Wordiezett So much average

ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

chucksax "Galactic Odyssey" - the American title of Starquest II - was a horrible movie. The plot was amazingly bad, and the writing was some of the worst that I've ever seen. The overall premise - a group of humans, kidnapped to start a breeding program on another planet - seems fairly standard. That's when everything starts to break down.First, the movie is interspersed with a lot of war footage from different places on the planet. None of it has anything to do with the people in the movie. There's a long montage at the beginning of various science fiction stories; none of it has anything to do with the plot of the movie.Second, the effects and sets are bad. I mean, "Manos, Hands of Fate" bad. The airlock that closes off to prevent the ship from decompressing? You can see the lights on the other side of the door because the door doesn't close all of the way. The "robot" pilot that gets blown out of the broken bridge window because of decompression? He takes a nice stroll over when he's "caught" by the decompression. Just horrible. The "alien" hands on the actors seemed to have been bought from the props department of another movie - another cheap, badly made movie.Third, the soft-core porn sex throughout this movie was a little bit of overkill. Kate Rodger, Gretchen Palmer and Jolie Jackunas are all hot, no doubt; but, did they really have to have sex every ten minutes throughout the movie? The women that I know would not respond to a "kidnapped at the last second before earth was destroyed" situation by doing it as much as they did. From an entertainment standpoint, this made the movie watchable; from a plot standpoint, it was ludicrous.Fourth, the plot. Were the humans kidnapped because earth was destroyed, or because it was going to be destroyed? Were they breeding to be "harvested," or breeding to save the human race? Nothing was remotely clear; worse, nothing was remotely consistent. THe story changed as the movie went on.Eh. There's better porn on the internet. Watch Mystery Science Theater instead.

dingo865 Starquest II (often run on TV as "Galactic Odyssey")is yet another Roger Corman quickie, and regrettably from the producer's very late - and utterly, irredeemably awful - period.Corman is a legendary producer who has never been all that concerned with quality in his films, but he is famous for giving hundreds of young directors and actors/actresses a fair chance to break into the movie industry by financing their efforts, and so he may be justly credited with the discovery of many great - or at least solid - talents from James Cameron to Helen Hunt. In addition, in the '70s, '80s, and early '90s he also managed to release - among hundreds of other films - quite a few decent B movies across the entire spectrum of escapist entertainment, often with pretty decent sf/x and almost acceptable scripts.Beginning some time in the mid-'90s, however, Corman started releasing 'montage' movies. These films were literally spliced together from his previous movies, the disjointed sequences glued to each other with a flimsy storyline (usually stuffed with dream sequences and such) and 30-40 minutes of original footage where the action takes place on one or two sets. As an added bonus, these movies feature tons of big-name performers who have no control over what the director does with the footage of their previous appearances. Insidious.Starquest II is one of the worst examples of this: there is really no story to speak of, nor acting, nor even any consistency. Corman had run out of shame by the time he reached this travesty of celluloid. You will find the by-now-customary starwars-like sequences from his Battle Beyond the Stars (ALL of them...), followed by footage of battles in the Vietnamese jungle that are followed by shots of attack scenes in a North American stone quarry, then sequences from various monster- and cop movies, as well as many other cheapo shots from sci-fi action flicks. Just so you can prepare for the horror: there is, for example, a scene where the aliens talk about how some of their people rebelled against their empire, and the narrator states that these alien rebels behaved not unlike some animal rights activists - and you suddenly find yourself watching scenes from another (circa 1980) movie where HUMANS are releasing animals from their cages!!!It is not merely a bad movie - IT IS NOT A MOVIE, just a collection of stock footage. It has one redeeming quality, though: there are plenty of - from a North American perspective very explicit - sex scenes, and the starring ladies seem to exhibit less than the usual tonnage of silicon. Strangely enough, in this unnatural beast there are many nice and natural boobies...

dromasca My wife says at least once a week that I picked the worst possible film for us to watch. In this case I almost agree! This is one of the worst conceived and bad acted science fiction movie, and one asks itself who gave the credit to the director to do this movie, and then who let it be released. Avoid this complete waste of time.

Doc_Who This movie is from Roger Cormen(night of the living dead) only this time he is executive producer!!The plot of what there is of one, is aliens kidnapp several humans including Adam Baldwin(Wyatt Earp) . The humans meet some people on board a spaceship. They are in reality aliens disguised as humans. The aliesn leader is played by Robert Englund(Wishmaster,Urban Legend,Nightmare on Elm Street 1-8). Even though it rated "R" it has a pleanty of nudity almost make a "NC-17". The set are pathetic, the acting very wooden and it moves too slowly!!This movie is almost as bad as "Supernova" , but at least the public was spared seeing this lame B grade movie from the big screen!!