
stephenbooth-uk
Joined Jan 2005
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings41
stephenbooth-uk's rating
Reviews6
stephenbooth-uk's rating
This film is so bad I'm stuck where to start. The acting? The FX? The plot? The camera work? The costumes? Actually the costumes weren't too bad.
Acting was variable, from fan film to school play. Junior school (that's age 7 to 11, translate to your local education equivalent for non UK people) school play that is. Wooden would be an up. The most rational explanation I can think of is that the cast were basically handed the scripts 5 minutes before each take and not given the chance to even talk to each other. I have seen worse acting from professionals, but only in classes where they are demonstrating how not to do it.
FX were poor, both CGI and physical. The dragon, when you could see it, looked like a stop-motion shot with a mobile phone (my niece makes short films that way, the amusement of herself and friends, so I know the comparison is apt). Camera work was shaky, close to that of the Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield, where at least that was deliberate and part of the story.
The plot was largely absent, narrative causality and storyline were largely missing leaving us with a poorly connected network of events.
To be fair, I didn't see to the end. After just shy of an hour neither I nor my sister could bear to watch any more so we switched off and put "Rachel Getting Married" on. If faced with this film I recommend you do the same.
Stephen
Acting was variable, from fan film to school play. Junior school (that's age 7 to 11, translate to your local education equivalent for non UK people) school play that is. Wooden would be an up. The most rational explanation I can think of is that the cast were basically handed the scripts 5 minutes before each take and not given the chance to even talk to each other. I have seen worse acting from professionals, but only in classes where they are demonstrating how not to do it.
FX were poor, both CGI and physical. The dragon, when you could see it, looked like a stop-motion shot with a mobile phone (my niece makes short films that way, the amusement of herself and friends, so I know the comparison is apt). Camera work was shaky, close to that of the Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield, where at least that was deliberate and part of the story.
The plot was largely absent, narrative causality and storyline were largely missing leaving us with a poorly connected network of events.
To be fair, I didn't see to the end. After just shy of an hour neither I nor my sister could bear to watch any more so we switched off and put "Rachel Getting Married" on. If faced with this film I recommend you do the same.
Stephen
That this film was being shown on Zone Horror (a channel more used to showing films that aspired to be the sort of films that the Scream trilogy parodied) was the first hint to it's quality. Very low budget, and it showed. Plot sketchy at best, acting not brilliant and FX about what you'd expect from a fan film. The fight scenes were particularly bad (in particular the 'cat fight' in the barracks).
On the other hand, it wasn't as bad as many commenters have made out, certainly better than the normal fare on Zone Horror. Whilst the CGI was poor most of the physical FX were decent enough. Whilst the acting wasn't brilliant I've seen far worse in much higher budget films from mainstream studios, it felt like some more rehearsal or possibly another take would have improved it greatly. All in all it felt rushed rather than bad. Certainly the cast seemed attractive enough to hold one's attention if you're looking for eyecandy and the costumes were good if a little monotonous (though, to be fair, that's what you expect from uniforms).
A number of comments have compared this film to Starship Troopers, and a number have rebutted the the comparison. I think the comparison is,if you take the different in budgets into account, quite fair. Transmorphers is certainly close to Starship Troopers and far better than Starship Troopers 2. Yes it has ripped off plot points and scenes from other films, but then there's nothing unusual about that. Heck, there's an entire art movement based around that, it's called post-modernism! Stephen
On the other hand, it wasn't as bad as many commenters have made out, certainly better than the normal fare on Zone Horror. Whilst the CGI was poor most of the physical FX were decent enough. Whilst the acting wasn't brilliant I've seen far worse in much higher budget films from mainstream studios, it felt like some more rehearsal or possibly another take would have improved it greatly. All in all it felt rushed rather than bad. Certainly the cast seemed attractive enough to hold one's attention if you're looking for eyecandy and the costumes were good if a little monotonous (though, to be fair, that's what you expect from uniforms).
A number of comments have compared this film to Starship Troopers, and a number have rebutted the the comparison. I think the comparison is,if you take the different in budgets into account, quite fair. Transmorphers is certainly close to Starship Troopers and far better than Starship Troopers 2. Yes it has ripped off plot points and scenes from other films, but then there's nothing unusual about that. Heck, there's an entire art movement based around that, it's called post-modernism! Stephen