Avaliações de usuários

That's the best word I can think of to describe this movie...I was so excited to see Johnny Lee Miller in a movie again! But my excitement was short lived (as it was - minor spoiler- his presence in the flick).

The story built up slowly and its tension kept me interested for a while, but after watching too much sulking, and crying and characters doing unreasonable things, by the third act, I lost what little interest I had left.

It didn't help that the girl was annoying as hell and behaved like a little brat and the mother did not seem to know how to deal with her.

By the end it turned from sci-fi to unwarranted melodrama with an unsatisfactory ending, so, why bother?

Good work by Sofía Boutella, though.

Sofia Boutella is a fantastic actor, and this movie is full of wonderful landscapes, paired with great sound design. It's everything else that is the problem.

The story feels trite, with little importance on dialogue. Remy (young and old) and Jerry are just... boring. Very unfulfilling to watch as an audience member. The scenic design of the home is... boring and ugly. Genuinely looks like they ran out of money.

The vfx artists did a great job on the landscapes and the robot, and the ending before the epilogue is the only good part after the first 30 min (but the scene itself is really well done, with great acting from Remy).

Overall this movie felt like a first draft. Clearly could've been better with more time and money.

I've heard lots of bad reviews, it was r the worst movie. Pretty interesting given the plot, what would you do if you were there only people left on the planet?!

The WORST MOVIE IS POWER OF THE DOG.

I can't belive this film was made it has to be some sort of tax dodge! There is no start to the film explaining how and why, there is no story through the middle part and there is no story ending. So what was the point of the film? It was about nothing!

Most bad reviews are (in my opinion) based on the assumption of the (re)viewers that they will get something like a post-apocalyptic survival action movie on Mars, but instead got a drama touching topics like bonding, loneliness, guilt, revenge and forgiveness and the like.

Settlers for sure got also some issues regarding world-building, and the tempo of the unfolding narrative is rather slow, but on the other hand, it got a fine meditative, dark and melancholic quality, that I liked. What else? Acting and production are solid to good, effects too.

So beware: if you expect or want some action or adventure movie in a sci-fi context, Settlers is in all likelihood the wrong choice for you.

If I didn't know better I could swear this was just the first episode of a tv-series. The story is very vague and leave you with more questions than answers. And the end...is the worst I've seen.

My review.

Yes at the beginning it is boring with some average boring family drama.

It starts with the little girl being told that the planet she saw was Earth.

Then it picks up later. And suspense are added, making you want to know more.

A few plot twists here and there. Protip: don't watch the trailer.

The breathable air is explained halfway.

As to the gravity? I cannot explain that to you.

Makes me wonder if it's a prequel to the Star Wars: A New Hope.

I agree with the rating of 6.4.

Worth watching if you are not too easily bored. Patience has it's merits.

Got problem with gravity? You can take it up to those who made "The Martian".

Reading the reviews of this movie I can't help but to think that anyone under 25 years old will see this as a boring snooze-fest. I loved it...I'm old. Really digs at my raw emotions and begs the question..."What would you do?"

Any real "critic" doesn't whine and complain about how "Bad" they thought a movie was, while also not blabbering about how great a movie is with NO explanation as to WHY they thought so. Too many princesses writing curt, nasty reviews that obviously approach what they watch with TOO high expectations. This is a decent movie that was done well, for the most part, but like any movie, it has it's flaws. It's a 5.5 in my book. I would watch the sequel if it was at least this good. Photography and directing were above par. No complaints about the acting whatsoever. Amazing location find. And yes, despite the crybabies saying it's not, it IS indeed a "sci-fi" movie, like it or not. Biggest fault: No history of how and why they are there, or almost anything else. It misses the mark by not providing enough personal history, and lacks basic high drama. I would definitely use a different director if a sequel is ever in the works.

Initially when I stumbled upon this 2021 sci-fi movie from writer and director Wyatt Rockefeller, I must admit that the synopsis for the movie sounded interesting enough. So I opted to sit down to watch "Settlers".

