Future Shock (1994) Poster

(1994)

User Reviews

Review this title
13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Scary as hell!
plazaent19 March 2000
One woman, by herself in a house for 45-minutes of screen time, doesn't sound like a formula to hold you on the edge-of-your-seat... but FUTURE SHOCK is truly as thrilling as they come! Writer / star Vivian Schilling takes on those little fears we all suppress, and enlarges them to terrifying proportions, so don't watch this film alone!
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Shows lots of promise, delivers chills & chuckles, too
MajorFilms7 December 2009
Okay, this film probably deserves 7 out of 10 stars, but I've voted for "10" to help offset the misleading rating from the handful of bozo's who gave this film zero or 1 star reviews. Each of the segments for this anthology shows great potential and promise for the talented filmmakers... three of whom have gone on to achieve notable success in big-time Hollywood productions. Performances range from rough all the way up to completely impressive, with notable turns by Bill Paxton, James Karen, Vivian Schilling and Brion James. Martin Kove may be a big melodramatic as the psychotic hypnotist with the bizarro strobe-lamp, and Lance August seems intentionally dimwitted as an unsuspecting lab victim. But overall, it's got some great laughs and some genuinely scary moments. Definitely worth seeing, so judge for yourself!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Severely underrated, an effective anthology.
theblackscythe1 August 2014
This film is not a masterpiece and I shall not pretend that it is. However it does offer some surprisingly fresh and effective ideas and is overall and enjoyable watch.

Segment one is surprisingly tense for a film with a clearly tiny budget. The lead actress' performance is strong enough to sustain the segment, the camera-work creates a good feeling of isolation and vulnerability, and the downplayed musical score adds to the sense of dread throughout. This is the simplest short and uses this to its advantage.

Segment two veers into a more darkly comedic tone. It works due to the entertaining performances of the leads and the effectively surrealist atmosphere. However overall this is the weakest segment, mostly due to feeling out of place with the rest of the film.

Segment three is the best, due to its less goofy attempts at dark comedy over the last segment. It actually offers a fairly entertaining and in depth character study and offers some fairly complex ideas on the nature of mortality. The writing is good, the acting is solid and the humorous moments are well integrated.

Overall I was very impressed by this simple yet effective anthology. Its low budget charm and snappy writing really created an enjoyable tone for this one, and I highly recommend it, despite its quirks.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Mind Altering Horror
Takashi-36 August 2000
Imagine a woman alone in a house for forty five minutes in which absolutely nothing happens. Then this goes on twice more. The writing is flat and lifeless, and jokes unfunny, and the bad acting keeps you from caring about any of the characters, even when they battle wolf packs and get beaten up by fraternity goons. Anyone that ranked this movie higher than a two is not fully sane.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Is this going to be like The Lawnmower Man? That was a cool movie."
Backlash0071 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
~Spoiler~

Future Shock is another terrible anthology film that is a bore to sit through. We're given the standard three stories and in each, nothing happens. And I mean NOTHING. All of the stories deal with a fear; fear of the outside world, fear of bullies, and fear of death. And they're thrown together by a wraparound story involving a new form of psychiatry. Each segment ends with the main character finding out they've been in some kind of advanced virtual reality. So how can we even care about any of this when it's not even happening? Some good actors that are wasted in this crap include Bill Paxton, James Karen, Brion James, and Martin Kove. Avoid this.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bill Paxton only.
BloodTheTelepathicDog19 April 2005
Three tales are told in this film, that seemed to have been shot without knowledge of this being a combined vignette film. The makers relate the three vignettes by having them all connected to shrink Martin Kove, although you never see some of the leads with Kove.

The first vignette has sexy Vivian Schilling, a woman afraid of everything under the sun(she makes Adrian Monk look brave), having a paranoia laced evening at home alone. You will literally scream at Vivian for doing some ridiculous things. She spends the majority of her time in a nighty which shows off her amazing features. But her film is the worst if not the most nail-biting.

The second vignette is owned by Bill Paxton as he portrays the roommate from Hell. His geeky roommate allows him to take complete advantage of him, and Bill does so whenever he can.

The last vignette was funny as a man fears that death will take him at any moment, much like his pal who choked to death on an olive.

Not very interesting, as the movie as a whole seems chopped together with very little thought involved. A must for Bill Paxton fans.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
More wasted potential
xterminal15 February 2001
Future Shock (Eric Parkinson et al., 1993)

This could have been a fantastic movie. It's an anthology film set around the office of a therapist who's come up with a new method of hypnotherapy. Over the course of the day, he sees three of his truly screwed-up patients, subjects them to the hypnosis, and waits. We get to watch what happens during the waiting.

The writing is just shy of good. The acting is just shy of good (save a few memorable performances, most notably from Bill Paxton, back when his contract still allowed him to play sleazy bad guys; he's as good and rowdy in here as he is in Near Dark). The production is just shy of good. Unfortunately, it all adds up to bad, albeit bad in a kind of endearing way. The potential in each of these stories tends to get in the way of the sheer, mindless enjoyment. The exception is the last story, "Mr. Petrified Forest," a shaggy-dog story about a guy having a near-death experience who can't remember how he got outside the gates of heaven.

Ah, the potential. It's worth a free viewing if it pops up on TV, but don't go out of your way. **
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Make it stop!
SheriffGeneFreak20 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. Let me say that again: THIS IS THE SINGLE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.

It had all of the ear-marks of a bad movie: continuity errors, bad writing, bad acting, bad production value, bad music. I thought that there were a couple points to horror movies. The first is that it is supposed to be suspenseful enough to scare you. This movie gets and F in this category. The second point is that when a character dies, or something bad happens to them, we are supposed to care. This movie gets an F in this regard as well.

The first story, a woman gets mauled by wolves after being afraid that this would happen to her. The next story, an OCD guy dies from not being careful and talks to a dead friend of his. Oh, and then there is the horrific, nail-biting story of a bad roommate. Come on, could you pick topics a little more interesting and a little less common than being alone in a house, being anal-retentive, and having a roommate? Turns out all of these stories where hallucinations, virtual reality induced by a Doctor who in turn uses it himself. Wow, stupid.

Let me explain something, I enjoy watching bad horror movies and laughing at how bad they are. I couldn't do that with this one. It was utter pain to sit and watch. Do not under any circumstance watch this movie. You WILL regret it.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Future Schlock
horror777727 August 2001
FUTURE SHOCK is complete garbage although it definitely had potential. Certain scenes are great but I was turned off by the whole virtual reality thing and by some of the incredibly bad acting. The actor that played Dr. Langdon looked like the late actor Michael Landon and I thought that the character name was actually Dr. Landon. Coincidentily, Michael Landon died in Malibu, California where some of this movie was made. The best actor in this sad film had to be James Karen who gave yet another hillarious performance as Kefka, the mute boss. Overall, not BAD BAD, but not as good as it could've been. I strongly believe that it was the whole virtual reality thing that sunk FUTURE SHOCK into future schlock-**1/2out of****.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Garbage
xxxcandyboyxxx15 March 2000
This is a horrible movie. All three stories are bracketed with a psychiatrist hypnotist line which is unnecessary and all the stories are bad. The first is about wild wolves and some lady, there are some things that don't make sense, but the hypnotism thing makes up for that. The second one, with bad Bill Paxton as a maniac roommate should not be viewed by anyone. The last one, sadly the best is almost incomprehensible which I guess makes it better than the other garbage.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I'll say it's a shock!!!
slowbrooo22 August 2000
This movie still chills me to the bone thinking of it. This movie was not just bad as in low-budget, badly acted, etc. although it certainly WAS all of those things. The problem with this movie is that it seemed to be intentionally trying to annoy the viewer, and doing it with great success. What I want to know is, is this supposed to be a horror movie? I mean, it's definately horrifying, but not in the way horror movies are supposed to be. I could see the first segment trying to be horror and failing, but what the hell is the second segment? It's just annoying. The third segment is like watching an artsy student film, which amazingly enough makes it the least painful segment. It's an atrocity that this movie isn't way low on the bottom 100, so get your votes (1/10) in people!! I know some people gave this good reviews, but, well, they're lying in a sadistic attempt to trick you. Trust me, it is impossible to like this movie. The only benefit of this movie is an amazing life-extending effect: it feels like you've been watching this movie for years after only the first half hour has passed.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Future Shock is a rip off!
jazzboy918 September 2010
This movie is a compilation of three separate movies. The last one is "Mr. Petrified Forest", which is the Masters Thesis film of Matt Reeves, which he completed for his Masters in Film at USC. He fund raised, wrote, directed, cast, edited, etc., every aspect of "Mr. Petrified Forest". Subsequently, USC sold his Masters Thesis film, which was incorporated into this theatrical, commercial film. No one connected with "Mr. Petrified Forest" received any monetary compensation, including the actors, crew, director, writer, editor, etc,. when it was incorporated into this commercial film. USC should not have sold it!!!! Perhaps there are copyright infringement issues. It is an outrage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's not all bad. Just mostly.
Curtis G.10 February 2001
The other reviewers have gotten close, but they've missed it: This movie takes two entirely unrelated short films (I'd guess student projects), adds them together with writer/"actress" Vivian Schilling's newly-filmed segment, and links them all with a weak "virtual reality" device plotline. So the producers only had to shoot a third of a movie. And the bonus is, they get to claim that Bill Paxton is a major player in the film. As far as the segments, I particularly enjoyed the "afterlife" one with the guy who chokes on olives, if memory serves. Still, the other reviewers sum it up pretty well: it's bad. Very bad.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed