Release calendarTop 250 moviesMost popular moviesBrowse movies by genreTop box officeShowtimes & ticketsMovie newsIndia movie spotlight
    What's on TV & streamingTop 250 TV showsMost popular TV showsBrowse TV shows by genreTV news
    What to watchLatest trailersIMDb OriginalsIMDb PicksIMDb SpotlightFamily entertainment guideIMDb Podcasts
    OscarsEmmysToronto Int'l Film FestivalHispanic Heritage MonthIMDb Stars to WatchSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralAll events
    Born todayMost popular celebsCelebrity news
    Help centerContributor zonePolls
For industry professionals
  • Language
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Watchlist
Sign in
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Use app
  • Cast & crew
  • User reviews
  • Trivia
IMDbPro

Encrypt

  • TV Movie
  • 2003
  • Not Rated
  • 1h 41m
IMDb RATING
4.2/10
598
YOUR RATING
Encrypt (2003)
Sci-Fi

By the year 2068, the Earth's ozone is gone, violent and uncontrollable storms are razing it's surface as a result. A small group of military survivors are the defenders of the last of human... Read allBy the year 2068, the Earth's ozone is gone, violent and uncontrollable storms are razing it's surface as a result. A small group of military survivors are the defenders of the last of human kind and when Captain John Garth is approached to do a job by a former brother-in-arms La... Read allBy the year 2068, the Earth's ozone is gone, violent and uncontrollable storms are razing it's surface as a result. A small group of military survivors are the defenders of the last of human kind and when Captain John Garth is approached to do a job by a former brother-in-arms Lapierre, who is now employed by Reich, an eco-profiteer, in order to save his father & a fe... Read all

  • Director
    • Oscar L. Costo
  • Writers
    • Richard Taylor
    • Robinson Young
  • Stars
    • Grant Show
    • Vivian Wu
    • Steve Bacic
  • See production info at IMDbPro
  • IMDb RATING
    4.2/10
    598
    YOUR RATING
    • Director
      • Oscar L. Costo
    • Writers
      • Richard Taylor
      • Robinson Young
    • Stars
      • Grant Show
      • Vivian Wu
      • Steve Bacic
    • 16User reviews
    • 3Critic reviews
  • See production info at IMDbPro
  • See production info at IMDbPro
  • Photos1

    View Poster

    Top cast18

    Edit
    Grant Show
    Grant Show
    • Garth
    Vivian Wu
    Vivian Wu
    • Diana
    Steve Bacic
    Steve Bacic
    • Lapierre
    Matthew G. Taylor
    Matthew G. Taylor
    • King
    Naomi Gaskin
    Naomi Gaskin
    • Hernandez
    Wayne 'Crescendo' Ward
    Wayne 'Crescendo' Ward
    • Ebershaw
    • (as Wayne Ward)
    Art Hindle
    Art Hindle
    • Anton Reich
    Hannah Lochner
    Hannah Lochner
    • Mandy
    Vickie Papavs
    Vickie Papavs
    • Mandy's Mom
    Mairtin O'Carrigan
    • Garth's Dad
    Carolyn Goff
    Carolyn Goff
    • Elaine
    Billy Otis
    • Lead Rat
    Mauricio Rodas
    • Chortling Rat
    Jeff Kassel
    Jeff Kassel
    • Limping Rat
    Kelly Fiddick
    Kelly Fiddick
    • Survivor
    Nathan Hoppe
    • Guard
    Kendall Knights
    • Guard 2
    Ted Clark
    • Rook
    • Director
      • Oscar L. Costo
    • Writers
      • Richard Taylor
      • Robinson Young
    • All cast & crew
    • Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

    User reviews16

    4.2598
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10

    Featured reviews

    Orson-17

    Too many crooks spoil the script.

    A user comment by Roger Tay states: "How on earth does dreck written as badly as this actually get made?" Well Roger, let me explain.

    This was an original script and I happen to know the screenwriter on this project, (God I love living in L.A.). I read the script way before it was produced. This is not what was written. Producers, and there are many on a project, try to dance around each other making changes to justify their existence.

    When enough changes are made, the producers bring in another writer who knows nothing of the original intent of the writer and tries not only to make the lame changes the producers want, but will do his/her best to change at least 51% of the script in order to share a full "screenplay by" credit on the project. And that's how this was re-written.

    So, to answer your question.... you take a bunch of 30 year olds who know how to dress but know nothing about story telling and give them a decent script to destroy.
    2dtype

    It is pretty tough to imagine that they could be so predictably bad.

