docmarvy

Most of these user reviews are correct. It's a very watchable, if not very technically adept film. But I think the one thing that makes it stick in my mind is perhaps the most believable dystopia of any of this era & genre of film. Usually these movies have over-the-top dystopias that hit you over the head with their awfulness. This portrayed a very believable type of banal evil dystopia that's more frightening in a way. Because it doesn't seem so far fetched.

Beyond that, Lee Majors was really great in this. He wears his muted grief and dissatisfaction with the status quo on his face in the first third. While not dialog-heavy, the characters have a lot going on internally and it translates. Well acted + believable dystopia of the near future + surreal buddies road comedy + TV Movie production quality (but top tier soundtrack) = this film. Worth a watch if you can track it down.

As has already been mentioned in other reviews, this film is absolutely surreal. It's really quite a unicorn of a film. I would LOVE to know Tom Schiller managed to get it made without the studio intervening, because this is ultimately a very sweet and accessible art film. It's so charming and unique, and probably wouldn't be as special if it had been a wide release that sadly would have struggled in the 80s film market. This really deserves a Criterion-quality remaster and reissue. The lightly dystopian retro-futurism makes the whole narrative feel slightly uncanny, but this world populated by weird and frantic characters somehow keeps the protagonist's journey relatable. Magnificent late night viewing.

Well... This was an awesome movie when I first saw it. Unfortunately that was when I was six years old. So, if you're a six year old looking for a taught sci-fi thriller then this is your movie. If you are an adult looking for a weird reverse-jingoistic slow paced film with a budget that hovers somewhere in the low hundreds then this is your film. This movie is easily categorized as being hard to find for a reason. And despite all this, I want to see it again. On the upside it has a relatively decent quality cast, most of which appear to be mortified by having to take part. And as another poster mentioned, the batcave-style barn is pretty neat regardless.

Perhaps I'm being overly critical here, maybe there were other circumstances that made me dislike it, I just don't know. There are certainly more than a few positive reviews here referring to this film as a "cute sleeper," but I just thought it was more cheese than content. Of course I think Peter O'Toole and Joan Plowright are fantastic actors worthy of all the accolades they receive, and I do think that Alicia Silverstone is talented and worthy of note, but the script is really where the film falls short. Suffering from a bad case of "do people really talk like this?" the movie treads into the common unfortunate territory of miscasting likable actors as alternately snotty yet lovable rock stars and forcing them to say lines that literally fall out of their mouths awkwardly. A specific moment early in the film when Silverstone's character has a fight with the band's rhythm guitarist and the drummer, whose consistent pot smoking is played more for pathos than laughs, insists that everyone calm down and "smoke some doobs or do some yoga or something." What? Despite being in the English countryside the drummer has a seemingly bottomless supply of marijuana. Ordinarily this would be the source of humor in a broad comedy, but this film seemed to just show it matter of factly. Here's the drummer, and he's smoking pot, that's how you know he's the drummer. It seems a little heavy handed, not unlike the heavy hands that must have been running the camera, as several shots have a very sloppy over the shoulder feel to them, but it's used to no effect, other than to jar the viewer.

On the upside the songs were decent, and everyone honestly seemed to be trying to make the best of a bad situation. Not unlike watching a regional theater troupe slogging through a lame adaptation. At least they seem like they're trying to make the most of it. It's hard to say really. I don't know if it's worthy of renting, but give it a look if it's on cable. Who knows? Judging by the online reviews you're more likely to enjoy it than hate it.

I've been watching this "reality show" since I was a little kid and I think this is the strongest cast they've ever had. Sure, back in the 80's when it was just known as Action News 6 there were some golden moments. But the sizzling sexual tension between John and Pat is hot enough to melt the wires in my TV. The addition of Eric Crouch was an interesting choice, perhaps an attempt to keep the show from "jumping the shark." The show doesn't move as fast since international action star Jim Fagin left to pursue a radio career, but perhaps he just got tired of dealing with the notoriously difficult Jim Flowers. If you're ever in Omaha, I suggest you check out this show.

Looking at all the other comments it's easy to see that this film

really split the decisions. I don't want to say that the people who

hated it "didn't get it." But I don't know how else to phrase it. The

film is truly a masterpiece. Perhaps only to the weird sensitive

artsy types out there like myself, but don't we deserve the

occasional good movie? I have to wonder what the people who

hated it thought they were going to see. The ads didn't make it look

like another Die Hard sequel or Pauly Shore comedy, so why

would you complain about it not having nail-biting action or zany

goofball comedy? All I know is this movie is brilliant. It's filled with

great lines, wonderfully developed characters, and each frame is

like a perfectly framed painting. I loved Rushmore and had many high expectations for this film,

each of which were exceeded. Although many people may not "get

it," at least for me there is a new personal favorite film.

Vonnegut novels have proven time and again very difficult to translate to film. For whatever reason, the subtlety and humanity of the novels get lost or scrambled in the interpretation. And this is probably the most glaring example.

Missing most of the point of the book and pulling focus from any reflection on loneliness or the absurdity of modern life and putting that energy into seeing Jerry Lewis interact with a poorly SFX overlay fortune-cookie-shaped UFOs. Which is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the high key racism in the film.

An arguably stellar cast gets mostly wasted on a joyless slog through a story that feels only tenuously adjacent to the source material.

I was too young when it came out to notice, but it's hard to imagine this seeing some release in the same year that Ghostbusters came out. It feels like it was made in a different decade, in a different dimension. I feel like this film and Heartbeeps bring similar grim energies. Both films I find interesting in their approach. Both intended to be comedies with heartfelt messages at the core, and both of them leaving you with a forlorn emptiness. If you absolutely love the book, maybe don't seek this out. If you want to see a big weird mess, then go for it.

