5th Passenger

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.