Recensioni degli utenti

The fanboi/shill reviews, or the poor acting.

I am unsure who figured these people, who acted in the past together, could still act ...together and succeed. The show is a modern B. Not that a B movie is bad.

The acting was rigid, forced and, at times, off key. The CGI was bad when ever the color red or orange was needed it seems ;)

If you are a Star Trek cast fan, there will be no deterring you from seeing this. If you are a sucker for IMDB ratings, do not be fooled, this rating is falsly inflated. The movie rating will balance out in the 4.2-5.0 range

A few minutes in, I was wondering why I was even watching, and I came here to read the reviews. I agreed with the people who wanted to give it negative stars. But for some reason, I didn't stop watching. The first 10 minutes or so are bad. Really, really bad. The acting was bad, the writing was worse, science was poor, and the political commentary on current events served no cinematic purpose. I had no complaints about the spaceship CGI.

After the first 10 minutes, it started picking up. The next ~50 minutes was decent. Nothing special, but not terrible.

The last 20 minutes or so were poor. Not bad, but below average. This is where the CGI took a bad turn, and the it looks like someone finished writing the script by recycling scenes and cliches from other movies. Even the trick ending was recycled, and if you didn't see it coming, I hope it is because you tuned out during the crappy start, and not because you missed the foreshadowing they applied with a sledgehammer. I guess you could argue that there was a second trick, but to me it looked like that got tacked on to make the ending artificially ambiguous. I think the movie would have been better served if they had committed to one "true" version and stuck with it.

Overall, I give it 4 out of ten. On my scale, movies between roughly 3 and 7 are watchable once. I've seen, and enjoyed, worse movies, but there are plenty of better options out there.

If you watch this, it's almost certainly because you saw a Star Trek actor is in it. In fact, there are several of them, including Armin Shimerman and Tim Russ. Marina Sirtis appears in a small role. Honestly, I probably would have removed most of her scenes during editing. Until her last scene, they don't do anything but interrupt the plot. Shimerman and Russ have beefier roles, and they're both pretty good.

Some of the actors playing minor roles seem like they were handed a script five minutes before shooting began and got no direction. The script never really has anyone do or say anything intelligent, though there's some reasonably interesting worldbuilding early on. It doesn't go anywhere or have any meaningful effect on the plot, but it's there if you go digging for it.

I think they probably should have skipped the special effects if they didn't have enough money to do them right. I've seen horror movies that were shot on a cell phone and acted by people who were recruited from social media. They knew their limitations and turned out to be pretty watchable. Shooting for the stars is a dumb plan if you can't afford to make it there.

If this had been edited down to the length of a short film and uploaded to YouTube, the average rating would probably be almost twice as high, and there'd probably be some dedicated fans willing to help fund the director's next movie on kickstarter.

The plot lines are not new. There is a space crew in trouble. There are conflicts over authority. There is some perceived alien presence threatening the crew. There is a possible underlying government project.

The production is better than a typical sci fi TV show but not trying to extend the boundaries of CGI which seems to disappoint some. The ending may disappoint some as there is no extended battle. If you iike sci fi. most will at least accept it. I rate this is an average for many of the lower budget sci fi movies. That is, watchable since it should be about the story.It is a plus if you are a Star Trek fan to see familiar actors.

Note: It is cannot be a waste of 2 hrs since it does not even last that long.

If I could give it a -10, I'd complain I couldn't give it a -11.

Unbelievable bad script and acting (as in none). Homeworld 1 had better graphics, heck, I'm pretty sure Half Life 1 will hold up to this. It may have the tag "sci-fi", but I'm voting for IMDB to add a "sci-cry" tag, though Half Life 3 may be released sooner then that happening...

Edit; Atleast the keyboard warriors are telling the truth, the movie really sucks.

I don't know why there were good reviews/ratings for this movie. A total waste of time. Sorry to be harsh, but it is what it is. Bad sfx, cgi, storyline and poor acting. Do yourself a favor and pass on this one.

I was entertained by this low budget sci fi film. Yes it's a bit shaky in places. Couple of wooden acting moments. But for the most part it's a good bmovie film with passable cgi effects. The script obviously borrows greatly from Alien but with a twist. .......I did guess before the reveal but it wasn't too obvious. Credit where it's due. You can see it was made with passion by young energetic filmmakers who must have worked very hard to get it completed. And no.......I do not know anyone involved with the film. Ha ha. Not as bad as the quite frankly ludicrous 1 star ratings make out!? Give it a chance.

I see a lot of polarised reviews of this film, which made it hard to make sense of them. I wish less IMDB-readers would pull out a knee-jerk 1/10 or 10/10 for every film they rate. 5th Passenger is a poorly written, below average sci-fi & psychological thriller. It is not a good film, not even close, but nor is it the worst film in history. It deserves around 5/10, no more but no less.

I enjoyed watching it, allowing myself to laugh about stupid dialogue or leaps in the plot without losing interest in the story. I won't watch it again, but the time wasn't wasted.

This movie casts several members of the Star Trek family. Manu Intyrami (Icheb, Star Trek Voyager), Tim Russ (Tuvok, Star Trek Voyager, Star Trek The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine), Arman Schimerman (Quark, Deep Space Nine), Martina Sirtis (Counselor Deanna Troi, Start Trek The Next Generation, Star Trek Enterprise, First Contact, Star Trek Generations and 4 other Star Trek movies), Hana Hatae (Deep Space Nine, Star Trek The Next Generation, the daughter of transporter Chief Miles O'Brien) and Doug Jones from the upcoming series Star Trek Discovery. The combination of these actors as well as the other main character actors blends together very well. Although the plot does follow the same premise as the "Aliens" movies, these actors do bring their own distinct version of their characters to this movie. The CGI effects are very good and are convincing to the viewer. Some of the plot lines do tend to become slow at times, but the action scenes are very realistic. Being a Star Trek fan from the very beginning, I was impressed to see all the incredible talent these actors brought to this movie. To see these Star Trek actors in different roles was a nice change and they played their roles extremely well. I would add this movie to my Sci Fi collection.

This is a really good film that I enjoyed thoroughly. The graphics could have been a little better but being an indie film, and knowing how expensive graphics can be, they did a great job on a shoestring budget! I saw some reviews on Amazon and was astonished that one reviewer was so asleep at the wheel watching this that they appeared to not even understand the plotline. I don't want to give spoilers but this is an interesting, twisted plot. You really have to pay attention to fully enjoy the experience. Watch this and REALLY take notice and you will understand the plot completely.

Too many negative reviews and poor ratings don't make this movie that bad. In fact I quite enjoyed it. The movie moves at an acceptable pace, the story is fine and the acting is okay.

It looks like this is another film that I rate higher than what the majority viewers think. Usually it is the other way around. I consider this movie good enough to make it very watchable and pleasant to view. It fits perfectly in the sci-fi genre.

For a movie made on a shoestring it is an admirable result.

I love sci fi, especially "real ones" that are on space ships.

So I had to see this. There are a lot of known faces and decent actors in this movie, and a few really bad ones. Generic yelling black guy # 1 was very bad but most did a fine job.

The story wasn't bad but the script could have used some work. Okay it could have used a lot of work. Movie fights take a lot of work to be good, this only had one and they didn't put in a lot of work but it didn't ruin it.

What ruined it was certain characters who took decisions based on what mood the writers were in that day. We've all seen horror movies where they split up for no apparent reason, keep walking backwards or if they trip, they keep crawling until the bad guy gets them. This movie didn't have that but it did have some decisions based on the roll of dice it seemed. I really don't like that, especially in a space ship where you HAVE to assume every single person on that ship, with a vital role for the mission to be a success, has a certain amount of education, a certain amount of traning and certainly an IQ of above average. Script writers tend to forget that. In the real world, in a crisis, 80% of people don't actually panic and lose their head but for some reason well trained people on a space ship always seem to stick their own heads up their asses when stuff goes down. This movie could have been REALLY good with not too many changes.

