Space Fury (1999 Video) User Reviews

What happens when one of the crew on your space station is psychotic??

[csh69 · 3/10 · 12 March 2001]

Do you really want to know that badly?

As a lover of low-budget sci-fi films I was hoping for something better. It's not even bad enough to fall into the "it's so bad it's good" category. The acting isn't so bad, but the over-acting is awful. This is evident right from the start where the female lead, Lisa Bingley, attempts to show consternation at the task in hand by wearing a permanent contorted frown. It comes across as being a somewhat infantile expression, which kills the credibility of her character right from the start.

The most hilarious parts of the film are the carefully choreographed fight scenes. The acting for this is incredibly wooden, and you can imagine the director saying "No, that's fine - just do it in slow motion, and we'll speed it up in the editing". Then somehow they forgot to speed it up.

That brings me neatly to the worst part of the film - the editing. It may be a bit harsh on those involved, as a poor script may be partially to blame. However, the way it was edited made you feel that this was a 24 part TV series that had been edited down to 90 minutes. You often felt that you had missed something earlier on in the story that would explain things. In other parts I found myself rewinding to see if there was a glitch on the recording - the editing was that bizarre. It was hard to tell if there were some actual attempts at being creative or if it was just a rush job. I suspect the latter.

On the plus side the actual plot idea wasn't too bad and some of the special effects are reasonably effective, however someone decided to fill in with some bizarre low-res graphics. These were somehow meant to enhance the sci-fi feel of the film. Shame because it just resulted in me musing about how special effects would look if they were provided by a Sinclair ZX81.

I'll stop now, as I feel I've already donated enough of my time to this film. Any chance of getting the £5 I spent on the DVD release back?

Wait, I almost forgot. One of the crew is a guest sportman, as part of a PR exercise. He's supposed to be a top professional golfer. Check out his putting stroke in the middle of the film. I'll stake that £5 (and a whole lot more!) that he had never picked up a golf club before the film was made.

What???

[lellison · 1/10 · 12 February 2007]

I am reluctant to pan any film, but this one, I could not pass up.

This could be a contender for camp film of the century, along side "Reefer Madness", if it had any entertainment value at all. I do not understand why a credible actor like Michael Pare would become involved in such a waste of time and money. A major improvement for this film would be to have the Russian missile launched early in the story actually hit and destroy the space station, thus making this a film short of less than 15 minutes.

I review this film in generalities, because the actors and crew probably had little control over content or presentation. Mercifully, the SciFi channel squashed the credits to the bottom of the screen for a trailer, thus saving everyone involved some embarrassment.

To call this production "so bad that it is good" is an insult to every bad movie every made. I watched this movie to the end, so you don't have to. If you insist on viewing this one, take it with a six-pack of your favorite beverage.

Excuse me for this ...

[ruffrider · 1/10 · 2 August 2006]

I usually only critique favorite films, so I'll have something good to say, but I was up all night and couldn't find anything else to watch, so there went my night and consequently I offer this review. The film starts with a space shuttle crashing into an orbiting space station while "docking" and nobody on said station says anything about it, like that's normal! In fact, the space station occupants give smiles and "How ya doin'!" waves through the windows to the shuttle crew before they board the now-crippled station. That's about as much sense as this movie makes, but a few scenes were so comically inept I'd be remiss if I didn't mention them. For one, Michael Pare's character seems to be psychotic simply because the script needs him to be, no other reason; he's not in the least believable and in fact plain silly. The first "fight scene" with Tony Curtis Blondell is one of the most comically inept pieces of film-making I've ever seen, even taking into account the fact that this film was probably made for kids. Pare's character just blurts out ridiculously stupid things, first to provoke pointless fights then later to show his "passion" for fellow space station occupier Lisa Bingley, who's clearly the best thing about this movie, visually and dramatically. I kept asking myself "WHO WROTE (if that is the word) THIS SCRIPT?" Most of the film consists of Pare's psychotic antics, the mostly not-so-good effects and about the worst screenplay I've ever seen. Strangely, former boxer George Chuvalo and his Russian cohorts on the ground control station come off the best and most believable.

I don't like to criticize acting, per se, and a perfect reason why is a film like this. I've seen Michael Pare in many other places and have enjoyed his work, so when he looks inept I don't blame him but rather the screen writer, who's supposed to provide a decent story and believable characters, the director, who's supposed to film the script intelligibly and the post-production people, whose job it is to edit the hours of film into a coherent, watchable whole. These 3 "units" failed miserably, leaving the actors and the movie to flounder. Now "Plan Nine From Outer Space" has long enjoyed a reputation as "arguably the worst movie ever made," but after viewing "Space Fury" all I can say is "move over, 'Plan Nine,' you've got serious competition."

