IMDb > A.I. Assault (2006) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
A.I. Assault
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
A.I. Assault (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 26 reviews in total 

15 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

SciFi MishMash

2/10
Author: tom-darwin from United States
6 May 2006

With the notable exception of the excellent "Dark Kingdom," the SciFi Channel seems to have an aversion to original productions that don't insult its audience's intelligence. Self-aware combat robots decide to go into business for themselves after crashing on a tropical island that looks amazingly like Santa Barbara County. A commando team is sent in with the brainiac daughter of the scientist who created the critters, charged not with destroying but recapturing them. Complicating matters is a trio of cruise-ship robbers whose getaway helicopter happened to crash on the same island for the same reason (a sudden, unexpectedly huge tropical storm that the gods tossed in to add to the tension because it would be too much work to create it through the story). The machines resemble H.G. Wells's original fighting machines, with the embittered sociopathy of "The Terminator's" SkyNet & the opportunistic assimilation abilities shown in "South Park's" episode "Trapper Keeper." Bits & pieces of story elements that could be attributed to "Resident Evil," "Westworld" & any number of trapped-on-an-island-with-monsters movies serve to finish off any hint of originality. The CGI critter-machines are up to par, although they make annoying creaking noises like the Tin Man from "The Wizard of Oz." The other sets & props range from so-so to laughably cheap. The commandos are ludicrously incompetent, having received their patrolling, combat & weapons training from third-graders in some backyard. "Star Trek" icons George Takei (ex-Sulu) & Michael Dorn (ex-Worf) might have lent some interest but share no scenes together & have small, dispensable parts. "AI" violates one of the most basic rules in monster movies by both showing & describing the monster in the very first scene, leaving nothing more for imagination or anticipation. The same carelessness with the sets is given to the explanation of the monsters & the rationale for their misbehavior, although the word "matrix" is applied to them at least 3 times. Why does SciFi keep doing this to us? Is it because Michael Bay keeps getting away with making giant movies without plausible stories? Are we being collectively punished for our morbid fascination with Edward D. Wood, Jr.? Is there some secret proviso in Hollywood that prohibits the possession of a valid library card? I'd rather sit through a miniseries of all 39 sequels to "The Wizard of Oz" than see more of these. Uh-oh, better be careful what I wish for.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Flawed, Full of Holes, but I Have Seen Worse

4/10
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
30 January 2008

While transporting airborne two state-of-art robots with artificial intelligence and a team of scientists, the ultimate weapons are accidentally activated, killing the humans and crashing the airplane in an isolated island. A team of marines leaded by Major Richard Tunney (Joe Lando) and with the support of the scientist Susan Foster (Lisa LoCicero) is assigned to retrieve or destroy the robots within a schedule. Meanwhile, a gang of thieves that had robbed US$ 2,000,000.00 in a passenger vessel has trouble with the rotor of their helicopter and lands in the same island.

"A.I. Assault" is flawed and full of holes, and my only consolation is that I have seen movies worse than this one. The story is absurd: the helicopter of the thugs lands exactly in the same dangerous island; the military force brings inadequate weapons, in spite of knowing that only one rifle is suitable to fight against the invincible robots; their adviser, Dr. Susan Foster, acts like a retarded; the pilot of the helicopter has a crisis of morality and leaves two million dollars in the island. The robots seem to be prepared to destroy ham actors and actresses, actually that is what they do along the movie, therefore they are useful weapons. The story is a sort of "Jurassic Park III" with the devices from the 2006 "War of the Worlds", and the special effects are reasonable for a B-movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Shockwave"

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

We need to broaden our definition of plagiarism!

1/10
Author: madmad39 (madmad39@aol.com) from United States
6 May 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Does ANYbody care that this is a re-hash of the director's 2004 movie "Curse of the Komodo"?! Just watch the two robbery scenes near the beginning of each movie. That's when I immediately realized I'd seen this one before, except instead of killer A.I. robots his last island was infested with giant komodo dragons. He's reused scenes, dialogue, characters, plot. Basically recycled the whole script just changing out the "monstors". Come on, dude. At least shift things around a little so it might trick someone into thinking it's an "original" SciFi movie. This is truly pathetic! If you can't do better than this, you need to retire. Movies like this betray a complete lack of respect for the genre. Bad enough,but worse when it's a movie on the SciFi channel!

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Good actors, bad directing, writing and SPX

3/10
Author: klchu from California
13 July 2008

Wow. Some of my favorite actors are completely wasted in this movie. They try, some more than others, but they can't save this clunker of a script in the hands of an incompetent director. Oh look, the writer and director are the same person: Jim Wynorski.

You can tell that this movie had a reasonable budget, but Jim Wynorski doesn't know what to do with it. All of his shots are uninspired and clunky. Likewise, the editing is amateurish. A first year film student could do better.

The CGI effects are clean, but they are not integrated well into the live action scenes. Human actors react to things that don't happen, or are out of sync with the CGI action. For example, while being attacked, someone is thrown to the ground by a CGI robot that never gets anywhere close to the actor.

Additionally, the music is really lame. Casio keyboard quality from someone's basement.

But the worst element is the script. Everything about it is terrible. The story, the lines and the characters are all pathetic.

