Terr32

This movie is, first and foremost, a rip-off of Alien. Pretty easy to see that right off. The budget is terrible, the acting is terrible, the writing is terrible, the direction is terrible and the music is terrible. This movie is terrible. Not just a little terrible but unbelievably terrible, in the stratosphere terrible. And thats why its so fascinating. Scene after scene, I was absolutely fascinated that a movie could be so terrible and yet it seemed to top itself. Just when I thought it couldnt get any worse, it did. I was entranced by this fact. I could not stop watching it for that reason. I watched Alien on DVD recently and I couldnt help but think of Horror Planet. Alien is so amazingly competent in every way that it is insulting to have to make any comparisons between the two. My advice is to rent Horror Planet and watch it. Watch every scene. Its not a long movie and never really boring, again not for the right reasons. Then, preferably on DVD or VHS widescreen, watch Alien. You will come away feeling such gratitude to Ridley Scott, the actors and producers of Alien that its worth the trouble of watching Horror Planet. Then, never ever ever EVER watch Horror Planet again, but keep re-discovering Alien. It is one of the greatest movies ever made.

Its a given that this movie is hardly ever going to be considered a classic in the genre, but its a lot of fun to watch. The actors are ok, nothing special, but so what? The effects are fun and the story is a time travel one that very very few people that have ever lived can wrap their brains around but, again, so what? Its just a movie, not meant to be taken as any more(or less) than that. Just sit back, give your brain a breather and enjoy the show. After all, thats why movies are made.

After recently watching all three movies, it is very clear that Manhunter, although the smallest in scale and lacking the 'big name stars' of the sequels is best. Yes, it is done by the same guy who did Miami Vice, but he just so happens to be a great and stylish director, Michael Mann. I love how he incorporates images and music into one cohesive force that is SO much more effective than the full frontal images and unimaginatively graphic scenes that the movie Hannibal resorts to. What a disappointment that film is. There is not one scene where I was scared in Hannibal, although there were plenty where I was disgusted. The same can be said of the Friday the 13th movies, too. Anyways, in my humble opinion, the best performance of any of the actors in the trilogy is William Petersen, as Will Graham. I believe that firmly. Understated at times, almost claustrophobic, he unveils a powerful character by the end. Brian Cox, who plays Lector, deserves special mention, too. In the few scenes he is in, he is remarkable. Again, he goes the understated route rather than the over the top style(though still very enjoyable) of Anthony Hopkins. The film has amazing scenes, all the more powerful when seen in widescreen. I loved the finale especially. It is pure perfection. As much as I admire Silence of the Lambs, I like Manhunter just a bit better.

not because I think it is a perfect movie, but because of all the people who have severely underrated this movie. This is a very well crafted movie. No, its not the best acted movie, but for this type of movie, it is. You have to look at these movies in a relative manner. Its a movie about a mysterious car that goes around wreaking havoc. That is the story. A ridiculous premise but the makers pull it off. No small feat. The actors do a good job and I really enjoyed the direction, especially the long shots out in the desert. See this in widescreen, if possible. It adds a lot to the feel of the movie. James Brolin is very good as the hero and there are a lot of memorable scenes. No, its not a 10. More like an 8.5, but its far better than a 5 average.

I realize that there have been LOTS of giant bug movies made, but there have been very few that have had a combination of great acting and superior special effects. This movie has both and throw in a lot of suspense. There are great moments in this movie that it seems passed most people by. No, it wasnt a big money maker(I honestly dont remember it hitting the theaters)but it is tremendous movie. Some didnt like the ending, but I did. I came to like these characters so much that I wanted them to survive. Thats a tribute to the actors for creating interesting characters. By comparison to other movies of this kind, I would say it belongs in the top five. If Aliens is counted as a 'bug' movie, I feel it is on top and I would put the 50's ant movie Them up there, too. Mimic belongs there, without question. It deserves so much more than the ratings Ive seen on here. Its a 9 out of 10 in my book.

After having read the novel upon which this movie is based years ago, I was struck by how much the creators of this movie decided they would alter for the screen. The scientist is there for different reasons in the movie, not for the paranormal, but for the study of fear. Boring. Liam Neeson, who is a very fine actor, was wasted. He was good, but not good enough. The actor who played Luke was badly miscast. In the book, he stood to inherit Hill House. In the movie, he makes no sense whatsoever. Eleanor, who was such an interesting person in the book, with her self torturous thoughts comes across as some sort of martyr and related to the man who made Hill House in the film. Catherine Zeta Jones is okay and is great to look at, but here again, we know next to nothing about her and have little reason to truly care what happens to her. The 1963 version of The Haunting was frightening but on a subtle level. That is filmaking at its best. To be able to convey the terror of a haunted house without resorting to gimmicks. In this version, the house is spectacular viscerally. In fact, the whole film is that way, but it goes nowhere. I was hoping the movie would just end so I could go home. The director threw in so much in the way of special effects, changed story lines, altered characters and made this great story a shambles. The music was fine, but it never seemed to stop. The original novel by Shirley Jackson and the Robert Wise film are proof of the old saying 'less is more'. They had no need to have the house come alive in obvious ways right before our eyes. They did something far more impressive. They made the house come alive in our imaginations.

When we first hear the words spoken by Joan about St. Catherine and visions and hearing words directed from God, there is an unmistakable conviction in the eyes of the actress. That is what sustains this movie. She has an aura and a look, ultimately a voice, that lends credibility to the role. I will grant this movie has faults. Some of the lesser roles are not convincing and everyone in France sounds American. Still, I looked past this and I admire it for some of the other reasons. I loved the performances of Peter O'Toole and Peter Strauss and a surprising one by Shirley McLaine.

Above all, this movie lends a voice to the story of Joan of Arc. She was a special young girl at a tumultuous time in her country's history. She brought interesting religious and ethical questions to the surface. She was centuries before her time in more ways than one. This movie does a wonderful job of capturing why.

I have watched this series periodically from the beginning. Aside from John Goodman, who was by far the most talented person on this show, there was nothing to this show. Roseanne is a horrible comedian/actress. Nothing she did was funny. The writing of the show was obvious and uninteresting. When you consider this show received better ratings than such truly great series like 'Newsradio', it speaks volumes about how gratuity sells and quality doesn't. In the years to come, I have no doubt that 'Roseanne' will be seen for what it was. A poor, poor example of comedic television.