After sitting through 90 minutes of this awful mess I must admit I was rewarded for my patience with a finale consisting of the space station turned into a flaming, spinning cartwheel as it entered the earth's atmosphere and began to burn up, accompanied by a last-second escape into a shuttle craft by Blondell and Bingley. This ending was so much better than the rest of the film I felt it belonged in a different - and far better - movie. As for the rest of the film, unless you like your sci-fi silly, incoherent and inept, I'd avoid it like a space station that's afire and plunging toward earth.

Only Good In Last 15 Minutes Or So...

[zephyr-34 · 5/10 · 1 July 2006]

This movie is only very interesting in the final moments when the space station catches on fire and begins to fall towards Earth. At this point, it presents an amazingly spooky and mystical (even Biblical) feel of a burning chariot wheel in the sky (even the feeling of weight and power is expressed well, I think), reminding me of the Ezekiel story that he saw a UFO during Biblical times. Still, it seems very unlikely in that, if everything is burning in one big blaze all around, WHERE are those other scenes of the shuttle actually taking place?

Also, the robotic arm that is used to capture the girl (what was even the point of that?) seems far too big to be a part of the station, seeming more like a "Bugs Bunny" Martian episode in that light (in its movement and overly large size - and what would they even use it for - to fondle asteroids?).

Or, even, what is the point of using flattened cola cans to attack each other and fix everything? Don't they have weapons or even tools as I believe someone else had mentioned? Why does everything have to say "Orbit Cola" everywhere? There is also an "-ade" drink advertised a couple of times, but I forget the name. I'm surprised they weren't wearing "Orbit Cola" space helmets. (Or were they?)

It is too bad that the ending is connected to something that plays out like a 20-part Russian mini-series (with 90% of the series chopped out so that nothing seems to connect properly in any way) about a man (a genius studying the make up of the cosmos with some secret or discovery that will shock mankind?) with mental problems and acts like Jim Carey in "The Mask".

Also, most - if not all, of the scenes are so ridiculously and unrealistically staged, it is rather hard to sit all the way through even once. Plus, it has a very plastic (clinical) feel as if you are watching the Thunderbirds redone in CGI.

5/10, but actually much worse than that rating would probably seem to some.

Wah-haha-what the-?

[joebridge · 5/10 · 16 June 2006]

I'm quite surprised by all the strangely negative reviews. I thought it was okay for the dollar it cost me to see it. I watched this directly after reading all the reviews here and don't even understand some of them after watching this.

My main complaint, if you can even call it a complaint, is the lack of a more coherent focus on the nuances of the plot, but basically it's just "crazy man in space" so who cares for plot? The plot involves some sort of brainwashing by terrorists - of the lead character, but also seems to involve his unstable nature once on the station.

In terms of acting and events, it is much like a comic book with regard to the intellectual (or lack thereof) facets, which doesn't immediately condemn a movie in my opinion.

In no way does this movie warrant such a low rating as a 1 when you consider some of the other films out there, so I gave it a 5.

I actually enjoyed this far more than "Event Horizon" (which I thought was utter rubbish), and the acting isn't any worse than a few of the scenes from any given "Star Wars" movie, seriously.

Yes, it is rather over-the-top silly (but I seriously doubt it was MEANT to be bad in that light as another reviewer suggested) mostly because of the stereotypes and plastic characters. I mean, how DO you play the role of a crazy person well or in a "convincing" way? Think about it. The acting is really not that much cheesier than that of Anthony Perkins in the psycho sequels.

If you're looking for a "crazy man in space" movie, THIS is it. In fact, if you've seen "Turbulance" (a pretty bad "crazy man on a plane" movie), it is very similar in some respects.

Again, 5/10. Seriously. There are hundreds of far worse movies than this, INCLUDING "Turbulance", which it would make a good double-feature with, regardless, haha.

Disappointing film but Michael Paré's performance was great!

[Movie Nuttball · 2/10 · 2 September 2004]

May contain spoilers but its important for the viewer to know.

This movie, In the Dead of Space or Space Fury was a total mess! Instead of doing it the usual way of explaining I'll do it this way!

The Good: The special effects were surprisingly good. The music was also good. The actors were good. Michael Paré put on one heck of a performance which was so chaotic I laughed at him! He was really good performing the knife tactics. There was some action.

