Reviewed byhuguesptVote: 4/10/10
Well I have to concur with most reviews here, this is not a great moviewhich is a shame as I think it could have been. Most people use theterm "wooden" when they write about peoples acting ability in certainroles and for the most part, they are not just wooden but petrified.The main character played by a young man, Marco Tolage definitely showssome promise with throwing all his emotions in to the last scenes.
The story is one told since time of fables began, that of a savior inone form or another, just like King Arthur was the savior and even inTV series like Once Upon a time, we have a savior, so classic good vsevil but the threat is from alien's. It would have been good if thewriter could have explored more about the reason for the bad guysrather than some one liner near the end.
For Sc-Fi people, it's watchable but yes, do not think it will blowyour socks off. Children with less movie going experience may like itas the script is short and really, not many people speak more than oneline of 5-7 words.
Reviewed byElphieDefyingGravityVote: 4/10
I was kinda watching the opening scenes of TAKING EARTH, thinking "Hmmmm...decent CGI, looks expensive...I'll leave it on for a bit". I began giving this movie my full attention just about a minute into the first block of dialogue between one in 7 billion alien Cameron and kinda/sorta hunky hero David. "Wait a minute" I thought. "Those guys can't act. REALLY can't act. And what the Hell kind of accent is that?"
TAKING EARTH is an indistinguishable mash-up of a movie with a "story" that meanders hither and yon, never quite making sense, but teasing you with beautiful sweeping camera work that had to have cost a pile of money. Why none of that cash was put towards better writers and, dare I say it...professional actors, I don't know. But let me tell you this: That was a BIG mistake.
The movie never quite figures itself out. Characters just show up, as if after completion of the first hour of film someone realized "Wait! We need a girlfriend for Cameron". A sort of pretty girl immediately and inexplicably shows up in a scene so poorly constructed that the Director could have just inserted her into the frame standing next to Cameron, gazing and him with the adoration of someone you've known for, oh, less than a minute.
Of the cavalcade of truly terribly actors, what is there to say? Did the first day film crew suddenly realize there were no actors on the set, then go to the local mall and grab the first humans that walked by? My favorite had to be Cameron's mother, a plump old broad who wore the same brown sweater and orange blouse in every scene of the film. She emotes all over her corny lines, clutching her handbag, walking with her retirement home pals through the South African Bush. I particularly enjoyed the Shakespearean voice-over work she did, which just sort of popped up (again, inexplicably) mid movie.
I'd be all over Director Graham Greene for foisting this enormous waste of resources POS movie on an innocent world but for the large "In memory of Graham Green" that appears in the final credits. Perhaps he was murdered by a Star Wars fan, seeking revenge for TAKING EARTH's shameless CGI theft of practically every Star Wars Spacecraft. Perhaps he died of shame (understandable). Whatever the cause, it's maybe not such a bad thing...reading TAKING EARTH's reviews would've killed him.
I gave TAKING EARTH four stars. Why? Because I watched it. The whole, overly long, horribly acted sorry mess of meaningless exposition and plot lines that appeared and vanished into thin air. I even sort of liked the truly awful acting, especially that done by the overly made up and more than a few years past her prime alien who showed up mid movie with no real purpose, other than to act as some kind of Martian secretary to the alien Lords, who did nothing but sit in easy chairs, alternately glowering and cackling. I liked TAKING EARTH. So sue me.
Reviewed bybobbyfVote: 2/10/10
When a movie isn't very good, it just isn't very good. When you rate afilm higher than it should be rated because a) it was made by yourfriends, b) it was done on a really low budget, c) it was made in acountry where they usually don't make movies, d) gosh, they reallytried hard, etc. then you're not being honest. "It's good for what itis" doesn't make it good. This movie isn't very good. Yes, thecinematography, at times, is the best part of this film. Some of theCGI is passable. One or two actors were OK, at times. Sadly themajority of this film comes off as amateurish and juvenile. The actingis high-school drama-ish. The script feels like it was written by ateenager. It's derivative of so many other films, in particular, "I amNo. 4." The music isn't terrible, but it's placed inappropriatelythroughout the film. And the pacing, the timing, the editing... it'slaborious.The romances were entirely unnecessary, and the film shiftsfocus so many times that it's hard to know what it's about. I think thefilm was hurt most by a lack of a consistent production design. It'sall over the place and lacks continuity in look and feel. I think, as aproject, it's a good first attempt by young film-makers, but it failsto stand up with serious, professional productions. If you take thetime to watch it, (I saw it for free on Netflix) be prepared and don'texpect much.
The human race is thrown into chaos as an alien invasion takes control of the planet in an effort to find one boy out of 7 billion people who holds the power to destroy them.