This movie is dodgy, plain and simple. In some sequence you can easily tell that the characters are animated in-particularly the rock climbing shots. It wasn't even good animation. In another shot, the camera is all over the place. The camera man must has being shaking like mad. This is not acceptable in a modern day sci-fi flick but yet this movie was allowed to do it. Apart from that, the storyline is weak also. It all seemed like an episode of Stargate. The alien intrusion on Earths History, the staf like weapons and the dodgy looking crests here and their just gave the film a look of stargate rip-off which is just not on. Fair enough, originality is hard to get these days as almost all ideas have been done at some stage but to copy big elements so glaringly is the sign that the producers were half asleep when they were doing this picture. The acting was OK however but again not the best. Overall this film is a poor sci-fi flick so check out other sci-fi movies if you want to be entertained.
44 Reviews
Depressingly Weak Sci-Fi Suckfest
sexytail19 June 2006
Don't accuse me of expecting "Chinatown" here, because I already know the Sci-Fi Chanell has limited means. That said, limited means are no reasonable excuse for limited imagination or vision.
So, it's the future again and one of the not so friendly corporations that control Earth has sent a mission to Mars (there have been quite a few if those lately) to find an everlasting and inexpensive power source. Naturally they crash land in an almost half-exciting, almost well-executed scene which displays good planning ruined by the usual weak CGI. Soon the crew start to die and we find out that one of the crew is a government spy and that Mars is not a dead planet.
Every movie this network makes is either a format genre flick we've seen a million times before or a blatant rip-off of a popular film. At first, "Crimson Force" looks like it's going to be an "Alien" rip-off with shades of "Total Recall". But then the crew enter a "pyramid" (quotes because it has five sides) and get caught up in a power struggle between the ruling classes of Mars's surviving inhabitants. I think we were meant to be reminded of "Dune", but since the sets are so obviously small, the costumes so inexpensive, and the population so sparse, it reminds one more of a sadder incarnation of the 30s "Flash Gordon" serials. The way the second half plays out you'll likely wish they'd just finished ripping off "Alien" and been done with it.
To pad the running time (since the Martian plot is not all the complicated as it's written), our pretty-boy hero Ambrose is given flashbacks which explain why he's conflicted about working for the corporation, which in turn are a set-up to a typical made-for-TV character choice. The results aren't exactly deep. Most of the characters come with a whole two dimensions, including C. Thomas Howell's unlikeable Captain, the two "babes", the guys with accents, and the single non-white male.
The film was not necessarily a bad idea. But an idea is only the beginning and a lot can (and did) go wrong along the way. Apart from the terrible effects and the constraints of the budget, there's the direction. This was advertised as some kind of epic, so the director tries to emphasize how big everything is (the spaceship, the pyramid, the interiors...), which unfortunately just reveals how small the sets really are. If they'd tried some location shooting for once the viewer might not suffer claustrophobia from watching these "epics".
One star for an okay idea, a second for reminding me that I could do it better.
So, it's the future again and one of the not so friendly corporations that control Earth has sent a mission to Mars (there have been quite a few if those lately) to find an everlasting and inexpensive power source. Naturally they crash land in an almost half-exciting, almost well-executed scene which displays good planning ruined by the usual weak CGI. Soon the crew start to die and we find out that one of the crew is a government spy and that Mars is not a dead planet.
Every movie this network makes is either a format genre flick we've seen a million times before or a blatant rip-off of a popular film. At first, "Crimson Force" looks like it's going to be an "Alien" rip-off with shades of "Total Recall". But then the crew enter a "pyramid" (quotes because it has five sides) and get caught up in a power struggle between the ruling classes of Mars's surviving inhabitants. I think we were meant to be reminded of "Dune", but since the sets are so obviously small, the costumes so inexpensive, and the population so sparse, it reminds one more of a sadder incarnation of the 30s "Flash Gordon" serials. The way the second half plays out you'll likely wish they'd just finished ripping off "Alien" and been done with it.
To pad the running time (since the Martian plot is not all the complicated as it's written), our pretty-boy hero Ambrose is given flashbacks which explain why he's conflicted about working for the corporation, which in turn are a set-up to a typical made-for-TV character choice. The results aren't exactly deep. Most of the characters come with a whole two dimensions, including C. Thomas Howell's unlikeable Captain, the two "babes", the guys with accents, and the single non-white male.
The film was not necessarily a bad idea. But an idea is only the beginning and a lot can (and did) go wrong along the way. Apart from the terrible effects and the constraints of the budget, there's the direction. This was advertised as some kind of epic, so the director tries to emphasize how big everything is (the spaceship, the pyramid, the interiors...), which unfortunately just reveals how small the sets really are. If they'd tried some location shooting for once the viewer might not suffer claustrophobia from watching these "epics".
One star for an okay idea, a second for reminding me that I could do it better.
Lost on Mars
wes-connors3 September 2014
The year is 2037 and corporations are still running the planet Earth. Advised to abort the first human mission to the planet Mars, due to some spaceship problems, hard-nosed crew leader C. Thomas Howell (as Kyle Baskin) insists on landing anyway. David Flores and his crew survive shaky cameras and their very rough touchdown, but their spaceship needs repairs. As if that wasn't enough to worry about, they learn a traitor is present, intent on sabotaging the mission. The red planet looks deserted, but looks can be deceiving; there may be Martians lurking about. Not knowing what to do, Mr. Howell seems angry. We also follow handsome "Baywatch" lifeguard David Chokachi (as Nick Ambrose). The women are sexy. There is enough here to make good TV movie, but "Crimson Force" fails to put its scattered pieces together.
