Monster Ark
- Filme para televisão
- 2008
- 1 h 24 min
AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
3,3/10
1,3 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaArchaeologist Nicholas Zavatero and his student find a vase with antique inscription on where Noah's Ark is hidden in the underlying monster called Tama. They decide to go looking, but thing... Ler tudoArchaeologist Nicholas Zavatero and his student find a vase with antique inscription on where Noah's Ark is hidden in the underlying monster called Tama. They decide to go looking, but things get out of control.Archaeologist Nicholas Zavatero and his student find a vase with antique inscription on where Noah's Ark is hidden in the underlying monster called Tama. They decide to go looking, but things get out of control.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
Tom Lister Jr.
- Sgt. Gentry
- (as Tommy Lister Jr.)
Vladimir Mihaylov
- Martinez
- (as Vlado Mihaylov)
Mike Straub
- Hutch
- (as Michael Straub)
Stefan Shterev
- Insurgent #1
- (as Stefan Shtereff)
Bashar Rahal
- Insurgent #2
- (as Bashar Rahad)
Hristo Mitzkov
- Belus' Lieutenant
- (as Hristo Motzkov)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
Hell, I'm getting addicted to these Sci-fi original productions showing on cable, but boy there are some stinkers amongst the charmers and sadly 'Monster Ark' is a dud. The premise actually sounded tolerant, but what came of it was not. After a somewhat imaginative opening, it becomes your stock-like monster on the rampage yarn leaving a small group of people to stop the problem. Its biblical horror set in a war-torn Iraq. When I mean biblical, it's the context of the film, and the sub-plot between the two main leads and that of religious faith. One who questions it and the other who does not. Where love and redemption wins out
lovely. And to set in Iraq
what an inspired choice
meh.
Archaeologist Nicholas Zavaterro along with his grad students discover a vase with an ancient manuscript informing them of the whereabouts of Noah's first ark that imprisoned a monster known as the darkness. Zavaterro, his grad students and his ex-wife/archaeologist head to Iraq to where it is. Along with some babysitting American Soldiers they discover the ark and find a crate which they obviously open and unleash the darkness.
Actually outlining the premise is really starting to bore, and when the darkness is released it's an unconvincing monster (an awful looking design leftovers from a video game?) in clunky CGI breaking out total chaos. Rather unexciting chaos though. Jittery editing and shaky camera-work is plain tiring, as it sloppily moves. But the damaging aspect is the very dodgy script with its preachy/forceful messages it was like a bad tooth ache. A towering Tommy 'Tiny' Lister's Sergeant character gave me a good laugh though, as he truly chew up his lines (enthusiastically) and then spits them out. Renée O'Connor was an itch that wouldn't go away and Tim DeKay is typically modest. Amanda Crew is wasted in a low-key role as one of the students. One thing, why does everybody have to yell out their lines? Declan O'Brien's direction is slick, but feels empty and goes for clichéd devices. Claude Foisy's eerily rippling score on the other hand was perfectly balanced and infused in to the film.
Lame, tacky and a drag. Simple as that.
Archaeologist Nicholas Zavaterro along with his grad students discover a vase with an ancient manuscript informing them of the whereabouts of Noah's first ark that imprisoned a monster known as the darkness. Zavaterro, his grad students and his ex-wife/archaeologist head to Iraq to where it is. Along with some babysitting American Soldiers they discover the ark and find a crate which they obviously open and unleash the darkness.
Actually outlining the premise is really starting to bore, and when the darkness is released it's an unconvincing monster (an awful looking design leftovers from a video game?) in clunky CGI breaking out total chaos. Rather unexciting chaos though. Jittery editing and shaky camera-work is plain tiring, as it sloppily moves. But the damaging aspect is the very dodgy script with its preachy/forceful messages it was like a bad tooth ache. A towering Tommy 'Tiny' Lister's Sergeant character gave me a good laugh though, as he truly chew up his lines (enthusiastically) and then spits them out. Renée O'Connor was an itch that wouldn't go away and Tim DeKay is typically modest. Amanda Crew is wasted in a low-key role as one of the students. One thing, why does everybody have to yell out their lines? Declan O'Brien's direction is slick, but feels empty and goes for clichéd devices. Claude Foisy's eerily rippling score on the other hand was perfectly balanced and infused in to the film.
