IMDb > Ark (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Ark More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 20 reviews in total 

10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Warring Civilizations on the brink of mutual destruction..

Author: trip_doubt-1 from United States
9 July 2006

The battle between the Ceveans and Storrions has gone on for centuries, the world on which they live has been scarred and toxified, their only hope is to find a pilot for the Ark, built 800 years ago by Amiel of The Bloodline, custodians of ancient technology delivered by the Gods. When she finished building the Ark, she dies. Even after being dead for centuries her body doesn't decompose and her cellular activity show amazing levels of bio-energy.

The storyline isn't as silly as a previous commenter had made. It is an Us vs Them story with mutual destruction if someone doesn't stop the war. The movie is Korean, and with the N. Korea/S. Korea thing that has been going on for the last 40-50 years, it is a commentary of socio-political of the instability in the region.

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 48 people found the following review useful:

Not bad

Author: edmx64 from United States
24 September 2005

I was Surprise about the movie have not heard anything nor I knew it was out there. the story is very similar to Final Fantasy also the CGI is very close the quality of Final Fantasy. It does have a better plot but like any of these types of movies it could be better. it does have some great movement on the camera simulation shoots also the only voice that is known is that of James Woods. Hope that this is the start of more movies using this type of animation. it say that it was produce on the USA but it seems that it was really put together in Korea. not bad for a DVD movie due to the story line. Overall if you like the CGI of Final Fantasy I really recommend this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

A bit weak

Author: twitch2021 from Canada
25 May 2006

The story development was on the weak side with the main characters coming across as somewhat one-dimensional. The problem with the main characters is that they only appear to be present to further the story, obviously that is the purpose of any character in a story, but in this case the actions of all of the characters came across as a bunch of intertwined plot devices in a desperate attempt to make a story out of some computer animations. In particular, the antagonist was lacking a foundation; his "evilness" seemed to have spawned out of nowhere as he didn't appear to have any motivation for his actions. On the whole the CG was decent but it didn't make up for the less than captivating storyline.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Interesting, but strange

Author: tnhelliott from United States
16 March 2006

I watched this film specifically because I saw that James Woods was in it. I was not aware that it was an animated feature before hand. The art and design of the film is quite good. The animation is reminiscent of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. The character design is like watching a cinematic on a really good video game. The problem with this film is the story. The story is silly and doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. There is enough action to keep me engaged while watching, but the story lacks originality and coherence. I also found that I didn't care about the characters. They all seemed thin and lacking humanity. I would have liked to see this film as a live action piece. I think that that might have improved it.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

A well made movie, in the likes of final fantasy............

Author: yuri_bear from Netherlands
5 December 2005

I had the change to see this movies, so i did and i was pleasantly surprised. The way it looks it has a feel of realism to it. very nicely done. The characters are believable due to some great voice acting from the cast. The voice to recognize in this one is from James woods. But also the other actors are doing a good job. the story is well written but isn't that special, we all seen it before in one form or another. That doesn't make it a bad film, I gave it a 9 out 10. If you have a change to see it, i recommend you do so because i think you wont be disappointed, especially if you take your kidz they will have a good 85 min of action and fun from this.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Derivative and stilted ... a video game cutscene that goes on way too long.

Author: garrett-53 from United States
9 May 2007

To understand why Disney animation became so legendary, you just need to look at a single still frame from this movie. Pause the action at any point and take in what you see. It looks fine, doesn't it? The expressions look realistic, the composition looks good... Then, unpause it, and you'll understand: Animation is about movement. It's about taking the physics of our real world and recreating them to convey emotion: Excitement, sadness, urgency, rage.

Pixar understands this; it's why they hired so many classical animators. And even their best efforts only match the standard of what Disney and Warner Brothers produced in their prime. Movies like Ark, on the other hand, make another fact painfully clear: Good animators are hard to find, and modelers and programmers are a poor substitute. In fact, there may not even be any animators alive right now who can convey what the artists at Disney did with only a desk, a pencil, and a stack of loose-leaf paper, though some of the people at Studio Ghibli come close.

So any still frame looks fine. But the movement, the changes of expressions, even the inanimate objects - stilted. And with Ark in particular, the problems are worse. The plot is derivative and stagebound, and the pacing is thrown off kilter by tedious exposition, hammering the plot into your ears just in case your eyes didn't pick it up. Frankly, the backstory conveyed in the opening narration sounds more interesting than the film that follows.

Some animation never enters US theaters because of bad luck - take Akira, for example. Then, there are films like Ark - missing them, you miss nothing.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A bit much all around

Author: ( from United States
9 November 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's not terrible, but it's not great either. The storyline gets confusing as all heck about a third of the way through (Did anyone else miss when they first mention the second Ark?), and the animation is, at times, almost painful, especially the post work explosions. There's also the issue of the mother, who's dead, then alive, then dead (I guess), not to mention a few other plot holes you could drive a truck through. Some of the design is quite wonderful, but it was pretty obvious in places that the makers were really pushing their luck on the texture maps. And sorry, but the Battle of the Giant Robots at the end was, as noted, plain silly. It's something of a staple in Asian movie making, so I wasn't completely surprised to see it happening here... but still, I sat there wondering what was going on *inside* the Giant Robots while they were engaged in their mild little slugfest -- after all, there's millions of people inside them, right? Bet those hospitals were really, really busy afterwards......

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

The truth of the inevitable comparisons

Author: heyrick1
7 February 2010

There are various similarities with The Spirits Within (Aki Ross was a babe, so is Amarinth...) - the glowing butterflies, tendrils, sparkly lights. These are probably things fairly unique to CGI (imagine doing that in a live action movie). The characterisation is pretty good. It could be better as others have said, but on the whole you don't feel they are wooden and you don't find yourself screaming at the TV because of bad characterisation. No, this feels good. I'm willing to suspend belief to enter the domain of the Ark and its inhabitants.

Thing is, while The Spirits Within was a lovely movie, and lovely to look at; it all went so wrong in Advent Children. For Advent Children was an awesome experience - visually. It is such a tragic shame that the story was muddled and overlong and in parts nonsensical. This was so lovely to look at, and so tedious to follow.

Ark, on the other hand, is a more functional movie. It is not as visually astonishing as Advent Children, but it is far from ugly. It is appealing in its own ways, and more than anything it has a story that flows and makes sense. A story, in fact, we could learn something from. A story that, when as the credits roll and that song by Otis plays, leaves you with a smile on your face. That's how every good movie should end.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Pretty good animated feature

Author: Rob_Taylor
14 December 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Ark is the story of two opposing groups of people who both survive the devastation of their world. One group dominates the other, creating a master/servant (more like slave) relationship. Both half believe in a prophecy that tells of a priestess who will arise to lead them to another world.

The story unfolds rather well, with a prologue of sorts showing one of the ruling class breaking the rules to save some cryogenically stored children of the underclass. Actually, he only manages to save one, who becomes his daughter. You can probably already guess that she's destined to become the saviour of the people, but the story doesn't allow itself to be rushed, developing quite nicely the characters and plots.

The animation isn't up to the standard of say, Final Fantasy, but it is very good nonetheless, and has a distinctive feel to it which goes a long way to increasing its effectiveness. The machinery on display is quite inventive, especially the war machines.

The only thing which drags the movie down a little is the "big battle" at the end between the giant robots. This is just plain silly, given the quite gritty feel to the rest of the story, and doesn't (in my mind) do the movie any favours.

But the rest is plenty enjoyable, if rather predictable. If you like CGI moves, then this one will entertain you.

Was the above review useful to you?

A complete waste of time

Author: Shehroze Ameen
10 January 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This review has spoilers, I'm writing this a second time just so that people will know this fact.

This movie, has as much value as taking a number 2 in a public toilet in an underdeveloped country. Actually, no, that has more value. Because what we have here, is very choppy and disorientating animation (which actually makes Gumby 1 - the 1995 clay animated movie of the titular Gumby - and Cool World - the 1992 Ralph Bakhshee movie look far better in comparison), and a story so clichéd it makes you vomit out of how much dedication the production team put in - which is to say, none.

So what do we have as a story? Prophesy child which will save the world of two mob like races who can't get along with each other. Let's call them race A and race B. A is stuck on an Ark (the title of the movie) while B has been exiled from it (if they are a part of the resistance) or turned into slaves (if they're on the Ark), and B holds onto the hope that their leader (some woman whose name I don't remember and don't care to remember either) will come back to life to lead them to Paradise.

And typical of prophesy child movies, the child is a complete waste of time. Add to this, a villain whose purpose of existing is to molest the child (suggestive, not explicit), a hero whose a part of the resistance by B, and A which is run by a really stupid queen (and are in control of a city) who doesn't listen to her cronies (lady, if you elect cronies, at the very least LISTEN TO THEM) and - spoiler! spoiler! spoiler! - she gets killed (really late in the movie, but still). As is expected by a prophesy child movie, the ship comes to life, everyone gets carried to a new place (A AND B both), and we all live happily ever after.

Now, what's the problem? Long drawn out narration mentions and explains (as does THE WHOLE MOVIE!!!) that there is a problem between A and B. But doesn't conclude it AT ALL - the ending, therefore, is forced. Then, the details of HOW THE PROPHESY CHILD GOT ITS POWERS ARE NEVER EXPLAINED!! Furthermore, because of the choppy animation, it makes me wonder why they made such an attempt at a movie AT ALL?! The worst part is the voice acting - amateurish, at best; ear rape, at worst. Even with the already dead-as-a-rock plot, the actors leave no trace of doubts that clichés will be used to get from start to finish. The prophesy child has daddy issues, and daddy has a pervert for a boss who thinks (and is suggested in awkward ways) that... I don't even know what he thinks. He just... does his thing. That is all that can be said.

In the end, don't waste download space or money on this crap. Really, don't. Instead, watch something better. Watch a classic, like Dick Tracy (1990). If you would like a mildly bearable movie watch Titan A.E. (2000) which has a more involving storyline and a better progression (and DOESN'T HAVE A RETARDED PROPHESY CHILD WHICH HAS BITCHY FATHER ISSUES), and is a better story as well. This movie, is god awful. It is simply NOT WORTH YOUR TIME!

Was the above review useful to you?

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

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history