Total Retribution (2011 Video) User Reviews

How could this come to be?...

[paul_haakonsen · 2/10 · 10 November 2012]

Oh dear, this was bad, well no, actually it was beyond bad. I saw the word undead, so I thought this might be fun to watch. Undead in space, sure, why not? But wow, I was blown away, and not in a good way.

The storyline in "Earthkiller", well it wasn't all bad. There were some good enough ideas here and there, but it was weighed down by atrocious CGI effects, bad dialogue and mediocre acting. So sadly, a semi-good storyline couldn't even save this movie.

For the first one-quarter of the movie, approximately, it is all about following a naked skinny woman running around on a space station, which, mind you, doesn't even remotely start to have the feeling of a space station to it at all. It was looking more like a make-believe space station in the backyard of a cheesy fast-food restaurant. It was such an eyesore. Especially the automatic doors. Wow. Just wow! You have to see that to believe it.

But it gets better. The strange robotic reptilians or whatever they were supposed to be, they were definitely amongst the top three of badly animated monsters in movies that I have had the pleasure of watching. It was so bad that it was hard not to laugh and take it all as a joke. I think I would actually laugh myself to death if I was being chased by such a fake monstrosity.

The movie makers tried to implement some blood in the movie, but again, failed at a horrible level. It looked so bad and so unbelievably fake, that you will just sit there and shake your head in disbelief.

If you enjoy a good Sci-Fi movie or a good undead movie, then do yourself a favor and stay well clear of "Earthkiller", because it is not worth the effort regardless of what approach you take to it. The movies that SyFy Channel pump out by the dozens are far better than this one, and that actually says a lot!

Even worse than Sci-Fi channel movies

[mike-ryan455 · 3/10 · 1 July 2012]

Earthkiller is one of those movies where afterwards you have two questions. The first is "What is it" and the second is "why did I bother watching it?" It was bad. The sets were fake and the acting and script was far worse. The CGI looked like a video game and the non-CGI effects were far worse. Usually you want a movie like this to stop tossing so much ketchup around. This one didn't have the money in their budget to use real ketchup.

So, enough about other such pleasantries. Let's cut to the sex. Well, there wasn't any. We had one character walk around naked for a while. She was kind of cellulite looking but hey, good enough. We only got one fur shot and that was before she put on clothes. From there, the whole movie went down hill tremendously.

This must be an extreme cheapie Indie movie. As such I don't expect too much. I've seen a lot worse in these so I won't complain any more. I do hope the producers make their money back and use any profits for some film school classes. They need them, bad.

Good idea but overall this movie was a turkey

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 21 March 2015]

Of the seven low-budget movies seen in the past six weeks(the previous six being Aliens vs Avatars, The Amazing Bulk, Thunderstorm: The Return of Thor, Captain Battle: Legacy War, Bonesetter and Star Quest: The Odyssey) Earthkiller, aka Total Retribution, was the best of them. It does have one redeeming quality which was that the idea was good, which the previous six did not have. That said, that is not saying very much because Earthkiller is still a terrible movie that doesn't do its concept any justice, one of those movies that starts off bad, not in a long time have I seen an opening scene this bizarre, and gets even worse as it wears on.

Earthkiller is very poorly made, almost like a failed student project, visually the best thing is the camera work, while it still often is dizzying there are glimpses of effort. Which is more than can be said for the lighting, which is at times too garish and others too dark(never appropriate), the cheap-looking sets which includes the most fake-looking space station you'll find anywhere in a movie and worst of all the truly appalling special effects, even the worst of SyFy and The Asylum have special effects as bad as here and they are on par with those of the aforementioned six movies. Earthkiller even incorporates blood and goes well overboard using it, even worse is that the blood doesn't even look like blood, instead looking like tomato ketchup that had been mixed with water.

The dialogue for Earthkiller is so awkward it'd be hard to stifle any laughter as well as cheese ridden, while the story is incredibly padded with nowhere near enough to sustain nearly an hour and a half and doesn't even try to make sense, there's nothing remotely clever or original about it with the movie ending on a confused note. The sound has a muddied distant quality where sometimes you have to strain for some of the dialogue and line delivery. The direction is flat, the characters are literally over-familiar walking clichés with no personality(they are actually annoying and the movie has the sense of forgetting to actually develop them) and the acting is practically non-existent. To conclude, a complete turkey despite having a good idea, a shame. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Dr. Who (70's) level SFX

[donald-martin-175-873978 · 28 July 2013]

All I can say is ugh. This is an ugly movie visually -- bad lighting, bad script, bad acting, cheap sets and BEYOND bad special effects (both in practical and CGI category). The plot is non-existent so I won't even bother critiquing that. If the film has any value at all it would be to give the viewer the actual feel of watching a 70's sci-fi TV show like Dr. Who that had a minimal budget for sets and had painfully bad hand-made props made of spare plumbing and electrical parts. Te acting gives some camp value, except that the film takes itself dead-seriously. But even for that I doubt most people could tolerate sitting through 85 minutes of this turkey. I do not recommend.

C movie with unusual story

[unbrokenmetal · 5/10 · 16 March 2013]

Female android Helen wakes up without memory on a space station near Earth. Several enemies fight over the possession of a space cannon powerful enough to destroy the planet. Mind you, it's already quite original to tell the movie from the point of view of an android who wants to find out why her memories were erased and doesn't trust any of the humans - instead of introducing a human hero. But it gets even better, because we don't get the same old story about a big bang that must be stopped at the last second. Instead we are told the catastrophe is basically inevitable, but the android is thrown 200 years back into the past to prevent it from happening AGAIN.

'Earthkiller' is the rare case of a C movie with a highly original script that does not just rip off current blockbusters. Unfortunately it is let down by very poor technical side: the ridiculous make-up of the 'undead', the cheaply animated speedy robot enemy things, generally poor design any TV series of the 1970s would be ashamed of (but produced in 2011). Believe it or not, the German DVD title of 'Earthkiller' translates as 'Blade Runner 2 - The Decision'! An audacity, to say the least. Yet in opposite to all other reviewers so far, I wouldn't want to bash it simply for the lack of budget, but point out that a good story was provided, also the android is played very well, like a being just not quite human, by Robin Kurtz.

Fools slaughter each other on a space station.

[suite92 · 1/10 · 7 November 2013]

Terran Special Forces versus Allied Airborne on a space station, whatever that might mean. Humans are being turned into zombies, sort of. These zombies are not weaker; instead, they are quicker, stronger, smarter, and less and less vulnerable to weapons as they get older. The zombie transformation is accomplished by programmed nanobots, not viruses or bacteria or radioactive substances. There are androids as well as humans and zombies.

The protagonist, Helen, is an android who wakes up after a memory wipe. Half an hour in, I've got context, more or less.

Throw in a solar cannon that creates wormholes through time. Right, why not? There's a mission to protect the cannon from the wrong people. Just what the 'real' mission is, is a bit wobbly.

Throw in references to scripture. What scripture? Written by whom?

Just what do these people eat or drink? Where to they get their energy? (No solar panels on the space station, no nuclear generator. Hm.) When did gravity generators get invented? The people walk around on the space station as if it were a building on Earth.

Will the final mission be accomplished, so that scripture will be fulfilled? That seems to be the question.

----Scores-----

Cinematography: 7/10 Mostly good, but loaded with bad framing choices.

Sound: 5/10 Poor.

Acting: 0/10 Non-existent.

Screenplay: 0/10 Boring, absurd, almost context free.

SFX: 0/10 Beyond bad. Done by people who have no acquaintance with physics, or just hate it. The CGI is ridiculous for the most part. Blood effects are entirely laughable.

--------Special mention

Three Black Holes for acting, screenplay, and SFX.

I need total retribution for watching this

[movieman_kev · 2/10 · 26 February 2013]

Robin Kurtz stars as Helen, a woman who wakes up naked in a space station orbiting Earth about being indisposed for the previous 200 years. Having no idea of who see is or what's happening, she spends the remaining movie time trying to get out of the ship while fighting other robots, humans as well as horribly CGI'd monsters.

I found this to be an amateurish mish-mash of a handful of sci-fi clichés that wears out its welcome rather quickly. It's no surprise to me in the least that the same person responsible for this travesty was also the one who 'graced' us with 'Battle New York: Day 2' Both of which are available on Streaming Netflix in case you're feeling especially masochistic .

Potential wasted

[nocpan · 3/10 · 21 February 2017]

I like those cheaper, less professional productions, always there is something interesting in them, I liked how the beginning met the ending, the concept is not very common. For a low budget movie the CG was OK yet could be improved. Props were terrible, Nerf guns painted in black and silver. Costumes? definitely needed an upgrade, I though Starship Rising had poor costumes, here it looked like everyone jest dressed themselves with what they had. Story is about an android trying to save humanity with two fractions fighting over a control of a space gun array. Seems like an OK theme to build on. Reminded me of those Starship Troopers continuations where they run around identical looking tunnels being picked off one by one by bugs and trying to save the world. Here we don't have bugs, but some poorly animated robots and zombie like people with bloody eyes. When the main character android Helen walked around for first 15 min naked around the space station I thought "serious lack of dialog" but after new characters were introduced I really wanted the lack of dialog, it was possibly the worst part of the movie. The cheesy, adolescent, out of place dialogs filled with half sentences and nonsense outbursts. Its like everyone tried so hard to be a character they are not and on top of it over colored it. I will not say "don't watch it", but will advise extreme caution. Notion of wasted time may be present after watching it.

HUMANITY WILL END ITSELF

[nogodnomasters · 5/10 · 31 December 2018]

This film is a bit weird. I had low expectations when I noticed the previews were for films like "Alien Armageddon" which were low budget sci-fi indie disasters.

The film opens rather bizarrely as they find a woman in the desert, who we later find out is actually an attack droid. It switches to 200 years later when said red headed droid wakes up naked in a chamber and it is not Milla Jovovich, but Robin Kurtz not looking a day over 100. She is called Helen and is caught between a war between humans and apparently aliens who came through a wormhole, but that was not too well developed. The aliens create undead humans through nanobite blood transmissions that require head shots to kill. There are also cheesy killer CG bots fought with CG bullets.

