Aurora (1998) User Reviews

Why did I watch this?

[Stibbert · 3/10 · 16 May 2006]

Picked this up in a two movie DVD set for a buck or so. Didn't really look promising and as I started to watch the movie I was just glad it didn't cost me more! Low budget may be an excuse, but it's not a very good one. The worst thing about this movie is the writing. I can handle slow paced movies, but this isn't slow paced. Most of the time nothing really happens. Movies never makes me sleep, but this one came pretty close. While the idea in it self might be OK, the writing just doesn't cut it. There are not enough development of characters or plots to make this a good feature film. They just make time pass by all these pictures of the characters doing some walking some chit chat and stuff that don't add anything to the movie. With that said this movie might make a good short film.

As for special effects, really there's nothing special about them. They're bad. To be honest, they could have and should have cut the storm thing part from the script. As said before, it don't give the movie anything, it offers no challenge to the characters it's just there to look good. And it don't.

Cinematography, however is one of the best things about this movie. It's all over good, with some enjoyable shots. However, the lightning could've been better, especially at night. It looks cheep.

Production design, sets, locations and costumes also need some credit. It's not that bad. Rather nice actually compared other things.

The acting is OK. For a low budget movie they got OK actors. They say their lines loud and clear, but thats about it. Then again with lack of characters and action what else is there for them to do. Never the less a little more acting wouldn't hurt.

All in all this is not the movie you want to spend any kind of money or time on. This is a movie far down on you watch list.

March or Die

[dafuror · 4/10 · 18 July 2018]

Essentially a story of survival. Five men on a trek across a desert. But not, necessarily a "desert planet." They crash in or by an ocean. Plenty of water there. They have to get across a desert. Okay. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But earth is much the same. Breathable atmosphere and desert bordering ocean. Southern California, Northern Africa present the same geography. Not a lot of a-c-t-i-o-n as it is more of a psychological story than an action one.

I gave it a four because I have been spoiled by modern special effects and glitzy production but the scenery during the desert day shots is great.

Tense. Intense. In a tent.

[Red-Barracuda · 1/10 · 8 December 2005]

After a malfunction, a spaceship crash lands on a desert planet called Aurora. The said planet has been selected for human colonisation on the basis that it is covered in a desert, has extreme temperatures, has no drinkable water and is inhospitable for human colonisation. But apart from this it is an excellent choice. The surviving men then embark on a trek across the hostile terrain. Along the way they argue a bit. And drink some water. And that's it. That is all that happens. Additional highlights include tent scenes, dramatic posing in the desert, tent scenes, a low budget electric storm, tent scenes and scenes in a tent. Recommended for insomniacs with an interest in desert camping.

What a complete load of pants

[peaps · 1/10 · 2 March 2005]

I rented this video from the Video shop for £2.50 and I felt thoroughly ripped off after watching about 20 minutes of it. Complete drab story-line, pathetic special effects and no plot. All it consisted off was a group of blokes camping at night in a tent, and walking across a desert through day. Thats it. Oh, and along the way, there was a sandstorm which was the highlight. I honestly can't believe this got made into a video. I could do better with my pet hamster, RC monster truck and camcorder. Anyway, after I watched about 20 minutes as I say, I just hit the fast forward button and watched the rest of the film in fast forward mode. I was looking forward to seeing some spaceship action or aliens etc, but all that I was presented with was these guys in fake space suits walking across the desert then having a cup of soup out of a thermos flask in the tent at night. Along the way, some guys died, but thats about as adventurous as it got. Severely NOT recommended to anyone, unless you want to become a vegetable.

Snore-rora

[Rob_Taylor · 1/10 · 17 December 2002]

Got this film on DVD cheaply. I figured it was worth the risk of it being a bad film because even bad films have the odd redeeming feature/scene in them. No such luck with this one. I understand from other comments that it was made on a tiny budget, which explains things like the special effects, or lack of them. Even so, this movie would be better named Snore-rora. It was a real effort not to fall asleep, or press the fast forward button on the remote. I kept expecting something to happen to break the monotony of the desert walk, but it didn't. It just went on, and on, and on.

