VALUTAZIONE IMDb
3,3/10
1945
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Cinque membri dell'equipaggio fuggono in una capsula di salvataggio costruita per quattro dopo che la loro astronave è stata distrutta. Il salvataggio è imminente ma di colpo una creatura al... Leggi tuttoCinque membri dell'equipaggio fuggono in una capsula di salvataggio costruita per quattro dopo che la loro astronave è stata distrutta. Il salvataggio è imminente ma di colpo una creatura aliena si imbarca sulla loro nave per attaccare.Cinque membri dell'equipaggio fuggono in una capsula di salvataggio costruita per quattro dopo che la loro astronave è stata distrutta. Il salvataggio è imminente ma di colpo una creatura aliena si imbarca sulla loro nave per attaccare.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizMarina Sirtis, Armin Shimerman, and Tim Russ have each starred in each of the 1990s Star Trek series as Counselor Deanna Troi in Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987), Quark in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993) and Lt. Commander Tuvok in Star Trek: Voyager (1995), respectively. Meanwhile, Hana Hatae and Manu Intiraymi played recurring characters Molly O'Brien on TNG and DS9, and Icheb on Voyager, respectively. Later, Doug Jones would also star as Commander Saru in the 2017 prequel series Star Trek: Discovery (2017).
- BlooperWhen the nurse shines the light into Eve's eyes and then walks away, in the next scene from Eve's side, her eyes are closed before opening. Her eyes are then open from the front view and again closed from the side.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is 5th Passenger?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Celebre anche come
- 5th Passenger
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 29min(89 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.39:1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti