U.F.O.

I made the unfortunate mistake of reading the reviews here before watching the blu-ray I got in the $8 bin. I watched in horror as everything the negative reviewers pointed out was revealed as the ugly truth. The film(?) is so bad it actually deserves a rating of half a star, which sadly doesn't exist on this site's rating system. I understand completely now why the reviewers were beside themselves trying to squeeze out adjectives and metaphors for how bad this piece of cinematic garbage truly is. Spoilers...how can you spoil something that is already rotten? I would rather have spent that $8 on a fast food meal that gave me food poisoning...at least it would have given me some nourishment before my bowel movement. Yes, it is truly THAT bad. I could care less about the $8 I wasted because the worst of it is I will never be able to purge it from my subconscious mind and will have to bear the memory of it till I die.

Admittedly I wasn't expecting a huge amount, but seeing as the idea was intriguing and had the ingredients for a fun movie if done right I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. While U.F.O is not the worst movie I've ever seen or one of them, it is one of the absolute worst I've seen this year. If you are wondering whether it is as bad as people are saying, in my mind yes it really is that bad. The whole movie looks as though it was made and edited in a rush, like a matter of days, it is dully lit, the editing is haphazard and unsteady to the point you feel nauseous and the effects look as though the makers had exceeded the time constraint and had to bring forward what they'd managed to do regardless of what they looked like. The music is so overbearing to the point I got a bad headache watching and listening to it, for somebody who has epilepsy it wasn't a good feeling. The dialogue is utter gibberish, it tries to come across as more intelligent than it actually is, almost like an attempted Shakespearean-like grandeur, but it is so stilted to the point it was difficult to get your head round what you were hearing, some of it even sounded improvised on the spot. The story is derivative and dull with nothing suspenseful, involving or thrilling, there's a lot of overlong filler that has little to no point or meaning and it tries to be too many things all at once and delivers it all in awkwardly done tone-shifts. The dramatic "poignant" moments were so mawkish that it'll make anyone want to vomit, some of it would be at home in a badly written soap-opera. You don't care for any of the stereotypical and underdeveloped characters, I usually try to restrain having violent thoughts against movie characters but I admit that I came THIS close to wanting to strangle Carrie. The acting is terrible too, Sean Brosnan lacks charisma and struggles with a character that has been done to death(much better too) and is often senseless, Bianca Bree is supremely irritating and Jean Claude Van Damme is pretty much wasted. Overall, in every sense U.F.O was a terrible movie and one that is best avoided. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Where do we begin? This British version of Manchester United Meets War of the Worlds (the original, not the remake)is a complete disaster from the first reel. At first, I thought this was a film project done by a first-year film student, but I soon realized it was much worse than anything a film student has done. The director of this waste of 100 minutes of film, Dominic Burns, has no sense of direction. The actors have no idea how to act, the cinematographer looks like it was his first attempt at filming the prom, Claude Van Dam makes Arnold Schwartzeneggar look like Laurence Olivier, his daughter is even more dreadful than he is as an aspiring actress (must be the genes), and the music is overbearing. Other than that, the film is a huge success.

A bunch of nightclub types pose as protagonists in the film, but after interminable meaningless scenes about them, you begin to root for the aliens to kill them. There is gratuitous sex, mindless violence and gibberish for dialogue. There is no plot per se. Please save your time and money for something a bit more enjoyable; like an hour and a half in the dentist's chair without anesthetics. Plan 9 From Outer Space is a blockbuster compared to this joke. I have seen over 12,000 films and this one easily qualifies for one of the bottom TEN.

Arthur H Tafero Askmrmovies.com

Has to be a candidate for the worst film ever, the cast have no acting talent at all, the script has more wood than the Amazon and the pace of the film is slower than a Trabant.. total waste of eight pounds that the DVD cost. The film preview on the back of the DVD claims to be about UFO's yet the first half of the film contains none or seemingly anything leading up to them. Just some talentless "actors" going through some Shakespeareanesque wordy scenes seemingly trying to make the film look arty. (probably pushing things to actually call this rubbish a film) If your looking for entertainment go paint your shed or something. It will be far more entertaining than this dross.

Avoid!!

If you check out the other reviews of UFO, it would seem a fair percentage of viewers have given it a critical 1/10, meaning it's probably the worst film ever made. Is it? No, it's not, but that doesn't mean it's particularly good, either.

In fact, when it began, I quite liked it. The characters were nice and the banter between them realistic and amusing. However, the fact is that the idea far exceeds the budget. The titular 'UFOs' only make two appearances in the first hour, leaving much of the setting in people's living rooms. The story focuses on the effects on the everyday population at seeing giant UFOs hovering above the cities (when you start to see a bit more of the aliens near the end, there's a definite resemblance to the Skyline monsters). The director tries to make up for this by long rambling scenes which don't really go anywhere, plus (attempted) 'cool' camera angles where the camera rotates around people and is placed at funny angles. However, when the setting is simply someone's kitchen, it's about as stylish as waving a camcorder around in your Nan's house.

Many people have criticised the acting talent on display here. It didn't bother me that much. Sean (son of Pierce) Brosnan is the star and puts in a good performance and everyone seemed to play their parts accordingly (what else do you want/expect in a low budget B-movie?).

Perhaps what most people hate about this film is the way it's advertised (and ignore the not-so-subtle posters for 'Airborne' by the same director). If you look at the UK artwork to support it, you may be duped into thinking it's some sort of Independence Day style action romp, starring Jean Claude Van Damme. However, the 'muscles from Brussels' is only in it for about ten minutes and his part is little more than a cameo (some of which he doesn't even feature in the same shot as other actors, making it look like he filmed his scenes on his own somewhere in Hollywood).

I can't really recommend this film, even though it's not quite as bad as some are making it out to be. If you like B-movies, then there's better about. Sadly, what could have been a decent little B-movie never had the right budget to really live up to its promise.