The Bad: I didn't understand the movie at all. Its confusing because this is going on, that's going on etc. There was no explanation how Paré's character became such a great knife fighter like a Green Beret or something. Same thing for Lisa Bingley's character. She acts so sad and such and then when its time to fight Paré she becomes a great martial artist and can beat him up every time! Her character was like several types of people in one. What was the deal with her and her boyfriend? She is in bed with him and does the love stuff with her top and stuff on and then he gets killed and then when she goes to bed she's topless? That didn't make sense at all and on top of that the other guy is supposed to be a superstar of some kind. If his character was really a celebrity wouldn't it be helpful to tell what he is? Why in the world was Paré's character brainwashed in the first place? You mean its perfectly all right to let a psycho be part of a crew in a space station?

I could go on and on about this movie. Really in My opinion the film had major potential but it failed. I only recommend anyone to watch this movie if they are a big fan Michael Paré otherwise watch something else instead!

Awful sci-fi flick, reminiscent of bad 50's sci-fi

[MrSprocket · 1/10 · 22 February 2000]

I could only bear to watch about a half hour of this. The dialog sounds like it was written by a 3rd grader. If any of the actors in it become famous in the future, they'd most likely try to bury this movie. It makes me wonder why awful movies like this come out on DVD, whereas fine movies like Dr. Zhivago and Ben Hur are not available on DVD.

What 1950s B Movies Would Have Looked Like If They Were Made In 2000

[Steve_Nyland · 5/10 · 11 March 2008]

One other fellow on here gets it right: THE DEAD OF SPACE (which is the title I saw this movie under) is indeed exactly like what you would see if your average crummy B (or maybe C) grade 1950s/1960s science fiction movie had been made today. And like the appraisals of those films most of the critiques of this movie are being made based on the film's low budget, minimalist production design and lack of name-brand talent in the cast beyond Michael Pare, who easily steals the show as a psychotic scientist on board an international space station. It's easy to get distracted by such statistical data and miss whether or not the film is actually any good, which accounts for the 3 star average rating, which quite frankly in this case is unfair. Nobody's really talking about the movie itself, and what about it might work or not. Here's a try:

WHAT WORKS: The film does what it can with what it has. The production design is spare but does get across the claustrophobia of an orbit bound space station pretty good. I also like the prominent role that the Russians play in this since their space program is just as important as anyone else's. There's also a clever twist on the idea of how space missions are funded with a Coca-Cola type sponsor being the private company who has paid for everything. Science comes at a price, and the crew's mission amounts to an extended commercial for their various beverage products, complete with a cynical marketing director as part of the "mission control" crew. Nice touch!

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: The subplot about international terrorists having subverted the already psychotic astronaut in some bid to -- if I got this right -- crash it into Los Angeles. It isn't needed: The possibilities of a psycho astronaut are good enough and the first 20 minutes of exposition has almost zero to do with how the final conflict plays out. We've even had real life events that sort of put some of what the movie suggests into a context of reality: Remember the nut astronaut with her adult diapers driving cross-country to kidnap a romantic rival? Sure, the "mission control" scenes are poorly staged and there is a sort of wooden execution to the bulk of the cinematography, most of the acting is sub par, and an air of improbability hangs over the whole idea here. But what I am not bothered by for a second are the "on the cheap" PowerMac created special effects -- Not everybody gets to be Stanely Kubrick, I guess. And you can't fault the film's creators for having wanted to see what they could do and pulling it off for the most part.

Is it bad? Sure! In fact it's the production's inherent awfulness that sort of lends a charm to it, much in the same way that garbage like PHANTOM PLANET, TOBOR and ASSIGNMENT: OUTER SPACE are rife with awfulness. The "escape flight" inside the little CGI space shuttle is particularly awful. The trick isn't in trying to forgive or excuse it, the trick is in finding content therein that redeems the awfulness, and as one other contributor points out the movie actually does do a nice job in suggesting what life on a little orbiting platform might be like ... though I'd think for the amount of money one of those things would cost you'd figure out a way to have more than six people up there, and certainly more than one good looking woman who sports red Victoria's Secret underwear beneath her form-fitting spacesuit. Then again, she's supposed to be Russian, and we should know by now that all Russian women in science fiction/action movies are total babes. Can't fault them for having her play the role to the hilt, which is definitely one of the things the film gets 100% right.

5/10

Awful!

[imdb-94 · 5 August 2000]

Possibly the worst film ever made, and certainly not worth the transfer to DVD. The acting is so wooden, that the only fair outcome would be if everyone on the cast list spent the rest of their career as a waiter.

The Science id bogus, the special effects laughable and the plot apparently made up on the spot. If I ever meet one of the producers, I'll ask for my money back.

