The Quatermass Experiment (2005)

I love this movie so much

best movie i've ever seen.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I'm guessing that the people who made this project have been kicking themselves ever since for not casting David Tennant in the lead role. It just happens that Tennant's run as the Tenth Doctor began the same year as this production was transmitted, proving that he did indeed have the chops to pull off the role of one of the great eccentric British genius-action heroes. And if it HAD starred Tennant, it would have come to be seen as a de facto spinoff of DW, especially with Gatiss in on the project. If nothing else DVD sales would have been much better, and there might have even other Quatermass projects. But David got stuck in a supporting role, while Jason Flemyng finds nothing at all interesting to do with Quatermass. This. combined with other flaws well described by previous reviewers, mean that if you investigate this hoping to discover a hidden gem you're probably going to be disappointed. And Quatermass remakes will be off the schedule at the BBC for at least another generation.

I'm an old fan of Quatermass and the Pit (watching the DVD now actually...) but I'm a bit surprised by the BBC4 experiment I saw a few late nights back. Not great, not bad, not much actually - it was very much all theatrics and really lacked any real bearing. Plus the ending just completely fizzled out..I sat there thinking "Huh? What have I missed?"Jason Flemyng, as good an actor as he is, was just not Quatermass material. As the head of a space program, sorry - he's just too damn young. He lacks gravitas and bearing and just seems as if he's always catching up rather than leading. Fun - to a degree - but ultimately disappointing

The original BBC version of THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT shocked a nation way back in 1953 but this remake barely caused a ripple when broadcast three years ago and it's not too difficult to see why . Nowadays television audiences are much more sophisticated and television in the 21st century is more of a bastard child of cinema than theater , but it would be both churlish and incorrect to state that the failings and the lukewarm reception of this remake are down to the audience because the fault lies entirely with the production team A lot of people have complained about the anachronistic feel of the production . Indeed it doesn't really feel like it's set in the present day despite the scenes set at the Tate Modern and having BBC News 24 giving away exposition . Perhaps the most startling thing are the large number of characters who smoke , something both television production teams and government have cracked down on and I'm possibly correct in saying if this had been made in the Autumn of 2008 none of the actors would be allowed to smoke on screen by law Director Sam Miller usesa countless number of medium shots . In order to generate tension and atmosphere wouldn't close ups have been more effective ? Of course Miller is directing a live broadcast where anything or everything can go wrong so perhaps we should be more forgiving because of the amount of pressure he was under . Unfortunately any tension and atmosphere is diluted with the amount of clichéd POV shots and over head filming of London which outstay their welcome very quickly . There's also a lack of internal logic to these shots . If you're a mutating monster walking around London dressed in a cloak wouldn't someone call the police , and wouldn't the police be going out of their way to hunt down the mutating monster ? Are we to believe the monster hasn't been picked up on CCTV cameras ? Apparently the story is set in a world where we can send astronauts into deep space but no one has invented the close circuit TV camera . Do you understand the anachronistic criticisms now ? Some of the problems with the script actually lie at the door of Nigel Kneale . The original version of THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT was written as a suspenseful mystery . Alas however it was constructed very much as a whodunnit . Once you know what is happening to Victor Carroon etc there's little mystery involved . It's similar to watching a whodunnit unfold when you already know who did it so there's no surprises . Kneale did construct his story in an episodic form to be broadcast over a period of six weeks which leaves Richard Fell's adaptation very disjointed . In some places it's very slow and in other places so rushed you find yourself thinking if there's been a hitch in the production that stopped a scene being transmitted . We also have to endure a ridiculous scene where an art lover bleats " If you destroy beauty then we don't deserve to go on living " Oh please ! All in all this version of a Nigel Kneale classic is more of a nostalgic gimmick than anything else . If the BBC are thinking of doing a live version of QUATERMASS AND THE PIT then my advice is don't . It'd be terrible to see the greatest SF drama in the history of television turned in to something like this

When I heard that the BBC were planning to re-make The Quatermass Experiment, I got quite excited. The original is lost forever (except for two episodes) and the film, although a fairly good version (sorry Nigel) is half as long as the original. Great, the BBC might beef this up with some good effects, a colour version to last and interest others in Nigel Kneale's much underrated genius. What planet was I living on? 'Here, let's remake Quatermass'. 'Good idea, ooh shall we spend some money on it like Dr Who? Make it something people will remember'? 'Nah let's cut an hour out, pretend CGi's never been invented, and do it live as a gimmick and instantly forgettable'! 'Oh, and then let's cock-up 'A For Andromeda' in the same spectacular style'! Unforgivable! My advice, buy the scripts in paperback and imagine yourself a better version!