Lame, tacky and a drag. Simple as that.
This is film-making of the shoddiest and laziest sort. Every scene is a showcase for the writer/director's ignorance. O'Brien is completely unfamiliar with science. He knows nothing of how scientists talk, how they analyze, how they approach discovery. He is completely ignorant of how military personnel think, how they process situations, how they act, and how they carry themselves. O'Brien even misses the most basic tenets of Christianity.
Had O'Brien spent the slightest amount of time with military men/women, or talked to an actual scientist, this film might have acquired a hint of credibility. But he chose to write out of an abundance of ignorance. The film suffers horribly as a result. The viewer, even more.
The film's low budget may explain the dreadful costumes, equipment (woodland cameo/olive drab Humvee in...IRAQ???), and effects. But the low budget doesn't justify O'Brien's willful ignorance about the material he wrote and directed.
Tim DeKay turns in a far better performance than a film like this deserves. Amanda Crew, while still learning her craft, provides welcome visual interest. But beyond these two minor bright points, nothing in this film justifies the writer/director's paycheck.
Had O'Brien spent the slightest amount of time with military men/women, or talked to an actual scientist, this film might have acquired a hint of credibility. But he chose to write out of an abundance of ignorance. The film suffers horribly as a result. The viewer, even more.
The film's low budget may explain the dreadful costumes, equipment (woodland cameo/olive drab Humvee in...IRAQ???), and effects. But the low budget doesn't justify O'Brien's willful ignorance about the material he wrote and directed.
Tim DeKay turns in a far better performance than a film like this deserves. Amanda Crew, while still learning her craft, provides welcome visual interest. But beyond these two minor bright points, nothing in this film justifies the writer/director's paycheck.
Monster Ark actually did seem at least watchable(if nothing great) from the trailers. Its good points are the intriguing idea, the eerie score and the spirited performances of Renee O' Connor and Tim DeKay. Other than that, Monster Ark just didn't engage. And no, I am not just talking about the clunky special effects, looking both cheap in look and stiff in movement, and the lazy directing. I'm also talking about the editing, which is as far away from slick as you can come, the lifelessly paced and predictable story, the preachy, stilted dialogue and generally uninteresting and stereotypical characters. Amanda Crew and Bill Parks try their best, but I couldn't enjoy their efforts properly because they were saddled with the most stereotypical characters of the movie.
All in all, dull and unengaging with a couple of redeeming qualities here and there. 3/10 Bethany Cox
All in all, dull and unengaging with a couple of redeeming qualities here and there. 3/10 Bethany Cox
When you're mentally editing a film nine minutes in, you know you're in trouble. Redundant scenes, pointless arguing instead of good dialogue...these things can be forgiven if they are rare occurrences and the story is good enough to carry it through. Unfortunately that isn't the case here, and the directionless scenes and dreadful writing continues to the end.
It's a pity, because the story is a good and interesting one, and O'Connor and DeKay have more than proved their talent over the years. They are let down by a bad script (so bad that at times their frustration is almost palpable), and direction which makes no attempt to compensate for or deal with the poor quality script. Surely opportunities for rewrites, even the odd scene, presented themselves?
If I didn't know any better, I would assume that the script is either a) a first draft, or b) a rush job. Maybe both. Or maybe the whole thing was written and directed by people with little experience who desperately needed a mentor throughout the process, and didn't have one.
The result is quite awful. The only people who might get anything positive out of this film are hardcore fans of the two leads who are prepared to forgive *anything* to see their faves on screen, or film students who would like to see a very good example of bad writing, especially bad dialogue.
