Chrysalis (2008) User Reviews

Doesn't translate well

[JoeB131 · 5/10 · 12 September 2010]

I'm getting the feeling that this was a pretty faithful adaptation of Bradbury's story. I haven't read that story, so I don't know how close, but Bradbury (who amazingly, is still alive) had unprecedented control over his work. (As opposed to Richard Matheson, whose work is pretty much put through a blender.) The thing is, this was a movie made on the cheap, and I'm not sure it really translates well to screen. Okay, I wasn't expecting a CGI shoot-em-up, but an hour and a half of guys arguing about whether a prop in the middle of the room is a danger or not gets boring after a while, too.

Worth watching? Maybe to hardcore Bradbury fans looking for faithful adaptations.

A bad Scyfy Channel movie at best

[shawnmack · 1/10 · 23 July 2010]

Really super bad acting, boring dragged out.... Has a cheap TV movie feel to it.. Did I mention that acting is horrendous .....I am truly grateful I didn't pay any money to see this turkey. This thing belongs on rotten tomatoes. How can you take an excellent story from Bradbury and ruin it like this. These people should be shot. The movie has all the good post apocalyptic trappings but falls really short of quality. I think this would have made a better play. The acting is so bad that the movie truly suffers, I would expect something like this for the homemade movies you see at the video store every once in a while. I am sure the budget was less than $10,000 (if it wasn't ...some one got ripped off)

Speculative fiction that doesn't translate to the screen

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 29 September 2016]

CHRYSALIS is one of the dullest science fiction movies I can imagine. This no-budget independent picture is based on a Ray Bradbury story, not so you'd know it. Now, speculative fiction is always good at dealing with ideas and the Big Picture, topics that never translate very well to the screen where the layout and execution is much different and where acting and characters come to the fore. An author can weave you into a magical world through the strength of his prose alone whereas a director's methods are much more limited.

The execution in this film? Two guys in a dark room arguing while a third guy is strapped to a gurney and subject to various low rent FX work. That's your entire film. Sure, some of the themes explored by the debating characters are interesting, but they're also rather superficial and it's tiresome that the merciless scientist is another bad guy Brit. I think time may well prove that the source material for this film is pretty much unfilmable because certainly as a film this is a massive failure.

Very accurate to the story...

[info-10912 · 8/10 · 23 April 2011]

I was quite surprised with this film. if anyone has read the story it came from, FINALLY someone has been loyal to the Ray Bradbury Story and not moved off into their own self-belief. I suppose if you are a teenager who expects a Scyfy monster of the week, this isn't for you. But real Science Fiction is what this film is, and at it's best. Obviously the film is on a small budget, but it is handled well and succinctly by its producers and director. the actor work well and appear credible.

The make-up effects work well and the film manages to purvey a dark/gloomy tone. It is not meant to be a film like 300 with a huge scope and bombastic action. It is an intellectual examination of an alien presence on Earth. Watched it once, will watch it again.

More films like this please!

Compelling film

[gordo_porcel · 10/10 · 4 October 2008]

Just saw this last night at the Shriekfest film fest in Los Angeles. I'm not a big Bradbury fan myself (more of a Harlan Ellison fan) but I must say this is a really good piece of work. It's sad to see some of the things that are considered Science Fiction films these days, but this is the real deal. The movie is based on a Ray Bradbury short story and pretty much deals with mankind's attempt at survival after the planet has been messed up pretty badly. We see some of that damage early on in the film but then quickly the film introduces us to an isolated group of scientists who are going about trying to figure out a way to undo some of the damage to the environment, specifically to plant life. This is where it gets real interesting since one of them begins to mutate and develops a Chrysalis that covers his body. No one really knows what could come out of that thing. What works so well is how invested you are in the struggle between all the characters, each with their very unique perspective on how to deal with the crisis. The actors are really good at keeping you invested in the proceedings. You can tell the film is truly an homage to those classic science fiction stories to come out of the pulp magazines during the golden age. The FX are really well done, everything looks organic and as far as I could tell no CG. Should be coming out soon. Lets hope this gets more exposure than Bradbury's last effort A SOUND OF THUNDER. This one deserves to be seen. I'm starting to feel real positive about Sci-Fi cinema again with MAN FROM EARTH last year and now CHRYSALIS.

Escellent film...

[rebuleocrew · 10/10 · 19 May 2009]

I'm dying to see this again. Saw it earlier this year at the Sci-Fi fest in Boston amid dreadful films that don't even deserve to be in the science fiction genre (Alien Raiders, please...). The crowd at the event was more into the b schlock movies and was not the type of group that can appreciate cerebral science fiction. I was really upset that this was the only real SF film premiering at this year's event, but was totally satisfied by it. I have been telling friends about it ever since, wanting them to check it out but there's no date on when it will get a wide release.

Unfortunately all the creature and gore movies get released and genuinely good stories that truly deserve to be seen, and that actually uphold the great science fiction literary tradition don't get the attention they deserve. somebody please put this film out!!!!

Met all my expectations...

[ericd325 · 8/10 · 17 December 2009]

Finally got to see Chrysalis on demand this week and I have to say I was really pleased. I was hoping they wouldn't go and turn Bradbury's story about human evolution into another piece of post apocalyptic violent junk. I'm glad to report that wasn't the case. I didn't recognize any of the actors but Bradbury's dialogue and story keeps things very interesting. The movie features a series of Emergency broadcasts all throughout which are used to fill the characters (and the audience) in on what's happening in the rest of the world during this ecological crisis the movie presents. I think that's one of the most clever storytelling techniques in the film. I really enjoy how the story is told on two different fronts -- the main characters inside the research facility with their dilemma about the Chrysalis and the rest of the world suffering through the eco-crisis which we get to discover through the emergency broadcasts. Highly recommend it for fans of true hard sci-fi. Can't wait to get it on DVD. Would love to see some footage from the film festivals and Comic Con panels that Bradbury has participated on to promote the film.

A Ray Bradbury tale well told

[sworl-181-82257 · 8/10 · 8 October 2011]

Smith finds himself the odd man out in one of the last research bunkers, manned by a team of three scientists, in a destroyed irradiated Earth. Searching for a way for plant life to flourish again in a dead and dying world, Smith finds himself mystically drawn to expose himself to the elements and walk about the surface. Thus begins the dystopian tale based on Ray Bradbury's story.

I enjoyed the play of personalities, superstitious fear warring with scientific inquiry, and a cracking good SciFi story. The movie has a somewhat leisurely pace, and if you're looking for massive special effects you may be disappointed; however, if you're a fan of ideas and Gaea taking care of her own, then this it quite an entertaining little flick.

excellent film

[satyrmage · 9/10 · 31 August 2011]

Ran across this in the video store, and picked it up on a whim. Boy am I pleased that I did that. Definitely going to find a copy of my own.

If you have a chance to see this on DVD, please watch the film FIRST, then watch the extras (mini-featurettes on various aspects of the making of the film), then go back and listen to the commentary (which I have a gripe about, more later!) Basically, this film is a faithful adaptation of the 1946 short story that originally appeared in Amazing Stories, and finally made it into book form in the 1966 collection "S is for Space." Contrary to modern film-making, in the bulk of the footage of the film, there are NO green screens, NO CGI, just good, authentic looking sets, giving the entire film a gritty, realistic feel. It's obvious the actors were getting "into their roles" just from the atmosphere they had to work in. (FYI, the only green screen filming was used during production of some of those news reports on TV.)

Character development is exactly as one would expect from Ray Bradbury, who was, in fact, consulted frequently during the production, and gave his personal endorsement of the film at film festivals. Note: this means that this film is about CHARACTERS, not special effects.

The special effects, also (such as they are) are handled old-school as well, and mostly VERY effectively. >>Watch those mini-features to figure out what was a live person, and what wasn't! I failed!<< But this was the intention of the film makers, who wanted this to feel like a 1950's film, not a modern-day computer-generated effectaganza. It even features a couple of 1950's-style cheesy-bits... but even those are done so low key, and you're so absorbed into the interpersonal drama, that you probably won't get distracted by them.

Now for the gripe: The audio editing (especially volume) for the commentary track was awful. Period. No contest.

At some points, the film volume was so high, you could barely hear the comments. The bits of the conversation with Roger Lay (I think it was... but not sure!) and Ray Bradbury were obviously prerecorded, and spliced in, though content-wise, it was such a pleasure to hear from the inestimable RB himself, you almost don't care -- until the film volume drowns them both out. Also, during that separate recording session, you can tell that RB is talking LOUDLY and CLEARLY (as clear as a 90+ yo gentleman can be, anyway) into the mike, making the conversation a little jarring. The content is good -- mostly -- if you can get past the volume level mismatches.

Final note, and no it's not really a spoiler... If you expect this film to go out with a bang (explosions, gaudy spectacles, lots of death-and-dismemberment), you're not much of a Ray Bradbury fan, are you?

All in all, this is a keeper, not a renter. Highly recommended!

Can't wait to see it...will it play in Chicago soon???

[lewis-claudette · 10/10 · 5 October 2008]

Any word on more release dates? I did see the Los Angeles Shriekfest screening listed on the website. I saw it's also playing in Phoenix later this month. Any word on when this will be released wide? Please show it in Chicago soon. My friend's went to Comic Con this past summer and during the Ray Bradbury panel they said that the movie was coming out near the end of the year. I'm surprised to see it's already playing in film festivals. We need more info please... I thought there was an episode of Ray Bradbury theater based on this story too. I just ordered the DVD set of that show and noticed how I was wrong about that. Now I want to see this movie even more since it's actually an untapped piece of Bradbury material.