The Quatermass Experiment (2005) Reviews

• The "live" aspect only gets in the way and brings nothing leaving a quite basic and dully delivered film

  bob the moo2008-09-11

  The space rocket project led by Professor Quatermass has now not heard from their crew for several days and the worst is feared. Suddenly though the rocket reappears and they manage to get it back to Earth by remote control, still not knowing the fate of the crew. When they breach the hull they find only one member of the crew in the craft – the others "gone". With the media and other investigators looking on, Quatermass and Dr Briscoe try to work out what happened up there when contact was lost, where the other two crew members are and what has happened to survivor Carroon, who is in a panicked and incoherent state. Two interesting, maybe even good, ideas here. Firstly have a modern go at Quatermass; secondly do a live broadcast of a multi-location drama (they have done it with dramas in the US like ER to reasonable effect). Putting them together into one idea though only works if one doesn't limit or detract from the other, which you gotta feel happens here. Never having really the original Quatermass (I've only ever seen a couple of the movies – which I enjoyed), I'm not protective over the subject and a remake is not something that I specifically have an issue with – if it is good or bad I will watch it on its own merits, not in comparison to something else. The remake itself on paper offers tension, global threats, fear of the unknown and solid sci-fi and it is disappointing then that more is not made of it. Sadly a lot of the biggest failings come down to the delivery of the first idea. The thing about it being live: why? In what way did it help the film other than just being a gimmick to make people watch (which, being BBC4 and now being just a repeat, I doubt does much). I did see a modern musical retelling of the crucifixion done in Manchester (Manchester Passion) and that was done live. While that film was not perfect, at least it was live in a crowd and in public – the fact it was live was a positive (or at least interesting) aspect to it. Here all it seemed to do was meant that it was done cheaply and not in the way that best serves the story. It is not that anyone laughs or falls over, but just that the scenes are done with limited cameras and camera positions, you don't get a lot of edits around a scene, the use of music is limited and of course special effects are not really involved. Technically I'm sure it was impressive to pull it off but this doesn't translate into value for the viewer. Instead what I found was, while the basic story offered me potential, all I ended up thinking about was how much better it would have been if they had made a "proper" film (ie, take your time and redo bits if need be – play with the edit etc) rather than this experiment. It is not that I needed effects but all the way through the fact that they get one shot at everything does prevent it doing more things that would have been useful – such as effects, such as more cuts around scenes, such as multiple angles, such as more locations etc. What the live aspect doesn't explain though is why the film cannot decide when it is set. The characters mostly appear to be in the 1950's, they all talk in the tones and language of 1950's Britain, the space mission is certainly not occurring in the world of 2005 but yet we are in the Tate Modern and are watching the modern BBC news. It is not a massive problem but it just felt like someone wrote this, saw that the clash but just decided to ignore it. The cast are mostly good although you do get the impression mostly that nobody is really pushing themselves or doing anything more exciting than making sure it is right first time. Flemyng is probably not right for the title role but he was OK – if the film had been better generally I think he would have been exposed but as it was he did alright. Tennant, Gatiss, Dunbarr and Varma all do solid work and seem to fit their characters but for me the best performance was from Tiernan. Essentially a babbling wreck throughout the film, if he hadn't convinced then the rest would have fallen down; but fortunately he pulls it off and mostly his weird state is quite effective. I will not recommend this film to anyone because I don't think it was that good. I suppose if you specifically want to see a project (or gimmick) then the live broadcast bit may interest you but I cannot imagine many came for that. No, instead you will be, like I was, attracted by the name and the cast and will be hoping for a good bit of sci-fi. Sadly the live broadcast gimmick takes away a lot while bringing nothing to the table of value to the viewer. A shame because the material's potential is there to see but sadly this is just a basic film that doesn't work and, for another project, I would like to see them do it again with the same cast etc but with the resources of time and money added – just to see what they can do then.

  More

• Very Poor Version - Good Actors Made To Act Badly

  mboyd19862009-01-18

  I saw the original when it went out live and have copies of episodes 1 and 2, and the Exclusive Films version made in 1955. By far the worst version is this 2005 version. I quite understand why the recording techniques in 1953 were not good, but did the BBC really give up trying to record episodes 3 onwards? And if it went out live in 1953, was it really so hard to achieve that in 2005? I realize that the director Sam Miller was probably told to recreate the atmosphere of the original broadcast, but I think he got confused between the poor technical abilities of that time and poor direction/poor script. I agree with Theo Robertson when he says "All in all this version of a Nigel Kneale classic is more of a nostalgic gimmick than anything else. If the BBC are thinking of doing a live version of 'Quatermass And The Pit' then my advice is don't. It'd be terrible to see the greatest SF drama in the history of television turned in to something like this." Absolutely, Theo. And the scene near the end with the guy describing "Turbine Hall"? What he actually said was: "If man has to destroy beauty in order to survive, perhaps he denies his right to do so. This is utter madness. Do you hear me? Utter madness". We hear you! Couldn't have put it better. That one scene sums it all up for me - diabolical script! But at least I now know why Indira Varma - "Judith Carroon" in Quatermass - got the part of "Suzie Costello" in Torchwood... she was kissing Doctor Who in Quatermass!