I had the opportunity to see this film on the big screen. I think what we have to remember is that the effects are astonishing. The viewer will question if they are watching the set or a green screen shot, its that clean. The story is a culmination and mix of ideas cleverly weaved together with an ending that will not leave you disappointed. Some highlights were seeing Doug Jones not in makeup or costume, and Tim Russ as a bad guy to root for. I think the negative reviewers need to consider the budget and quality you are getting. You don't buy a Honda and expect it to drive like a Ferrari. Just like I wouldn't expect this movie to have the same draw as a Star Wars. Knowing this I really enjoyed it for the entertainment value and underlying relevant hints at current events. Well done.

Its lacking parts to be a great sci fi but its not that bad actually. Parts of the story is quite original would I say. If you are a sci fi fan, watch it!

What do you get when you combine five Star Trek alumni, a hackneyed script and overtones of Hitchcock?

It's not as good as one might think...

The film is not worth the effort, it might have stood a chance in 1987 but not now, audiences are more aware, what is often considered by the producers to be cutting edge graphics and effects are often seen by the audience as 'meh'.

Bad things -

A script with the ending obvious within 15 minutes Actors phoning it in Poor attempt at social conscience Effects that would have been poor for TNG

Good things Decent camera work and editing

Overall, a sub-par episode of Star Trek: TNG that was 60 minutes too long.

Next.

The surprising thing with this film is the number of actors whom I recognize from other projects and know to be perfectly competent actors, so the utterly abysmal acting is hard to account for. If you stick with it you'll see cameos from across the spectrum of the Star Trek franchise (regulars and notable one-timers), and the plot itself feels like a rejected Star Trek script rescued from the bin, and if this had been a fan-made film to which these actors were lending their faces for the sake of their fans (wouldn't be the first time), then I could understand and would be more than willing to forgive the amateur nature of the production, directing... everything. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

The name of Marina Sirtis is immediately associated to the character Counselor Deanna Troi, from "Star Trek: The Next Generation". The cast has other names from Star Trek series. With this nostalgia and expectation of a good sci-fi, the unwary viewer may watch "5th Passenger" like I did. Unfortunately, the story is awful and the screenplay is a mess with a confused conclusion. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

This movie is horrible. It's so bad that I paused it at least 5 times in the first half hour to do mundane tasks that I'd rather do (start eh dishwasher, swap the laundry, etc). Then something happened.

As I resumed from the 34 minute mark, it - surprisingly- picked up. The storyline started moving forward, the writers seemed to hit something resembling a stride, and even the horrible acting wasn't as stilted and stiff as before, except for Tuvok, who is always like that even though he's not playing Tuvok in this movie...Must be a great guy to hang out with, but I digress.

Without giving any spoilers, this movie is a solid 4, even for a sci-fi/Trek fan. If you've got nothing better to do on a Saturday morning grab a mug of cocoa, snuggle up with your tribble, and watch it for what it is.

While watching 5th passenger on DVD I couldn't help but pausing many times to take screenshots of the movie: they looked like framed pictures of futuristic sci-fi environments. Engaging actors and their acting, unexpected twist... I would just have preferred a certain "character" to be a little less "visible" (more darkness/mystery)... which one? Surprise, you'll understand while watching... and a tiny pinch of unexpected "doubt" in Frankin's aptitude.

Technicalities and effects: guys, considering it's a crowdfunded work, these guys did an AMAZING job! I can't wait to see what they can do having more resources at their disposal! Maybe a sequel... especially, considering the intriguing ending....

Glad to have turned a weekend into a Sci-Fi weekend by opening a window on... The 5th Passenger!

Meaning no disrespect to anyone else involved, I don't think it's terribly presumptuous to guess that most folks who come across this do so, and watch, because of the several actors involved who have had a part in 'Star Trek' over the years. Meaning no disrespect to anyone involved, this bristles with heavy-handedness from the very start, in multiple ways, that rather amplifies the inauthenticity of the feature, threatens suspension of disbelief, and inherently places an upper limit on the entertainment one can derive. I don't think '5th passenger' is altogether bad, but in most every regard it desperately needed a more tactful, nuanced approach to better serve the film-making and storytelling.

