Orbiter 3

So poorly developed and performed Produced on such a small budget with poorly constructed sets, props, lighting, costumes and general overall production values.

Michael Pare is one of my favourite actors and I can not even imagine why he would consider a script like this - unless he was being blackmailed or owed money to some loan sharks.

There are some horrible sci-fi movies made, but most have better overall production than this, even if the script is bad.

Since the 70's when Star Wars ruled the globe and even prior - space mives had better effects and props and set dec...a film produced around 1999 /2000 should have succeeded all of them by leaps and bounds - but this makes it seem like this movie was made in the 1950's or 60's.

It's hilariously horrible and a must see - if only to amuse yourself at how bad it really is.

It's too good to give a 1, but not good enough to give a 3...so 2 is the perfect vote.

Luckily Michael Pare went on to do better films, because if this was his highlight, it would have been pretty embarrasing.

However, if I were the producer, director, writer or special effects technition, I would seriously never bring this movie up as a reference of any sort.

Do you really want to know that badly?

As a lover of low-budget sci-fi films I was hoping for something better. It's not even bad enough to fall into the "it's so bad it's good" category. The acting isn't so bad, but the over-acting is awful. This is evident right from the start where the female lead, Lisa Bingley, attempts to show consternation at the task in hand by wearing a permanent contorted frown. It comes across as being a somewhat infantile expression, which kills the credibility of her character right from the start.

The most hilarious parts of the film are the carefully choreographed fight scenes. The acting for this is incredibly wooden, and you can imagine the director saying "No, that's fine - just do it in slow motion, and we'll speed it up in the editing". Then somehow they forgot to speed it up.

That brings me neatly to the worst part of the film - the editing. It may be a bit harsh on those involved, as a poor script may be partially to blame. However, the way it was edited made you feel that this was a 24 part TV series that had been edited down to 90 minutes. You often felt that you had missed something earlier on in the story that would explain things. In other parts I found myself rewinding to see if there was a glitch on the recording - the editing was that bizarre. It was hard to tell if there were some actual attempts at being creative or if it was just a rush job. I suspect the latter.

On the plus side the actual plot idea wasn't too bad and some of the special effects are reasonably effective, however someone decided to fill in with some bizarre low-res graphics. These were somehow meant to enhance the sci-fi feel of the film. Shame because it just resulted in me musing about how special effects would look if they were provided by a Sinclair ZX81.

I'll stop now, as I feel I've already donated enough of my time to this film. Any chance of getting the £5 I spent on the DVD release back?

Wait, I almost forgot. One of the crew is a guest sportman, as part of a PR exercise. He's supposed to be a top professional golfer. Check out his putting stroke in the middle of the film. I'll stake that £5 (and a whole lot more!) that he had never picked up a golf club before the film was made.

This movie is the worst movie I have ever seen and I've seen Battlefield Earth.

At best the acting was horrible. The editing was choppy and incoherent. The special effects were great if the movie would have been made in 1972.

There was one good thing about the movie, however... ...it ended!

Possibly the worst film ever made, and certainly not worth the transfer to DVD. The acting is so wooden, that the only fair outcome would be if everyone on the cast list spent the rest of their career as a waiter.

The Science id bogus, the special effects laughable and the plot apparently made up on the spot. If I ever meet one of the producers, I'll ask for my money back.

I'm quite surprised by all the strangely negative reviews. I thought it was okay for the dollar it cost me to see it. I watched this directly after reading all the reviews here and don't even understand some of them after watching this.

My main complaint, if you can even call it a complaint, is the lack of a more coherent focus on the nuances of the plot, but basically it's just "crazy man in space" so who cares for plot? The plot involves some sort of brainwashing by terrorists - of the lead character, but also seems to involve his unstable nature once on the station.

In terms of acting and events, it is much like a comic book with regard to the intellectual (or lack thereof) facets, which doesn't immediately condemn a movie in my opinion.

In no way does this movie warrant such a low rating as a 1 when you consider some of the other films out there, so I gave it a 5.

I actually enjoyed this far more than "Event Horizon" (which I thought was utter rubbish), and the acting isn't any worse than a few of the scenes from any given "Star Wars" movie, seriously.

Yes, it is rather over-the-top silly (but I seriously doubt it was MEANT to be bad in that light as another reviewer suggested) mostly because of the stereotypes and plastic characters. I mean, how DO you play the role of a crazy person well or in a "convincing" way? Think about it. The acting is really not that much cheesier than that of Anthony Perkins in the psycho sequels.

If you're looking for a "crazy man in space" movie, THIS is it. In fact, if you've seen "Turbulance" (a pretty bad "crazy man on a plane" movie), it is very similar in some respects.

Again, 5/10. Seriously. There are hundreds of far worse movies than this, INCLUDING "Turbulance", which it would make a good double-feature with, regardless, haha.