But wow, what did I just suffer through here? At least you'd think the movie makers would even just put in an effort to make the environment feel like it was actually taking place on the Martian frontier. But no, instead we are treated to an environment that just feel like a dried out Texas backyard. It was lacking so much creditability that it was hard to take it serious. Especially because there was no sense of it being Mars or even having much of any sci-fi feel to it.

And there are so many questions to be answered in "Settlers". Why is there water on Mars, and where does it come from? How is there air on Mars, and where does it come from? Why are there chickens and pigs on Mars?

Not only does "Settlers" lack a sense of sci-fi atmosphere, but it was also lacking interesting characters. I kid you not, the most interesting character in the movie was Steve. Yeah, and he was a single-function work robot with no dialogue. Indeed, out of a whopping five characters, four humans and a robot, it was the robot that carried the movie.

I am in awe that dribble such as "Settlers" could make the transition from script paper onto the screen, and even more so that people actually funded this project. Didn't they read the script and see how barren and pointless it was?

Even the storyline told in "Settlers" was uninteresting, and it progressed so insanely slow that you could easily drift off to sleep, wake up 30 minutes later and still be up to speed with the movie and not having missed out on anything crucial.

"Settlers" was a massive swing and a miss, and it was a shame, because there definitely was potential for something entertaining and enjoyable here.

It should be said that the movie did have a good ensemble of casted actors and actresses, despite it being only four people essentially. But the actors and actresses never stood a snowballs chance in Hell here, because the script was atrociously bland and pointless, and the characters and dialogue was just so amazingly poorly written.

I am not overly keen on sci-fi movies in general, and it is movies such as "Settlers" that just adds fuel to the fire and keeps the sci-fi aversion going.

I am rating "Settlers" a generous two out of ten stars. This was a complete and utter waste of time and effort.

I don't understand what was in the writer mind while he wrote this story.

Completely boring without any meaning.

I'm strongly suggest to avoid watching it.

First of all, calling this movie Sci-Fi is an insult to the genre.

This is NOT sci-fi, it´s a boring drama which has Mars as a background (this the "sci-fi" part lol).

And this movie is pointless. There is no plot and the ending is stupid. The characters have no depth, no development, no motives, there is no background stories, in fact nothing is explained about the characters and what drives them.

I almost stopped watching halfway through, but then I thought "hell, I watched this crap til now, let´s see how it ends"... Ended as badly as it started.

This is a story that could take place on Earth - when for any reason you decide to write a scenario for a story om Mars, you MUST take into consideration AT LEAST basic facts about Mars, otherwise DO NOT PUT YOUR STORY ON MARS. If you do not have enough BUDGET to shoot a Mars-based film, DO NOT DO IT, PUT IT AN AN IMAGINARY PLANET... Subsequently it does not matter whether the storyline or the actors are decent, the whole film becomes just 'unacceptable', it is as simple as that...

This is a movie where you need to fill in the "blanks" use your imagination, ask questions and try to come up with what is going on. There are some twist and turns, more suspense as the film goes along. Don't give up at the start if you like movies like this. If your thing is movies that have high rating today and you don't like to think and imagine, skip this.

...to appreciate this film, and even then it could be better.

Mars does have water, btw, and a breathable atmosphere could be produced through various processes. The huge dome for just one farm is a bit of a stretch.

But this isn't really about Mars, and the sci-fi elements are mainly window dressing.

Many questions are raised, but answers are scant and no more than hints. If you can be patient with that, it tells an interesting story about human nature and desperation, but it is a rather grey and grim story with nothing uplifting.

That, in the end, is why I don't give it more than 5 stars, despite good performances and accomplishing a lot on a limited budget. It's very dystopian, in the most depressing sense.

I get it's not going to be a popular theme, but the script is reasonable, the performances and production are good.

I really liked the cinematography and the atmosphere of the movie, not so much the story itself, that starts interesting, has an early twist that caught my attention, but fell awkward and not too interesting.

Still, the characters make sense to me, and I know a lot of people will disagree with that, but they do as I see, and the story has a solid ending, which is another thing people complained a lot.

Also the Mars setting makes complete sense in the story, I don't think people complaining about this really gave it too much thought. It really affects the behaviour of the characters and the events.

Did I like the characters, the story and the ending? Not so much, but it's compensated with good performances and cinematography.

Overall a good movie, more for a first directing role.

The lack of ability to count past the number one really shows in some of these reviews. For starters, the near-perfect cinematography and incredibly fitting eerie score (a very rare find in low budget B-grade films), merits this film nothing less than a 4/10, even to the discerning critic. So to all the 1's, learn to count up to 10 and try and use the numbers in between.

This film was 100% NOT your typical big budget Hollywood blockbuster sci-fi. It's an Art House film.

Allow me to educate y'all: An Art House film is typically an independent low-budget film, aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience. It is intended to be a serious, artistic work, rather than a piece of popular entertainment, often experimental and not designed for mass appeal, made primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than commercial profit, and contains unconventional or highly symbolic content. This film was entirely just that.

This is newb writer and director Wyatt Rockefeller's first full length feature film, with only two previous short films. When an inexperienced filmmaker presents such a fine Art House piece, anything below a 5/10 is an insult. Aside from the near perfect cinematography and spot-on score, Rockefeller's directing - even towards his cast, was outstanding. Imo, he's put to shame some seasoned filmmaker's recent films I've seen (e.g. Soderbergh's star-studded No Sudden Move). So mad props and respect to Rockefeller for putting this little gem together so brilliantly. The casting and performances were great, especially little Brooklynn Prince, but I felt Sofia Boutella's character could've been better cast. S. Africa's Namaqualand desert was realistically Mars-like, and you can tell a lot of thought went into the set pieces. Simple yet very effective. Even Steve was awesome.

I'm not a fan of long dragged out films, and you can tell Rockefeller was inexperienced in a full length feature screenplay, when he's only put together two prior shorts, so this one certainly felt long and dragged out, and needed some serious trim-down editing. Its 103 min runtime was a lot of filler for the little substance his overall story had - although as far as filler goes, he used it up very well, as not once did I glance to see how long I've been watching this film.

For me it was non-stop tension, suspense and anxiety - start to finish. Had the score been your typical B-grade film - loud, overbearing, constant and unfitting, I probably would've given this film a 4 or 5 and maybe even turned it off 20 mins in. But Rockefeller's decision for an exceptional score - that really set and maintained the tone of the film perfectly, and the great cinematography, added to the excellent location and set pieces, made Settlers the epitome of a great Art House film. It was very sleek, atmospheric, well-designed, and a mood piece that will resonate with you long after the film is over. I don't want to get into any spoilers, but the messages in this film were excellent; no matter how far you travel (Mars), your humanity and the base corners of human nature will travel with you. Some reviewers slammed the ending... huh? That ending was perfection, and leaves the door open for a Part 2, which I hope Rockefeller creates.

This little gem may not be for everyone, but nevertheless, it is still well deserving of my 8/10. I hope we see a Part 2, and/or more films like this one from Rockefeller. Bravo, sir.

A very well-acted drama with special attention going to the child actor. A thoughtful poignant story. It is slow, but I became invested in the characters' story, be it a rather sad one. Not generally my type of film, but I did not regret spending the time with them.

Ilsa (Sofia Boutella), Reza (Jonny Lee Miller), and their daughter Remmy (Brooklynn Prince) are living in a remote settlement by themselves. They are attacked by a group led by Jerry (Ismael Cruz Córdova).

The movie doesn't do a lot of expositions or clarity. It doesn't do flashy things. It's lowkey serious tone and the deliberately stripped down story telling leave the movie feeling a bit empty. There are lots of missed opportunity. It hints at a dangerous world outside. It would have been great to have the characters run around in it.

I could go to Safeway now and would never find a healthier batch of celery that they have where they're at, Mars I suppose; and where the heck is the water coming from and how is it pumped into the tank thirty feet high? There are so many question, hundreds in fact..but ain't going to ask. I guess she'll bump into the blind man Eli on her way to, well, somewhere//