Light

Just managed to make it through this steaming pile. Also just realised that it's released date was 1st April, which makes sense as it was a joke. A 4 key piano tune (if it qualifies as a tune) is supposed to convey suspense, terrible lighting meant at times I could ignore the picture completely and listen as I would do a radio play. I'd say the plot was terrible although I'm unsure it actually has one. I can see why some gave up before the end as I was tempted to leave it unfinished. If there was a budget for this then it was likely spent on smoke machines and torch batteries because that's all the effects this has to offer sadly.

I've never been impelled to review a movie with 30 minutes remaining, but I waited until the end and I just can't justify the $6.99 I paid to rent this low budget movie.

I love sci-fi movies, but this is so very boring. No visuals, no suspense, and bad acting. Although probably intentional, this whole movie feels like it was made on a foggy day with car headlights for lighting in the background. Way too artsy for my taste. Some will love it, most will not. Personally, I couldn't wait until it was over and I could go to sleep. Time is precious. Don't waste your time.

I was hoping for a little sci-fi meets a little horror. Oh well.

I watched this thinking a review rating of 2.8 mighty justify a view. I was wrong. 2.8 is far above and beyond what this film deserves. Everything about it was bad. The plot sketchy, the acting almost non-existent due to the characters in spacesuits with only their faces visible though the visors, also making movement slow and ponderous, filmed in excruciating detail as each step is meticulously followed across a flat, barren slightly stony landscape, but with the permanent fog it is difficult to work out where they are coming from or aiming to get to. And the fairy lights should have stayed on someone's Christmas tree rather than finding their was into the prop box for a science fiction film. I didn't think a science fiction film could get much worse than the dreadfully dreary Spaceman where the Spaceman in question spends most of the film in banal conversation with a giant spider, or the underwhelming and at times quite boring DUNE remake, but this one is far, far more boring than either. What's gone wrong with science fiction filming making?

This was definitely a budget Sci Fi film; but having a tight budget is no crime. The premise reminds me of the Sci Fi short stories I used to voraciously consume as a teenager and a young adult. The subject is tightly contained, there's an air of discomfort and oppression, and there's a disturbing twist. I think the acting was fine especially given the constraints of the survival suits they were required to wear, the sense of claustrophobia was palpable, and the story was original (although there were a lot of elements nicked from elsewhere). What ruins it is its length. This should have been a short. And there was a bizarrely hammy interaction near the end with a new character and some hand signals. However, I'm still thinking about the plot the next day - which is a good sign.

I love long movies. But this story was definitely destined to be a short film. One in a compilation of many, perhaps.

I would give it more stars if it was that.

I get it. They used close-ups and fog all through the movie because of budget constraints. They could have done more by using the same budget for a much shorter movie (or indeed just a short film of about 35 minutes or less).

The acting is fine, no issue with that. The camerawork is fine, although they were forced to use the minboggingly constant closeup shots. The soundtrack is fine, but again it would have worked if it was a short film. It just drones on.

You glance at how far through the movie you got and it's a only half. Wow.