Not of This Earth (1995) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Excellent flick! Roger Corman rules.
JuwanG20 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Excellent flick! Roger Corman rules. This movie would be one of those "Read between the lines". Michael York plays the perfect alien. He does such a good job, he sort of makes you think he's an alien in real life, for those who believe in that sorta thing. What's odd is I was captivated by this movie the minute it came on. I wasn't expecting much, which made it even better watching. Without spoiling it for folks, there are several scenes to pay attention to that I would say compare to real life, for those who believe in the world of alien phenomena. Michael York makes this whole movie for me, special effects may be a little cheesy, but the actual story line is pretty good.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not of This Earth
Scarecrow-8822 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
In this second remake of Roger Corman's '57 sci-fi classic, Michael York inhabits the role of Mr. Johnson, an alien sent to earth to send blood extracted from humans in the hopes of finding a cure for a dying race back home dying because of a virus sweeping their people. Johnson has hypnotic powers that force humans to do his will. He commands Dr. Rochelle(Mason Adams) to work on finding a cure while he hire nurse Amanda(Liz Barondes)to provide blood transfusions to keep him alive. He daily communicates with his leader, through the form of a blob monster whose tentacles work as a message link between Johnson and the boss. There's a method of travel, a type of wormhole which opens when Johnson needs to send "specimens" to his planet for "proper study" in his bedroom. He also has little creatures his digests inside this giant monstrous mouth in his stomach, for food. He wears sunglasses because his eyes always glow bright. He's a lousy driver so he pays a wise-cracking crook(..the always entertainingly witty Richard Belzer)as a chauffeur and butler. Parker Stevenson is the cop whose nose sniffs something fishy regarding Johnson and doggedly pursues Amanda..can't blame him for that, because Amanda is quite a tasty dish worth pursuing. Johnson's method of selecting human victims, burning their eyes before taking their blood leaving a shrivelled corpse, leaves a trail of bodies making him one of the worst serial killers. Johnson wishes to select the "waste"/dregs of society to supply his planet and Rochelle, but soon his ways will lead to his obvious downfall. There's also a sub-plot regarding an alien woman(Julia McNeal)who has departed from Johnson's planet with news as to what their government is actually doing with what is sent to them. Her tragic demise will yield a domino effect that Johnson will have trouble evading as he develops specific plans for Amanda hoping to renew life on his dying world.

There are quite a many similirarities to the 1988 film, although this one is a bit wittier with a more polished screenplay, even often containing some thought-provoking dialogue(..such as when Johnson questions whether or not the virus, like AIDS, is a way of nature returning to humans what we ourselves have done to our own planet). There are more monsters in this one and the cast is more colorful with the humor more witty eliciting more chuckles. York plays the alien as straight as Arthur Roberts does in the 1988 film, but thanks to a bit more budget is given more of a chance to play off the "fish out of water" theme of an alien encountering us interesting humans. The way York apologizes before murdering the first female victim. There's no emotion attached to him(..well as far as extracting blood from us, obviously there's a deep care for his own "brood", as the tear that trickles down his cheek at the misfortunate of such devastation would suggest)in doing away with any earthling that comes between him and the collection for his people. While I found Lords incredibly sexy in the 1988 film, Barondes is so full of vibrant life, not to mention, she's incredibly charming, engaging, and just plain lovable(..not to mention she has a pair of legs to die for)that she succeeds in certain ways the former fails. The 1995 film, however, has a rather weak finale, which pretty much duplicates the '88 film..there's not much to differentiate the two. I think fans of the '88 film will enjoy this one, for the extra effort injected into it. Probably many's favorite scene will be the fate of a door-to-door Christian spreading the word, who happens to enter the wrong home when intruding on Johnson. I think one difference between this and the '88 film is Wynorski's low-brow sleaziness, which has it's own charm which fans come to expect(..and, perhaps even admire).
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Intentionally cheezy is fun but it isn't that fun
Kai-182 January 2000
I think the makers of this movie want you to heckle it. It's definitely obvious that the cheese was intentional but more importantly it's real MSTable material With some hilariously bad scenes. Roger Corman is the king of Cheese flicks and this is proof. Just make sure you have a friend to heckle this with when you watch it.
8 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you want to see a movie real bad.........
papafain12 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This lame remake does not compare to the atmospheric original. Never thought I would say this, but Michael York is no Paul Birch. His silly attempt to imitate Jeff Bridges effort in Starman is ludicrous. The inconsistency of his mental powers and the truly silly projection of fire balls from his eyes: Really!! The entire sequence with the "woman" from his home planet is really dumb. Why does he keep telling people/things to meet him at his house, expecting them to get there on their own, when he is going there and could take them along with him? Did they hold an audition for actresses with really skinny legs to play the nurse? Poor Mason Adams just seems at a loss as to how to act or maybe he just is not interested in this material. It also looks like they ran out of money one-third of the way through this, especially the doctor's office and "lab". This movie does not have a terrible idea behind it but it is worked out very badly and I cannot believe anyone thinks it is better than the 1957 original.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews