2036 Origin Unknown

This wasn't very good.

Movies about AI always want to be thought-provoking, and at the same time they always reinvent the same wheels over and over. This movie is no different.

If this had been made in the 80's, it would probably be considered a much better movie. But this is 2018 and you really have to bring something better to the table, especially if you want to preach a certain message.

I'm guessing there was a clear lack of budget, because apart from the CGI quality that ranges from barely passable to outright terrible, they had to invent some "science" and background to the story to justify the lack of actors and sets; the movie takes place in one room, and it's 90% Katee Sackhoff you see on screen.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, because with a great script and a great actor you can really create something wonderful (and CGI be damned). But the script overall is just so poor and Katee Sackhoff, who manages to pull off a decent performance (but no more than that), simply can't carry something like this and just drowns in the bad dialogue and overall story that unfolds around her in a largely illogical and mostly very unoriginal manner.

The pacing overall is slow, but not too slow for me personally, and nearing the end it does try to offer some sort of resolvement, with a little twist. If the movie itself had been better up to that point, I probably could have appreciated that effort a bit more. It also didn't help that most of the bigger questions are actually never answered and that the last 15 or so minutes were apparently filmed through a kaleidoscope.

All in all, not an unlikeable movie, but it's just not good at all. 4,5/10, rounding it up to a generous 5.

It's 2030. Mars 1 crashes on the planet after getting hit by an energy field. Six years later, Mack Wilson (Katee Sackhoff) leads the investigation into the crash chaffing under the artificial intelligence computer ARTI's control. They find an object of unknown origin.

This is reminiscent of an old style sci-fi magazine story. British filmmaker Hasraf Dulull started in CGI and videogames into trying to make these smaller budget sci-fi movies. This could have been a Twilight zone episode although it may still be not good. It's stuffed with CGI scenes of a Mars mission. The human scenes consist mostly Sackhoff, a computer voice, and a techie room. The movie lacks a human touch and a human story. In short, it lacks humanity no matter how hard Sackhoff tries. It's only good for a shorter sci-fi TV episode.

Despite reading all the bad reviews (and I mean horrific) I saw the movie anyway and was pleasantly surprised to see that it wasn't nearly what so many of these negative reviews. I'm no great writer so I'll just list the biggest and loudest complaints and give my take on them: "CGI is like legos" "Boring, slow" "Horrible special effects" "Bad acting"

The first thing to do is to put expectations in check and have at least a little understanding of what you're watching before making judgements. If you go into this thinking it's Transformers or any of the current Star Trek movies then yes, all of those reviews are absolutely correct. It did not deliver any of that because it is not (nor sold as) that kind of movie.

Now, set the correct expectations in that this is more of a dialogue driven story with a minimal budget and you will find this to be a thought provoking movie that talks about the future of humanity and AI and the idea of what if... There wasn't a long cast of characters. By my count five with actual lines. Two of which were voice only and a handful (like five maybe) of extras with no lines and are shown for about 8 seconds)

So basically it's Katee Sackoff who is charged with investigating a previously manned mission to Mars that resulted in the deaths of her crew, one of which was her father. She is to partner with an A.I. called A.R.T.I., (an onboard A.I.) and together they will remotely land and operate a rover that was sent to Mars, all from a control room. From there the story takes off and throughout the movie it takes you through some tense moments trying to land the rover successfully. Some twists and turns, more tense moments when making discoveries that in turn create more questions than answers. Katee Sackhoff was great, did a great job. The AI was also good, they had good exchanges. It kept an appropriate pace, nothing felt dragged out nor like I was waiting for anything. It had a start, a build up, and ended with something interesting with a twist.

The negatives I read: "CGI is like legos" ---- Nope. Although it was no Avatar it wasn't anywhere the "awful" description some have given it. It was perfectly reasonable and fit the story. I never found myself wondering about the CGI (and I am a big fan of ID4, star trek and and all the huge budget ones) "Boring, slow" --- I didn't find it slow at all. It moved, there was tension throughout and it did keep me guessing "Horrible special effects" ---(see the CGI answer...) "Bad acting" --- By who? There's 3 faces with lines, 95% Katee and how was she bad? I thought she did a great job

I gave it a 6 (and NOT a 1) because overall I liked it and was pleasantly surprised after reading so many bad reviews.

I gave it a 6 and nothing higher because although I liked it, it wasn't anything earth shattering (no pun intended...) and an extremely over played subject done by many. More than anything it seemed like another interpretation of an over done subject. That said I thought they could have done a better job of explaining things. Though very very interesting the ending didn't quite tie things together as well as I would have liked and I found myself a little confused. However I think I got it, (maybe..) Worth a rent (for me)

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.

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.