In 1976, there's an outbreak of a disease that no one has seen before. All what they know is that resembles a disease that existed at around 1871, and that a Dr. Henderson was able to save most of his patients but the Chicago Fire destroyed his records. Dr. Earnshaw the doctor looking for a cure was approached by a man, Jeffrey Adams, who believes that he could help him. It seems that a Dr. Amos Cummings has prefected the art of time travel, and the plan is for Earnshaw and Adams to go back to 1871 and learn how Henderson cured his patients. But a glitch in the machines computers sends them the day before the fire not four days as intended.
Writer:Jackson Gillis (teleplay), Rod Serling (story)
In 1976, there's an outbreak of a disease that no one has seen before. All what they know is that rsembles a disease that existed at around 1871, and that a Dr. Henderson was able to save ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Peter M (br) wrote: For a small low budjet movie that didnt come to many thatres, this movie dellivered and should keep on delivering to audiences.
Soheil W (kr) wrote: Not bad but also not very well played.
Adam F (us) wrote: "Starship Troopers 3" has a few fun moments but overall it just doesn't work. Forgiving a low budget film for the lack of cutting-edge effects is basically a must (realistically you can't expect someone with 20 million to generate something that looks as good as someone who has 100 million) but there are a lot of mistakes during the big battle scenes, like missing bullet shells from the guns, missing smoke and lights from the weapons and missing wounds the arachnids, who squirm and scream while the soldiers shoot at them but don't actually seem to get injured before falling over dead. The movie's biggest selling point the "Marauders" (giant mechanical battle suits) are in the film only for a few minutes and when they do appear they don't do a lot, they simply walk around reducing mounds of bugs to ashes and are pretty useless to the plot. You don't see them wielding weapons, jumping around and tearing bugs to shreds with their bare hands or anything and they feel like ships more than walking death machines that have the ability to grasp weapons.The film continues with the satirical approach to fascism but in this case it's way too over-the-top, with a singing, dancing "Sky Marshall" that is also a pop star feeling really out of place. There are other silly additions to the film in efforts to make the movie feel more "futuristic" (like executioners ropes that look like they have black hoses over them) and they are more distracting than convincing. The acting is bad (a scene where we see people being executed stands out but the speaking performances aren't very good either) the dialogue is cheesy and makes it seem like characters have a few catch phrases they like to repeat over and over instead of being real people.There are some interesting additions to the film, like a couple of new species of insects and a side plot with religion as a propaganda tool that's interesting as well but everything about the movie screams "cash in". The film makers don't really have a story that was so good it needed to be told, they just have a property that they know will bring them money regardless of how bad the movie is. If you're a hardcore fan of "Starship Troopers" but didn't really understand why you liked the first movie so much you might get some enjoyment out of this but it's a bad sci-fi movie. (Dvd, February 26, 2013)
James M (us) wrote: No better or worse than other low-budget horror movies.
Takiyah M (it) wrote: This really threw me for a loop
Russ B (ca) wrote: 4/20/2015: A fun silly movie. There were some pretty funny scenes.
Robert I (it) wrote: A surprisingly good movie! Not as dark as you think it would be, but still has the most effective rape scene I have ever seen in a film.
Scott C (mx) wrote: Great concept and interesting to see a film directed by former Bond screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz, but I felt really sorry for John Candy when I saw this. He was a comedic genius who ended up playing in a lot of really bad films.
TTT C (it) wrote: (* 1/2): Thumbs Down
Logan M (gb) wrote: I found a few scenes questionable, but this southern gothic masterpiece in disguise stays out of exploitation thanks to a red hot story that's heavy on detail and surprisingly sweet.
Kirsty M (kr) wrote: Dark thought provoking strange- not sure how this is a comedy... defo one to watch.