That said, I gave it 3/10: one for the story (despite its poor execution), one for making the effort, and one for O'Connor and DeKay.
It's a pity, because the story is a good and interesting one, and O'Connor and DeKay have more than proved their talent over the years. They are let down by a bad script (so bad that at times their frustration is almost palpable), and direction which makes no attempt to compensate for or deal with the poor quality script. Surely opportunities for rewrites, even the odd scene, presented themselves?
If I didn't know any better, I would assume that the script is either a) a first draft, or b) a rush job. Maybe both. Or maybe the whole thing was written and directed by people with little experience who desperately needed a mentor throughout the process, and didn't have one.
The result is quite awful. The only people who might get anything positive out of this film are hardcore fans of the two leads who are prepared to forgive *anything* to see their faves on screen, or film students who would like to see a very good example of bad writing, especially bad dialogue.
That said, I gave it 3/10: one for the story (despite its poor execution), one for making the effort, and one for O'Connor and DeKay.
You know, I realize why casualties in Iraq are so bad. Apparently, Iraq is crawling with ancient monsters that have been let loose by meddling by the US military. Saddam was keeping the world safe from ancient monsters, but Bush has managed to screw that up.
This is the second Skiffy channel movie that was built around this premise. The first was "Manticore" with Star Trek Voyager's Robert Beltran. This has a biblical theme.
Well, my complaint with this one is similar to the my complaint with the other. If you are going to do a movie about the military, actually learn what you are talking about. If this is a mission that higher ups consider important, they'd send a lot more than a squad. A senior Non-commissioned officer is referred to as "Sergeant" or "Sergeant-Major" not "Major" or "Sir". The uniforms are completely wrong. (Big rank insignia on the sleeves of combat uniforms went out in the 1970's. It just tells the enemy who to shoot at.) In a combat situation, you don't go into a nice cluster that can be mowed down with a few shots. YOu also had a clearly overweight soldier, which would simply not happen in a combat zone.
My other complaint with the movie is that the whole character conflict comes between the bible-thumping translator (played by ex-Xena Life Parnter Renee O'Connor) and her atheist ex-husband archaeologist. Which begs the obvious question, if these two had such diametrically opposed views on faith and God, how could they have ever gotten married to start with? Not that it matters, their discussions on faith are so vapid and shallow they barely move the plot along.
This is the second Skiffy channel movie that was built around this premise. The first was "Manticore" with Star Trek Voyager's Robert Beltran. This has a biblical theme.
Well, my complaint with this one is similar to the my complaint with the other. If you are going to do a movie about the military, actually learn what you are talking about. If this is a mission that higher ups consider important, they'd send a lot more than a squad. A senior Non-commissioned officer is referred to as "Sergeant" or "Sergeant-Major" not "Major" or "Sir". The uniforms are completely wrong. (Big rank insignia on the sleeves of combat uniforms went out in the 1970's. It just tells the enemy who to shoot at.) In a combat situation, you don't go into a nice cluster that can be mowed down with a few shots. YOu also had a clearly overweight soldier, which would simply not happen in a combat zone.
My other complaint with the movie is that the whole character conflict comes between the bible-thumping translator (played by ex-Xena Life Parnter Renee O'Connor) and her atheist ex-husband archaeologist. Which begs the obvious question, if these two had such diametrically opposed views on faith and God, how could they have ever gotten married to start with? Not that it matters, their discussions on faith are so vapid and shallow they barely move the plot along.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesDr. Greenway describes a papyrus document as a palimpsest, a manuscript or document that has had its original writing erased and something new written over it. Under special conditions the original writing can be read.
- Erros de gravaçãoZavaterro mentions that the mysterious "brotherhood" trying to stop them are "...direct descendants of the family of Noah." However, if one interprets the flood myth literally, every human being is a descendant of Noah because his is the only family that supposedly survived.
- ConexõesReferences Os Caçadores da Arca Perdida (1981)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente