Fallout (1999) User Reviews

Sci-fi cheapie with lumbering action man Daniel Baldwin

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 22 April 2017]

FALLOUT is a sci-fi cheapie for lumbering action man Daniel Baldwin, here at the bottom of his luck. The movie is directed by Rodney McDonald, one of the Z-grade B-movie directors working at the tail-end of the 1990s, and the story is about a rescue mission in outer space that takes place when some nasty Russians hold the very Earth to ransom.

Well, APOLLO 13 this isn't; the realism goes out of the window at the outset with the cheap staging and set-bound antics of the cast. The heroine veers on becoming a blonde bimbo and appears to have been cast for her appearance rather than acting ability; the less said about Baldwin's ability to sleepwalk through his part, the better. The villains are singularly unimposing and the film is both predictable and boring.

Can the Russians really be trusted?

[michaelRokeefe · 3/10 · 6 December 2003]

FALLOUT=fall flat! Mediocre space yarn. Russians taking part in a NASA mission take over a space station and threaten to use nuclear weapons to hold the Earth hostage. Bad acting along with soft special effects are not enough to hold interest. Teri Ann Linn is eye candy and does not have the ability to wake up a lumbering cast featuring Daniel Baldwin, Frank Zagarino, Michael Khmurov and Scott Valentine. Sci-Fi Network fodder.

Can you guess why I decided to watch this one?

[Vomitron_G · 3/10 · 2 September 2010]

"Fallout" is some kind of sci-fi/action/thriller deal that falls short on sci-fi elements and severely lacks action & thrills. So, about 3/10 should do it. I don't think I'm overrating things here. Strongly impressed by the film's blandness, uninspired directing and almost non-existing special effects, I went and checked out what else director Rodney McDonald might have cooked up. And I learned I had already seen the supreme Graig Sheffer vehicle "Deep Core" (2000). Hey, at least that one had crappy CGI.

Oh yes, why on earth did I decide to watch this, right? Well, it stars the amazing Frank Zagarino. Who is he, you ask? Well, nobody you should know, really. Only, the guy played a relentless criminal cyborg in "Shadowchaser" (1992), a merciless brutal cyborg in "Project Shadowchaser II: Night Siege" (1994), an utterly demented killer-cyborg in "Shadowchaser III: Alien Force" (1995) and also a surprisingly other kind of cyborg in "Shadowchaser 4: Orion's Key" (1996). I liked all that.

Wow, monumentally bad dialogue.

[Integra · 2/10 · 14 June 2003]

I usually don't comment on movies, but for this stinker, I'll make an exception. The dialogue is absolutely atrocious. Every character seems to enjoy stating their job title and past experience like they're reading a resume.

It's really hard to fault the actors when given a script this foul... But I'm feeling picky today. Low points include Frank Zagarino's accent which keeps flipping between German/Austrian and Russian and an over-the-top wooden performance from a moussed-up Baldwin brother.

I saw this movie for free on the SciFi channel and yet, somehow, I still feel ripped off.

Poor Story + Poor Dialogue = Bad Movie

[Barry Lyndon-3 · 1/10 · 5 January 2001]

Did anyone read the script before they shot this film? Hearing the dialogue come from Daniel Baldwin's mouth was like listening to fingernails scratching a blackboard.

The plot: Russian Terrorists plot to steal nukes in space and hold the earth hostage. No, I'm not kidding.

It's tough to blame the director when given a script like this one. Although, he must take some of the blame. Come on... in the future the Army uses EV-1 electric cars? Cars? Not trucks. Cars. It was like watching clowns at a circus unload from a VW Bug.

Laugh out loud funny, only problem, it wasn't a comedy.

A real turkey

[KIM_HARRIS · 2/10 · 12 October 2001]

Just saw this on satellite while vegging out on a Friday evening. I am so glad I didn't pay real money to see it. An absolute turkey. Silly plot. Moronic dialogue. Cheesy special effects. Totally predictable ending. Nothing more to say really.

Soundtrack sounds like "The Boat" spoof

[robert-holter · 11 April 2004]

As already stated by others, this flick sucks pretty much, however I´d like to point out the score, especially during the end-credits (or should I call it "blacklist"?).

It really, really, and I mean really sounds like a poor spoof of Klaus Doldinger´s "Convoy"-Track from "The Boat"-Score.

Even Sonar-Pings are in it...

But nomen est omen I guess. The Fallout Score was done by David and Eric Wurst, The Wurst-Brothers!!! :o)

Wurst is German for Sausage...

This Movie sucks, and sucks, and then it´s over...

Dullness in Directing

[drystyx · 3/10 · 11 December 2021]

This is a bit of a cold war type movie, in the sense that we have terrorists sabotaging a space station, in order to satisfy their control freak demons.

Being set in space makes it tough to make interesting, but it can be done.

Isolated, closed quarters can go either way. It depends on the director more than the writer.

The script isn't great, but that doesn't matter. "Enclosed spaces" takes good directing. It takes proper technique with cameras and with cut away scenes, and with interesting props.

These are horribly managed here.

True, the worst settings are mundane ones such as city streets, motor vehicles, and offices, with the very dullest being submarines and space stations.

Still, this is where directing is important. You need a lot of grunge, for one thing, and that's missing here. Everyone's hair stays perfectly in place, and you never get the feeling the characters are anywhere but on a movie set.

This is difficult to stay awake through. Especially for guys, since the heroine is very average looking. It would help to add some grunge to her appearance to make her more dynamic, but that is a major failure of the director again.

This is how not to direct a movie.

Really bad script

[eliavg9 · 3/10 · 7 October 2001]

This movie has one of the worst script for a Sci-Fi film I've ever seen. The actors were OK, the direction was tolerable, but the script !!. Russian terrorists, nuclear bomb, in space !

Solid B-Movie - they don't make them like that anymore... or do they?

[qbok-1 · 8/10 · 16 November 2005]

I see the movie gets bashed around here pretty hard. Is it for a good reason? That depends. Depends on whether you need a 100 million dollar budget to keep you amused. Because, except for the budget, this movie has all the traits of typical summer blockbuster ("Armageddon", anyone?). And so, it's a solid B-movie - to boot. B-movie. No Oscars for this baby, that's for certain. But... Yesterday I tried to watch "Attack of the Clones". Which probably had a budget 100 times larger than "Fallout"'s. I stopped after five minutes. Though I paid good money for that DVD, I simply couldn't go on. Today, while shopping for groceries, I picked up "Fallout". It sold for and equivalent of $2 (at least 5 times less than the Star Wars movie). Frankly, I didn't expect much. And, oh yes, I didn't GET much, that's for sure. But I've got far more than I did from that bloated vanity-fest from George Lucas, didn't I?

But let's get back to the budgets once more. Everyone says - the script's a trash. Is it? "Armageddon" got 5.6 stars on IMDb (as of this writing). How's "Fallout" worse? In fact, I thing "Fallout"'s script has far more coherence - and makes far more sense (AND common-sense) that "Armageddon"'s. No forced love-interests. No sexist imagery (oh yes, one of the main characters is a woman, BUT - unlike in "Armageddon" and countless other movies like that - here she actually saves the day, AND doesn't get "love interested" ;) by Daniel Baldwin... uh, that would qualify for a horror ;) ) While not perfect, the science here is certainly more in touch with reality than "Armageddon"'s (or "Space Cowboy"'s and the like) - or any other "Science" Fiction movie in recent memory. Also, the script doesn't really even contain that many clichés...

As for acting - it's certainly no "Citizen Kane", but - but I found the acting at least serviceable. Even from Daniel Baldwin, who certainly should look for some other means of support ;) Also, a big surprise from the movie are it's special effects. To my surprise - no CGI here! Only very solid and quite beautiful (and very detailed!) miniature models. Feels a little like watching "2001"'s younger brother...

All that makes "Fallout" - in my opinion - a great B-movie. That has to be seen - and judged! - in context of other B-movies. B-movies the likes of which I haven't seen made for a long time... A small gem of entertainment. Cheap entertainment, but entertainment that surely shows that it's makers REALLY CARED about their creation.

Not everyone has a $100,000,000 to spend... But everyone is able to do their job right. I think "Fallout"'s makers did.

Note to aspiring directors

[zzz05 · 8 November 2011]

This movie serves as a good example of a general rule, and should be included as part of the curriculum for film-making courses in the future: If you're going to include a suspenseful, edge of the seats, scene wherein the daring pilot hero, flying by the seat of his pants in a last ditch effort to bring his plummeting ship down safely, is breaking all the rules that ground control is ordering him to follow; ending with all the instruments screaming "Failure! Failure! Catastrophe! Duck and Cover!" or whatever, it's better if you don't intercut the sequence with shots of people watching it through a window, and only reveal that it was just a simulation after the end of the scene. I'm just saying.