I suppose that it succeded in getting across the desperation and feeling of helplessness the characters must have felt in their seemingly interminable trek across the desert. I was certainly feeling pretty desperate and helpless by the end of it.

Avoid it all costs.

Absolutely awful

[rincy1-1 · 1/10 · 31 December 2004]

Very few films I have ever seen have left me semi-conscious by the end. It really was that much of a struggle to stay awake & watch this drivel.

Usually even a really bad film will have some entertaining feature, like really hammy acting or an insane plot.

This film has nothing to redeem it whatsoever. The acting is awful, the plot completely pointless and the special effects are at least 20 years out of date. By the end I was just wishing that it would be over, but even this is drawn out, at only 87 minutes it's not one of the longest films in the world, yet the makers still found the need to pad it out with pointlessly long, lingering shots that do nothing whatsoever to improve the film.

This story could have easily been told in a 45 minute short film.

If you're considering watching this film then save yourself the time & effort to stay awake.

Could have been better

[tfalbb · 15 June 2002]

While I understand this was a low budget, independent film, it could have been better. The plot and dialogue served more to get from one end of the film to the other, rather than to engage the viewer into willing these people on. There was a feeling of inevitability rather than tension throughout.

Most serious, in my eyes, was my inability to suspend disbelief. I find it impossible to imagine that five trained and, supposedly, intelligent people would attempt to walk 400 miles in the blazing daytime sun, rather than the cool of night.

A Brave New World - A struggle to watch to the end

[ian-wessington-1 · 1/10 · 14 August 2005]

This film has now been dropped to the level of 'free with very cheap DVD players' and it still isn't worth the money.

I tried to sell the DVD on ebay 7 times but each time all I got was laughed at for owning it in the first place.

This is without doubt the dullest and most badly written film you have ever seen. I would recommend it for only one thing, sitting in and watching with someone that you never want to see again...ever. If at the end of the film you say, "that was great lets watch it again tomorrow" then its guaranteed that even the hardiest of thick skinned none leavers will be off like a shot and bothering someone else.

They walk, they talk, they bore

[BigMikeWright · 1/10 · 23 May 2003]

Fundamentally a boring film. The idea could have made a good film, but this isn't it. It seems cheaply made, with little characterisation or acting abilities. To simulate an aline landscap they use a filter to give everything a strange colour. Very unimpressive. They walk for practically the entire film, and tat is as exciting as it gets

Walking in a desert

[chaypher · 2/10 · 11 December 2005]

I am normally supportive of Independent films, whether award winning or otherwise, but this film made me re-assess my loyalties. I appreciate low budgets can have detrimental affects to a film's production - whatever. This film is tedious! In no way does this film resemble 2001:Space Oddessy - or Red Planet for that matter. The closest experience to watching this film I could draw any similarities to, would be watching grass growing. The acting wasn't terrible (it wasn't good though!) and - yes, the special effects weren't really too good. The camera-work did at times go over the score a little. What really let this film down was the script and storyline. I'm sure it can't be easy to write a film, but whatever you could come up with could not be any worse than the 80 mins of drivel I was subjected to. What made the script-writer think anyone would want to watch this and actually be entertained by it? God only knows!

Truly an Independant Film

[whokilledreno · 10/10 · 13 December 2001]

I can't say that the Special Effects were any good. However Aurora makes the viewer realise that you do not need such things to make a good film. This film depends on its Story. And what a good story it is. Well done to the makers for making such an effort.