The only things keeping the movie from being a 1 rating are the actors and the rest of the production staff. The camera work is good, as are the costumes, sets, sound, etc. i.e. it's a well-made crappy movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

lots of cast, low technical quality

4/10
Author: wrlang from United States
13 November 2006

Shockwave looked like a real dog and it was except for the cameos by all the different scifi and horror flick cast. A member from every Star Trek franchise was there, Billy Mummy from Lost in Space, and a host of others. The endless supply of bullets with no clip changes. I have to say that I believe the acting was good, but the script and direction seemed off. The story is old and tired. An experiment gone wrong that creates a being that tries to take over the world, or at least got off a deserted island. The editing didn't help much and made the film seem labored. The final battle in the rain and the stars stayed dry the whole time. A B- movie due to all the technical flaws. If you like plain old action and don't mind the continuity breaks, this is for you.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

real horror films aren't sponsored by Realtors

1/10
Author: gothicgoblin1334 from Paris, France
26 August 2006

Another made-for-Tele movie which is completely horrible. There is barely any plot, the acting, writing, and of course the god-awful directing of today's worst director and Ed Wood impersonator, Jim Wynorski, who, when not making terrible plot less porn movies with hideous women, is making crappy straight to video or Sci-fi "original" movies. Basically this is a bad rip-off of War of the worlds, and to top it all off, it's another failed attempt of a Sci-fi original movie. If Sci-fi continually pulls bad ideas out of their ass with overtones of someone Else's' films, then the horror business if being dug to an early grave. Which is sad because I am a horror filmmaker myself of what one may call 'b-flicks' but when I see these computer-generated bloody bull-crap, it makes me want to throw up. If this movie comes on the Tele again, kill yourself, it will make you hate your remaining life.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

They could do better on this!

4/10
Author: jlnic from United States
6 May 2006

Well, I can tell is a Sci Fi channel assault on our intelligence. They have some Star Trek actors and actor from B5 on the movie, Everyone needs to work even stars from long faded shows. The computer generated robots were decent and the storyline had promise. My problem with this film is as follows: (1) I just love movie military personal with hair too long. (2) This movie supposedly take place on an island near Fiji, why is everyone wearing a jacket. We have a few shot of the tropics, but the rest of the movie seems to be filmed in the Pacific Northwest. It would be an otherwise decent film if they spent a bit of time on the details.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

If you watch this movie with the 'Mute' activated...

3/10
Author: Saturnfly from New Zealand
26 November 2009

It actually gives you the illusion that the dialog isn't completely under-developed. I actually didn't find the acting to be terrible, if they were given some decent lines, well actually if this movie was completely re-written, it would have been a hell of a lot better.

The special effects were entertaining, I'm sure the film crew were on a limited budget, and I give them props for what they managed to squeeze from I'm guessing, an already dry lemon. Well aside from the plane scene... But then again, nothing can be made perfect. If you rent this movie, you should expect it not to be worth you're money, because there's a lot of other sci-fi movies out there. But if you you don't care about a measly dollar, then get it out, for a laugh at least. ;)

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Incredibly pathetic.

2/10
Author: Mr_Jackhammer from USA
10 December 2006

I've never reviewed a movie before without watching the whole thing. This is a special case. I began watching the movie. 3 minute later, crappiness reached critical mass. People screaming at badly animated CGI robots. Pistols with endless clips that magically fire without recoil (In fact, upon looking closer, I realized that the pistols are more magical than I realized at first. They somehow fire without the hammer even moving!) Right about the time the guy in camouflage parked his truck underneath the robot and waited for it to laser him is where I quit watching and started doing my math homework. Did they even try with this movie? Jeez. I feel insulted. Thank God I only wasted $2 renting it. Easiest review I've ever made.

CCCCCCRRRRAAAAAPPPPP! I've seen better homemade movies on YouTube.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

C'mon, People, Lighten Up

5/10
Author: Clay Loomis from Arroyo Grande, California
20 April 2012

Wow, you ARE a picky bunch, aren't you? Look, this is a SciFi (now SyFy) channel movie. We all know what we're in for before the movie even starts. You can't compare it to the 100-200 million dollar theatrical releases. SyFy cranks these babies out on the cheap, and you get what you'd expect; SFX that can be done on home PC's, B and C grade actors, and older actors that are now out of fame and just looking for something to do.

In this case they did a cool thing and brought in Star Trek alum from three versions of the franchise; Takei, from TOS, Dorn, from NG, and Picardo, from Voyager. SyFy offers these guys maybe $25,000 for a couple days work on what are, essentially, extended cameos. They sit around between shots, sipping martini's and reminiscing over the old times. They give half-baked performances, get one or two minutes of screen time each, cash their checks and go home. Hell, I'd do it. For their part, SyFy gets to use their names for promoting the film.

As SyFy channel movies go, this one was OK. Fact is, I thought the SFX were better than in many of these little time-wasters. They go cheap and don't worry about details, like captains bars on their collar and sergeants stripes on their sleeve (this from one of the movies I saw a couple years ago). My favorite from this one is that all the Special Forces guys are carrying M16A2's, except one guy, who's using a 50 year old M16A1. Not a chance this would happen in real life, but to be honest, I think they do a lot of that stuff on purpose, to give guys like me the fun of spotting those errors.

It's just campy fun, like Snakes On A Plane, and if you watch until the first commercial break you'll know the entire plot, and after that you can go to the bathroom, grab another beer, or answer the phone and have no fear that you'll miss a vital plot point.

So lighten up, people. This fluff won't kill you, and let's face it, the other 80 channels are all filled with stuff like Real Housewives of Barstow, Law & Order reruns from the 1990's, and Tory Spelling movies (Mother, May I Sleep With Danger?).

I'd say this was an average SyFy channel effort.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Ratings External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history