Definitely a must not see

[caefaln · 1/10 · 6 April 2003]

Now, I LIKE bad movies. I particularly LIKE bad Science Fiction movies. But this was just completely unwatchable. It's not good in a bad way that, say, Army of Darkness was. If it's not the very worst movie I've ever seen it's definitely top five and the only thing keeping it from the top spot is that I've managed to mercifully block out the memories of the other four and can't quite remember what they are. The actors in this film quite possibly have the worst accents ever recorded on film. That is, of course, when they remembered that they were supposed to HAVE an accent. Here you have people who seriously over-act one minute and sound like a parody of an extremely cliched, stereotypical Russian only to then deliver a line later on that is beyond a doubt North American. The female lead, who is supposed to be French, sounds about as French as a native New Yorker. Then there's the plot - what there is of it. Speaking as a novelist, I can honestly say that I've come up with better, more cohesive and entirely more plausible plots on napkins in a bar while out drinking and partying heavily. The dialogue is bad, the science is worse, the sets are horrible (Galaxina looked better and if you've seen that film you will know what I'm talking about - even the Super-Marionation of the Thunderbirds looked better for that matter) and it doesn't even explain anything at then end. You know what happened, but the why is never even touched upon. I can only assume that the writers either had no idea or simply didn't give a damn. I think the movie can be adequately summed up by sharing a thought that kept running through my mind the entire time I was watching this thing: "These are the people who WON their auditions?? How bad were the people who lost out??"

P U

[jheryn · 1/10 · 5 October 2001]

This movie is the worst movie I have ever seen and I've seen Battlefield Earth.

At best the acting was horrible. The editing was choppy and incoherent. The special effects were great if the movie would have been made in 1972.

There was one good thing about the movie, however... ...it ended!

Space Station Drama feels real

[M. Genese · 8/10 · 20 December 2000]

I disagree with the critics. A gritty realism and and good FX work make this feel credible. The threat of terrorism among the Russian end of an international space station is not so unbelieveable. As the new station goes up I think of this movie. Obviously its really low budget, but I thought it was OK. Michael Pare is good, believable. The female lead came across well too, I hope she does more stuff.

Fun but not very well made

[bobsmith2089 · 7/10 · 8 November 2002]

This movie is kind of like an episode from the new Outer Limits. It's somewhat predictable and fun, but not the best movie made. If you are like me and enjoy the B grade films pushed out by the Corman camp then definatly check it out. Sci-Fi fun with murder and suspense. Definatly a rental if you can find it, otherwise beware before you buy.

Dumb Sci-Fi Schlock Space Film.

[ron-ron · 2/10 · 12 February 2000]

Weird space film. Simple minded plot and acting. The crazed-American-Terrorist Astronaut kills the Good Guy Russian Astronaut hero. All this is done on a 50's look-a-like Mir space station. The small amount of animation is not too bad.

So bad it's good, and likely meant to be that way.

[asage19 · 27 February 2001]

This film was co-executive produced by Roger Corman, who has been producing unapologetically "low budget" horror and adventure films since the 1950s. He must surely know his stuff by now. (Another film produced by the same company was "Future Fear", starring Stacy Keach.)

I think it's likely that this film is to meant be taken as a send-up, or at least one of those films that are so bad they're good.

Space Poop

[saint_brett · 1/10 · 18 November 2021]

Buckle up, we're on an express hoverboard to Space Fury. I got a good feeling about this one tonight, like we're in for something special.

If they added an extra R to the title of this then it would be Space Furry. Then it'd be about Grizzlore or Chewbacca, maybe even Ewoks? (Or would it be Sparse Furry?) Awesome, it starts off with a 3D Langolier in Atari format coming right at you.

Space Fury is gonna blow "Aliens" and "Star Wars" right out of the water, I mean stratosphere. The cast in this is awesome - it stars Michael Pare. Remember him from um, uh, that other movie he was in? Yer, that one.

So we're at the nebulous of some chocolate rice crispy breakfast cereal galaxy where we find Betty Boop in some Levithan air pressure explorer with a bunch of Russians speaking another language other than human. Provide some subtitles, please.

Ground control consists of a mixed bunch of nimrods, who sit around with stupid worried looks on their faces, as some popcorn space shuttle crash lands into a um, third dimensional plasma thingy from "Stargate?" (I'm really struggling here. Its like I'm drowning in space treacle watching this.) For some reason we jump to Moscow where The Red Ripper has slain another victim?

And now what appears to be a commercial for Orbit Cola has reared its ugly head in this horrendous movie. Isn't the whole point of watching a DVD to eliminate commercials? This space cola promotion has jack squat to do with anything.

It then turns into a war movie in chechnya with tanks and militia fighting internal domestic affairs?

To enhance the movie's boredom, Betty Boop then goes to bed with Babu Bhatt from "Seinfeld." It's the equivalent of Princess Leia sleeping with The Ranchor Keeper.

The me in year 7 probably would have dug this crap? The me of 2021 is sitting here like a poster boy for euthanasia.

Wow, two spacemen go out to patch the Stargate up with the soda can and decide to make out. Their love making is not compatible to space protocol and violates galaxy laws under section 8 so one is eliminated while the other vies for Betty Boops affection with a fist fight as Boop arbitrates the masculinity and can't decide between the two warring factions.

In the end some big orange rind falls to Earth, two dipso's cut it fine to escape from Ray Liota's maniacal Turbulence and ground control orders pizza and super-strength laxatives to alleviate their constipation.

This movie's a galactic space movement from the bowels of a whole planet's waste disposal.

Space Fury is guilty on all counts! I'll give it 1/10 only because it's better than the worst movie in the world - "After Last Season." It's its only alibi.

The entire DNA makeup of this movie came from the urethral meatus of every space creature from Battlestar Galactica.

Good Lord.

Not too bad, but.... not too good either.

[barry-mullan · 3/10 · 30 May 2019]

The acting is OK (in some parts), the sets are pretty basic, the special effects are very dated by current standards - but the story-line is quite good.

If you are a lover of low-budget sci-fi, you will probably enjoy this pre-millennium flick, but don't expect '2001 A Space Odyssey'.

Hilariously horrible

[casablancavic · 2/10 · 25 March 2021]

So poorly developed and performed Produced on such a small budget with poorly constructed sets, props, lighting, costumes and general overall production values.

Michael Pare is one of my favourite actors and I can not even imagine why he would consider a script like this - unless he was being blackmailed or owed money to some loan sharks.

There are some horrible sci-fi movies made, but most have better overall production than this, even if the script is bad.

Since the 70's when Star Wars ruled the globe and even prior - space mives had better effects and props and set dec...a film produced around 1999 /2000 should have succeeded all of them by leaps and bounds - but this makes it seem like this movie was made in the 1950's or 60's.

It's hilariously horrible and a must see - if only to amuse yourself at how bad it really is.

It's too good to give a 1, but not good enough to give a 3...so 2 is the perfect vote.

Luckily Michael Pare went on to do better films, because if this was his highlight, it would have been pretty embarrasing.

However, if I were the producer, director, writer or special effects technition, I would seriously never bring this movie up as a reference of any sort.

many less tweaked Sci-fans could well find this an ignominious trip to Uranus!

[Weirdling_Wolf · 7/10 · 30 December 2022]

I would prefer to give the filmmakers responsible for the astronomically duff, 'Space Fury' the benefit of the doubt, hoping this pedestrian space odyssey was a deliberate attempt to celebrate the equally penurious, spit and sellotape exploitation cinema of, Ed. Wood Jr. And greatly beloved B-Movie Tzar, Roger Corman!!!??? Granted, my shaky hypothesis is somewhat questionable, but, beauty, or the diggable merits of a palpably shoddy movie are very much in the bleariest eye of the bountifully beer guzzling B-Movie beholder!!!

What luridly propels, 'Space Fury' into the rarefied, giddy stratosphere of being a terrifically tittersome, 'so-bad-it's-good' Sci-schlockfest is the hilariously unbridled lunacy of, Michael Paré's fearlessly freakazoid performance as the cosmically kooky, Klaus Kinski crazy, space station sabotaging cosmonaut, Konrad!!!! With a plot that clearly fell out of a box of cheerios, Space Fury's dubious diorama of tawdry Radio Shack sets, Commodore 64 graphics, and turgid dialogue is only fitfully enlivened by Canadian composer, Donald Quan surprisingly decent score. Frankly, it might only be the most degraded Trash-movie obsessing skells who relish bargain binned B-Movie buffoonery who will get a legit kick out of the blissfully bungled, 'Space Fury', as many less tweaked Sci-fans could well find this an ignominious trip to Uranus!

Truly Awful

[simon.bayntun · 17 May 2001]

If anything, the review by imdb-94 is a little too kind! This movie was on sale in a local supermarket at a knock down price. I thought it might be worth a wet Sunday afternoon's entertainment. I should have realised that there was a reason this was at a knock down price in a supermarket.

Makes Dr Who looklike Ben Hur.