Andromeda

Acting from agent sharp was amazing, CGI wasn't that great but with a low budget they did well. I enjoyed it. Jeff Hamm did great with the shots he got. From beginning to end the story is pretty solid, idea is solid, the main character needed better carved Acting, with as little budget as they did it with i feel that They managed to tell a pretty decent story.

-1 for Bad acting main character -1 for CGI (could have found a better way to do it, i feel) -1 for audio being off in parts -1 for the ending I know how hard it is to make movie so I gave it a quality 6, ive definitely seen worse movies.

This movie is a great effort, but falls short in all categories. Interesting premise, albeit popular and unoriginal, I still enjoy sci-fi bombs.. (this was just barely not a bomb.) There is enough to be intrigued, while acting is adequate at best. And take note of the digital graphics: while low level, still fun to observe. It's so funny, because I restarted Mass Effect: Andromeda (PS4) the night before I watched this film. Very similar stuff (including art...) except that Mass Effect had more than 89 minutes and a larger budget to execute something expansive and filled out. If I'm not mistaken - I saw Andromeda 2 may be in the works. If they get another chance, let us hope for a bigger budget.

Literally like a university student module short, but like 8 modules worth sewn together. The opening scene of crude sound design with zero weight and freezer ice block sprayed silver and glued to the space suits really sets the bar low for whole movie, am dram low. Dialog is 90% explaining things that any writer with any talent would have conveyed to the viewer not using words.

7 caracters in the cast pretty sure i only saw 6.

Relies heavily on mid 2000 graphic visual parts which tbf arn't out of place with the budget quite jarring with the incredibley poor set choices, like the guys office literally a back lit office blind casting a shadow over him but badly aligned, like an amdram scenery.

Now, given my general lack of interest in sci-fi movies, then I don't have to say that this 2022 movie from writer and director Brett Bentman was a movie that had fully eluded my attention. Well, right up to now in 2024, as I happened to stumble upon it by random chance. And yeah, I opted to sit down and watch it, despite never having heard about it, much less knowing what I was getting myself into here.

The storyline told in "Andromeda" was pretty far fetched, and it failed to entertain me. In fact, I actually fell asleep two or three times along the 79 minutes that the movie dragged on for. But I am sure that diehard sci-fi fans will enjoy this movie a lot more than I did.

The movie has a small cast ensemble, none of which that I were familiar with. The acting performances in the movie were actually fair, I will say that much.

Visually then "Andromeda" was actually better than I had expected, given the movie's dubious cover.

"Andromeda" failed to entertain me, and it is not a movie that will ever find its way back on my screen a second time. Nor is it a movie that I would recommend you to rush out and get to waste your time, money or effort on.

My rating of writer and director Brett Bentman's 2022 movie "Andromeda" lands on a two out of ten stars.

Compulsory viewing for film students! So that they can see how not to make a movie. I feel sorry for whoever made this, but they should really watch a few more movies before making their own, and you know, take some notes? To be fair, I could not watch more than the first 15 minutes of this, and hey, perhaps it morphed into the best movie ever made! But I will never know because 15 mins was more than I could stomach.

From what I saw they probably made every mistake possible, because lord knows I saw enough in that 15 minutes. They took the sage advice "Show don't tell" and made it a bad thing, by telling (a voiceover) and showing visuals of what the voiceover was describing. And I could go on, but I will leave it there. If you have not seen it, leave it there too!