping stocks on Yahoo. Though I still have trouble envisioning the economic model (are they really paid, or like the bad guys in these movies, are they just pure evil).

Lesson three: There are no low budget movies with four writers that are worth watching.

The writing is so awful that it's sometimes hard to believe the actors went through with reading their lines. Judging from the barely contained expressions of disgust and embarrassment on the faces of some players, you can tell they can barely believe they're reading these lines. Porn would have been a more dignified career choice.

The CGI budget seems to have been spent on two very nicely done shots of the alien ship hovering above the planet. Everything else looks like the rudimentary placeholders that CGI artists block in while making the final design.

Speaking of special effects, while I can buy the humanoid features of the alien race the silly accents were a bit much. I did, however, appreciate the unintentional humor of the alien personal communication system, which appeared to be activated by the alien tapping something resembling a giant zit on their cheeks.

Also providing much unintentional humor: The enthusiastic paid shills who posted here well in advance of this sewage airing on SciFi.

I watched this partly because of the huge gap between the positive and negative reviews here on IMDb.

It's hard for me to believe that there's anyone PAYING IMDb reviewers to pump up the reviews for anything at all, much less a relatively low budget made-for-sciffy-channel waste of time. But hey, since you're obviously out there somewhere, drop me a line, I could use the spare change... Okay, just kidding.

But it's terrible. Of course you'll probably need to make your own decision, but when you do, count my vote on the "for goodness' sake DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME" side. I hope for your sake reading these reviews is ALL the time you waste on this movie.

The ONLY positive I can think of is that SOME of the acting wasn't horrible. All the special effects are, most of the writing is (some of it's merely mediocre), and although I don't consider myself much of a judge of directing or cinematography, it certainly isn't good enough to redeem this turkey.

Among the hundreds of watched movies this must be one of the worst.. Pretty much everything is plainly wrong with it. No offense to people trying to make low budget movies, SciFi or not, au contraire, this movie is a mold in the eye for those who's REALLY trying to make something good with whatever budget the might have. Script, directing, dialog, acting, lightning, camera, CGI and again.. the SCRIPT, they must have been drunk on Kulku. If U against all odds found "V" to be entertaining prepare for a amazingly if possible even worse ripoff. Sorry guys (director Robert Stadd, writers Bill Lundy, Paul Salamoff) but plz don't quit your day jobs, OK. The only feeling left after watching this *hrmftpp* "movie" is anger, anger due to dragging SciFi in the dirt..

Just saw this on SciFi channel. Big disappointment after reading some of the promising reviews here. I always give scifi movies a bit of extra leeway as I like the genre, but Alien Siege is just plain poor.

I agree on two points others have made. Good story line which deserves to be made into a decent movie some day, and good visual effects.

That's about it though for the good bits. The direction was pedestrian, no build-up of tension or drama. Terrible screenplay, you'll find better dialog in comic books, and the characters never engaged me in caring about their fate. The acting was generally well below B standard, although in fairness the cast had very little to work with.

I rate this 2/10 for the story and visuals. I kept waiting for it to improve, but it didn't happen. Oh well, sometimes the bear gets you...

Set in the not-too-distant future, Alien Siege (aka Alien Blood) begins with faux news footage explaining Earth's troubles with an extraterrestrial race called the Kulku. It seems the Kulku have developed a strange, epidemic virus that only human chemistry can combat. So the Kulku set about acquiring the millions of humans they need to "process" in order to create a sufficient amount of medicine, which is being sent back to their planet via transport pods. Because of the Kulku's superior military abilities, the governments of the world are cooperating. Alien Siege concerns a research scientist, Stephen Chase (Brad Johnson) who is trying to protect his daughter, Heather (Erin Ross), from becoming Kulku fodder.

This film, yet another in a long line of movies made exclusively for U.S. cable's Sci-Fi Channel, seems to be really getting knocked in early reviews. That's not unusual, but it is lamentable. The Sci-Fi channel deserves accolades for its attempts to continually present interesting, original genre films to its audience. Despite occasional missteps, many of these films are quite good, and transcend their budgetary limitations. Alien Siege is no exception, providing a fascinating, well-acted and directed science-based fantasy/action story with poignant subtexts.

Similar to some other sci-fi films, from The War of the Worlds (1953) to Independence Day (1996) and even Mars Attacks! (1996), Alien Siege's extraterrestrials have launched a large-scale invasion, and have found it relatively easy to dominate humans, even though they may be little match to humans physically. However, making the film more frightening is the fact that the Kulku are so close to humans in appearance and behavior, and so rational but calculating in their motivation. This fuels one of the film's major subtexts, which is keyed to a particular line of dialogue--the Kulku consider themselves a superior kind of being to humans, and perhaps they are if measured in conventional or traditional ways. To them, their harvesting of humans is not very different than humans harvesting and/or utilizing animals for food, medical research and other kinds of experiments. Some Kulku, at least may regret the need for treating humans they way they are, but they see it as a "necessary evil" to save the dominant species.

That the humans are so ready to acquiesce fuels other, related subtexts. At first, the compliance is voluntary and utilitarian. Humans are offering themselves to the Kulku for the "greater good"--in order to avoid the Kulku killing more humans than necessary. It is assumed that the Kulku have the ability to take what they need whether it's given voluntarily or not. A major theme in the film concerns whether it's better to assent to something undesirable but seemingly insurmountable so easily, without a fight, or whether the greater good should be subject to more risk in a gambit to overcome the odds and produce a more desirable outcome. On these points alone, Alien Siege is worth watching and thinking about. This film would be a great launching pad for these issues in an ethics class.

It's even more difficult to understand the plethora of negative criticism in light of these aspects. Sci-fi literature long had a reputation for bringing up these kinds of complex philosophical issues, especially any that were the result of scientific progress and applications. Sci-fi fans have a long tradition of complaining that films have not adequately tackled that kind of material. Alien Siege arrives at the issues by way of "hard science"--a sought medical/chemical cure to an entrenched virus. It also features a protagonist who is doing hard science, and who reaches turning points in the plot through scientific means. Further, it engages in another beloved characteristic of much sci-fi literature long absent from films--recontextualizing bits of actual human history so that they fit the new, speculative/fantastic premise.

The performances in the film are fine, the direction more than competent--especially during the action sequences--if not flashy, the limited special effects are handled well and the locations are often charming and occasionally atmospheric. While Alien Siege isn't likely to win any awards, it's a quality piece of film-making that achieves what many sci-fi fans are looking for.

After reading through some other comments, it seems like many viewers are finding fault with aspects of the film related to budget. This is a Sci-Fi Channel original, not a 100 million dollar film. Of course it's not going to look like Independence Day. It seems unjust to criticize the film for not having more elaborate special effects, production design and so forth. Aspects of the film not directly related to budget--such as quality of the performances, the script, and so on--make sense to criticize in a film like this, but it's not a bad film simply because they couldn't spend 100 million on it.

It also seems worthwhile to point out, since some people seem to be forgetting, that different people have different tastes, and they often want different things from a film; they have different criteria for what makes a film good. There's not a right or wrong answer about how good a film is. The most you can hope for is to (a) read some interesting comments about the reviewer's personal take on the film and (b) glean enough factual information from a review that it enables a more educated guess whether you might like or dislike the film, based on what you know about your tastes--not based on a faulty assumption that if one human is honest and reasonably intelligent, then you're likely to have a very similar opinion on an artwork.

Earth is attacked by the Kulkus, a hostile alien breed infected by a lethal virus and needing human blood to develop an antidote. The worldwide governments negotiate with the humanoid ambassador the terms of peace, giving eight million humans shared between the nations to the aliens and in return they would spare our planet. When Heather Chase (Erin Ross), the daughter of the scientist Stephen Chase (Brad Johnson), is one of the selected, her father fights to save her, joining the resistance force. He proposes to Blair (Lilias Lane) and Alex (Cory Michael Davis), the leaders of the resistance, to give his researches with some alien material found in 1947, exchanging for the liberty of his daughter. But Heather is an unique species, having a genetic that heals the aliens and they do not accept to release her.

"Alien Siege" is a collection of clichés, recalling among other movies the cult "V". The predictable story has some reasonable special effects, good actors, adequate pace, and in the end this B-movie entertains without being special. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Perigo Alienígena" ("The Alien Danger")

Do not believe the good comments posted here. They are obvious plants.

This is another in a long line of awful made-for-TV SciFi productions. The budget for this one must have been unusually small, or else they blew it on 10 or 20 min of merely adequate special effects. The rest of the movie is filmed in locations that obviously did not cost the film makers much, if anything.

If you were expecting something like Independence Day, forget it. The entire invasion and subjugation of the world takes about 5 min. at the beginning. I guess anything more would have been too expensive. Don't waste your time on this.

I kept thinking I was watching a bad episode of 'V' or a poor remake of 'Independence Day' or a bad rework of goodness knows how many other sci-fi shows.

The cast all looked as if they could do a good job if only they had little things like a plot or decent characterisation.

The special effects ranged from the quite good (the CGI stuff) to the awful (Plastic alien technology). Also will somebody explain to me why when the dead bad guys leave ray-guns lying around, nobody ever picks them up. OK they do right at the end - maybe it takes a while for the good guys to realise that using advanced weaponry might be a good idea?

Oh well, it's not the worst sci-fi movie ever, maybe.

A silly little outing that tells of an alien attack on our planet. Sure, the story is epic in scope, but on a budget that allows for only a couple of shoot-outs in the woods, it doesn't really work.

The moment I saw the aliens in white makeup with little radio receivers glued to their faces I knew I was in for a cheesy, sub-STAR TREK style outing. Execrable CGI effects, consisting of laser beams, UFOs and people disintegrating within 'blood bags', are not to be taken seriously.

The cast, headed by the wooden Brad Johnson, fare no better. Indeed, one of the only reasons I tuned in was to see Carl Weathers; he's bagged a minor role playing a tough army general. Weathers kicks ass - the rest of this film does not.