Please, somebody, tell me why I sit through movies like this -- multiple times, no less! I can't get enough of the wooden portrayals of stereotypical characters. I usually have no problem suspending belief when watching these movies, but were we really supposed to believe that "Ralph" and "Baxter" weren't actually just good looking kids badly in need of a makeover? Come on. And the "aliens?" They were all pale, blonde, and muscular... are they from the planet Minnesota? This movie is such a freaky scene, mostly because of the intense sincerity put into the filmmaking. The copy I rented had a "making of" feature at the end and then a promotional announcement for other Full Moon Pictures films. The most incredible thing is that all the Full Moon Films look exactly like Alien Arsenal. Is that a good thing? A bad thing? You be the judge.

Boy oh boy, it would seem as though this movie is particularly devisive. Every other comment was love it or hate it, so you've got to hand the movie that much. It really polarizes audiences. Let me offer this thought, ever since "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad World" it seems like once a decade we get the cameo-fest group goof movie. The formulas work like this: In it's a Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad World a group of people race to dig up a dead gangster's loot; Then in Scavenger Hunt a group of people race to win their inheritance; Then in Million Dollar Mystery a bunch of people race to dig up Tom Bosley's Glad Bag fortune (this movie was, thus far, the stinkiest); Next we look forward to Rat Race where a bunch of teams race for a casino owner's chunk o' change. That's the general rundown. All of these movies build on the same plot, some better than others. At least Scavenger Hunt was self-aware of how goofy it was. I mean, Mad Mad World was totally brilliant, but worthy of an update. Million Dollar Mystery was comprised almost entirely on C-list actors, no offense to Eddie Deezen (The nerdy guy). And I won't venture a guess on Rat Race until I've seen more press on it, but I'm not holding out too much hope. Basically what I'm saying is that Scavenger Hunt is a good whole-family Sunday afternoon crowded around the tube and wasting 90 minutes type of movie. It was pre-PC so it plays up some stereotypes, which I think is great, and I've always thought that Richard Benjamin was underrated as a comic actor. Love it or hate it, you should give this movie its due. It's not the worst in a series of bad.

Being a huge Rudy Ray Moore fan has its advantages and

drawbacks. An advantage is that the nice people at Xenon Video

have assembled his greatest (and only) films in a box set. A

drawback is that I don't have any friends left after forcing them to sit

through all the films, the most harrowing of which is the Avenging

Disco Godfather. An initial question must be asked, Did they only have to pay for the

amount of the script that was audible? I love waka-jawaka music

as much as the next extremely funky individual, but I can't help but

think that I missed some vital pieces of exposition because of the

thumping soundtrack. Particularly near the beginning when Bucky

and his girlfriend go outside to have a moist make-out session in

front of the Blueberry Hill. Then the "bad guys" pull up in that car...

oh my god!. Did you see that car? It had a conference table, a wet

bar, a fully operational disco ball - with disco, and a complete

finished basement! How I miss the 70's, when all cars were

bigger than my old dorm room, including the "economy compacts." Anyway... I've used up all my space and didn't even get to mention

Rudy Ray's fantastic costumes. I can't help but believe that the

costume designer funded the film, and that's why the hideous

sequined outfits serve as such important plot devices. The fat old

Elvis would've been embarassed to wear them. Oh, and please don't reveal the secret ending to your friends. You

know, the one that lacks any sense of plot resolution. Yeah... that

one. Oy! Enjoy, and please remember to Attack the Wack. Thank

you.

Okay... This movie almost defies explanation because of its horribly slow pace. I have most of the movie on tape when it was on "Commander USA's Groovie Movies" on USA Network in the 80's. If the commander wasn't spicing it up the film would've been almost unwatchable. I mean it's bad in a good way. It's a great midnight movie. A weird guy, who's presumably from space, drives an ugly American car with a trailer into a Canadian town chock full o' tepid deceit. The trailer has a sign on it that has a lovely crude sign on it that says "Coming Soon." Once in the town he rents a hall so Howard Turt (nee Turd) can put on a show. The inbred locals attempt to rough up the car, the weirdo, and the casket in the trailer. The show goes on and Howard (a glowing light from within the casket) turns some of the locals a lovely shade of blue, forcing them to tell the truth. It's at this point I taped over the end of the movie with the film adaptation of War of the Worlds. At this point I would just like to say that I am not on drugs and this movie does exist as I have described it. It just seems to awful to be true. Beware! This movie is out there somewhere!

Not to sound all Maltin-ey, but what exactly were they thinking when they released this? You've got a stable of legitimate actors and a clever premise but low production quality and an out-of-whack ratio of corny to gore. What does that spell? Boltneck. It's not like there's trouble suspending belief that brains just screw in and lightning can reanimate the dead. It's just that we've seen it done better before. The movie drops in the occasional clever line or physical joke to let you know that something's going on, but for the most part it lays there. Since this genre of film is usually about one excess or another (i.e. sex or gore) then I guess that's where Boltneck failed for me. It isn't too much of anything, and it's not enough of any one thing to make it memorable.

I saw this movie when I was about 12 years old and taped it off of cable. I know that it was a cable edit because it contained the word "a**hole." But I caught it on cable the other night and noticed a scene that wasn't in the edit I have on tape. The big song and dance number at the fun park near the end. I was floored! So... can anyone else out there support my claim? I know that there is an edit floating around without the dance number. Either way... this movie isn't exactly brilliant. It was extremely fulfilling for me at 12, and now that I'm still emotionally 12 it's still pretty good. But your Leonard Maltin types aren't going to dig it.