  More

• Uninteresting Experiment

  Theo Robertson2008-09-02

  The original BBC version of THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT shocked a nation way back in 1953 but this remake barely caused a ripple when broadcast three years ago and it's not too difficult to see why . Nowadays television audiences are much more sophisticated and television in the 21st century is more of a bastard child of cinema than theater , but it would be both churlish and incorrect to state that the failings and the lukewarm reception of this remake are down to the audience because the fault lies entirely with the production team A lot of people have complained about the anachronistic feel of the production . Indeed it doesn't really feel like it's set in the present day despite the scenes set at the Tate Modern and having BBC News 24 giving away exposition . Perhaps the most startling thing are the large number of characters who smoke , something both television production teams and government have cracked down on and I'm possibly correct in saying if this had been made in the Autumn of 2008 none of the actors would be allowed to smoke on screen by law Director Sam Miller usesa countless number of medium shots . In order to generate tension and atmosphere wouldn't close ups have been more effective ? Of course Miller is directing a live broadcast where anything or everything can go wrong so perhaps we should be more forgiving because of the amount of pressure he was under . Unfortunately any tension and atmosphere is diluted with the amount of clichéd POV shots and over head filming of London which outstay their welcome very quickly . There's also a lack of internal logic to these shots . If you're a mutating monster walking around London dressed in a cloak wouldn't someone call the police , and wouldn't the police be going out of their way to hunt down the mutating monster ? Are we to believe the monster hasn't been picked up on CCTV cameras ? Apparently the story is set in a world where we can send astronauts into deep space but no one has invented the close circuit TV camera . Do you understand the anachronistic criticisms now ? Some of the problems with the script actually lie at the door of Nigel Kneale . The original version of THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT was written as a suspenseful mystery . Alas however it was constructed very much as a whodunnit . Once you know what is happening to Victor Carroon etc there's little mystery involved . It's similar to watching a whodunnit unfold when you already know who did it so there's no surprises . Kneale did construct his story in an episodic form to be broadcast over a period of six weeks which leaves Richard Fell's adaptation very disjointed . In some places it's very slow and in other places so rushed you find yourself thinking if there's been a hitch in the production that stopped a scene being transmitted . We also have to endure a ridiculous scene where an art lover bleats " If you destroy beauty then we don't deserve to go on living " Oh please ! All in all this version of a Nigel Kneale classic is more of a nostalgic gimmick than anything else . If the BBC are thinking of doing a live version of QUATERMASS AND THE PIT then my advice is don't . It'd be terrible to see the greatest SF drama in the history of television turned in to something like this

  More

• completely dreadful

  larryy2009-12-29

  I really liked the old Quatermass films and even though I discovered them belatedly, being from the US, I got some enjoyment out of the TV series. But this remake was simply dreadful. The writing and direction were horrendous. Most of the time it was simply dull, but occasionally the poor actors had to deliver lines that made no sense, or go from quiet discussion to drastic scenery chewing in a heartbeat. I'm a huge science fiction fan and will watch (and enjoy) almost anything with a hint of science fiction to it. I can find great pleasure in a good B film and put up with almost anything to enjoy a bit of space travel, alien contact, or futuristic speculation of any kind. But I had to give up after about 36 minutes of this. I skipped forward, dropping in once in a while if anything looked remotely interesting. It never was. Partly because it was live, partly because it was cheap, and partly because the people who created this were completely lacking in intelligence or imagination, it was utterly without even a pretense of supporting special effects (e.g., monitors with important data the actors are all discussing are tilted away from the camera so you only see the back of the monitor), the sets were plain and very few, the audio was terrible, the whole show was dark and dreary looking, and the ending was as uneventful and lame as any movie or television program I've ever seen. Do not waste your time. It's not even interesting as a curiosity. There is absolutely nothing to recommend it.

  More

• appalling

  simonpcpearson2014-11-20

  The idea of a modern version of Quatermass is an intriguing one, but unfortunately this poor effort is a wasted opportunity. The decision to transmit the programme live is ultimately a gimmick that damages the project. It would appear that the budget was quite low, which, when combined with the live aspects make this look like a you tube video. Jason Flemyng is arguably miscast as Quatermass, although it might be argued that this incompetent production doesn't give him a fair chance. David Tennant fares a little better , but of the rest of the cast the females are the only ones who seem to be even trying. Isla Blair and Indira varma bring a bit of much needed credibility to the proceedings. The really big problem is Richard Fell's awful script which is amateurish in every imaginable way. When listening to the dialogue one imagines of the writer or director have ever heard real people speak. Fail.

  More