Future Fear (1998)

Let's be realistic.

Don't listen to the negative reviews

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

If you love to watch bad movies, then here's one for you. Though not quite as great as Troll 2, Robot vs. the Aztec Mummy, or Black Rage, Future Fear is definitely worth watching for all you freaks out there. A the start of the movie, you get to see what looks like two remote-control planes flying through a desert. At least I thought they were remote control. It turns out that they're supposed to be real! That's where the fun begins. Soon you find out about the confusing plot involving the rights of cloned fetuses, who one of the main characters loves with a mother's passion. Then you'll get to see the bad-guy' fortress, which on the inside looks just like any old office building, and numerous other details. Overall, the acting is abysmal, the plot is nonexistant, and the special effects are a sin on all of humanity--which leaves you with a fine film indeed. Watch it as soon as possible!

Future fear is produced by our friend Roger Corman, who is recognized for producing very cheesy movies, and for directing some pretty bad movies featuring Vincent Price, long ago. But this review isn't about Roger Corman...First, let's start with what happens when you're at the video. You're walking and looking on the shelves to choose a movie. You see this one, with Jeff Wincott on the cover, holding a huge, killer gun, and a shot Maria Ford's face, with a couple of explosions. Then you look upper, and you see the DVD version (the one that is shown on the IMDb page, which has EXACTLY the same picture of Jeff Wincott, except he's wearing a futuristic suit and holding a bigger gun. The Maria Ford shot is also different. She is wearing a red leather suit with a gun. Now, the problem is that the biggest gun in this film is a Beretta 270 pistol. They also seem to have stolen one of the laser guns from James Bond's Moonraker. It looks exactly the same. Now, why am I spending so many words for something that is absolutely not important, the guns? Well, that is simply because the covers seem to be trying to show that the film's charms are the big guns, which are absent in this film. But let's continue the story of the guy at the video. He takes this movie, hoping so much action, explosions, guns, and brings it to his home. He puts it in the video, after paying 3 or 4 bucks for the rent. He watches it. The first explosion he'll see is also the last, and it is so very badly done, it looks like a video game's explosion on a real background, it really looks corny. Okay, the guy's deceived, but he continues watching it. He sees a dream sequence, which is surprisingly well filmed and moody. But then comes a scene of sexuality, including nudity of Maria Ford, and the guy asks himself this particular question:"Did the director try to save his film with some cheap nudity?". First, that director will have to learn some things; When you want to put special effects, such as spaceship effects and an explosion, make sure it doesn't look cartoonish or like a Reboot episode. He'll also have to learn that the names of our friends Jeff Wincott, Maria Ford and even Mr.Stacy Keach are not an advantage on the cover of a film. He'll have to learn that an idea that could make a 10 minutes short film should not be turned into a 89 minutes feature. He'll also have to learn that erotic scenes have to be shot in a different context than during a fight where you see flashbacks of sexual acts the characters had that can be compared to the way they are fighting. Finally, an action movie should at least contain an ingredient; some action. This one has none, just a brief fight at the end, but it's still very weak and lame action. This movie has no budget, and it didn't deserve any, don't give that director more budget for his next film, he should stop directing. This film is torture. I give it a generous 1/10.

I caught this one on late night Showtime, and unlike everyone else I didn't think it sucked. The acting was pretty good, and the story was passable for a late night sci-fi flick. The sets and FX were weak, but sets and FX aren't what makes a movie or TV show good, look at Dr Who! I'll grant you that this wasn't on par with Dr Who, but I'd watch Future Fear twice more before reading the back of Twister once. Maria Ford, as usual, made it all worth it. She's smart, a good actor, and drop-dead gorgeous. Stacy Keach and Jeff Wincott were both good as well, with some pretty funny lines and scenes.I give it 6/10.

The year is 2018. That is the only thing in the entire movie that is truly comprehensible. This is an unbelievably terrible science fiction film that isn't suitable for any viewer. Now, what about the plot, you ask? I like to discuss plots, but there just isn't one worth taking the time to explain, other than scientist Jeff Wincott wants to develop an antidote for a deadly virus, but a mad general has, for some reason, sent the scientist's wife to stop him. It all takes place in an underground compound with the cheapest sets this side of the 21st century.Jeff Wincott, in a scene where he is standing, appropriately, in a pile of garbage, remarks that he is in "a poor man's Raiders of the Lost Ark." They even call some device an "Ark." What an insult to a great movie. But the whole film is an insult to us all, anyway. And why is a great actor like Stacey Keach trying to put a stop to his career? Except for the conclusion, he pops into the movie in shots by himself, spouting out nonsense. I guess that means he is describing the plot, huh? Well, I sure wish I had gotten a terminal virus a few hours ago. Then I wouldn't have sat through this terrible movie. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.