Genres

Visitors Review

leader-16 2012-05-16 04:59:54

SCIFI take of a Indiana Jones story?

I just finshed watching this and it amused me so much that i decided tospill my intake on this movie to IMDb.COM. OK, first thing, i reallydid'nt like the CGI animation in the opening scene, i think that theycould used a real boat on real water, that was to cheesy.The musical score was OK, this movie and a lot of Indiana Joneselements, like where Doc is in Noah's tomb, and hes looking for thehole in the ground, how the light shined and pointed to where its at,does that remind you of Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the lost Ark?and Noahs ark from my historical knowledge, is supposedly on MoutArrat, in Iran not Iraq.I enjoyed this movie, Pretty good acting, and what not. Watch it andfind out for yourself.

savoy6-1 2012-05-14 00:06:38

Train wreck

It's a movie,I know, but when can you just pack up overnight and headto a war zone and arrive in the middle of the desert instantly? Theuniforms were horribly wrong. The US Army stopped with stripes on afield uniform long ago. The weapons were slapped together , cut-rateequipped, not for an "e-light" unit. Pu-Lease, the acting of thetroops; parade ground antics. Nobody acts like that. I won't even gointo the vehicles or anything else military.No let's talk about the main actors. Must have needed the money. If itweren't for the women, I'd have given it a 1. The high school romancebetween the doctors, oh so sweet. The dialog, painful at best. A train wreck. Awful to watch, but I couldn't take my eyes off it.

bobwildhorror 2012-05-12 13:22:44

Absolutely Incredible - Offensive and Stupid at the Same Time

A disclosure: I was actually looking forward to seeing this. I saw atitillating advertisement on the Sci Fi Channel regarding MONSTER ARKand thought, "Doesn't this sound like an interesting idea? A Noah's Arkfilled with monsters somehow drifts into the present age?" Guess I gota little ahead of myself, because this is nothing but another in theChannel's endless barrage of CGI monster movies, squandering thatclever concept in favor of a single creature of "darkness." Onecreature. Apparently, God commanded Noah to build an ark to transportthis creature to the end of the world, drop it off, and then swim hometo build another ark.I feel for this director. I can see the wheels turning now: "Well, theconcept isn't so great, but as long as I have a good script it will allbe okay. What do you mean I wrote it? That's not good. Have you seenthe rest of my credits? Okay, okay. Forget about that. The script mightnot be any good, but as long as I've got some great actors to pull itoff... What do you mean the most visible of them is an ex-wrestler? Andhe's going to scream every one of his lines? Well, I'll make due, aslong as I have an understated score to make everything creepy. What'sthat you're saying? It's going to sound like the charge of the lightbrigade? Well, forget all that. I can save this picture. All it needsis a great monster. That's all people really want to see, anyway. I'lljust give them a wonderful, spine-chilling monster! What do you mean wecan't afford a monster? You can't be serious. You're going to havesomeone design it with Lego's?" Better he just cross it off his resumeand get on with his life. But this is the guy that brought us ROCKMONSTER, so maybe he considers MONSTER ARK a step up.Let me be honest: this almost got my vote in the "so bad it's good"category. It's inept in so many ways that it becomes hilarious. Myabsolute favorite has to be Amanda Crew's character. She plays a"Research Assistant" for college Professor Tim DeKay...and does itentirely with a bared midriff. It doesn't matter what she's doing,she's got her shirt hiked up to expose her belly: in the lab, on theUniversity grounds, in a military outpost filled with soldiers. Shedoes it despite the presence of the Professor's wife (who divorced himbecause she believed he had an affair with a previous "ResearchAssistant"). But the most wonderfully offensive incidence has to bewhen she travels to a Muslim country, into a combat zone in Iraq,dressed this way. My mouth hung open in disbelief.Thank heavens Declan O'Brien, the writer/director of this travesty,tied it up in the most offensive fashion he could: by showing thefallacy of Muslim belief, the inferiority of the Iraq people, and thecrowning truth of the Judeo-Christian faith. That'll teach thosesavages! Unbelievable.

Jason Branch 2012-05-10 03:16:13

Largest Piece of Trash

The worst possible film ever set out in the 21st century. In my threeyears in the US Army I have never found it OK to address a senior NCOby sir, ma'am, or as an officer. Appearing to be wearing the rank of aFirst Sergeant, this guy is referred to as "Major" and "sir."Absolutely no research done in making this movie with its crappy pooracting. No common sense or proper tactics, no sense of acting, sense of place,all out poor. Somehow I was offended by how bad the acting is,especially since there are veteran actors in this work of crap thatsomehow falls in to the category of being a "movie"Don't ever allow these people to make another movie or suicide ratesmay sky rocket.

bobomil 2012-05-05 17:49:04

Disappointing

Despite the presence of several veteran actors, Monster Ark amounts tolittle more than below-average horror shlock. The premise is mildlyinteresting - the recovery of an ancient manuscript suggesting that theBiblical Noah performed a prior task for God; constructing a previousArk to serve as a prison for a monster unleashed by the Darkness (theydon't go much into what exactly the Darkness was, because this is not a"thinking" movie). Needless to say, the monster is freed by the notablyself-absorbed archaeologists to wreak havoc. All of this amounts tolittle more than a vehicle for a bad CGI-generated monster (whoapparently has steak knives for forearms) to leap around hacking atpeople. It is also impervious to any man-made weapon, but often flees,anyway. Luckily, there is an ancient brotherhood created to protect usfrom this thing... though they seem pretty useless as far as the plotgoes. The script deals with the numerous religious concepts raised bythe usual half-hearted science-vs-religion lines, but nobody seemsoverly sorry about the fact that their mindless ambition has unloosed akilling machine - and possibly even the apocalypse- on an unsuspectingworld. But this is supposed to be a horror film (not at all scary) withsome action (not very exciting). But what do you expect from a filmthat supposedly takes place in Iraq but is shot in Bulgaria? Sure,there's a war on, but... A few brights spots - "Tiny" Lister stompingaround snarling and shooting guns in an unintentionally funny role as aU.S. Army major, and the only two characters I didn't find annoying,Professor Nick's two students: lovely Amanda Crew and amusing BillParks (filling the token roles of young hottie and sarcastic nerd,respectively). It would have been more entertaining (and, oddly, morebelievable) as one of those teen-slasher films. Instead we get aridiculous CGI creature leaping around the "desert" while a pack ofidiots figures out what to do about it. It's nice to know Xena'sside-kick can still get work, but do yourself a favor and pass on thisone.

melwyn 2012-04-27 18:33:25

Talented leads can't compensate for poor writing and direction

When you're mentally editing a film nine minutes in, you know you're introuble. Redundant scenes, pointless arguing instead of gooddialogue...these things can be forgiven if they are rare occurrencesand the story is good enough to carry it through. Unfortunately thatisn't the case here, and the directionless scenes and dreadful writingcontinues to the end. It's a pity, because the story is a good and interesting one, andO'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 theirfrustration is almost palpable), and direction which makes no attemptto compensate for or deal with the poor quality script. Surelyopportunities for rewrites, even the odd scene, presented themselves? If I didn't know any better, I would assume that the script is eithera) a first draft, or b) a rush job. Maybe both. Or maybe the wholething was written and directed by people with little experience whodesperately needed a mentor throughout the process, and didn't haveone.The result is quite awful. The only people who might get anythingpositive out of this film are hardcore fans of the two leads who areprepared to forgive *anything* to see their faves on screen, or filmstudents 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 poorexecution), one for making the effort, and one for O'Connor and DeKay.

batespj 2012-04-23 23:41:04

Spielberg Did It Better

Poor Renee O'Connor. Poor Tim Dekay. I like both of these performers,from XENA to SEINFELD, but after catching this sci/fi original, I haveto wonder why? Aside from the blatant Raiders rip-offs, the blending ofevangelical mysticism with low levels of dramatic tension erased anyhope of this ever being a movie worthy of repeat watchings.I don't mind a movie rooted with a religious back story. The idea ofreinventing the folktale of Noah by having him build a second ark toremove the world of evil creatures had some merit to it. But when thehero utters a last minute prayer of redemption in order to escapedeath, it weakens the hero and destroys the plot. After the 'miracle'occurs, why even bother fighting the sometimes robotic lookingcreature? Why not just use a second wish to end the rampage and a thirdto end the movie? At least Tiny Lester is given some worthy action filmone liners. Amanda Crew adds some necessary sci/fi sex appeal. BillParks was a breath of comic relief (although the movie itself didn'treally need to try for laughs or gaffs).

jlthornb 2012-04-23 03:45:01

Superb Film

Under the skilled direction of Declan O'Brien, this science fictionfilm becomes much more than a run of the mill SyFy production andachieves a level of film greatness seldom seen within the genre. Infact, the direction and screenplay combine to create a rare, poeticallyexistential statement regarding the nature of faith. With outstandingcinematography and location filming certainly aiding in the overallexcellence, the special effects are a special standout which deservemention. But it is in the performances of the actors who bring a nearperfect script to life that one can most clearly see the care taken inapproaching the material. Veteran character actors are given anopportunity to display their full range of talents and they trulyshine. Not wishing to spoil any of the surprises in the script or thestunning dramatic scenes, let it just be said that these actors giveperformances that are truly memorable. It surely doesn't hurt that themusical score is haunting and unforgettable. Yet, all this is not tosay that the film lacks humor because there is some brilliant wit andsophisticated philosophical barbs well presented throughout. DeclanO'Brien is most assuredly an up and coming new director and his namedeserves to be noted. It would certainly be worthwhile to seek out hisother work and watch his growth as a director during the procession ofhis career. At any rate, this particular film is one the viewer willnot soon forget and worth the consideration of anyone who seriouslyappreciates fine cinema.

TheLittleSongbird 2012-04-22 16:16:10

Despite the intriguing idea, the film never engages

Monster Ark actually did seem at least watchable(if nothing great) fromthe trailers. Its good points are the intriguing idea, the eerie scoreand the spirited performances of Renee O' Connor and Tim DeKay. Otherthan that, Monster Ark just didn't engage. And no, I am not justtalking about the clunky special effects, looking both cheap in lookand stiff in movement, and the lazy directing. I'm also talking aboutthe editing, which is as far away from slick as you can come, thelifelessly paced and predictable story, the preachy, stilted dialogueand generally uninteresting and stereotypical characters. Amanda Crewand Bill Parks try their best, but I couldn't enjoy their effortsproperly because they were saddled with the most stereotypicalcharacters of the movie.All in all, dull and unengaging with a couple of redeeming qualitieshere and there. 3/10 Bethany Cox

in-the-fade 2012-04-20 20:15:18

Do I want to believe?

Hell, I'm getting addicted to these Sci-fi original productions showingon cable, but boy there are some stinkers amongst the charmers andsadly 'Monster Ark' is a dud. The premise actually sounded tolerant,but what came of it was not. After a somewhat imaginative opening, itbecomes your stock-like monster on the rampage yarn leaving a smallgroup of people to stop the problem. Its biblical horror set in awar-torn Iraq. When I mean biblical, it's the context of the film, andthe sub-plot between the two main leads and that of religious faith.One who questions it and the other who does not. Where love andredemption wins out… lovely. And to set in Iraq… what an inspiredchoice… meh.Archaeologist Nicholas Zavaterro along with his grad students discovera vase with an ancient manuscript informing them of the whereabouts ofNoah's first ark that imprisoned a monster known as the darkness.Zavaterro, his grad students and his ex-wife/archaeologist head to Iraqto where it is. Along with some babysitting American Soldiers theydiscover the ark and find a crate which they obviously open and unleashthe darkness.Actually outlining the premise is really starting to bore, and when thedarkness is released it's an unconvincing monster (an awful lookingdesign… leftovers from a video game?) in clunky CGI breaking out totalchaos. Rather unexciting chaos though. Jittery editing and shakycamera-work is plain tiring, as it sloppily moves. But the damagingaspect is the very dodgy script with its preachy/forceful messages… itwas like a bad tooth ache. A towering Tommy 'Tiny' Lister's Sergeantcharacter gave me a good laugh though, as he truly chew up his lines(enthusiastically) and then spits them out. Renée O'Connor was an itchthat wouldn't go away and Tim DeKay is typically modest. Amanda Crew iswasted in a low-key role as one of the students. One thing, why doeseverybody have to yell out their lines? Declan O'Brien's direction isslick, but feels empty and goes for clichéd devices. Claude Foisy'seerily rippling score on the other hand was perfectly balanced andinfused in to the film.Lame, tacky and a drag. Simple as that.

Jack 2012-04-19 22:43:26

Not all that bad for a Sci-Fi Original

Caught this last night on its Sci-Fi Channel premiere. It started outpretty good, with some archaeologists discovering a hidden room in somesort of ancient temple in the Middle East. Inside, they find a jarcontaining the last of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They're almost killed asthe room is booby trapped to fill with sand. But they make it back tothe US and the lead archaeologist contacts his ex-wife who, true to thecliché, is the big expert on deciphering ancient scrolls. We get plentyof back-story on these two: The archaeologist was accused by one of hisstudents of sexual misconduct, he was eventually exonerated but hiswife left him anyways. She's not the least bit likable and basicallymakes a fool out of herself trying to act all self-righteous eventhough she was in the wrong.As it turns out, the scroll they've discovered tells the story of Noah,who actually built two arks. The first was to transport some nastycreature to a place where it couldn't harm anyone. So, it's off to Iraqto track down this first ark. And this is where the movie takes a bigturn for the worst. Up until now it wasn't too bad, with a nice mix ofcharacters and a plot that didn't really violate my suspension ofdisbelief. But then we meet the military guys in Iraq, lead by TinyLister. Tiny as always comes off as completely over the top, like somesort of professional wrestler. End suspension of disbelief, we just gotstupid. So, after a few scenes lifted directly from Raiders of the LostArk, they find the remains of the ark and a big box inside it. Theyopen the box and out comes the killer CGI critter. It's not the worstCGI monster I've seen, but perhaps that's because I watch a lot ofthese Sci-Fi originals. Of course it's impervious to any sort ofweapons fire, which doesn't stop the military guys from chasing itaround and shooting it hundreds of times.There's also a subplot about some secret organization, which seems tobe involved with the US military. They've known all along about thisawful creature and are charged with making sure it never getsdiscovered or released. Basically this is all lifted straight from TheMummy movie starring Brendan Frasier. The guy in charge of thisorganization even looks like a low rent version of Ardeth Bay from thatmovie. Anyhow, together with our archaeologist they eventually figureout how to stop the creature. And there's yet another subplot about ourmain archaeologist finding faith in God.Overall, it started out quite nicely but then descended intostupid-ville as soon as Tiny Lister hit the screen. And one really hasto ask: What sort of film makers blatantly rip off half their scenesand ideas from other movies? If you have absolutely no interest inexpressing your own creativity, why in the world would you take up filmmaking as a career? Still, the plot was basically interesting, thecharacters - other than Tiny Lister - were pretty good, and I made itto the end without any undue disappointment. I'll give it a "slightlyabove average for a Sci-Fi Original" 4 out of 10 stars.