*** Crimson Force (6/4/05) David Flores ~ David Chokachi, C. Thomas Howell, Julia Rose, Terasa Livingstone
*** Crimson Force (6/4/05) David Flores ~ David Chokachi, C. Thomas Howell, Julia Rose, Terasa Livingstone
A textbook on the many ways a movie can be bad
johnsamo-119 June 2006
This movie offers some textbook examples of why most low-budget sci-fi movies are bad.
(1) A story scope that way exceeds the budget. I don't know what the budget for this movie was, but they clearly didn't have the money to pull off what they were trying for. If you've only got a million bucks or whatever to make a movie, you're better off making a small sci-fi movie rather than try and pull off a BIG movie with lots of sets, CG FX, action scenes, and characters. The result is, you don't have enough money for realistic sets, good CG FX, and good actors. THe final result is sort of like throwing some chrome on the bumper and adding leather seats to a ford pinto and trying to sell it off as a Cadillac. It so doesn't look like a Cadillac that it becomes an unintentional farce.
(2) It's too derivative of other sci-fi classics, in this case Stargate.
(3) The tone of the story is all over the place because of the varied acting styles/talent levels. The lead actor, C. Thomas Howell, clearly thinks he's in a bad movie and is giving a performance that wavers between phoning it in and camp.. Perhaps he thought it was a bad movie because he spent so much screen time with a really bad actor who's name I thankfully don't know, and maybe Howell was just staying on his level. Now at times, chewing the scenery fits if the movie isn't taking itself seriously, but this movie is trying to take itself seriously.
David Chokachi and the blond actress on the other hand seem to be in a completely different movie than Howell in both tone and look, and are actually pretty good and are taking the movie seriously and acting in a very naturalistic style. Chokachi in particular was really good, but his good performance only sort of magnified how off most of the other acting was. And then there's this third movie that's sort of a soap opera on Mars, and they think they're doing Shakespearian theater, very theatrical and over the top stylistically.
Plotwise, I gave up trying to fathom it at about the 1 hour mark. I don't mind complicated story lines when they're interesting, but when they're not, the movie just lays there. When you're well into a movie and you all the sudden cut to a title card reading "8 years before", you know you've got severe story structure problems. It's one thing when it's the Godfather part 2, but I didn't get why they had this scene. If I didn't know better and if I actually hadn't seen various actors together in the same scenes occasionally, I'd think this movie was an amalgamation of three different movies directed by three different directors. Towards the end of the 2nd act, it's as if the movie knows that it makes no sense, so an alien comes in and gives a long expository scene to try and explain the movie a little. By this time I didn't care.
In other words, a total waste of time unless you want to watch all the ways a movie can go wrong.
(1) A story scope that way exceeds the budget. I don't know what the budget for this movie was, but they clearly didn't have the money to pull off what they were trying for. If you've only got a million bucks or whatever to make a movie, you're better off making a small sci-fi movie rather than try and pull off a BIG movie with lots of sets, CG FX, action scenes, and characters. The result is, you don't have enough money for realistic sets, good CG FX, and good actors. THe final result is sort of like throwing some chrome on the bumper and adding leather seats to a ford pinto and trying to sell it off as a Cadillac. It so doesn't look like a Cadillac that it becomes an unintentional farce.
(2) It's too derivative of other sci-fi classics, in this case Stargate.
(3) The tone of the story is all over the place because of the varied acting styles/talent levels. The lead actor, C. Thomas Howell, clearly thinks he's in a bad movie and is giving a performance that wavers between phoning it in and camp.. Perhaps he thought it was a bad movie because he spent so much screen time with a really bad actor who's name I thankfully don't know, and maybe Howell was just staying on his level. Now at times, chewing the scenery fits if the movie isn't taking itself seriously, but this movie is trying to take itself seriously.
David Chokachi and the blond actress on the other hand seem to be in a completely different movie than Howell in both tone and look, and are actually pretty good and are taking the movie seriously and acting in a very naturalistic style. Chokachi in particular was really good, but his good performance only sort of magnified how off most of the other acting was. And then there's this third movie that's sort of a soap opera on Mars, and they think they're doing Shakespearian theater, very theatrical and over the top stylistically.
Plotwise, I gave up trying to fathom it at about the 1 hour mark. I don't mind complicated story lines when they're interesting, but when they're not, the movie just lays there. When you're well into a movie and you all the sudden cut to a title card reading "8 years before", you know you've got severe story structure problems. It's one thing when it's the Godfather part 2, but I didn't get why they had this scene. If I didn't know better and if I actually hadn't seen various actors together in the same scenes occasionally, I'd think this movie was an amalgamation of three different movies directed by three different directors. Towards the end of the 2nd act, it's as if the movie knows that it makes no sense, so an alien comes in and gives a long expository scene to try and explain the movie a little. By this time I didn't care.
In other words, a total waste of time unless you want to watch all the ways a movie can go wrong.
More Saturday night dreck from the SciFi Channel
geek_mastermind4 June 2005
The script appears to have been written by someone who mixed up his notes in Screen writing 101 and used everything s/he'd been warned NOT to use. The characters are 2-dimensional and predictable. The conventions are as hackneyed as they come. And the editor must have been gone through several bags of Pixie Stix before firing up the equipment, because the cuts are fast, furious and distract from, rather than enhance, the story.