There's actually a lot to like here. The visual effects and digital wizardry look pretty sharp all around, more or less on par with modern standards, and while the editing team had their work cut out for them, I think they did a swell job. The more prominent the CGI is in a scene, the more apparent the patent falseness becomes, as there's a waxy sheen to most creations that marks them as too pristine for their own good - recalling, for example, modern videogames. In fairness, this is hardly an issue with this title alone. The production design and art direction aren't necessarily anything special for sci-fi fare, but the crew turned in solid work that I admire; likewise for more underappreciated facets like costume design, and hair and makeup. Practical effects and stunts are quite well done, including blood and gore; I'm so pleased that a tangible fabrication was devised for the creature, and its unnatural movement only bolsters the intended impact in my opinion. The diversity of the cast is commendable. Furthermore, filmmaker Scotty Baker, star Morgan Lariah, and co-writer David Henri Martin filled their screenplay with some great ideas: extreme class inequality and prejudice; excessive and harmful adherence to protocol; the breaking of the world; an escape pod, and all the trials and tribulations to follow. I also rather enjoy Ramin Kousha's original score, lending earnest atmosphere to the picture at any time. If less than stellar, I think all this is well and good.

From there '5th passenger' gets more thorny. I can't speak to everyone involved, but I know what several of these cast members are capable of, and they're terrific actors; I trust that those I'm less familiar with would demonstrate like capability if given the opportunity. Regrettably, with rare exception, that heavy-handedness I spoke of, a glaring blunt forthrightness, is the chief defining trait of the performances, stripping away from them almost all subtlety and meaningful emotion. Armin Shimerman shines through every now and again, but others struggle to; Manu Intiraymi and David Lim, for example, oscillate between on-point and overacting. Otherwise they, and others including Lariah, Tim Russ, and even Marina Sirtis, come off as simply wooden. Under the circumstances, I assume this dire flaw can be attributed to Baker's direction, which seems odd since he has multiple short films under his belt in that capacity and generally has a fair amount of other credits - he's no stranger to the industry. Yet in his orchestration of scenes one readily discerns a stiffness, and a plainspokenness, that's terribly off-putting, and it strikes me as a safe wager that it's Baker's guidance that informs the acting.

It's so unfortunate that these are the facets of the movie to stand out both first and foremost. The craftsmanship is otherwise pretty tight, and I think the narrative that Baker, Lariah, and Martin put together is actually fairly compelling and satisfying; even the framing device of which I initially had doubts turns out to be pretty smart. Mind you, I don't think the story is perfect. Alana's ultimate reaction somewhat raises an eyebrow; I'm unsure if the whole is accidentally ableist, or an accidental sci-fi PSA advocating equal life opportunities, and equal access to all necessary medical care. It's also sadly noteworthy that beyond the plot at large, the screenplay suffers just as much from that gawky, club-footed tack that gets our attention in such a wrong away. The core ideas of the characters, dialogue, and scene writing - the proverbial storyboarding - is fine. The nitty-gritty of each, however, too often carries that same sorry, unwieldy clumsiness, such that at length the sensibility ends up pervading a preponderance of the picture. For all the quality '5th passenger' may claim, it's counterbalanced by these considerable difficulties.

I don't think this film is bad, and I can honestly say I did enjoy it. I would have enjoyed it more if the direction, acting, and the minutiae of the screenplay were characterized by a more delicate and mindful touch, and a more refined edge. With all this having been said, I think the feature earns a soft recommendation if one is a huge fan of the genre, or of someone involved, or just looking for a sci-fi thriller that's suitable but not utterly absorbing. The fact that the title's problems proscribe the possibility of being "utterly absorbing" - well, that's the real takeaway here. Am I being too harsh in my assessment? Am I being too kind? All I can say is that while I'm inclined to think '5th passenger' achieves a passing grade for what it does well, owing to its deficiencies it does so only by the skin of its teeth.

Stupid movie fake rated by more stupids morons! Be honest and stop wasting others' time and money.