Star Runners

SyFy have had a very dubious reputation in my eyes. Once in a while they have done something that is somewhat tolerable, and even they are heavily flawed, but all too often their resume ranges from bad to bottom-of-the-barrel quality. Star Runners is nowhere near a great movie, but it is a flawed yet tolerable one, especially when compared to Titanic II, Quantum Apocalypse, Dinocroc vs.Supergator, Battle of Los Angeles, 2010:Moby Dick and Alien vs.Hunter(and they are just a handful of the movies among SyFy's very worst). It did have some good things, a catchy title, decent photography and editing, interesting science fiction(a vast improvement seeing as I often got the impression that SyFy have never been good at researching what they include or to make it plausible at least) attractive female characters and good turns from Connor Tineer and James Kyson Lee. Where it falls down is in the formulaic, highly derivative and structurally-thin storytelling, slapdash special effects(SyFy have done worse in this aspect though), stilted and very uninteresting scripting, clichéd and poorly written characters especially the villains and the villains being largely underplayed even by Michael Culkin whose role was beneath him. Overall, didn't impress me but I was expecting worse and at the end of the day I can think of at least 20 SyFy movies that are worse than Star Runners. 5/10 Bethany Cox

If you've seen Star Wars, Starship Troopers, The Fifth Element, then you've already seen all the parts of this movie. If you've seen a few Sci-Fi Channel Originals, then you've already had a taste of the bad and boring that this baby will bring to you, like brussel sprouts to a toddler.

My husband, who had not seen Starship Trooprs or The Fifth Element, was more entertained and said, "That wasn't as bad as their usual movies." I didn't have the heart to tell him that it was.

I will admit that the acting isn't *as bad* as a lot of the other Originals, but the script and the story (or rather, lack thereof) are.

The only way this one won't waste your time is if you are bedridden and you can't change the channel. Even then, pray for enough NyQuil to knock you out; there's not much here to miss.

Along with all the other ripoffs mentioned, I'd like to add Red October and Firefly to the list.

I know that there are valid reasons to copy a working formula, but to simply rip off random elements of several different creative works and blend them together into a single composite work, and do it successfully, requires true genius. Here, in a single movie, a new generation of TV viewers can be brought up to speed on all that Sci-Fi-dom has to offer! Of course, there is a fine line between genius and insanity....

Honestly, the movie is not the worst I've ever seen. It's just so sad that no one, today can come up with original material.

As a viewer who never watched the big sci-fi shows this movie is pretty entertaining. It had my attention the whole time which is (for me) a sign of a relatively good production. Yes, the cheap production was palpable. I don't want to analyze, I want to be entertained. That's exactly what this movie did. The story was forseeable most of the time but nevertheless it had some nice twist and turns. IMO this is a movie you can watch with children next to you. Little gruesome, not too much. All in all for sci-fi beginners and people who don't want to be overwrought with special effects

Ty Johns and Lei Chen are smugglers in space. They get caught but the authorities give them a second chance. They are to transport a crate but this time, they have a look inside. It's a naked girl named Asta. They crash onto a planet infested with giant killer bugs.

This is a TV movie from The Sci-Fi Channel. Finding a naked girl in a crate is Firefly. Giant killer bugs is classic sci-fi horror. This is a B-movie. Its production is second tier TV level. It's all second tier. It is what it is.