Somehow unfinished

[alicespiral · 6/10 · 11 February 2007]

For a start assume that a planet has been discovered in the not too distant future where people can walk about in their shirt sleeves and there's no problem with oxygen.There's no life there nothing but desert,a lake of poisoned water and rocks.The only building is a recent bunker full of supplies for future visitors to the planet but the trouble is its 400 miles away from where the ship crashed.The moral there is once such a planet IS discovered build more bunkers! The answer to overcrowded prisons is right here-just the place to send all the sex offenders and leave them up there to colonize the place and possibly start breeding as there are a few women of this kind. It doesn't really say what 6 men are supposed to be doing there but whatever it was they are unable to do it because their ship malfunctioned so we don't know whether the original idea was to look for life forms. I kept hoping maybe a big M sign would appear as they must have been hungry trekking 400 miles through sand.Ever tried walking even a mile on sand-its not easy unless its solid and with the sudden desert storms its probably not on this planet! Generally they were pretty nasty characters-one guy had a zapper and killed one of the party as a sort of mercy killing I suppose after he'd developed gangrene- and they were constantly arguing-the leader of the expedition had lied about the distance to the bunker so they had to walk even further.And they had to leave one guy behind as he'd broken his leg! Pity there was no cannibalism but not even any vultures around!Now that would have made this movie worth 10! The lack of food and water was an unnecessary addition to the story seeing as astronauts carry capsules and as this is set in the next century the technology should have advanced even further-at least to an endless supply of capsules Anyway they finally reach the bunker and thats where the movie ended just like that! Very disappointing-we never got to see them travelling back in the land rovers but if you work it out 400 miles at the speed of 4 miles an hour and thats only in the day as well-is a mighty long time. At least the ship should have been equipped with sand yachts!

I was at the Hollywood Premier for this...

[AndyHasFins · 1/10 · 30 September 2013]

So way back in a previous life, I spent a little time in Los Angeles trying to make some contacts and get into the TV & Film biz. One day, I found myself being invited to a premier of some new sci-fi movie. "Awesome!" I thought, that'll be a lot of fun and a great experience.

Aurora was that movie.

There was a party at the theater. There were drinks, food, the entire cast and crew smiling and meeting people. "This is really neat!" I thought. Eventually, we took our seats in the theater, this movie began to play, and what ensued was the most agonizing time I've ever spent in a movie theater. I simply could not believe that this boring, cliché, cheap, and unwatchable piece of garbage could actually get produced.

The movie ended, the lights came up, and what happened next was simply astonishing. The theater erupted in applause. Some people even stood up! I looked around and wondered if I was on crazy pills.

It was that moment that I realized this eternal truth.

Hollywood is completely full of bullshit.

Red Planet with no Budget

[a55965 · 20 February 2002]

I Can only assume that the people putting the film down have not realised that the film was made on a shoe string it was an independant film the director had occupied more roles than Simon Templar , location and story was easily more admirable and just as good as Val kilmers flop the red planet if not better in my opinion , we must not see independant films as crap films but as films to be developed as a budding filmaker my self it is quite inspiring

TAKE NOTICE AND DONT MOCK WE ALL WILL HAVE START SOMEWHERE

I've not seen worst film in ages

[ivanstrougatski · 1/10 · 7 January 2002]

To start with, I felt asleep during the film. Actors are terrible, plot is non-existent, FX are bad. I can not see any reason at all to watch this movie. In summary, this is the kind of film that makes people hate SF.

If i could give it zero i would

[edwardrevans · 1/10 · 17 November 2010]

This is the worst film I have ever seen in my life and I seen plenty the only saving grace was that it was free with a magazine. From the off you see that the egg boxes and fairy lights have been used to decorate the set. Lots budget rubbish the sets were worse than the original star trek TV fair. As for the plot there is non just utter garbage just guys walking across desert all the time. Afterwards I figured that this is why like "The Riddle" it was a free give away because frankly this would never sell.I am even struggling to fill my mandatory 10 lines of text for the review and personally the magazine should be utterly ashamed of itself. If you are making a budget title you focus on dialogue as this costs nothing make it engaging for gods sake.

Get ready for a long slow walk

[DEPRESSEDcherry · 2/10 · 29 September 2019]

I don't like to be hard on low budget independent movies, anyone who endeavours to go out and tell a story deserves at least some credit. But, thats where this movie seriously falls down, it has very little story to tell. Make no mistake, this is a hard watch. It drags along at such a slow pace and with very little to show for it self at the end. The special effects are incredibly poor and the whole movie looks like its filmed with orange and blue filters over the camera lense. The acting is passable, more held back by a wooded script than the actors themselves. Ultimately the movie fails to portray any sense of scale or longevity just tedium.

