MovieChat Forums > Warbirds (2008) Discussion > Wow - that was pretty bad.

Wow - that was pretty bad.



Yeah - really bad. The entire premise of the movie was stupid, and I become so annoyed at that one female character that had the same expression in every scene.

Argh.

reply

I dunno. I thought it was an interesting twist on the standard Sci-Fi channel monster movies - _______ gets stranded on ______ where giant ______ lurks.

That said, the acting was pretty bad in places, as was the writing. And I think they worse too much makeup (if you are are going to be flying a play for hours after hours, I really doubt you'll have layers of makeup on, especially lipstick), which was almost distracting.

And the spoiler was just ridiculous.

reply

I thought it was good by Sci-Fi Channel standards. Very pulpy, y'know women pilots in WWII taking on flying dinosaurs and all. And one of the final shots with a baddie on the fuselage of a Zero was pretty good. Maybe my expectations are so low that it works but this was much better than crap like Grizzly or Sabretooth. A better grade of crap at least, kept me watching at any rate.

reply

The story made zero sense. Why the heck would the US military:

- Send an atomic bomb mission with this crew. No offense to WACs, but they were not trained combat pilots.

- Use this crew that has a completely insubordinate leader. Seriously, that female captain drove me nuts - she seemed to constantly have an attitude, had zero respect for chain of command, and even when she volunteered to go with that one fellow on a scouting mission, yells at him for almost getting her killed. She would argue or seem belligerent with even the smallest order.

I agree that some of the elements was a little different then the typical Sci-fi channel creature feature, but, for me, the lead female character just ruined everything. She was rigid, use the same expression for every emotion, and was hiliarious when she wasn't even trying to be funny. She was just over-bearing that I found myself just annoyed with her presence; an actress can play a strong female part without seeming like a jerk.

Ya, the actresses seemed to alike that I confused them a few times too - all brunettes with the same haircut and heavy lipstick. I could have sworn that the two survivors at the end were sisters.

But, in spite of all that, I watched it twice.

reply

There's 2 hours I'm not getting back.....over?

reply

lol pokerface 16 , bout made my life over after hearing all the "over"s every 5 seconds at the end , what a horrible movie , but least your comment made me laugh, as I had to check out the reviews and if this movie had a rating

reply

>> There's 2 hours I'm not getting back.....over?


Sorry to report, that's an affirmative. Over and out.

(Of course, look on the bright side. The next time you EVER see that Sci-Fi is showing a movie made by this same stellar crew of talented people (> cough! cough! <), you'll know NOT to tune in or waste your time watching it. So that will SAVE you 2 hours, so technically you have a chance of getting your time back...)

reply

I will give SciFi props for, at least, putting some original programming on even if the Saturday Night At The Movies isn't usually a high quality production. It beats having to see the reruns or showings of the same movie again ( Lord, how many Steven Seagal movies on cable can I stomach ? ).

reply

I would agree that having all-new and "original" movies airing on a Saturday night is a good thing (especially for us stay at home geeks LOL), and I would definitely agree that it beats a station re-running a movie for the 4 billionth time. Frankly, given the sheer number of films that exist from both the past AND that are currently generated worldwide -- even on a low budget scale -- when you REALLY stop and think about it, it's actually pretty lame whenever a station like Sci-Fi Channel DOESN'T run more original programming. Of course, that argument then spins off into the actual mechanics and cost/financials of actually licensing product to air, but that's a whole other topic of debate.

That said, however, you can still argue over WHAT Sci-Fi is choosing to finance internally for development and to eventually air. And I think THAT is a heated topic for debate given what utter garbage they have produced overall as a niche cable channel. Seriously, has Sci-Fi Channel ever really lived up to anyone's expectations for what you THOUGHT it was going to be like, back when it was first announced? Here we are years and years and years later and it's STILL trying to find it's identity and a consistent product line, which is rather sad given how HUGE the Sci-Fi/Fantasy market actually is...

reply

[deleted]

"- Send an atomic bomb mission with this crew. No offense to WACs, but they were not trained combat pilots."

Didn't need to be to ferry a plane to Tinian. And I know for a fact that female pilots ferried B-29s to Tinian--my high school chemistry teacher flew several such missions.

"- Use this crew that has a completely insubordinate leader. Seriously, that female captain drove me nuts - she seemed to constantly have an attitude, had zero respect for chain of command, and even when she volunteered to go with that one fellow on a scouting mission, yells at him for almost getting her killed. She would argue or seem belligerent with even the smallest order. "

Pilot in command has final say on all safety of flight decisions. She actually gave the brass-hat a lot more slack than he deserved.


reply

I feel sad for Brian Krause, a great actor in a very bad tv movie.
When i first heard about this movie, i'm like it's from scifi channel, and Brian is one of the lead actor, this should be good. Hell i am totally wrong about that.

It is bad , it is so bad that i want to kill them just because of their bad acting, aspecially the female lead actor. She is pretty, but she can't act. Maybe she could try something like comedy or soap oprah, she should fit well within those kind of show.

The story is bad too. What kind of story is that?
It looks like a kids self made comic book story, and not even the good one.
What make the producer pick this story and made it into a tv movie, it's completely rubbish.

BAD MOVIE, BAD!!!
If anyone read this, DON"T WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!

reply

@Jptrwood: that what 'warbirds' is a campy take on 1940's comic book, just like how 'Superhero movie' spoof marvel & dc comic? as for her make-up it bother me. in fact it mad me like her even more because of it.

reply

Yeah, this one hurt.

You want to go along with movies like this, and you really try to be forgiving, but it just gets so jarring that you're tossed out of your suspension of disbelief.

These pterosaurs, whatever they are, they're top-of-the-food chain sorts of beasts. They're multiplying. "There were just a dozen or so, now there are hundreds" says the (conveniently English-speaking Japanese captain.

Ok. Um, what do these hundreds eat, when they can't get redshirt? That there's enough of that they multiply from dozens to hundreds?

It was a Japanese base that they accidentally crash-landed on. A destroyed base, sure, but still a Japanese base. Now in the scene where Sgt. Lee dies, and we think the colonel was blown up too, the girls drive off, in the army truck, with the Allied star insignia painted on the hood of the truck.

Where did that truck come from? This is a Japanese base. It was never an allied base. Where would they get an allied truck? Wouldn't that be a Japanese army truck?

Then why wasn't it?

You just get kicked out of your suspension of disbelief, and then you can't help notice just how bad the dialogue and the acting/directing are.

reply

[deleted]

Just another in a long line of terrible films being put out by the sci-fi channel...It's a shame that there are not any decent writers or directors associated with the sf channel...

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]


Horrid "Film"



When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply