Origin Unknown

'2036 Origin Unknown' actually sounded pretty interesting. The low rating and lukewarm at best reviews here and much of the internet made me not sure as to whether it would be good, but there were some great ideas here and the concept sounded like the film would be good intriguing stuff if done right.

After seeing it, '2036 Unknown Origin' to me was not a terrible film, it has its moments. When it comes to recent low budget recent viewings it is nowhere near close to being one of the worst. A large part of me though was rather disappointed, another example of a film with great ideas and concept and just as great potential but none of them properly lived up to, not completely wasted but this should have been much more. The not so enthusiastic critical reception is understandable though while sharing a lot of the criticisms directed against it didn't find it that bad.

From personal opinion, it did have some atmosphere in the sets, an effective visual claustrophobia and the photography was quite nice, for low budget this could have fared much worse. It does start off well, it is intriguing, sets things up nicely and is not too badly paced.

The acting was also better than average, with a more than credible lead performance from Katee Sackhoff who had the hard task of carrying much of the film with not much support. Her character was one that didn't annoy or bore me and there was effort made to develop her. Julie Cox and Steven Cree, added in apparently during post-production, are also fine.

However, '2036 Origin Unknown's' main problem is the story. It does feel dragged out, like a short film stretched to feature, and gets over-complicated as a result of having too many ideas/areas and not enough of them being fully explored, meaning that there is a lack of clarity. This is not a case of not trying, more a case of trying too hard. The ending is just weird and impossible to make sense of, also not feeling much of an ending. The sound is also off, being too loud and constant and tending to be favoured over the dialogue.

Ray Fearon is pretty forgettable here and his character is just moving story forward plot device material. The direction is not incompetent but uninspired and shows a lack of experience. The over-reliance-on-exposition script doesn't flow very well and just feels half-baked and wordy in a way not always easy to understand. The special effects are very ropy, they don't blend well and the proportions can be inconsistent.

Overall, had great potential and Sackhoff especially makes it watchable but suffers from dullness and being over-complicated and half-baked. 4/10 Bethany Cox

... if you understand that SciFi doesn't need to be about exploding space ships and exotic aliens. I like how the "think about..." SciFi came back in the last few years with movies like Arrival. This is similar in setting. Everything plays out in the command center of an exploration mission. It starts out a bit boring, but after the discovery on Mars I got hooked. Then in the end it got all messy. The computer does something pretty much unexpected and inconsistent with its previous behavior (like ONE minute before), after that we get an ending which seems to try to mimic the ending of 2001 with a little bit of Contact spliced in, but in a way that seems like the writer thought "It has to be hard to understand for the audience. What better way to achieve this is there than writing an end I myself won't understand?" The ending of 2001 is easy to comprehend in comparison.

So Starbuck goes into the mission control room and starts to engage with Hal who is operating the Mars lander. A minute passes. Then another minute and before long another minute has passed. Hal and Starbuck converse and try to solve the issues as another minute passes. 94 minutes later. ..roll credits

Holy cow, what a steaming hot mess this movie is. It somehow manages to feel simultaneously confusing, boring, cerebral in a terrible and condescending way, and extraordinarily amateurish. I'm not really sure I managed to follow the plot. It starts with a manned mission to Mars in the near-future that goes awry for unknown reasons, moves on to what is basically a one-woman show about an earth-based astronaut (think drone program , but in space) working with an advanced AI to investigate what went wrong during that mission, and finishes with scenes that I think are meant to suggest a 2001-ish symbolism concept. But honestly my understanding is based upon a lot of guesswork. It feels incomplete because if I did understand the basic plot correctly it is just filled to the brim with plot holes and bizarre assumptions. And the last twenty minutes is so dull that I fell asleep. I would just avoid the movie.

What writer and director in 2017 would think it's a grand idea to resurrect the worst of so-called "science fiction" from the Seventies and Eighties, including the mind-numbing kaleidoscopic effects that were stand-ins for actual special effects?

There is no science on display here, though it is certainly fictional. Fiction without science is just fantasy. Exploitation of a few trendy buzzwords and concepts from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) does not make it scientific. There is neither any deep thinking. The plot and concepts are incoherent, like the hallucinogenic "trip" of a career drug addict. The writer apparently had an extended trip himself and began to imagine himself as a philosophical genius who had wisdom to impart to the rest of us?

He isn't and he didn't.