The latter may be a blessing in disguise, come to think of it.
The music is cobbled together from a variety of sources, including some that 'World of Warcraft' players should quickly recognise.
If this review is uninspired, it only reflects this plodding, pointless waste of film. It is an utterly regrettable enterprise.
The latter may be a blessing in disguise, come to think of it.
The music is cobbled together from a variety of sources, including some that 'World of Warcraft' players should quickly recognise.
If this review is uninspired, it only reflects this plodding, pointless waste of film. It is an utterly regrettable enterprise.
Why does the sci fi channel have no respect for it's audience?
darthstar5 June 2005
Is there a rating of minus stars that I can assign to this waste of time? Because awful is just too generous. Here is a more accurate description. Grade Z, jerked off and rated S for silly. Good science fiction does not have to be chained to scientific plausibility(hence the genre) However if the characters do not behave in a plausible fashion and the plot shows no imagination then we are left with a film like "Crimson Force". Another pathetic offering from the sci fi channel. Speaking of which who are they making these lame brained movies for. Certainly no one who wants to be entertained by intelligent science fiction. They must get the scripts for their movies from essays written in middle school.....wait come to think of it there I go being too generous again.
One of The Worst TV Movies Ever
c_semerad5 June 2005
Well, really what else is there to say? It was bad...REAL bad. During the exceptionally overacted dialog, I kept waiting for a punchline. Surely this had to be a comedy. But no, every line was delivered with such melodramatic sincerity, that I realized that it was just bad. C. Thomas Howell, in the years since we have seen him, has apparently attended the George Takei School of Acting, or non-acting, as the case may be. He was horrible. I have to ask myself and fellow viewers, when they make a movie like this, do the actors know it's that bad as they say each line that's horrifically worse than the last one? Is it that hard to find quality work in Hollywood? Yikes! I'll keep my day job, which by the way, is not as a professional movie critic.
Sci-Fi Channel needs to give us something to make us THINK, not our brains shrivel up
Asteri-Atypical4 June 2005
How can a channel called the *SCI-FI* Channel be so horrible at creating movies which appeal to its core audience? Sadly, SFC tends to brag about it's long line of "original pictures"; none of which are worth watching, especially by fans of the Sci-Fi genre.
Crimson Force is no exception. More space-drama-eye-candy which neither captures the imagination nor stirs the mind. I agree with a previous poster - "who writes this stuff anyway"? It was like warmed over meatloaf. You already have had plenty of it before you began. It would be nice to see something come from SFC which actually seems to have been written by someone with an advanced brain. Crimson Force seems to have been aimed at teenagers who have never seen enough Sci-Fi to recognize how hackneyed and pedestrian this drivel is.
I won't commenting on the acting. It's not worth the typing.
SciFi Channel needs to learn to appeal to SCIENCE FICTION FANS when it creates ORIGINAL pictures. Give us something which gives us something to THINK about or, at least, stirs our imagination. Quit ignoring your CORE audience! Enough of the typical brain-dead Hollywood style drivel. We don't care if it looks like it was created in someone's back yard - just so that it has a GOOD IDEA and is written by someone with more than a room temperature IQ.
Crimson Force is no exception. More space-drama-eye-candy which neither captures the imagination nor stirs the mind. I agree with a previous poster - "who writes this stuff anyway"? It was like warmed over meatloaf. You already have had plenty of it before you began. It would be nice to see something come from SFC which actually seems to have been written by someone with an advanced brain. Crimson Force seems to have been aimed at teenagers who have never seen enough Sci-Fi to recognize how hackneyed and pedestrian this drivel is.
I won't commenting on the acting. It's not worth the typing.
SciFi Channel needs to learn to appeal to SCIENCE FICTION FANS when it creates ORIGINAL pictures. Give us something which gives us something to THINK about or, at least, stirs our imagination. Quit ignoring your CORE audience! Enough of the typical brain-dead Hollywood style drivel. We don't care if it looks like it was created in someone's back yard - just so that it has a GOOD IDEA and is written by someone with more than a room temperature IQ.
You are right, this movie is horrible
ittapsirrah4 June 2005
I would like to thank Bill for his review. You gave me back 15 minutes of my life. This movie is truly awful, convoluted plot, bad dialog, and incredibly bad acting. There are some many wonderful Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels and shorts out there, why doesn't someone produce them? Sometimes I think the Sci-Fi channel thinks that fans will watch anything. How do they produce such great shows (BattleStar, Stargates, etc) and yet put on such fodder. I guess it works like any other corporation, the dumber you are the higher you make it up the ladder. Therefore, the people in charge of programming are not very bright. Also I have come to the conclusion that any movie with C Thomas Howell is a waste. Don't even bother with this one.
Bad all the way through
usascottwright29 June 2009
This was such a bad movie, bad acting and just doesn't make a whole lot of since.
C. Thomas Howell is such a bad actor. He was good in only one movie that I saw him in and that was the hitcher. Everything else is just so bad.
1. A corporation is going to send out a billion dollar investment with a guy who is criminally insane at the helm and then mid way threw helped murder a crew member because he is paranoid.
2. What is crew members eating at there stations. getting greasy fingers and hands all in the mix of mechanical parts.
3. An advanced civilization which seams that doesn't know whats going on? Some foreign entities walk right through there front door and they don't know about it? Director:David Flores - Writer:Rob Mecarini - OK you two is this your first movie. It doesn't have to be good as Star Trek, Star Wars, SG1, Battestar Galactica. Even the movie the day the earth stood still from 1951 was better executed than this movie.
