★ 3 / 10
Okay, let's talk about 1979's 'Alien.' On the
John C
Okay, let's talk about 1979's 'Alien.' On the surface, it's a pretty simple film: big monster stalks humans. If you don't like that sort of movie, you could…
Okay, let's talk about 1979's 'Alien.' On the surface, it's a pretty simple film: big monster stalks humans. If you don't like that sort of movie, you could say that premise is dumb, but, if handled right, then the audience who are into that genre will love it - like with 'Alien.' It's crazy that 'Deep Space' was released nearly ten years after 'Alien' and two years after it's excellent sequel and yet it looks so much worse on all counts.
It too has a simple premise - in fact, the SAME premise - big monster hunting humans. There's nothing wrong with that in a B-movie, but, this time, there's just nothing that makes it stand out. 'Alien' was set on a space ship, so the film-makers must have had to use a proportion of their budget on sets. 'Deep Space' is in a normal American city, so no extra costs for building sets required - yet still everything looks so cheap.
Here, a secret US probe crashes back down to Earth and its contents begin to run amok among the population. Police are investigating, but finding themselves thwarted by shady Government agents. Then you have a totally unnecessary psychic who phones up the leading man every now and again when the plot needs moving forward.
Again, 'Alien' had the bonus of an excellent cast who could elevate the script to levels higher than it probably ever should be. 'Deep Space' doesn't have the script, nor the quality of actors to support it. The monster itself is a blatant rip off of the xenomorph from the 'Alien' franchise, only it's just a man in a rubber suit, waddling around and looking so uncomfortable that I almost felt sorry for it in the end as it came across as just so damn pathetic.
Weirdly, as much as I'm slating the film on every level, it's not totally unwatchable. I didn't hate it as much as it may sound, but there's just so many better monster B-movies out there that there's simply no point in investing your time into this one. Or just watch one of the 'Alien' movies.
Read full review
★ 4 / 10
Obvious "Alien" ripoff has a meteor crashing near
R T
Obvious "Alien" ripoff has a meteor crashing near Los Angeles and a small crab-like creature emerging, which later in the film turns into a much larger Alien…
Obvious "Alien" ripoff has a meteor crashing near Los Angeles and a small crab-like creature emerging, which later in the film turns into a much larger Alien creature. Director Fred Olen Ray (a talented director of schlock) brings a more style than you get in most rip-off films, even if he's simply aping better directors, even going so far as to try to copy the strobe light effect when showing the larger alien creature. However, the film's main asset is that you do get character actor Charles Napier in the lead as an LA police detective hot on the trail of the alien, along with help from his sexy partner Ann Turkel (you may remember her from 1980s poster racks as a bikini pin-up model). Besides the charms of Napier, which really do go a long way, this film doesn't actually offer anything worth going out of your way to see here. This one is for Napier fans only (which I count myself among).
Read full review
★ 5 / 10
The title is misleading, but that's okay. It's
R T
The title is misleading, but that's okay. It's a cheap movie, with poor acting and low effects- but it's so much fun. The characters are goofy, the monster is…
The title is misleading, but that's okay. It's a cheap movie, with poor acting and low effects- but it's so much fun. The characters are goofy, the monster is actually pretty cool, and there's plenty of gore and chainsaws. Rips off of Alien, in more-than-noticeable ways. It's monster b-movie trash at it's finest.
Read full review
22%
AUDIENCE
· 100 ratings
4.5/10
1.3K
•••
That is one kick ass movie poster