MovieChat Forums > Chrysalis (2008) Discussion > Find another movie

Find another movie

posted 14 years ago by stephenpthomson
4 replies | jump to latest

This movie sucks.
It consists entirely of 6 bad actors, someone's basement, some shots of someones back yard and some bad nature shots of jungle.

The whole movie (this can't spoil anything):
3 dudes are doing "science" in some underground basement after some sort of apocolypse: apparently the air is radioactive and there is a disease going around.
One dude starts to space out and goes *outside* to plant a shrub! It dies. But soon after he turns green and turns into a big green pile of pop-rocks. One scientists thinks this is odd so calls in the "top" scientist. Then, they spend hours staring at this blob of green pop-rocks. The "top" scientist decides it must be jesus in a cacoon. The guy who called him in thinks thats nuts so he next calls in the local dictator, who decides they should take the pop-rocks away from the mad scientist. He gets tricked into leaving for a while, in which time the pop-rock dude wakes up and goes out to turn the radioactive earth into maui.
The end.

[–] ericd325 14 years ago

I think you are way off on this Stephen. First of all I can tell you're not a fan of Bradbury's work and good science fiction literature. If you were familiar with the original story you'd realize this is a very respectful adaptation of the original work by one of the true masters of the genre. I have a feeling that if this story would've been adapted into a film you would've enjoyed, us true fans of the short story would've hated it. I for one I'm tired of people taking Bradbury's stories and turning them into pointless action movies with well known actors that distract from the material -- A SOUND OF THUNDER being a perfect example of this. I suggest Bradbury fans check this one out and make up their own minds about it. The film was made for those of us who appreciate the messages Mr. B has to share with the world.

[–] douglaswhidden 8 years ago

Finally got around to this film, and I want to thank Eric above for his defence; yes, the budget was low, the acting wasn't always spot on, and yeah the early chrysalis kinda looked like a pesto bake, but I've seen worse acting in a Spielberg blockbuster. More importantly, the film captures Bradbury's magical emotionalism and poignancy well. It's a short story adaptation, you know, a thing with words and ideas in it, and I think the reviewer below captures the mass audience's objection well; it just has so much "talking" for a "sci-fi," as though sci-fi isn't a genre of ideas and communication. I will also take mild exception to the primary reviewer's suggestion that it is "hard sci-fi"; it isn't that either, and that really wasn't Bradbury's thing.

[–] blessedwillow 14 years ago

I agree 100%
This was the worst movie ive ever seen. It looked like it was filmed in my basement during a power failure. It was THAT DARK!!!
Ive never seen/heard so much TALKING in a sci-fi. I was litteraly Bored to tears..hubby hated it as well.
Actors must have been straight out of drama school. Im sorry i had to fork out $3- to rent this crapper!

Skip it!

[–] tallard 13 years ago

PERFECT description! LOL
I was so extremely disappointed with the film I wanted to cry! The acting was horrible, the set was horrible, the script was horrible. The whole thing came off like a grade 7 class movie project.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**