You have to make movies believable, with a hint of truth and that it could happen and not some paranoid murderous ship captain.
The very first sentence in the movie; Sir something is happening, he didn't say report, or what is happening, he said keep it steady, what????? You would think you are million miles from home, you would want to know every little creak and noise going on because there isn't a good year on every planet to get your ship fixed.
C. Thomas Howell is such a bad actor. He was good in only one movie that I saw him in and that was the hitcher. Everything else is just so bad.
1. A corporation is going to send out a billion dollar investment with a guy who is criminally insane at the helm and then mid way threw helped murder a crew member because he is paranoid.
2. What is crew members eating at there stations. getting greasy fingers and hands all in the mix of mechanical parts.
3. An advanced civilization which seams that doesn't know whats going on? Some foreign entities walk right through there front door and they don't know about it? Director:David Flores - Writer:Rob Mecarini - OK you two is this your first movie. It doesn't have to be good as Star Trek, Star Wars, SG1, Battestar Galactica. Even the movie the day the earth stood still from 1951 was better executed than this movie.
You have to make movies believable, with a hint of truth and that it could happen and not some paranoid murderous ship captain.
The very first sentence in the movie; Sir something is happening, he didn't say report, or what is happening, he said keep it steady, what????? You would think you are million miles from home, you would want to know every little creak and noise going on because there isn't a good year on every planet to get your ship fixed.
Made-for-cable science fiction movie that fans and others will like
RoseD12129 June 2005
I disagree with the negative comments on this board. The movie was fun and fast moving. It looked good compared to most of the Sci-Fi network movies, and had a complex and interesting story.
There was a lot of humor in the movie. C. Thomas Howell was funny on purpose, which lightened the tone.
The movie was like the more complex X-Files episodes. If you paid attention to the plot you really got something out of it. Once you get through all of the exposition in the first 15 minutes, the movie really starts to move and it all starts to really make sense. Some other information is held back until near the end of the movie, which is good because I was surprised by a few things. All my questions were answered by the end. I like not knowing everything right at the beginning. If you know everything, the movie is boring since you know what's going to happen and how it's going to end. This movie feeds you key information over time and it's fun to figure out the politics and alliances. Good job!
There was a lot of humor in the movie. C. Thomas Howell was funny on purpose, which lightened the tone.
The movie was like the more complex X-Files episodes. If you paid attention to the plot you really got something out of it. Once you get through all of the exposition in the first 15 minutes, the movie really starts to move and it all starts to really make sense. Some other information is held back until near the end of the movie, which is good because I was surprised by a few things. All my questions were answered by the end. I like not knowing everything right at the beginning. If you know everything, the movie is boring since you know what's going to happen and how it's going to end. This movie feeds you key information over time and it's fun to figure out the politics and alliances. Good job!
Not bad
dewboy308165 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie isn't that bad for the Sci-fi Channel. I noticed another person bashed it based on the first 14 minutes. Let me assure you it gets better. I honestly got the feeling the writer and/or director had some talent, because he seemed to know which actors to kill off, and which one's to let live.
The movie plays like a mixture of "Stargate SG-1" (the aliens speak English except when it sounds cooler to do otherwise) and "John Carter of Mars" (breeding with aliens, and the notion that martians live only through a fragile system of atmosphere preservation). I got the feeling, however, that it was being made by people who knew they'd have to use clichés to get through on time and on budget, but tried to be different where they could.
One of the most interesting aspects of the movie is the origin of mankind. It's actually a mixture of two old clichés, in a way I haven't seen before: 1. Aliens sent their criminals to another planet.
2. The aliens bred with the women of Earth (little more than apes then).
While the pure aliens died off from the disease in our atmosphere (as those that sent there their were 99% sure they would) before the first human was born, it seems that we humans survived. The aliens, after much deliberation, decided they couldn't just wipe us out, and over time (another cliché) used us to help them gather resources from Earth.
The motives in this movie are fairly simple, but not always totally black-and-white. In the end, you get what you pay for (divide your cable bill by all the movies and shows you watch per month for the price): A decent Sci-fi flick, if a rather silly one.
This movie was left open-ended for a sequel. To be honest, I think a show could be worked from it, although it isn't the obvious back-door pilot of many Sci-fi Channel movies. I would certainly tune in to see what happens next.
The movie plays like a mixture of "Stargate SG-1" (the aliens speak English except when it sounds cooler to do otherwise) and "John Carter of Mars" (breeding with aliens, and the notion that martians live only through a fragile system of atmosphere preservation). I got the feeling, however, that it was being made by people who knew they'd have to use clichés to get through on time and on budget, but tried to be different where they could.
One of the most interesting aspects of the movie is the origin of mankind. It's actually a mixture of two old clichés, in a way I haven't seen before: 1. Aliens sent their criminals to another planet.
2. The aliens bred with the women of Earth (little more than apes then).
While the pure aliens died off from the disease in our atmosphere (as those that sent there their were 99% sure they would) before the first human was born, it seems that we humans survived. The aliens, after much deliberation, decided they couldn't just wipe us out, and over time (another cliché) used us to help them gather resources from Earth.
The motives in this movie are fairly simple, but not always totally black-and-white. In the end, you get what you pay for (divide your cable bill by all the movies and shows you watch per month for the price): A decent Sci-fi flick, if a rather silly one.
This movie was left open-ended for a sequel. To be honest, I think a show could be worked from it, although it isn't the obvious back-door pilot of many Sci-fi Channel movies. I would certainly tune in to see what happens next.
14 minutes is enough
billandersen4 June 2005
I'm only 14 minutes into the movie and it's so horrible I don't know if I can go on. But, in the hope that someone will read this before SciFi decides to replay it, and can thereby gain two hours of their life back, I am honor bound to try to warn you away.
This stinker is jam-packed with every corrupt-corporate-future-meets-space-travel cliché imaginable. I don't know why SciFi even bothers. It's even worse then the marginally entertaining Alien Apocalype. I'm now 19 minutes into it. Hopefully there will be the usual gratuitous SciFi sex scene.... Nope. Not yet.
There are some bad space suits and (this is good) "welding" on the outside of a spaceship covered apparently by the same kind of thermal tiles that are used on the Space Shuttle.
Who writes this stuff anyway?
This stinker is jam-packed with every corrupt-corporate-future-meets-space-travel cliché imaginable. I don't know why SciFi even bothers. It's even worse then the marginally entertaining Alien Apocalype. I'm now 19 minutes into it. Hopefully there will be the usual gratuitous SciFi sex scene.... Nope. Not yet.
There are some bad space suits and (this is good) "welding" on the outside of a spaceship covered apparently by the same kind of thermal tiles that are used on the Space Shuttle.
Who writes this stuff anyway?
Root Canal Would Have Been More Entertaining
hornet1969again4 June 2005
Too late, Bill. Not only did I already sit through the whole thing, but as per usual Sci-Fi is going to show it again at one AM. For anyone else tempted to try it, don't bother. Contrary to the "Sci-Fi Original" blurb, if you've seen Stargate the movie, you've already seen this, done by people with talent. This was a cheap, useless knock-off, made all the more complete by the inclusion of an SG-1 regular guest (Tony Amendola, only this time he's "Ra"). The characters are clichéd, the plot hackneyed, the FX and music flat-out SUCKED and these people couldn't build suspense if they had directions! Just two hours of your life you'll never get back.
Why would anyone write a good review for this movie? Makes you think!
Helen_Kay27 August 2005
I'm new to IMDb but I'm starting to notice something.
It seems some movies are getting a lot of bad reviews trashing them but then a few that praise it. I'm noticing a pattern to this, however. The movies which are receiving some high praise are all unquestionably awful. Movies like Crimson Force are so bad that I can't imagine anyone truly enjoying them! None of my Sci-Fi fan buddies like it.
I believe it comes down to having people either paid to write good reviews for such movies or people who worked on such movies writing reviews to praise them. It's the only explanation. Look at the reviews here. Most people hate it but there are a few who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. No middle ground. That doesn't make sense for sincere reviews.
Crimson Force is a frighteningly bad movie. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Conceptually it's moronic and a slap in the face to Sci-Fi fans. Save your time.
It seems some movies are getting a lot of bad reviews trashing them but then a few that praise it. I'm noticing a pattern to this, however. The movies which are receiving some high praise are all unquestionably awful. Movies like Crimson Force are so bad that I can't imagine anyone truly enjoying them! None of my Sci-Fi fan buddies like it.
I believe it comes down to having people either paid to write good reviews for such movies or people who worked on such movies writing reviews to praise them. It's the only explanation. Look at the reviews here. Most people hate it but there are a few who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. No middle ground. That doesn't make sense for sincere reviews.
Crimson Force is a frighteningly bad movie. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Conceptually it's moronic and a slap in the face to Sci-Fi fans. Save your time.
Blurrp... (Finger down throat).
spammerattack2 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
OMFG, when are they ever going to stop making these "Man has screwed up Earth and now we have to look elsewhere" stinkers. It's either that or an evil corporation and or US governments genetic weapon gets out of control and a giant mutated __________ (Insert animal, insect or germ here) starts eating people and/or towns. Or even the very, very old and worn out Body Snatcher premise, these days with the above mentioned corporation/US government involved, of course. At least Mission to Mars and Stargate (Movie and TV show) didn't fall into this cliché morass and the TV version of Stargate added an original twist to the Body Snatcher theme. 90% of everything in this pathetic waste of recording media, tape or film, was lifted from the old 1940s, 50s and 60s sci-fi movies where some hapless travelers are abducted by an evil civilization on the moon and held prisoner because they don't want the idiot (as usual) Earthers to know about them. All that was changed was the location, Mars, and why the explorers were there in the first place, we used up Earth, again.
As for acting, Tony Amendola did the best he could with what he was given. His expression through the whole ordeal was like, "God, when will this end so I can get back to something exiting" (Stargate SG1). Everybody else would have been better "time-traveled" back to the movies in the above mentioned time periods.
Please, I implore you, if you must watch TV and all there is on is a Flipper marathon on TV Land, stay away from this crud. Flipper had more substance AND action, even in re-runs.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to regain my composure after contemplating this cinematographic turd.
As for acting, Tony Amendola did the best he could with what he was given. His expression through the whole ordeal was like, "God, when will this end so I can get back to something exiting" (Stargate SG1). Everybody else would have been better "time-traveled" back to the movies in the above mentioned time periods.
Please, I implore you, if you must watch TV and all there is on is a Flipper marathon on TV Land, stay away from this crud. Flipper had more substance AND action, even in re-runs.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to regain my composure after contemplating this cinematographic turd.
90 minutes in and it's still terrible
wdmcdaniel4 June 2005
This is no longer a movie about mars...it is now sort of a "mystical hidden jungle people meet western explorers and share wisdom" movie.