We're left with a concoction of silly effects, low-rent action scenes and lots of dull pondering over right and wrong while a dozen or so plot holes are generally glazed over. Not the Science Fiction channel's greatest hour, then...

Chinese water torture? The Iron Maiden? Thumbscrews? How about being forced to watch Alien Blood/Siege?

Is there a difference between these?Yes- the first three are a walk in the park compared to this horrendous waste of money, film and (luckily) only 25 minutes of my life time.

Not since Saving Private Ryan have I felt physically ill through the first 20 minutes of a movie.

Im just annoyed it was a TV movie, at least if I had been at a cinema I could have demanded my money back.

If you have any respect for yourself you will avoid this at all costs.

I love movies, whatever genre, whatever year and whether they are good or bad. I wasn't anticipating very much, considering the unoriginal if somewhat intriguing concept and that it was a low budget TV movie airing on a channel notorious for producing bad to bottom-of-the-barrel movies. And it was actually worse than I expected, with mostly fake-looking effects(though there are a couple of decent ones) and choppy editing. The script contains some of the cheesiest, intelligence-insulting and most stilted dialogue I've heard from any of these movies, the characters are annoying and walking clichés and the story is unexciting, contrived and incredibly hackneyed(I would have forgiven the lack of originality if the movie was actually interesting, and it never was). The acting is dreadful, with the actors looking bored and stiff and Erin Ross' style of acting I have seen before and much better as well. In conclusion, cheaply made, badly written and acted and quite frankly an insult to the intelligence. 1/10(and that's only for the couple of decent, and I put that term generously, effects) Bethany Cox

I stumbled upon the 2005 sci-fi movie "Alien Siege" and opted to watch it as the movie had Carl Weathers on the cast list, plus it was a movie that I hadn't already seen.

And while "Alien Siege" may be watchable to some, writers Bill Lundy, Paul Salamoff, Robert Stadd and Ian Valentine just failed to collectively put together a script and storyline that proved overly entertaining or enjoyable to me.

If you have seen the 1983/1984 "V" series, or even the 2009 reboot of "V", then you already have seen "Alien Siege", except that "V" managed to do a lot better than director Robert Stadd did with "Alien Siege".

The acting in the movie was adequate, taking into consideration the concept of the whole thing, the budget and the frames that the actors and actresses had to work with. However, you shouldn't go expecting any grand acting performances though. Not even Carl Weathers managed to lift up this movie, as he was only briefly in the movie.

Visually then "Alien Siege" was not a great movie. The special effects were adequate, but felt inferior and especially the green screen effects were a hindrance for the movie, as they were rather lousy.

There was just no particular sense of this being an alien threat movie, as the 'aliens' weren't particularly threatening, menacing or even remotely alien-like.

I managed to sit through the entire movie, though I was dangerously close to drifting off a couple of times throughout the ordeal.

My rating of "Alien Siege" lands on a two out of ten stars. This was by no means a glorious moment in the history of sci-fi movies, not even for a sci-fi TV movie.

Aliens harvesting humans to save themselves from a plague! Humans turning over their own to save their lives! I think the makers were trying to address some Big Moral Issues about what people would sink to in order to save themselves, but this movie just gets lost in the details. It is very distracting when the alien soldiers dress like waiters. Also, stand straight up in the open when someone shoots at them (I guess this proves they are not human?). And it's very disconcerting the way the humans shoot them with machine guns, and just happen to get them right between the eyes - even if only a couple of times. Then there's the earth resistance, who are desperate to get alien technology to turn it back on them, and never actually try to pick up the sidearms the alien soldiers drop when the resistance fighters kill them by the truckload (well, they don't take cover - do they?). They need a Scientist who was studying Wreckage from an Alien Crash to figure out that we can use their weapons. There's a lot of this stuff - too much for a good action movie, and not enough explanation, character development, etc. for an issue movie. Thud.

The plot idea about a group volunteers giving up their lives to save the rest of humanity is an interesting one. However, the execution of the story eviscerates the potential and resulted in a hollow carcass of a sub-B grade film. Don't waste your time on it.

Okay, so you need 10 lines. The acting was wooden. The effects are distinctly low-budget, but that is not a crime. Plot developments often non-sensical. Romantic development painfully weak. Technical error with imagery of alien ship shooting down an F22 Raptor - it looked more like a MiG 25 or 31. There 10 lines, and this movie has now wasted even more time from my life.

-v

I guess I have different priorities when I watch movies of this type from some others--my principal interest in in the level of firepower and how well it is photographed; this is the same criterion I use in non-Sci-fi action movies, as well. This movie definitely came up to my expectations in that regard, expectations that were high because of the casting of Brad Johnson and his earlier association with the successful (in my opinion) TV series "Soldier of Fortune, Inc." Although I do appreciate good acting and a well-developed plot (when they happen), I do not expect either one in this genre; by not expecting it, I am seldom disappointed. I think the plot was sufficiently different from others dealing with Alien subjugation that it was interesting and entertaining. I look forward to adding this movie to my collection when it becomes available.