Fallout

I see the movie gets bashed around here pretty hard. Is it for a good reason? That depends. Depends on whether you need a 100 million dollar budget to keep you amused. Because, except for the budget, this movie has all the traits of typical summer blockbuster ("Armageddon", anyone?). And so, it's a solid B-movie - to boot. B-movie. No Oscars for this baby, that's for certain. But... Yesterday I tried to watch "Attack of the Clones". Which probably had a budget 100 times larger than "Fallout"'s. I stopped after five minutes. Though I paid good money for that DVD, I simply couldn't go on. Today, while shopping for groceries, I picked up "Fallout". It sold for and equivalent of $2 (at least 5 times less than the Star Wars movie). Frankly, I didn't expect much. And, oh yes, I didn't GET much, that's for sure. But I've got far more than I did from that bloated vanity-fest from George Lucas, didn't I?

But let's get back to the budgets once more. Everyone says - the script's a trash. Is it? "Armageddon" got 5.6 stars on IMDb (as of this writing). How's "Fallout" worse? In fact, I thing "Fallout"'s script has far more coherence - and makes far more sense (AND common-sense) that "Armageddon"'s. No forced love-interests. No sexist imagery (oh yes, one of the main characters is a woman, BUT - unlike in "Armageddon" and countless other movies like that - here she actually saves the day, AND doesn't get "love interested" ;) by Daniel Baldwin... uh, that would qualify for a horror ;) ) While not perfect, the science here is certainly more in touch with reality than "Armageddon"'s (or "Space Cowboy"'s and the like) - or any other "Science" Fiction movie in recent memory. Also, the script doesn't really even contain that many clichés...

As for acting - it's certainly no "Citizen Kane", but - but I found the acting at least serviceable. Even from Daniel Baldwin, who certainly should look for some other means of support ;) Also, a big surprise from the movie are it's special effects. To my surprise - no CGI here! Only very solid and quite beautiful (and very detailed!) miniature models. Feels a little like watching "2001"'s younger brother...

All that makes "Fallout" - in my opinion - a great B-movie. That has to be seen - and judged! - in context of other B-movies. B-movies the likes of which I haven't seen made for a long time... A small gem of entertainment. Cheap entertainment, but entertainment that surely shows that it's makers REALLY CARED about their creation.

Not everyone has a $100,000,000 to spend... But everyone is able to do their job right. I think "Fallout"'s makers did.

This is a bit of a cold war type movie, in the sense that we have terrorists sabotaging a space station, in order to satisfy their control freak demons.

Being set in space makes it tough to make interesting, but it can be done.

Isolated, closed quarters can go either way. It depends on the director more than the writer.

The script isn't great, but that doesn't matter. "Enclosed spaces" takes good directing. It takes proper technique with cameras and with cut away scenes, and with interesting props.

These are horribly managed here.

True, the worst settings are mundane ones such as city streets, motor vehicles, and offices, with the very dullest being submarines and space stations.

Still, this is where directing is important. You need a lot of grunge, for one thing, and that's missing here. Everyone's hair stays perfectly in place, and you never get the feeling the characters are anywhere but on a movie set.

This is difficult to stay awake through. Especially for guys, since the heroine is very average looking. It would help to add some grunge to her appearance to make her more dynamic, but that is a major failure of the director again.

This is how not to direct a movie.

Just saw this on satellite while vegging out on a Friday evening. I am so glad I didn't pay real money to see it. An absolute turkey. Silly plot. Moronic dialogue. Cheesy special effects. Totally predictable ending. Nothing more to say really.

"Fallout" is some kind of sci-fi/action/thriller deal that falls short on sci-fi elements and severely lacks action & thrills. So, about 3/10 should do it. I don't think I'm overrating things here. Strongly impressed by the film's blandness, uninspired directing and almost non-existing special effects, I went and checked out what else director Rodney McDonald might have cooked up. And I learned I had already seen the supreme Graig Sheffer vehicle "Deep Core" (2000). Hey, at least that one had crappy CGI.

Oh yes, why on earth did I decide to watch this, right? Well, it stars the amazing Frank Zagarino. Who is he, you ask? Well, nobody you should know, really. Only, the guy played a relentless criminal cyborg in "Shadowchaser" (1992), a merciless brutal cyborg in "Project Shadowchaser II: Night Siege" (1994), an utterly demented killer-cyborg in "Shadowchaser III: Alien Force" (1995) and also a surprisingly other kind of cyborg in "Shadowchaser 4: Orion's Key" (1996). I liked all that.

Did anyone read the script before they shot this film? Hearing the dialogue come from Daniel Baldwin's mouth was like listening to fingernails scratching a blackboard.

The plot: Russian Terrorists plot to steal nukes in space and hold the earth hostage. No, I'm not kidding.

It's tough to blame the director when given a script like this one. Although, he must take some of the blame. Come on... in the future the Army uses EV-1 electric cars? Cars? Not trucks. Cars. It was like watching clowns at a circus unload from a VW Bug.

Laugh out loud funny, only problem, it wasn't a comedy.