1/10
Bad science fiction without the science
14 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The initial impression of this film is that the writers threw it together as fast as possible with no research or really much thought at all.

The first, and possibly most frustrating, problem is the numerous and obvious scientific inaccuracies. A human cannot survive in space without a spacesuit. Even if he is carrying the only means of survival for the crew. A rifle fired in a spacecraft does not end well for anyone involve. (Still not sure why they packed an arsenal of assault rifles anyway). There was a surprising abundance of gravity and oxygen on the abandoned shuttle, which of course was never designed to leave low Earth orbit, let along travel to the moon. The list goes on...

Even if these shortfalls don't bother you, the acting sure will. Captain Mullet was the most competent of the crew, and that says very little. Each character was one dimensional, so of course the actors had to go overboard with the only emotion they were allowed to express. The old guy's creepiness, the former combat soldier's urge to kill everything, the woman's uselessness, and the doctor's cowardice/cream allergy all foreshadowed their individual (vain) attempts to move the plot forward.

The writing was completely nonsensical. The acting was terrible. It all works well together to redefine the term 'B-movie'.

Despite Captain Mullet's selfless heroism and noble intentions, why should we be led to believe that a nuclear blast will kill Satan?
13 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed