Leofwine_draca
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.
sworl-181-82257
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.
satyrmage
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!
Bill Paterson
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!!!!