rajahaan 2012-04-11 21:43:10

A must not see

One thing that really peeves me, and it's prevalent with these made forSciFy channel movies, is the complete lack of knowledge of the subjectsthat they're doing. In particular, the military, but in the case of"Monster Ark", they managed to humiliate themselves with their lack ofarchaeological knowledge, as well. I know that these people can't beexpected to be actual scientists, but it would be nice if they could beportrayed as a little more professional than a carnival barker.As far as the military goes, this is great insight into the minds ofthe writers / director. If these people write characters that are socompletely incompetent, what does that say about how they wouldconfront a similar problem? Poorly written, bad acting, zero technicalor military advisers, and a monster that makes Godzilla look real, andyou have a big time flop. I hope those guys filled their backpacks atthe craft services table, because this is a dog, plain and simple.

cjk_35 2012-04-11 14:50:10

Good old fashion monster madness

The only reason why I tuned in to see this movie is that the monsterlooked really cool in the previews. As it turns out that is the onlygood thing about this movie.The story is that college professor Nicholas and two of his studentsdiscovers a urn. They take the urn back to America and have Nicholas'sex-wife Ava open it. Inside they find the original book of Genesis. Avadecodes it and discover that Noah had made a second ark to banishdemonic monster, but the ark crashed and sinked in Iraq. So just likethat the team heads over to Iraq with no problem from the government.There they meet hard ass Iraqui Captian Backhar. Together they findthis "Monster Ark" and open the cage holding the monster. The monsterescapes and goes on a rampage. Captian Backhar fail to stop the monsterwith raw fire power. Team then figures out that they must get Noah'sstaff to stop the monster, but the offspring of Noah are protecting itand won't hand it over so easily. Nicholas now must learn to have faithin order to stop the monster.The Monster was the only thing that kept me watching. The acting wasbelow average. The director inserted a sub-plot between Nicholas andAva about them not trusting each other. He also add moments to createchemistry between characters, but these fail. The chemistry seemed fakeand the sub-plot wasn't though out well enough.The special effects on the monster where good enough but still lookedfake. The Monster design was awesome but the movement needed work. Theflash back scenes of the ark where completely CGI and look likesomething out of a 90's video game.If you are looking to see a good monster movie watch this but fastforward though all the talking and just watch the scenes with themonster.

Tom-464 2012-04-08 13:49:31

You can tell who the professional actors are ...

... but even they got overwhelmed by the really bad direction and badscript.One of the things I judge a film by is its details. The details hereare - how do I say this in a family-oriented medium? Lousy. Yeah;that'll do. Take the "Major" (the chief military guy). The stripes onhis sleeve say he's a SERGEANT Major, but everybody refers to him as amajor, salutes him, and calls him "sir." And while I'm on it, he's afairly decent actor from the other things I've seen him in, but thedirector told him to growl every line, and that makes him comes off asan unintended clown.Speaking of unintentionally funny bits, this movie stole two ideaslock, stock, and barrel from "Raiders of the Lost Ark": first, the 3-Dmodel in the underground cave that shows them where the "treasure" is(they need to have a rod that just happens to be the length of two oftheir shovel handles, and it has to be noon on a certain day - guesswhat time and day it is); and second, hiding a box by putting it into agiant government warehouse at the end (that's the "spoiler").However, after all this, I can't leave without giving Renée O'Connor(Gabrielle from Xena) her due. Basically, she acts rings around justabout every other actor in the flick. Trouble is, even her acting can'tovercome the problems with the script and the direction. Hmmm; fancythat - the same man wrote and directed this thing. (Insert obviouscomment of choice here.)

