Reviews

This made for TV film is another in a long line of science fiction human versus nature films, and unfortunately it is not one of the best of the genre. The directing, cinematography, pacing, script, and acting are poor. It may fulfill cable TV's need to fill a time slot with inexpensive fare, but does not compare well with the vast selection of viewing available to the modern cable viewer.

Who will like this film? If you relish watching bad guys get their due, you'll get plenty of satisfaction. If you like films that are so bad that they are funny, you'll get plenty to mock and laugh at. If you love the B films of the 1950's, you might find this a entertaining way to waste ninety minutes. If you like the campy and quirky, check out Richard Chevolleau's portrayal of Q, the exterminator.

Chevolleau does a great job in the role and is a pleasant distraction in an otherwise dull and plodding flick. I did not recognize him as the same actor who played Marcus 'Augur' Deveraux in "Earth: Final Conflict" or Charlie in "Flowers for Algernon" (2000). His performance made me want to re-watch both.

Who will dislike this film? Any die hard science fiction fans will be disappointed by the lack of thought in the plot and the unoriginal scenario. Special effects junkies will be in heavy withdrawals by the cheap effects. The scientifically inclined will be at a loss with the weak to absent science and logic in this flick. Connoisseurs of fine film will be horrified than the horror occurred behind and in front of the lens.

In all, there is not much to recommend in "Swarmed." As I was voting at IMDb, I was conflicted in giving it as low a score as I did. If it was that bad, why did I watch the whole thing? Was it such a train wreck that I could not pry my eyes away? Was there a belief that it had to get better? In the end, it was one actor's performance and a desire to be intellectually honest in this review.

Should you watch? Well if you are actually thinking about it, probably not. This is more a movie for a mindless moment.

The Sci-Fi Channel has once again cranked out another "made for TV" movie in their tired formula of species versus human engagements. As the film title indicates, the locusts have the honor of being man's nemesis this time.

A good director, cast, crew, writer, et al could have made this a passable piece of entertainment, but alas not in this case. The writing is predictable. The editing and photography are generic. The special effects are far, far from special. These scenes are particularly disappointing for a science fiction movie. While acceptable for a student film or a sci-fi spoof, they lack believability and appear to indicate a project with a meager budget.

David Keith does a good job as Gary Wolf, the corporate head. He has become a staple of The Sci-Fi Channel's flicks. Among this swarm of bad acting, he is a welcome relief, but has a limited amount of screen time.

Dan Cortese is very disappointing as Colt, the organic researcher and "good guy." His performance was stilted and uninspiring.

However, this is not unique in this film that lacks originality and recycles old themes. The evil cooperation versus the little guy. The government drone versus the civilian. The testosterone toxic military type versus the rebel. The industry versus the environmentalist. The geneticists verses the organic farmers. ... The banal list continues culminating in the human versus species of the week theme that is reflected in the title.

If you have a free moment with nothing to do and are bored out of your mind, consider this as a possible option.

The SciFi Channel's 2005 movie "Descent" is a weak to fair reworking of the old "journey to the center of the earth" plot.

The movie appears to suffer from the classic failings of a SciFi Channel made for TV movie. Sets are limited and one gets redundant views of actors at sparse consoles intermixed with low budget animation of the vessel called "the mole." There is some action and some intrigue, but the movie gets a bit redundant with just three main sets (mole, cave, and control room) and the actors who try to twist the uninspired dialog into something entertaining.

Luke Perry does a good job as Dr. Jake Rollins, but Michael Dorn ( aka Warf from Star Trek) appears one dimensional with General Fielding's stilted dialog.

This might seem like another homage to Jules Verne's piece of classic of nineteenth century French literature "Journey to the Center of the Earth;" it is not. For that watch the 1959 classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" with Pat Boone and James Mason. The "Descent" is another "tunnel digging vessel heading to the center of the earth movie." If you like this sci-fi theme try episode # 1.2 from "The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne" titled "Queen Victoria and the Giant Mole." If you desire the big budget modern special effects, there is 2003's "The Core" with Hilary Swank. These choices may entertain and stimulate your imagination more.

However if you love science fiction, have nothing else to watch, and want to rest your brain; "Descent" will suffice.

"The Terminal Man" is a classic Michael Crichton story. The science fiction is based in reality. For the time, the novel represented the cutting edge of our understanding of the brain and its pain and pleasure pathways. It seems hard to believe, but in 1974 little was known about the mechanism of addiction and substances like endorphins. The concept of harnessing them was a dream. Today, they are entering lay speech and find their way into everything from diets and meditation to sports.