    I'm a big fan of camp, but when every plot 'twist' is predictable and bad, while obviously not trying to be, even I lose interest. I was going to rate this a 3, but the ending dropped it a point easily. Its only saving grace is that I hated other movies more. Not enough beer in the world for this one.
    6asinyne

    Its a decent flick

    I watched most of this film recently but had to leave towards the end due to an appointment. It was by no means a great movie but it wasn't terrible either. In fact I was drawn in after a while. I agree that with a bit more budget this could have been really good. A couple of things that would have helped a lot are more interesting sets and perhaps a sexier girl in the role of the hologram. This might have created a bit of sexual tension thats always a good thing. The actress that played the role was OK but i don't think the camera found her very compelling. Grant Show isn't especially charismatic either but hes not bad. I liked the suits they wore and the guards looked pretty decent also. At times the constant and slow paced moving from room to room got a bit tedious but thats why i say the scenery could have been more interesting, giving the viewer more visual twists if not plot twists. Overall, its not a bad way to spend some time, i would take it over 75 percent of Arnold's movies...I gave it a six, almost a seven. Sorry i missed the ending, but thats OK i can catch it later.
    5TheLittleSongbird

    Didn't care for it all that much, but not that bad

    I have definitely seen worse movies than Encrypt. From the premise it seemed intriguing, but for some reason(maybe it was the fact that it was a low-budget TV movie) I was also dubious as to if it would be as good. It isn't quite, but it is not a complete waste of a good concept either. For instance, for a low-budget TV movie it actually looks quite good. The editing is crisper than I was expecting, the settings do at least have some atmosphere and the special effects are above average, not outstanding but not crude or artificial. There is only one exception, which was the robot that looked as though it would be more at home in the 30s, even then it was nowhere near as bad as special effects for other low-budget TV movies I've seen recently. The music has a suitably haunting quality, not over-bearing or sluggish-sounding. The acting is also above average, especially from Vivian Wu who is radiant and has a certain command, nobody's absolutely outstanding but again there is nobody terrible at the same time. The story also has points of interest, the psychological games between Wu and the hero are very intriguing especially. On the other hand, there are other scenes that do feel as though they were there for padding, consequently the pace drags at times. The ending also underwhelms, not in a rushed or abrupt sort of way but it did seem a little too easy and contrived for my liking. The dialogue is not as cheesy or as stilted as I feared, but it is rather talky with too-episodic a structure which drags Encrypt further. The characters are less stereotypical than you'd think but underdeveloped, and I really didn't see the need for a villain. All in all, not bad but at the same time I didn't care for it. 5/10 Bethany Cox
    5therealcromar

    Not as bad as some people make it out to be

    I switched to this movie because nothing else was on and expected the usual garbage that comes out of a "Sci-Fi Channel Original", due to low budgets and everything else. I was actually pretty impressed with the script when I took considerations for what TV writers have to go through in terms of rigorous formulas and budget crises. There were definitely some issues: was it really necessary to have a bad guy? What if the team really was going after what the hero thinks they are going after? The worst was that stupid robot Rook; although it's not a bad name for a robot, it looked like a 30s scifi plastic piece of junk. We could have skipped all of that. The psychological games between the hologram and the hero actually make up about 90% of this film anyway. The rest is just 10 minutes of silly subplot. Without any of the extra fluff and with a budget this movie actually had the potential to work.

    More like this

    Split Second
    6.0
    Split Second
    The Island
    6.8
    The Island

    Related interests

    James Earl Jones and David Prowse in Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
    Sci-Fi

    Storyline

    Edit

    Did you know

    Edit
    • Trivia
      The film takes place in 2068.
    • Goofs
      They are shooting obvious blanks as nothing in environment gets hit despite large volume of automatic fire.
    • Connections
      Referenced in Sharksploitation (2023)

    Top picks

    Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations
    Sign in

    Details

    Edit
    • Release date
      • June 14, 2003 (United States)
    • Countries of origin
      • Canada
      • United States
    • Language
      • English
    • Also known as
      • Mã hóa
    • See more company credits at IMDbPro

    Tech specs

    Edit
    • Runtime
      • 1h 41m(101 min)
    • Color
      • Color

    Contribute to this page

    Suggest an edit or add missing content
    • Learn more about contributing
    Edit page

    More to explore

    Recently viewed

    Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.
    Get the IMDb App
    Sign in for more accessSign in for more access
    Follow IMDb on social
    Get the IMDb App
    For Android and iOS
    Get the IMDb App
    • Help
    • Site Index
    • IMDbPro
    • Box Office Mojo
    • License IMDb Data
    • Press Room
    • Advertising
    • Jobs
    • Conditions of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Your Ads Privacy Choices
    IMDb, an Amazon company

    © 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.