Out of this World!

[StargazerAntares · 10/10 · 20 May 2002]

I caught Aurora at the Birmingham Sidewalk film festival. After reading the comments, I couldn't help but say a few things about the film myself. First, Aurora is not for everyone, but as far as independents go, it is a brave and remarkable endeavor. Shot on credit cards in the Southwest with a small cast and crew, one is completely taken away to this bleak and beautifully photographed world. The special effects are okay, the performances, fair to terrific and the story, captivating an moving. One critic noted that the narrative was lifted from the Robert Falcon Scott story of the Antarctic. It is clearly inspired by that tale and the book "South With Scott" by Admiral Sir Edward R.G.R. Evans. The filmmaker is paying homage to Scott and his men! Aurora is a film to see

AWARD WINNER

[leevmlafn1 · 14 September 2002]

As I mentioned in my earlier comment, the information behind the making of this movie (Shot of credit cards and such)obviously didn't have any bearing on the two competitions the movie was entered in. Check out the awards it won. I know for a fact that the CINE Eagle award is not an easy one to win, as there are hundreds of entries each year in that competition, so the fact it won, despite the low budget, says something.

A couple friends of mine shot a sci fi short in Super 8, and they did things like stretching the ship as it goes into hyperspace INSIDE the camera; long before effects done on computers at home was even an idea in some computer guy's head. The movie, FIRST CONTACT, was one of a few that the CINE Eagle competition got a copy of to send around to other countries. So the budget should be no constraint when imagination can accomplish so much more.

Made Me Thirsty

[monkeyfilm-1 · 10/10 · 3 January 2003]

Okay, seems like there's been a broad range of comments on this little indie. First, I caught the film (on DVD), while visiting a friend in London. As far as low, low, micro budget films go, Aurora wasn't bad. Granted, the film doesn't have ILM quality effects (not even close with this one), but it was nice to see a film with some heart and character.

The direction was good, the novice cast, fair to really good. The cinematography and music, very nicely done! Now for those looking for a slop cut Armageddon kinda experience, Aurora is NOT FOR YOU! The film takes its time to develope. Its more in line with 2001: A Space Odyssey set in the desert. So, if you're looking for hyper speed and fast cuts, stay away, you'll be bored. For me, I really dug this movie and the people/characters in it. By the end, I was pretty thirsty

INFO NOT KNOWN

[leevmlafn1 · 14 September 2002]

This is to the reviewer who mentioned that it was low budget and made on credits cards, so please give it its due. Sorry, that doesn't wash. I've seen other movies made on shoestring budgets that managed to be good despite their low budgets. And since most people won't know it was made on a shoestring budget, they only have the finished product to judge, and that seems to be lacking. Heck, Robt. Rodriguez made EL MARIACHI for $7000 (not including the soundtrack that now exists on the video; that was cleaned up by Columbia Pictures when they bought the rights, and spent $100,000 doing it) and look what he did; sometimes it's edited a bit too fast for me in one or two scenes)

A movie lives or dies by what's on the screen, not the history behind the making of the movie.

A sense of Deja Vu

[quizandy · 10 May 2002]

Disappointing- The plot is taken straight from Scott of The Antarctic and filmed in the Sahara Desert!! Even to a Futuristic Captain Oates quitting the tent at night

Not bad

[Jon F · 14 August 2001]

I purchased this on DVD cheap for a laugh. There was a small amount of special effects at the begining, the rest was desert scenes, with skylines that look suspiciously like they were altered using Bryce. But that isn't the point. The special effects are almost non existant, so they don't get in the way of the film. This could easily be trekking across the Sahara as across the planet Aurora. The interactions are well thought out, the break up of authority well depicted. I give it a good rating, for an indie film it is really good.