MovieChat Forums > The Sender (1999) Discussion > Some people go over the top with thier n...

Some people go over the top with thier negative opinions...

posted 17 years ago by aloep
9 replies | jump to latest

"It may have been during the appalling car chase sequences, you have to watch it to see just how bad they are."

"It may have been the terrible special effects, even for a low budget movie they were poor, leftovers from the 1970's possibly."

Now, there are many things to criticise in this movie. Michael Madsen's performance is terrible and him and the alien girl have zero chemistry. The plot is also ridiculously corny and there are dozens of inconsistencies and plot holes.

But however, for a straight to video film made in the mid 90's I fail to understand how anyone could say the effects were terrible. The terrible big budget "Transporter 2" made in 2005 has CGI which looks at least as fake. The dogfight above downtown LA looked pretty decent also.

The opening car chase is great, with many cool crashes and Michael Madsen fighting on the back of a flatbed with his sunglasses on! The one which takes place in the desert with the crashing black Suburbans isn't as good, but not bad either.

[–] breen-1 17 years ago

I agree with you. They didn't have big budget special effects, and most of the effects were standard 'car chase' ones. Whenever a car swirled around and stopped, another car HAD to crash into it, hehe.

But it was done well. They thrashed a lot of cars making those chase scenes.

The alien spacecraft were done well too. I saw nothing wrong with those special effects.

I think people criticise and say there are poor special effects, when they realy mean that the movie didn't have all the special effects that something like Aliens or Terminator 2 had.

[–] dmc101 17 years ago

You could definitely tell which cars were going to crash. Ever driven a road and seen as many old junkers still running as that movie had?

[–] galahadfairlight 16 years ago

Firstly, since when has 1998 been in the 'mid 90s'?

there was nothing remotely good about this movie, other than my first introduction to Shelli Lether, other than that, the 'special' effects were anything but, the 'story' was bollocks, and frankly, some of the calibre of actors in this film really need to have a little chat with their agents!

[–] aloep 16 years ago

Firstly, since when has 1998 been in the 'mid 90s'?

there was nothing remotely good about this movie, other than my first introduction to Shelli Lether, other than that, the 'special' effects were anything but, the 'story' was bollocks, and frankly, some of the calibre of actors in this film really need to have a little chat with their agents!

Actually, it's from 1997. IMDB used to state this correctly, but for some reason it changed the year of many B-movies to that of the first listed US video release. This movie first appeared on cable channels around Summer 1997, and I've heard that it was filmed back to back with Executive Target from the same production company, also with Michael Madsen in the lead role and much the same cast and crew. That movie was filmed in 1996, and it's most likely this one was to. The copyright date at the end of this one states 1997. So yes, I'm going to call it mid 90's. Do you wish to debate with me how you can define such a term?

Anyway, I'm not saying it's a *good* movie. The story is terrible, and "Angel"'s costume is laughable. However, the chase scenes are pretty good in my opinion, and the CGI is far better than you'd ever expect for a mid 90's (yes, mid 90's) straight to video film. I'm a fan of PM Entertainment movies and this is one of their weaker flicks, but it's not without some merit of it's own.

[–] LoveTheRope 16 years ago

Awful doesn't begin to describe this movie.

I gave this movie 40 minutes... that's 40 wasted minutes of my life that I will never get back again.

The first five minutes give you so much hope... with an alien ship in the Bermuda Triangle...

Then it is all downhill from there...

A high-security government installation that two UFO-nuts simply walk in and steal a big rig... followed by a high speed chase ending with a typical hollywood crash and explosion...
---I tried to overlook this since it is typical of Hollywood... but this entire scene does nothing to move the story along... it is there just for the car crashes and explosion...

Next there is a govt black ops operation to kidnap a little girl and blow up the house she lived in (more explosions)...
---Okay, this does move the story along, but the girl's father is warned that there is a bomb in the house... he goes back in and looks at it to see there is 20 seconds left before it goes off... so he goes to a dresser and gets his gun and runs out of the house just in time to avoid the explosion... MY QUESTION... Why didn't he just grab the bomb and use the 20 seconds to run it out of the house and throw it in the woods? Oh, wait... Hollywood movie... they wanted to blow up a house so the audience would go... AAAHHHHHH!!!! WOW!!!! Fire!!!!

Next, the alien (in the form of a hot human woman) has to get naked in the sun to recharge her 'batteries'...
---This was the final straw. If Hollywood is going to create a violent, mindless, explosion-filled R-rated piece of junk like this, the least they can do is hire an actress that is willing to get naked in front of the camera instead of using the quaint 1950's naked shoulder shots.

I mean, if the movie is made to appeal to the basest human emotions and instincts, shouldn't sexual explotation be right at the top of the list?

Trust me.. I have sat through dozens upon dozens of bad movies... bad acting... bad dialog... moronic plotholes... bad f/x... and I always try to see the good through the bad...

But this movie takes bad to a whole new level...
Joe Bob Briggs would have loved it...

Buy more. Buy more now.

[–] galahadfairlight 16 years ago

Mid 90's would be 1995, thats how you define Mid 90's, because its in the MIDDLE!

Not hard to figure out really, no seriously, its not!

This signature has been deleted by an administrator

[–] MystMoonstruck 16 years ago

It's a bit tiresome to hear moaning and groaning about actresses not being naked. There is a definite double standard. Actresses, especially in low-budget films, are supposed to do nude scenes, which IS NOT RIGHT! I feel sorry for those women who are talked into doing such a thing. It's degrading for them and not necessary to the film. If nudity is necessary, why aren't more male stars stripping? That rarely happens.

A lot of movies will stay in that deep pit as long as guys keep begging for more blood, more explosions and more nudity.

Again, I feel sorry for actresses who are led to believe that nude scenes are necessary to films. Men who howl for "skin" need to remember that these girls and women are people first. Directors and scriptwriters rarely ask male stars to do the same. So, let the ladies remain clothed!

~~MystMoonstruck~~

I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!~"Network"

[–] aloep 16 years ago

Mid 90's would be 1995, thats how you define Mid 90's, because its in the MIDDLE!

By that logic there would only be one "mid 90"....

[–] p-abbott 15 years ago

Just saw this on DVD. I have had it for about 7 years collecing dust on the shelf with another film on the same disc.

Well, it was rubbish and I did actually almost nod off, however, I am going to give them some credit for the car crash stunts. Very well done. The must of reused the same cars over and over I reckon.

The ending was a let down but what do you expect from a cheap film. The acting was actually better then I expected and surprised that Robert Vaughan was in it (must have been during his 'out of work' period.

The alien was hot who cares she has to sunbathe to recharge her battries!!

The FX was no bad at all. The aliens spacecraft was very well done and far better then most CGI in crap like Star Wars prequels where you can see its all CGI.

I give it a 4.5/10

At least I can toss the disc in the trash now!