Review by fkemble-96216

I actually loved this film, the great sense of emptiness and solitude and of the austerity of the inside of the space craft. The photography was beautifully done and really captured the mood; That sense of total isolation really came through. The allure of outer space, like any expedition, is the means to counter the technological conundrums presented and a space film presents the possibility of infinite fascination with a world we don't know and the ability to utilise technology to perform a successful expedition. This film fails miserably in an area where it was most important not to and even an 'F' student in a high school would have spotted the anomalies. You can't derive oxygen and hydrogen from dirt, it;s a silicate. Even if you could then the resultant re-combining of oxygen and hydrogen presents the same kind of instability as a weapons grade bomb. Where was all the dirt stored? Why not store more water? Secondly, in a complex space craft, surely someone remembered to install breakers or even fuses! The gyroscope was almost as incongruous as a wind up gramaphone; computers do all the guidance. Whywas the battery which was only intermittently shorted, bleeding redstuff into the water? Why did the rocket lose four boosters between theground and earths upper atmosphere- they just weren't there any more?Why was Stanaforth sent into the desert with untested equipment. Whywas he called Stanaforth, its a stupid and unconvincing name. Why wasmark strong compelled to speak with that generic mid-western Americanaccent, he was useless at it and I like him as an actor. It's all toobad as the film was visually stunning but letdown by appalling scienceand plain bad screen writing. I hate it when something so potentially brilliant is ruined by slapdash research and poor writing; this film was truly worth more than that and should be remade with the problem areas addressed. Lastly; the title is lame.