After a deadly Mars mission crash, mission controller Mackenzie Wilson (Sackhoff) and A.R.T.I. uncover a mysterious Mars object that could alter our planet's future.After a deadly Mars mission crash, mission controller Mackenzie Wilson (Sackhoff) and A.R.T.I. uncover a mysterious Mars object that could alter our planet's future.After a deadly Mars mission crash, mission controller Mackenzie Wilson (Sackhoff) and A.R.T.I. uncover a mysterious Mars object that could alter our planet's future.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Steven Cree
- ARTi
- (voice)
David K.S. Tse
- Jian Lin
- (voice)
- (as David Tse)
Jud Charlton
- ARTi stand-in
- (voice)
Noush Skaugen
- Jill Valentine
- (voice)
Joe David Walters
- Jake Wilson
- (voice)
- …
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Despite reading all the bad reviews (and I mean horrific) I saw the movie anyway and was pleasantly surprised to see that it wasn't nearly what so many of these negative reviews.
I'm no great writer so I'll just list the biggest and loudest complaints and give my take on them:
"CGI is like legos"
"Boring, slow"
"Horrible special effects"
"Bad acting"
The first thing to do is to put expectations in check and have at least a little understanding of what you're watching before making judgements. If you go into this thinking it's Transformers or any of the current Star Trek movies then yes, all of those reviews are absolutely correct. It did not deliver any of that because it is not (nor sold as) that kind of movie.
Now, set the correct expectations in that this is more of a dialogue driven story with a minimal budget and you will find this to be a thought provoking movie that talks about the future of humanity and AI and the idea of what if... There wasn't a long cast of characters. By my count five with actual lines. Two of which were voice only and a handful (like five maybe) of extras with no lines and are shown for about 8 seconds)
So basically it's Katee Sackoff who is charged with investigating a previously manned mission to Mars that resulted in the deaths of her crew, one of which was her father. She is to partner with an A.I. called A.R.T.I., (an onboard A.I.) and together they will remotely land and operate a rover that was sent to Mars, all from a control room. From there the story takes off and throughout the movie it takes you through some tense moments trying to land the rover successfully. Some twists and turns, more tense moments when making discoveries that in turn create more questions than answers. Katee Sackhoff was great, did a great job. The AI was also good, they had good exchanges. It kept an appropriate pace, nothing felt dragged out nor like I was waiting for anything. It had a start, a build up, and ended with something interesting with a twist.
The negatives I read: "CGI is like legos" ---- Nope. Although it was no Avatar it wasn't anywhere the "awful" description some have given it. It was perfectly reasonable and fit the story. I never found myself wondering about the CGI (and I am a big fan of ID4, star trek and and all the huge budget ones) "Boring, slow" --- I didn't find it slow at all. It moved, there was tension throughout and it did keep me guessing "Horrible special effects" ---(see the CGI answer...) "Bad acting" --- By who? There's 3 faces with lines, 95% Katee and how was she bad? I thought she did a great job
I gave it a 6 (and NOT a 1) because overall I liked it and was pleasantly surprised after reading so many bad reviews.
I gave it a 6 and nothing higher because although I liked it, it wasn't anything earth shattering (no pun intended...) and an extremely over played subject done by many. More than anything it seemed like another interpretation of an over done subject. That said I thought they could have done a better job of explaining things. Though very very interesting the ending didn't quite tie things together as well as I would have liked and I found myself a little confused. However I think I got it, (maybe..) Worth a rent (for me)
The first thing to do is to put expectations in check and have at least a little understanding of what you're watching before making judgements. If you go into this thinking it's Transformers or any of the current Star Trek movies then yes, all of those reviews are absolutely correct. It did not deliver any of that because it is not (nor sold as) that kind of movie.
Now, set the correct expectations in that this is more of a dialogue driven story with a minimal budget and you will find this to be a thought provoking movie that talks about the future of humanity and AI and the idea of what if... There wasn't a long cast of characters. By my count five with actual lines. Two of which were voice only and a handful (like five maybe) of extras with no lines and are shown for about 8 seconds)
So basically it's Katee Sackoff who is charged with investigating a previously manned mission to Mars that resulted in the deaths of her crew, one of which was her father. She is to partner with an A.I. called A.R.T.I., (an onboard A.I.) and together they will remotely land and operate a rover that was sent to Mars, all from a control room. From there the story takes off and throughout the movie it takes you through some tense moments trying to land the rover successfully. Some twists and turns, more tense moments when making discoveries that in turn create more questions than answers. Katee Sackhoff was great, did a great job. The AI was also good, they had good exchanges. It kept an appropriate pace, nothing felt dragged out nor like I was waiting for anything. It had a start, a build up, and ended with something interesting with a twist.
The negatives I read: "CGI is like legos" ---- Nope. Although it was no Avatar it wasn't anywhere the "awful" description some have given it. It was perfectly reasonable and fit the story. I never found myself wondering about the CGI (and I am a big fan of ID4, star trek and and all the huge budget ones) "Boring, slow" --- I didn't find it slow at all. It moved, there was tension throughout and it did keep me guessing "Horrible special effects" ---(see the CGI answer...) "Bad acting" --- By who? There's 3 faces with lines, 95% Katee and how was she bad? I thought she did a great job
I gave it a 6 (and NOT a 1) because overall I liked it and was pleasantly surprised after reading so many bad reviews.
I gave it a 6 and nothing higher because although I liked it, it wasn't anything earth shattering (no pun intended...) and an extremely over played subject done by many. More than anything it seemed like another interpretation of an over done subject. That said I thought they could have done a better job of explaining things. Though very very interesting the ending didn't quite tie things together as well as I would have liked and I found myself a little confused. However I think I got it, (maybe..) Worth a rent (for me)
This movie, while certainly not the worst movie I've seen, plays more a good SiFi channel movie then a netflix original. I suppose my biggest issue is that this movie doesn't bring anything new to the table despite being incapable of staying on topic. It grabs at every sci fi concept out there (space flight, AI, aliens, future tech, etc) but it feels like it just takes from existing media rather than contributing.the CGI shifts quickly from good to terrible. Overall, not a great movie
What writer and director in 2017 would think it's a grand idea to resurrect the worst of so-called "science fiction" from the Seventies and Eighties, including the mind-numbing kaleidoscopic effects that were stand-ins for actual special effects?
There is no science on display here, though it is certainly fictional. Fiction without science is just fantasy. Exploitation of a few trendy buzzwords and concepts from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) does not make it scientific. There is neither any deep thinking. The plot and concepts are incoherent, like the hallucinogenic "trip" of a career drug addict. The writer apparently had an extended trip himself and began to imagine himself as a philosophical genius who had wisdom to impart to the rest of us?
He isn't and he didn't.
There is no science on display here, though it is certainly fictional. Fiction without science is just fantasy. Exploitation of a few trendy buzzwords and concepts from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) does not make it scientific. There is neither any deep thinking. The plot and concepts are incoherent, like the hallucinogenic "trip" of a career drug addict. The writer apparently had an extended trip himself and began to imagine himself as a philosophical genius who had wisdom to impart to the rest of us?
He isn't and he didn't.
'2036 Origin Unknown' actually sounded pretty interesting. The low rating and lukewarm at best reviews here and much of the internet made me not sure as to whether it would be good, but there were some great ideas here and the concept sounded like the film would be good intriguing stuff if done right.
After seeing it, '2036 Unknown Origin' to me was not a terrible film, it has its moments. When it comes to recent low budget recent viewings it is nowhere near close to being one of the worst. A large part of me though was rather disappointed, another example of a film with great ideas and concept and just as great potential but none of them properly lived up to, not completely wasted but this should have been much more. The not so enthusiastic critical reception is understandable though while sharing a lot of the criticisms directed against it didn't find it that bad.
From personal opinion, it did have some atmosphere in the sets, an effective visual claustrophobia and the photography was quite nice, for low budget this could have fared much worse. It does start off well, it is intriguing, sets things up nicely and is not too badly paced.
The acting was also better than average, with a more than credible lead performance from Katee Sackhoff who had the hard task of carrying much of the film with not much support. Her character was one that didn't annoy or bore me and there was effort made to develop her. Julie Cox and Steven Cree, added in apparently during post-production, are also fine.
However, '2036 Origin Unknown's' main problem is the story. It does feel dragged out, like a short film stretched to feature, and gets over-complicated as a result of having too many ideas/areas and not enough of them being fully explored, meaning that there is a lack of clarity. This is not a case of not trying, more a case of trying too hard. The ending is just weird and impossible to make sense of, also not feeling much of an ending. The sound is also off, being too loud and constant and tending to be favoured over the dialogue.
