Change Your Image
treeingwalker
Reviews
Python 2 (2002)
Python 2 has aged well and deserves a second chance.
The original PYTHON is kind of all over the place in terms of its tone, the consistency of its special effects, acting, directing, production design, you name it. PYTHON II, however, is a much more consistent film throughout, and tells a story that is a structurally more simple and better suited for this type of film.
PYTHON is set in small town USA, but the sequel takes place somewhere in Russia with a backdrop of political tension with Chechnya. The bright colors of the first film give way to a more subdued pallet here, and the tone is more straight and narrow than some of the all out sillyness that has preceded it. PYTHON II is a more focused film though.
The focus here is more on the relationship between Dana Ashbrook and Billy Zabka's characters. Zabka, by the way, plays a much more intriguing version of Greg Larson in PYTHON II than he does in PYTHON. Zabka is allowed to spread his wings a bit more in this film. He's a more significant character and occupies a position of agency, whereas in the first film he mostly just reacts to things in the vein of a detective story. Ashbrook's Dwight Stoddart is a former MLB player with a rough past following him, and the lack of trust between him and Larson keeps a good deal of tension fueling the plot even when the snake is not present (hint: it is not present very often in this movie).
The shortcomings are obvious. To my knowledge they shot this one in about two weeks. The special effects, even for 2002, are lacking. Whereas the structure of the film's plot is not very ambitious, the scope of some of the special effects is. Squads of elite military soldiers attacking giant snakes in massive caves, stealth bombers conducting a bombing raid on a military base. These parts of the movie do not look that great because they're biting off more than they can chew. I like that the plot doesn't reach for much: the characters are after some secret cargo which they plan to transport. Larson hires Stoddart to transport it. Great. But some of the other stuff needs to fall into place with the scope of the film's budget, and trying to stretch out what the budget was capable of providing shows in ways that are not ideal. It's probably worth saying that the snake does not look better than it did in the first film.
PYTHON II is not a good movie per se, but if it's a bad movie it's far from being bad in an unbearable or offensive way. It's not perfect. It's kind of awkward at times, and not as 'fun' as PYTHON, but I recommend it to b-movie fans, especially if you enjoyed the first film, as PYTHON II puts in some admirable effort to make a connection with its predecessor.
Boa (2001)
Probably worth skipping.
BOA (aka NEW ALCATRAZ) is an ambitious movie overall, but one that ends up underachieving in nearly every aspect of production.
It's worth emphasizing that the characters and the plot of BOA are among it's weakest points. Dean Cain, for instance, plays a character who behaves like a total wild card. We're meant to accept that he's a tenure track professor who leaves that job (alongside his wife, a fellow academic) to participate in a grant funded excavation (which would not force him to give up tenure in reality, by the way), and then leaves this job to investigate a potentially prehistoric giant snake in an Antarctic prison, all the while pressuring his wife to have children with him for poorly explained reasons. Dr. Robert Trenton's greatest scene is when he forces the warden of the prison to release the prisoners because he believes their chances of survival against the giant snake will increase with the aid of the prisoners, who immediately assault the warden upon release. Grand L. Bush is an equally implausible character, who as a security guard chief barely ever takes any risk seriously. How did this guy make a career in security if he doesn't listen when his guards call in a possible threat?
If you're interested in the vague 'series' of UFO snake films, then BOA might be worth investigating. There is BOA VS. PYTHON to consider, after all. However, I don't think this movie is really worth it. Dana Ashbrook and Mark Sheppard appear, and are mostly effective in their performances (Ashbrook ad-libbing a lot I think), and there are some early moments that are kind of goofy and I guess fun, but the climax is kind of a letdown, and the characters spend most of the movie running down hallways that the filmmakers don't do a very job of convincing us are not all actually the same hallway being shot from multiple angles. BOA is pretty bland compared to PYTHON, which is much more entertaining for what it is.
Lost Voyage (2000)
They forgot to make it scary.
I would say LOST VOYAGE is a pretty safe choice for an audience who can be patient with a low budget B movie, but I still feel the need to point out that the filmmakers here have failed to deliver on the basic premise: scary haunted boat movie. LOST VOYAGE isn't scary.
In typical UFO film tradition, LOST VOYAGE is competently produced and acted. Lance Henriksen, Judd Nelson, and Mark Sheppard are among the names that provide some familiar faces for the audience to latch onto. The film relies heavily on some low rent CG effects to varying success, usually a lack thereof. The writing is a weak point, providing us with unsympathetic characters who follow implausible motivations. Janet Gunn's character is not alone in behaving like a sociopath. The dialogue between Nelson and Henriksen on their helicopter flight out to the ship feels adolescent in nature. "Hey, what's that STUFF?" "Oh, this is my equipment to measure paranormal STUFF."
The word "safe" feels like the most apt choice of word. LOST VOYAGE doesn't really take any risks. There are some interesting points here and there. There are moments when the editing becomes stylistic and intentional, which is cool. The sequence where Scarlett Chorvat's character is transported to an imaginary television studio was intriguing, but none of this really amounts to much in the end. The exact ending point of the movie is kind of fun, but the buildup to that in the preceding scenes feels generic.
It isn't all bad, but I don't feel a sense of urgency throughout this film that keeps me on the edge of my seat. The lack of scares are a big factor. While I wouldn't recommend against watching it, LOST VOYAGE would be easy to fall asleep to if you were watching it from the couch.
Epoch (2001)
Not terrible, but do not expect much.
Uncle Philip from Fresh Prince as a doctor. Billy Zabka from Karate Kid sitting at a computer screen. Ryan O'Neal, Brian Thompson, David Keith, etc. There are plenty of familiar faces who help make EPOCH eminently welcoming and watchable. Without them, I'm afraid the movie might not be as worthwhile. It's an adequate, forgettable film.
EPOCH is shot in 1:33:1, which already gives it a TV-movie feel regardless of what platform you're watching it on. The acting ranges from serviceable to pretty good. The special effects are outdated, even for the time (this is the same year as Fellowship of the Ring). The political commentary w/r/t China and US relations is hamfisted and the dialogue overall can be sort of lacking in depth and/or adolescent in tone.
UFO films pulls of a relatively global, epic feel with very little resources, however. EPOCH is a safe choice if you're looking for a sort of epic origin story that does not achieve a Steven Spielberg level of production value. If you keep your expectations low, you won't be let down, but do not expect to be blown away at any point.
Python (2000)
Deeply flawed, but give it a chance and you might be surprised!
Temper your expectations by remembering that this film was shot in eighteen days by well-intentioned folks who did not have a lot of resources at their disposal compared to big studio films coming out at the time. Yes, PYTHON was distributed by 20th Century Fox, but produced independently by United Film Organization. If you remember that what you're watching is an independent movie, I think you'll have a better chance of enjoying yourself.
I'll start with the bad and end with the good. The special effects are a pervasive reminder that the filmmakers were working with very little money and very little time. The logic gaps demonstrates the lack of a solid screenplay. The inconsistency in the acting and directing demonstrates a lack of experience on the part of the director and mostly the lead actor. The inconsistency in the tone of the film demonstrates a rushed post-production process. Most of what anyone has said about this film for the last twenty years has highlighted the negative, so I will leave it at that.
The movie is flawed, but I have plenty of good things to say about it.There actually are a few moments where the snake looks pretty damn good, rivaling anything else coming out at the time (really, just a few moments). The comedy works in most cases and I found myself laughing out loud throughout the film during a recent viewing. Whether what I was laughing at was intended to be funny or not is beside the point; PYTHON is never boring. For something that could easily have been a simple ripoff of ANACONDA, PYTHON has a lot of heart and is clearly a labor of love. It's also fun to note that there are a ton of familiar faces who populate the film, including Robert Englund, Jenny McCarthy, Casper Van Dien, William Zabka, Wil Wheaton, Dana Barron, Sean Whalen, Gary Grubbs, John Franklin, and Ed Lauter. It's not exactly an ensemble, but this is a list of actors who you have probably seen in one film or another over time. I'll close by saying Sean Whalen's performance is the best of anyone in the movie. He deserves some credit for how well he commits to playing Deputy Lewis. Great stuff and often hilarious.
My hands are tied by numerous issues or I would rate this movie more favorably. That being said, I still recommend it to anyone who is up for a fun bad movie.