The problems are incredible. pressure on the surface is high, o2 levels are high, life forms are earthlike (of course we're descended from them). It's like a bad rip off on Stargate SG1.
There isn't that much to be said about this movie. It has poor plot, no theme, terrible acting, and poor special effects. What else is there to say. sci Fi channel should have spent their money on a good b-rated monster from the ocean depths movie instead.
The problems are incredible. pressure on the surface is high, o2 levels are high, life forms are earthlike (of course we're descended from them). It's like a bad rip off on Stargate SG1.
There isn't that much to be said about this movie. It has poor plot, no theme, terrible acting, and poor special effects. What else is there to say. sci Fi channel should have spent their money on a good b-rated monster from the ocean depths movie instead.
Definitely not the worst movie ever made.
mergatroid-114 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The worst thing about this movie is that C. Thomas Howell is in it.
I haven't seen all his stuff, but I did buy the version of War of the Worlds staring Howell, and it was so bad I threw out the DVD and kept the case. (I did re-watch it a 2nd time just to make sure I wasn't stoned or something).
In this movie he's just as bad. How does a guy like that make his living acting? Man he sucks.
Some people had the usual delirious complaints about an overly complex plot. They are right, scifi channel does write to their audience. They make movies with such simple plots even a baby could follow it. It seems it's too simple for the simple minded however.
There is some bad acting in this movie, most of it from Howell. However there is also some mighty fine acting that's good enough even Howell can't ruin it.
All the effects and scenery are fine. Obviously those people complaining about the scenery think they could do a better job. It all looked good to me. Someone actually criticized the ship interior. Heh heh, that's pretty funny. Maybe if this person wants to criticize a space ship interior he should check out the last Star Trek movie with the lame "engineering" decks on the federation ships. Poor excuse for ship interiors. Looked like they ran out of money and resorted to filming at a brewery (oh wait, they did...)...
One guy mentioned how all the women were wearing tight little black undershirts....hey buddy, it's called a t-shirt. I have news for you, the guys were wearing similar shirts. Get a brain.
This movie deals with runaway corporations that have become enemies with the "government". A Mars mission is sent out because of some energy readings on Mars. Once arriving people start to die, and the bad actor (Howell) thinks there is a traitor. It turns out to be Martens (who have been living underground) killing off the humans. What's left of the crew enter a pyramid and find the Martens. They have two casts who don't like each other, Religious and Warrior (reminds me of the Minbari on Babylon 5). The leader babe of the warriors convinces the bad actor to kill the head priest. The crew ends up splitting up, and each party befriends one of the two Marten factions.
And the fun begins.
I have seen a lot of bad movies in my life, and this one is only marginally close to being as bad. As an older scifi fan, I have seen the 50s movies when scifi was just starting out, and this movie is much better than those old time movies.
However, if the wannabe big time critics want to see a REALLY bad movie, try checking out Hard Gun with Tony Ja some time.
These people don't seem to understand how a 1 to 10 scale works either. Giving this movie a 1 or no stars would seem to indicate it's on the bottom of the movie heap, which is clearly isn't (in spite of Howell). And those people giving it over 8 stars seem to think it's one of the great works of art, which of course it isn't even close to.
I've stopped some movies in my day and threw them out, deeming the cases worth more than the movie. This movie however wasn't one of them.
If I saw this movie in the bargain bin at my local big box store, would I buy it? No, but because I've seen it and I don't care to see it again. If I was bored to tears one night and there was nothing on TV, but this movie came on while I was cruising the Internet would I bother changing the channel? Again, no, because this movie is not that bad (again, in spite of Howell).
Watch it once, it's entertaining enough....
I haven't seen all his stuff, but I did buy the version of War of the Worlds staring Howell, and it was so bad I threw out the DVD and kept the case. (I did re-watch it a 2nd time just to make sure I wasn't stoned or something).
In this movie he's just as bad. How does a guy like that make his living acting? Man he sucks.
Some people had the usual delirious complaints about an overly complex plot. They are right, scifi channel does write to their audience. They make movies with such simple plots even a baby could follow it. It seems it's too simple for the simple minded however.
There is some bad acting in this movie, most of it from Howell. However there is also some mighty fine acting that's good enough even Howell can't ruin it.
All the effects and scenery are fine. Obviously those people complaining about the scenery think they could do a better job. It all looked good to me. Someone actually criticized the ship interior. Heh heh, that's pretty funny. Maybe if this person wants to criticize a space ship interior he should check out the last Star Trek movie with the lame "engineering" decks on the federation ships. Poor excuse for ship interiors. Looked like they ran out of money and resorted to filming at a brewery (oh wait, they did...)...
One guy mentioned how all the women were wearing tight little black undershirts....hey buddy, it's called a t-shirt. I have news for you, the guys were wearing similar shirts. Get a brain.
This movie deals with runaway corporations that have become enemies with the "government". A Mars mission is sent out because of some energy readings on Mars. Once arriving people start to die, and the bad actor (Howell) thinks there is a traitor. It turns out to be Martens (who have been living underground) killing off the humans. What's left of the crew enter a pyramid and find the Martens. They have two casts who don't like each other, Religious and Warrior (reminds me of the Minbari on Babylon 5). The leader babe of the warriors convinces the bad actor to kill the head priest. The crew ends up splitting up, and each party befriends one of the two Marten factions.
And the fun begins.
I have seen a lot of bad movies in my life, and this one is only marginally close to being as bad. As an older scifi fan, I have seen the 50s movies when scifi was just starting out, and this movie is much better than those old time movies.
However, if the wannabe big time critics want to see a REALLY bad movie, try checking out Hard Gun with Tony Ja some time.
These people don't seem to understand how a 1 to 10 scale works either. Giving this movie a 1 or no stars would seem to indicate it's on the bottom of the movie heap, which is clearly isn't (in spite of Howell). And those people giving it over 8 stars seem to think it's one of the great works of art, which of course it isn't even close to.
I've stopped some movies in my day and threw them out, deeming the cases worth more than the movie. This movie however wasn't one of them.
If I saw this movie in the bargain bin at my local big box store, would I buy it? No, but because I've seen it and I don't care to see it again. If I was bored to tears one night and there was nothing on TV, but this movie came on while I was cruising the Internet would I bother changing the channel? Again, no, because this movie is not that bad (again, in spite of Howell).
Watch it once, it's entertaining enough....
Don't waste your time.
UWHawke6 June 2005
This movie was just another example of the Sci Fi channel taking what could've been a good idea, and turning it into crap. It's unclear if the the story was horrible originally, or it was chopped due to the hasty production efforts. You have to expect that the special effects/CGI would be sub par, as it's a Sci Fi movie of the week, but you shouldn't have to suffer through a poor plot, and even worse dialog. There is only one bright spot in the whole movie: Tony Amendola. These days you can pretty much guarantee that anything with C.Thomas Howell in it, is a must NOT see, and he further proved that theory with this role.
My advice: flip the channel.
My advice: flip the channel.
Government = good, people = bad
gtc835 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Here's yet another Sci-Fi original, which seems like some sort of early rough draft of a Stargate SG-1 episode, with a giant pile of anti-corporate pro-government propaganda tossed in just because somebody saw that in about 100 other movies and thought, well, why not. Easier than thinking up an idea of their own.
We start with some folks arriving on Mars. The CGI is Roughneck: Starship Troopers (animated series) quality. They crash because there's this giant power generator thing on Mars which causes everything that flies over it to crash. Apparently these folks haven't heard of the Mars Global Surveyor, but we've given up on expecting writers to have as much knowledge about their subject as the average layman. Anyhow, they discover a pyramid on Mars, it's covered in some sort of ancient writing, and the stand-in for the Daniel Jackson character luckily has a masters degree in that stuff and they gain entrance. They find a huge underground civilization (which, comically, they don't seem to be very surprised about), fight the bad guys (with weapons that Buck Rogers would have been embarrassed to be seen with), and teach us about how terribly bad our employers are and how marvelously good the government is. In fact, if you've got a job in the private sector, you're probably an evil person, because only people who work for the government are good. Keep in mind that this bit of scholarship is brought to you by people who are charged with writing a movie about Mars, but know less about recent NASA missions than your average guy who watches the Discovery Channel once or twice a month. Though they do seem to have familiarized themselves with the "Idiot's Guide To '70s Pseudoscience", because they come off with an updated version of the old "pyramid power", this time putting a tetrahedron inside a sphere and fantasizing about getting "free energy" from it. Of course they mention that "face" on Mars, which as everyone knows was re-photographed years ago, showing it to be a fairly normal hill, not a face at all. You really get the feeling that the people who wrote this probably don't know what the acronym "NASA" stands for, but they most likely could tell you everyone who ever made an appearance in an episode of the X-Files. In other words, leave your intelligence at home. This isn't science fiction based on science, it's science fiction based on other sci-fi TV shows.
So with that knowledge gained we await the next Sci-Fi original. About the only thing good about this one was that they at least included a hot babe in a skin-tight T-shirt. Oh my god, what a fabulous pair. They really should have made her the star of the show, but of course she's barely seen at all and then gets killed off in the first half hour or so. No one in this movie can really be taken seriously; the lead guy looks like a chubby, mid-forties version of Beaver Cleaver. I guess astronaut training must really be slack in the future.
We start with some folks arriving on Mars. The CGI is Roughneck: Starship Troopers (animated series) quality. They crash because there's this giant power generator thing on Mars which causes everything that flies over it to crash. Apparently these folks haven't heard of the Mars Global Surveyor, but we've given up on expecting writers to have as much knowledge about their subject as the average layman. Anyhow, they discover a pyramid on Mars, it's covered in some sort of ancient writing, and the stand-in for the Daniel Jackson character luckily has a masters degree in that stuff and they gain entrance. They find a huge underground civilization (which, comically, they don't seem to be very surprised about), fight the bad guys (with weapons that Buck Rogers would have been embarrassed to be seen with), and teach us about how terribly bad our employers are and how marvelously good the government is. In fact, if you've got a job in the private sector, you're probably an evil person, because only people who work for the government are good. Keep in mind that this bit of scholarship is brought to you by people who are charged with writing a movie about Mars, but know less about recent NASA missions than your average guy who watches the Discovery Channel once or twice a month. Though they do seem to have familiarized themselves with the "Idiot's Guide To '70s Pseudoscience", because they come off with an updated version of the old "pyramid power", this time putting a tetrahedron inside a sphere and fantasizing about getting "free energy" from it. Of course they mention that "face" on Mars, which as everyone knows was re-photographed years ago, showing it to be a fairly normal hill, not a face at all. You really get the feeling that the people who wrote this probably don't know what the acronym "NASA" stands for, but they most likely could tell you everyone who ever made an appearance in an episode of the X-Files. In other words, leave your intelligence at home. This isn't science fiction based on science, it's science fiction based on other sci-fi TV shows.
So with that knowledge gained we await the next Sci-Fi original. About the only thing good about this one was that they at least included a hot babe in a skin-tight T-shirt. Oh my god, what a fabulous pair. They really should have made her the star of the show, but of course she's barely seen at all and then gets killed off in the first half hour or so. No one in this movie can really be taken seriously; the lead guy looks like a chubby, mid-forties version of Beaver Cleaver. I guess astronaut training must really be slack in the future.
Anothe lame Sci-Fi attempt
kmsscs6 June 2005
Pretty bad as most of the Sci-Fi channels original movies go. Stargate SG-1 is by far the best Sci-Fi channel has to offer. Only draw back here is that O'Neill seems to be out in season eight. The plot in "Crimson Force" is terrible. It really is too much of a stretch. It is another movie where the women are superhuman and the men are wimps. One of the reasons I refuse to watch the new Battlestar Galactica. The original was decent-the Sci-Fi remake really sucks. Starbuck as a womanizing warrior-hero was great. The female Starbuck does nothing for the show. Other Sci-Fi shows such as "Raptor Island" were dagged out far too long. It could have been done in an hour.
Smart, Fun and Good-looking Sci-fi Movie
AmyDave996 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Crimson Force was one of the many Sci Fi Network original movies. From what I've read, these movies are done at a scant budget somewhere overseas. They are usually hit or miss. Crimson Force was actually the best one of these I've seen - and I watch many of them. The visuals and effects were better than Star Trek. The acting was fine for this type of movie - lots of known actors who are fun to watch. Most of all, the script was smartly self-aware. The writers seem to have understood all of the conventions of the genre and played with them. (Small spoiler - For example, the African-American character *keeps* surviving, rather than dying 1st... it's a funny way to satirize what usually happens in this kind of movie, and it was great they did this). There are other examples of good satire but I don't want to put in another spoiler.
The plot is based on the conspiracy and UFO-alien theories you'll find all over the web about Mars. In fact Crimson Force goes much deeper into this kind of thing than did Mission To Mars, which is a big-budget movie. You'll have fun Googling a bunch of stuff after watching the movie. Even the name the martians have for their own planet is an inside reference that listeners of "Coast to Coast" will probably get. Also, unlike most low budget science fiction movies, Crimson Force isn't straightforward. It leads you in one direction and then switches things up. There is humor - on purpose - and suspense and adventure. Some of the characters even grow and change! This isn't your normal straight-ahead guys-with-guns-chasing-a-giant-monster genre movie (though there is plenty of fun action).
Anyway this movie is surprisingly fun, and if you pay attention it's even smart.
The plot is based on the conspiracy and UFO-alien theories you'll find all over the web about Mars. In fact Crimson Force goes much deeper into this kind of thing than did Mission To Mars, which is a big-budget movie. You'll have fun Googling a bunch of stuff after watching the movie. Even the name the martians have for their own planet is an inside reference that listeners of "Coast to Coast" will probably get. Also, unlike most low budget science fiction movies, Crimson Force isn't straightforward. It leads you in one direction and then switches things up. There is humor - on purpose - and suspense and adventure. Some of the characters even grow and change! This isn't your normal straight-ahead guys-with-guns-chasing-a-giant-monster genre movie (though there is plenty of fun action).
Anyway this movie is surprisingly fun, and if you pay attention it's even smart.
Good movie if you put your brain in neutral.
jhpstrydom17 September 2009
Of course CRIMSON FORCE won't shine in terms of spectacular but it is actually a fun movie, I mean if STARGATE ATLANTIS is popular enough to run for multiple seasons with similar CGI effects, how can this film be bad if it has the same crummy looking effects? Sure its not going to win any awards and true the storyline isn't anything to write home about, but its a good movie if you just switch your brain off and take it as it is.
Plus the unintended humor is actually intended, I'd say if you're going to see this film, do so with all expectations on the floor and your brain turned off, if you're going in thinking you're going to see mainstream standard fare even if you do know this is a SCI-FI channel original, then you might as well write the word disappointment on your forehead.
Plus the unintended humor is actually intended, I'd say if you're going to see this film, do so with all expectations on the floor and your brain turned off, if you're going in thinking you're going to see mainstream standard fare even if you do know this is a SCI-FI channel original, then you might as well write the word disappointment on your forehead.
Sci-fi Film
dishpig014 January 2007
The film it self has a good narrative and "bone structure" as it were. The acting however from most parties leaves much to be desired, it is the acting from the Howell in this film that runes the film completely. The Dialogue is said too over zealously making the wording throughout the film seem cheesy. The costumes weren't bad (about the only good thing about the film really). the acting from the gentleman(Tony Amendola) that plays the High Priest is the best in the film, which makes me wonder why he decided to be in the film. parts of the film are completely unnecessary. This is an honest opinion(of mine) on the film. It is for most part a headache.
Delete it.
barry-hammett18 April 2014
Utter crap. A spaceship crashes and drags along a long skid path. Yet most systems still work on board and the craft stays in one piece - overhanging a precipice. They set out on an expedition to find a universal power source. They quickly find it and one of the crew can read the hieroglyphs written on it's surface. Inside they find the atmosphere is breathable. I deleted as this point - I could not bear to find the Martians speaking English and possessing American-style National Insurance cards. Dear God how thick can the writers/directors/producers be? Still it about the level of sophistication of the average 10 year old.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