JoeB131 2012-04-08 09:53:32

Another awful Sci-Fi movie

You know, I realize why casualties in Iraq are so bad. Apparently, Iraqis crawling with ancient monsters that have been let loose by meddlingby the US military. Saddam was keeping the world safe from ancientmonsters, but Bush has managed to screw that up.This is the second Skiffy channel movie that was built around thispremise. The first was "Manticore" with Star Trek Voyager's RobertBeltran. This has a biblical theme.Well, my complaint with this one is similar to the my complaint withthe other. If you are going to do a movie about the military, actuallylearn what you are talking about. If this is a mission that higher upsconsider important, they'd send a lot more than a squad. A seniorNon-commissioned officer is referred to as "Sergeant" or"Sergeant-Major" not "Major" or "Sir". The uniforms are completelywrong. (Big rank insignia on the sleeves of combat uniforms went out inthe 1970's. It just tells the enemy who to shoot at.) In a combatsituation, you don't go into a nice cluster that can be mowed down witha few shots. YOu also had a clearly overweight soldier, which wouldsimply not happen in a combat zone.My other complaint with the movie is that the whole character conflictcomes between the bible-thumping translator (played by ex-Xena LifeParnter Renee O'Connor) and her atheist ex-husband archaeologist. Whichbegs the obvious question, if these two had such diametrically opposedviews on faith and God, how could they have ever gotten married tostart with? Not that it matters, their discussions on faith are sovapid and shallow they barely move the plot along.

Hairy Buddah 2012-04-07 10:44:01

Monster Ark - A story of Love, Faith and Redemption

As with so many of the Made for SciFi in Eastern Europe movies, thiswas mostly awful. Here's an example. The lead military dude was playedby the ubiquitous Tommy "Tiny" Lister. Probably best known to scififans as the big mean black President in The Fifth Element. The"director" had him shouting every line. His rank was "Major", but hisuniform bore no officer tabs. Instead he had sergeant stripes on onearm. At some point somebody was probably thinking "sergeant-major", adistinguished rank, but not an officer. If you call a sergeant-major"major" the least you will get is a pointed explanation that he is anenlisted man and works for a living, assuming you survive theexperience.This isn't nit-picky detail stuff, this is a big deal to anybody withany military knowledge.In any case Tiny had to play the stereotypical brain-dead, killeverything, screaming military martinet that seems to be Hollywood'sperception of soldiers. He is a good enough actor that he would nothave been overacting so badly had he not been directed to do so.But on to the movie. A small group of archaeologists discover a "deadsea scroll" containing the "unedited" book of Genesis. This version ofthe book contains the clues needed to find Noah's Ark. But it alsowarns that the ark contains a dark secret.All of this is nothing but a setting for the REAL message. Turns outthat the lead archaeologist used to married to the world's greatestscholar of biblical languages. So he seeks out his ex-wife to ask herto translate the scrolls. There we learn that he was falsely accused ofan affair with a student, and the strain of that accusation broke upthe marriage. It also exacerbated the religious rift between them. Sheis Christian, he is atheist/agnostic.Well whaddya know, turns out the bible really is right, and therereally is a demon in Noah's ark. They find the ark, accidentally letthe demon go, and our hero begins to discover faith.At one point he is trapped in a collapsing temple, prays to God, and ismiraculously rescued. When it comes time to face the beast, armed withNoah's staff, only the truly faithful can have the job. Naturallyeveryone thinks he is the man for the job, even the leader of thesecret society that has been guarding the secret of the ark sincebefore the coming of Christ. (Noah happened first, if you will recallyour bible studies ;-) So by the end, god sends a thunderbolt from theheavens to the top of Noah's staff, and the cheezy lightning bouncesoff of the staff and hits the beast. Eventually our hero has to pushthe beast into a flimsy wooden crate, where it will be trapped untilsome other poor schmo lets it out again. Amazing how a CGI monster thatcan shrug off a clean hit from a shoulder fired missile can be stoppeddead in it's tracks by a wooden crate.In any case, love is rekindled as faith is born and redemptionachieved. The divorcees reunite to live happily, and faithfully, everafter.Some of the scenes along the way are kind of fun. It's always great tosee the nephilim invoked out of biblical texts. They make great badguys. But most of the time this movie was just dumb. People just don'tact the way all of the actors did in this movie. Even the CGI monsterhad problems. It just couldn't manage to kill any of the primaryactors, even though it could chop up everyone else with a single mightswing of a clawed arm.There is usually some enjoyment to be found on SciFi's "most dangerousnight of television", but this was one of the least worthy efforts. Toobad, there is a good movie to be made about an ark full of monstersthat was launched at the same time as Noah's ark. Finding a whole arkfull of demons with better writing, directing, and acting could havebeen a lot of fun.Hairy

brian_stoyanoff 2012-04-07 06:29:04

Oscar for best Bulgarian Film

If Amanda reads this please get in touch with me because your agent iseither Bulgarian or a total retard or both.Not sure what church funded this crap, Amanda Crew really was a wastein this. All I can say is don't bother wasting your time with this"film".The story starts out weak, mixed with poor writing, the script seemslost at best and the whole notion that God is real and that we shouldbelieve because , well not sure why but I am sure it was in the storysomewhere. I can not understand the actors in such a movie, I mean didthey not read the script or did someone need beer money or rent moneyor what???? The special effects were really incredible.....bad. The fake chopperwas the start and the monster was the end. The FX studio beingBulgarian probably explains it. The only good thing about this film was Tiny's character. I think hedid need the beer money but was the only actor who realized it and hadsome fun with his role. Amanda crew probably walked off the set and thescript had to make her character disappear very quickly. This film should win an Oscar for best film shot in Bulgaria.

SE-LA 2012-04-06 09:20:35

Lazy directing!!!

This is film-making of the shoddiest and laziest sort. Every scene is ashowcase for the writer/director's ignorance. O'Brien is completelyunfamiliar with science. He knows nothing of how scientists talk, howthey analyze, how they approach discovery. He is completely ignorant ofhow military personnel think, how they process situations, how theyact, and how they carry themselves. O'Brien even misses the most basictenets 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 hintof 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 thelow budget doesn't justify O'Brien's willful ignorance about thematerial he wrote and directed.Tim DeKay turns in a far better performance than a film like thisdeserves. Amanda Crew, while still learning her craft, provides welcomevisual interest. But beyond these two minor bright points, nothing inthis film justifies the writer/director's paycheck.

alpo41 2012-04-05 21:20:15

worst possible film

OK till the Military came it and them it when to crap the worst actingby a actor in a long time Tommy 'Tiny' Lister was terrible Absolutelyno research done in making this movie with its crappy poor acting. Nocommon sense or proper tactics, no sense of acting, sense of place, allout poor. Somehow I was offended by how bad the acting is, especiallysince there are veteran actors in this work of crap that somehow fallsin to the category of being a "movie" Don't ever allow these people tomake another movie or suicide rates may sky rocket The worst possiblefilm ever set out in the 21st century. In my three years in the US ArmyI have never found it OK to address a senior NCO by sir, ma'am, or asan officer. Appearing to be wearing the rank of a First Sergeant, thisguy is referred to as "Major" and "sir.

demonchessmaster 2012-04-04 23:12:01

Really cheaply done

Aside from the really bad acting, mediocre special effects (did theyeven HAVE a budget for this film) and scenes ripped from Raiders of theLost Ark, my biggest problem with this was the lack of suspense whenintroducing the monster.With any good monster movie (for example the first Alien film), theyoften don't show the monster in full at first. They often show briefglimpses of the creature, thus building up suspense and keeping youguessing what the monster looks like. But here, it's more like "oh,there's a monster trapped in a crate... WOW! There's the monster! Well,we've seen what it looks like now, no need to worry about building itup". That is poor in my opinion and you quickly lose interest in it.That's this movies biggest problem in general. There is no build up toanything. They talk about something, then it happens almost instantly.Talk about cheap! Overall, it's a very poor attempt at doing a sci-fimonster story. If you get a chance to avoid it, I'd say do so!