Ray Fearon is pretty forgettable here and his character is just moving story forward plot device material. The direction is not incompetent but uninspired and shows a lack of experience. The over-reliance-on-exposition script doesn't flow very well and just feels half-baked and wordy in a way not always easy to understand. The special effects are very ropy, they don't blend well and the proportions can be inconsistent.
Overall, had great potential and Sackhoff especially makes it watchable but suffers from dullness and being over-complicated and half-baked. 4/10 Bethany Cox
After seeing it, '2036 Unknown Origin' to me was not a terrible film, it has its moments. When it comes to recent low budget recent viewings it is nowhere near close to being one of the worst. A large part of me though was rather disappointed, another example of a film with great ideas and concept and just as great potential but none of them properly lived up to, not completely wasted but this should have been much more. The not so enthusiastic critical reception is understandable though while sharing a lot of the criticisms directed against it didn't find it that bad.
From personal opinion, it did have some atmosphere in the sets, an effective visual claustrophobia and the photography was quite nice, for low budget this could have fared much worse. It does start off well, it is intriguing, sets things up nicely and is not too badly paced.
The acting was also better than average, with a more than credible lead performance from Katee Sackhoff who had the hard task of carrying much of the film with not much support. Her character was one that didn't annoy or bore me and there was effort made to develop her. Julie Cox and Steven Cree, added in apparently during post-production, are also fine.
However, '2036 Origin Unknown's' main problem is the story. It does feel dragged out, like a short film stretched to feature, and gets over-complicated as a result of having too many ideas/areas and not enough of them being fully explored, meaning that there is a lack of clarity. This is not a case of not trying, more a case of trying too hard. The ending is just weird and impossible to make sense of, also not feeling much of an ending. The sound is also off, being too loud and constant and tending to be favoured over the dialogue.
Ray Fearon is pretty forgettable here and his character is just moving story forward plot device material. The direction is not incompetent but uninspired and shows a lack of experience. The over-reliance-on-exposition script doesn't flow very well and just feels half-baked and wordy in a way not always easy to understand. The special effects are very ropy, they don't blend well and the proportions can be inconsistent.
Overall, had great potential and Sackhoff especially makes it watchable but suffers from dullness and being over-complicated and half-baked. 4/10 Bethany Cox
It's 2030. Mars 1 crashes on the planet after getting hit by an energy field. Six years later, Mack Wilson (Katee Sackhoff) leads the investigation into the crash chaffing under the artificial intelligence computer ARTI's control. They find an object of unknown origin.
This is reminiscent of an old style sci-fi magazine story. British filmmaker Hasraf Dulull started in CGI and videogames into trying to make these smaller budget sci-fi movies. This could have been a Twilight zone episode although it may still be not good. It's stuffed with CGI scenes of a Mars mission. The human scenes consist mostly Sackhoff, a computer voice, and a techie room. The movie lacks a human touch and a human story. In short, it lacks humanity no matter how hard Sackhoff tries. It's only good for a shorter sci-fi TV episode.
This is reminiscent of an old style sci-fi magazine story. British filmmaker Hasraf Dulull started in CGI and videogames into trying to make these smaller budget sci-fi movies. This could have been a Twilight zone episode although it may still be not good. It's stuffed with CGI scenes of a Mars mission. The human scenes consist mostly Sackhoff, a computer voice, and a techie room. The movie lacks a human touch and a human story. In short, it lacks humanity no matter how hard Sackhoff tries. It's only good for a shorter sci-fi TV episode.
Did you know
- TriviaShot in about 9 days.
- GoofsAt the beginning of the movie, when 'Martian 1' is approaching Mars, they are talking with Earth and getting responses in REAL-TIME ... several years BEFORE the Hyperlight Communication system was invented. The SHORTEST communication time with Mars is a bit over 3 minutes each way (give or take) at its' closest approach, and up to 40 minutes at its' farthest (when we couldn't communicate anyway as the Sun would directly between us).
This is time compression. Everybody is aware of the time gap but few people would sit still for a movie with ten or so minutes between queries and responses.
- Quotes
Mackenzie 'Mack' Wilson: You may not be able to override, but I can... I got hands.
- ConnectionsReferences Star Wars: Épisode IV - Un nouvel espoir (1977)
- How long is 2036 Origin Unknown?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime1 hour 34 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content