IMDb RATING
3.3/10
1.9K
YOUR RATING
Five crew members are forced into an escape pod built for four after their starship is destroyed. Just as rescue seems imminent, an alien creature boards their craft and attacks them.Five crew members are forced into an escape pod built for four after their starship is destroyed. Just as rescue seems imminent, an alien creature boards their craft and attacks them.Five crew members are forced into an escape pod built for four after their starship is destroyed. Just as rescue seems imminent, an alien creature boards their craft and attacks them.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
I had the opportunity to see this film on the big screen. I think what we have to remember is that the effects are astonishing. The viewer will question if they are watching the set or a green screen shot, its that clean. The story is a culmination and mix of ideas cleverly weaved together with an ending that will not leave you disappointed. Some highlights were seeing Doug Jones not in makeup or costume, and Tim Russ as a bad guy to root for. I think the negative reviewers need to consider the budget and quality you are getting. You don't buy a Honda and expect it to drive like a Ferrari. Just like I wouldn't expect this movie to have the same draw as a Star Wars. Knowing this I really enjoyed it for the entertainment value and underlying relevant hints at current events. Well done.
The fanboi/shill reviews, or the poor acting.
I am unsure who figured these people, who acted in the past together, could still act ...together and succeed. The show is a modern B. Not that a B movie is bad.
The acting was rigid, forced and, at times, off key. The CGI was bad when ever the color red or orange was needed it seems ;)
If you are a Star Trek cast fan, there will be no deterring you from seeing this. If you are a sucker for IMDB ratings, do not be fooled, this rating is falsly inflated. The movie rating will balance out in the 4.2-5.0 range
I am unsure who figured these people, who acted in the past together, could still act ...together and succeed. The show is a modern B. Not that a B movie is bad.
The acting was rigid, forced and, at times, off key. The CGI was bad when ever the color red or orange was needed it seems ;)
If you are a Star Trek cast fan, there will be no deterring you from seeing this. If you are a sucker for IMDB ratings, do not be fooled, this rating is falsly inflated. The movie rating will balance out in the 4.2-5.0 range
Did you know
- TriviaMarina Sirtis, Armin Shimerman, and Tim Russ have each starred in each of the 1990s Star Trek series as Counselor Deanna Troi in Star Trek: La nouvelle génération (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).
- GoofsWhen 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.
- How long is 5th Passenger?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime1 hour 29 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39:1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content