The blood splatter is also CG and always splashes on the camera irregardless of camera angle or direction of bullet. Helen is naked for about the first 15 minutes of the film at which time she finds clothes. The bad news is that she doesn't resemble the babe on the cover, in fact no one does and the costumes are different. There is also a reference to "scripture" that "Humanity will end itself." This ties into the story as the end is rather clever, too bad they hired lousy actors, had bad dialogue, and lacked a budget in general.

Parental Guidance: F-bombs. No sex, Full Frontal nudity

NO! stay away!

[bastiaan0740 · 1/10 · 29 August 2016]

A quick way to make up your mind, is to go to YouTube and watch a trailer.

Do it.

Yes, it's that bad. The CGI is horrible, acting is horrible with the exception of David Ian Lee, who however is completely miscast as a 'colonel', giving of a strong out-of-place Jim Carrey vibe. The rest of the actors look like people they found in the local diner. I've seen better acting in porn. Editing and sounds are horrible, props are horrible, there is no immersion. I cringed in shame when the makers proudly (over)portrayed their names in the credits, I would pay dear money to have my name removed from this project. Probably the most forgettable movie I watched.

Warning! Warning! Will Robison Avoid Avoid

[david475 · 1/10 · 7 September 2013]

I watched this movie with no expectations and this lack of expectation was fully met by this movie which provided nothing of value. I would have given it zero stars but I could not go lower than one. The acting was not bad since it was nonexistent. The sets, well I skip them since the designer did. The story could have been told in five minutes by a gold plated android in an ewok village on a distant planet far, far away with more impact. The computer generated images (CGI) were bad - really bad. The only redeeming fact is they were short.

Who ever spent 1.5 million on this must have been looking for a tax write off.

And were did they skinny naked chick? Toxic Avenger please clean up this mess!

Thank You

[angelaamerson4116 · 10/10 · 25 March 2018]

To each if the reviews, most helpful to help me aboid wasting my time, i got as far as the the nude scene, and just turned it off!!! I agree, it was just bad!

Very easy to dislike but very strong ideas

[jmthinker · 7/10 · 11 January 2017]

This is a thematic film with fairly cardboard appearance but that is acted into the general scheme of things in a positive fashion. It has tongue in cheek humour all the way. I liked it a lot. A chaotic situation is occurring in space and little is known about why this is all going on from any outside sets or characters. However it all builds up the details to allow the plot to become very serious as a story. Definitely a stage on screen but I would say it passed that test admirably though will challenge you beyond forgiveness if you need sfx of a precise nature. I didn't really figure on the opposing sides being easy to understand, the zombies being zombies, extra creatures too. I think there was pandemonium and really I recommend to watch it, what else would there be if you were there.

Mostly terrible, but still worth a watch.

[muppling · 4/10 · 25 February 2017]

It's mostly badly acted. The special effects are mostly awful. The dialogue is week. It needs an edit.

But it's not all bad.

The viewpoint character is an android, played adequately by Robin Kurtz. I have no idea whether she's a particularly good actor, because this role was supposed to be stiff and robotic. But she does it perfectly well.

The dialogue and acting of most of the other characters is not good, not good at all. Cringeworthy, in places. Just ignore it and power through.

The special effects aren't all terrible. Hah, I say that, but they are, really. It's just that sometimes they lift themselves to SyFy bargain- basement level and they seem good by comparison. The exterior shots are OK, but the film is let down by the painted nerf-gun level weapons, reactionless pew-pew effect and bizarre 90s-video-game standard mechanical bad guys.

What I appreciated about the movie, on the other hand:

The viewpoint character. She's mechanical and has no memory of why she was brought online. She doesn't even know which side of the war she's supposed to be fighting on. She doesn't have a burning desire to find out, either; she just plods on - spending 20 minutes finding some pants - in a way that seems strangely believable. Her brief interactions with other people on the station work quite well.

The plot contains elements of many other films - but what doesn't? There's a time loop, zombies (I have no clue who thought that was a good idea), a prophesy and space marines. It's all been done. It's like the anti-terminator. If you ignore the zombies and dog-bot-things it comes together as something pretty original.

The camera-work isn't at all bad either. Neither is the soundtrack (with the exception of the pop-pop guns).

I've certainly seen much worse.

In summary, the camera-work, sound, direction and acting lead all show promise.

what's going on?

[skillysantos · 1/10 · 17 February 2014]

so this film starts off with a naked woman, wow right? everything going for a man is happy EXCEPT she's flat and whiter than the whitest Irish. Boom, happy moment gone. And what else, for the opening part of the film, nothing makes sense, literally, nothing does. Is this a Sci-Fi or what??? Nope this film is a piece of trash rubbish that was pooped out of a stupid D-graded writer who couldn't be arse to use his intelligence. Seriously, worst opening ever, didn't even bother watching after 20 minutes because nothing made any sense. Save yourself from this film, there are films that are rated lower than this film but makes absolutely more sense, save yourself and don't dare watch it, even if you're drunk - Just don't.