As a physician with a talent for using current research to feed his imagination, Crichton constructs unique novels. 1971's "Andromeda Strain" was the first big success, and studied our concept of life and biologic evolution. "The Terminal Man" asked the question of what would happen when main gains control of himself. How will he use that power? Will it change him? Will it work?

In character with many of his novels, the scientific detail is impossible to big to the screen. A film can only run so long. Many Crichton fans will always prefer his books to the movie. However, this under appreciated film brings the story to life. It is relatively free of the soliloquies of background data that are seen in many science fiction films. The viewer learns threw the eyes of the patient. The main story line still comes across well, and the viewer experiences the emotions and dilemmas of the patient.

The irony here is that a science has now proven the film's premise correct. Animal studies confirm the side effects vividly depicted in the film. As we enter the new millennium, severe pain and cancer patients use the techniques envisioned by Michael Crichton. "The Terminal Man" is an example if fiction becoming fact, and film previewing our future.

If one likes science and science fiction, it is a good film to pick. The drama of the patients predicament will also entertain drama fans. This was made in 1971, so if you are a great CGI and action fan you may be disappointed. So use your imagination.

Many consider Michael Crichton's "The Andromeda Strain" to be the quintessential example of his work. It contains the scientific detail of the time. The technology is cutting edge. The science is current theory. The medicine is beyond the textbooks and barely in the journals. As a physician and researcher, Crichton knows how to put the "science" in "science fiction." This is a "thinkers" sci-fi. Leagues above films with latex antagonists chasing a bleached blond chorus. Michael Crichton creates a new world out of the reality just barely over our horizon and asks the questions society seems to overlook in its pursuit of advancement.

Are we ready to find new life? What will it be like? Are we ready? Are our priorities sound? Will our prior history overshadow the new choices? In "The Andromeda Strain," the scientific community and government must assess these and many other questions quickly. New life is on Earth. Things are not going as planned.

The film is fairly close the book, which is excellent. If you like the movie, you will still love the book. As you watch the movie, note the technology. Everything depicted existed from the diagnostic machines developed for the space program to the skin removal lamps for sterilization. Three decades later, the film is still relevant and shows limited dated items.

Making a movie about a legend is a tricky situation; it is worse when the pages of history are filled with myth. There is no doubt that 'Wild Bill' Hickok was a lawman, gunman and Western legend. There is the problem. He was so famous that numerous sources sought to make their fortunes on stories embellished for sales. The most notable was the "dime novel." The makers of this movie did as good a job as anyone has it trying to tell the true story of this legend.

There are scenes not found in Bill's history, but they are historical for the time. The classic Western model is not in play. Indians, Chinese, black cowboys, ... etc are muti-dimensional characters. The added scenes flow the story and add depth. Even with numerous flash backs the story flows well.

Jeff Bridges as "James Butler 'Wild Bill' Hickok" and Ellen Barkin " as "Calamity Jane" do great jobs with the main characters. Bridges while in costume actually resembles the pictures of the real "Wild Bill." The romantic relationship between these Western notables and its development is well done. The interplay sets this movie apart from most Westerns, and adds appeal to those who might not be Western fans.

Two of the best pieces of acting are by actors with smaller parts in the film. Watch for Keith Carradine as "Buffalo Bill Cody" and John Hurt as "Charley Prince," Bill's friend and the character narrating the film.

James Gammon (I) does a good character role as "California Joe."

If you like Western history, this is a great film. If you want a classic Western flick and non-stop action, you may find it slow. For anything more accurate you'll need to go the library; to date, this is the best film on Hickok.

The films of the Science Fiction Channel ( Sci-Fi Channel ) have become boringly predictable. The seem low on budget, originality, and plot.

In this creation the government is out to get a bunch of telekinetics and recruits a poor soul by devious means to help. There is plenty of over worked recycled twists on evil government organization theme. black coats, shadows, short meaningless lines make these one dimensional cartoons.

Daniel Dae Kim stands out as a good actor in a small role. He brings a bit of the style of his "Angel" character to the role. It is hard to miss the link that his "Crusade" character was a telepath and this is a film on telekinetics. Was this a Sci-Fi casting move to try and draw fans from the other show? Who knows. Thankfully he is a decent actor and a pleasure to watch.

The movie is definitely low budget. It reflects The Sci-Fi Channels current model of Canadian location, few well known characters, few effects, and woefully terrible plot and character development. One would think they believe science fiction fans will view anything labeled "scifi."

If you want a good telekinesis movie, check out "the Fury" ( 1978).