This movie is vastly inferior to the original Moontrap. The story is a mish-mash of elements from better movies like Prometheus, and the typical we don't want the populous to know of this, it will ruin society. The special effects are sub par and compare to the worse the SyFy channel dishes out. Moontrap was not a A budget movie but is made good use of the stars and budget. This one had only 2 robots and neither looked like the Kaalium. One plus is the character development, you cared about what was going on with them. The ending was unsatisfying. Overall a movie that needed to look at the original for better inspiration and better writers and effects.
87 Reviews
Starts bad. Gets worse
jmix664 June 2017
The only reason that I didn't give this one star is that it isn't a complete waste of time. It just SEEMS like it is.
If you gave a pre-school class typewriters, lots of cookies and promised to take them Mickey D's afterward, they would almost come up with a better. Weak plot, thin characterizations and without a doubt some of the worst acting that I have ever seen in a straight to DVD film that wasn't a Troma property.
If you have NOTHING else to do, it'll kill 90 minutes. If you have a wall with some paint drying on it, you might want to entertain yourself with that.
If you gave a pre-school class typewriters, lots of cookies and promised to take them Mickey D's afterward, they would almost come up with a better. Weak plot, thin characterizations and without a doubt some of the worst acting that I have ever seen in a straight to DVD film that wasn't a Troma property.
If you have NOTHING else to do, it'll kill 90 minutes. If you have a wall with some paint drying on it, you might want to entertain yourself with that.
What the hell did I just watch?
johnlewisscuba1 August 2017
This film had so much potential – and it squandered all of it.
The editing was off, but my primary complaint is that the various characters never acted as if they were real people. Case in point, a main character loses what would have appeared to be the love of their life, yet shows virtually no emotion about it whatsoever, even to the point of seeming to completely forget about that person's existence shortly afterward.
The plot is disjointed at best, and the entire film seems to be a series of set pieces strung together in a very haphazard fashion.
As for the ending of the film?
Well, it ended. It didn't make any sense, but neither did the rest of the movie.
The editing was off, but my primary complaint is that the various characters never acted as if they were real people. Case in point, a main character loses what would have appeared to be the love of their life, yet shows virtually no emotion about it whatsoever, even to the point of seeming to completely forget about that person's existence shortly afterward.
The plot is disjointed at best, and the entire film seems to be a series of set pieces strung together in a very haphazard fashion.
As for the ending of the film?
Well, it ended. It didn't make any sense, but neither did the rest of the movie.
low budget - low quality
davidmantle19 March 2017
It's been many years since I have seen a film of such low quality. Both Acting and special effects could have been created at a kindergarten by a bunch of 6 year old's but that would be an insult to your average 6 year old. I somehow have the impression that the budget was a little bit tight also.
I feel sorry for the acting cast because if they get known for only this film then I feel that their career would go straight down the toilet. Shame cause some of them have potential.
I feel sorry for the acting cast because if they get known for only this film then I feel that their career would go straight down the toilet. Shame cause some of them have potential.
Easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen
Grayman300015 March 2017
I never leave reviews, but I felt it necessary to warn people about this film.
The premise was great! It is the stuff I love to see in films, but the execution was just downright terrible. The acting, the props, the writing... it was all half-assed and not thought out in the least. It's almost as if they didn't even try! I've seen better movies with beter effects and acting come out of high school A/V clubs. Seriously, it is that bad. Don't waste your time.
The premise was great! It is the stuff I love to see in films, but the execution was just downright terrible. The acting, the props, the writing... it was all half-assed and not thought out in the least. It's almost as if they didn't even try! I've seen better movies with beter effects and acting come out of high school A/V clubs. Seriously, it is that bad. Don't waste your time.
WOW! Dreadful on a level I've rarely seen
vq-472093 May 2017
I never leave reviews but felt a duty to the rest of humanity to do so here. This is literally the worst movie I've ever seen. I love sci-fi. I will watch bad sci-fi just because its all that's available. I went in with low expectations and was still surprised at how bad a movie could be. Could not make it more than half way before I gave up.
I think my kids have turned in better video projects than this for school. I find it hard to believe there was a professional anywhere near this mess.
stay away - even if you can see it for free, you would have more fun reading the tax code.
I think my kids have turned in better video projects than this for school. I find it hard to believe there was a professional anywhere near this mess.
stay away - even if you can see it for free, you would have more fun reading the tax code.
A hastily made movie
patrickkemner19 March 2017
Greetings
Usually I do not criticize acting performance for the entire movie but this one, well, I can't find anything good about the acting.
The script does not help either.
The scenes and the way the story is told make you sleepy at best.
I prefer watching again that very low budget film Moontrap that was filmed a long time ago... at least it was not too long and had a better script but most importantly better acting.
Don't watch this, even if you can see it for free, you will find very little that is good in this movie. Do not sacrifice your time for such movie, take a walk in the park and it will be more entertaining and artistic than this movie.
Usually I do not criticize acting performance for the entire movie but this one, well, I can't find anything good about the acting.
The script does not help either.
The scenes and the way the story is told make you sleepy at best.
I prefer watching again that very low budget film Moontrap that was filmed a long time ago... at least it was not too long and had a better script but most importantly better acting.
Don't watch this, even if you can see it for free, you will find very little that is good in this movie. Do not sacrifice your time for such movie, take a walk in the park and it will be more entertaining and artistic than this movie.
Stupid and poorly written
nibor-6130912 March 2017
This has got to be one of the worst movies I've seen. The writing's bad - unless you are entertained by tons of swearing and a very lame story... both evidence of lack of education on the writer's part. Editing sucks, too. And every time something's about to happen, my husband announces what it will be, it's that predictable. I think I'll go find the original, maybe that one has some redeeming qualities.
I wonder if there's a way to get our $4 back from Amazon.
I wonder if there's a way to get our $4 back from Amazon.
Truly dire and Awful
johnsmithbananas14 March 2017
what can i say about this title i knew within the first 2 minutes how awful this was going to be but to my better judgement i carried on watching the acting was ham the story was like a 5 year old wrote it the whole thing was so bad towards the very end my DVD player stopped dead i think my DVD player had become sentient and decided to terminate itself i paid £5 to watch this DVD and i am going to blow torch it so no one else has to suffer this dire piece of trash.
No idea what it was about
meyuk19 April 2017
Poor, bad, boring, weak, slow, disjointed, unintelligible, pointless, etc etc..
Probably every known negative adjective can be applied to this film.
I just wish I could have back the hour or so of my life that I lost watching this rubbish.
Probably every known negative adjective can be applied to this film.
I just wish I could have back the hour or so of my life that I lost watching this rubbish.
WHY ALL THE ONE STAR REVIEWS?
cineguy-8695018 May 2019
Watched MOONTRAP TARGET EARTH and went to IMDb to learn more about the lead actress Sarah Butler (who, I believe, gave a really good performance).
At the film's site I noticed that were 3.257 votes for it with an average rating of 4.8. Not great but not necessarily awful because it's an AVERAGE figure. However, only 47 of the "voters" gave reviews...that's (if my math is correct) slightly more than 1%. And of those 47, 28 gave it one star. Therefore (still with me?) that's 60% of the votes.
That seems to be a misrepresentation of the feelings of what the total voters probably feel.
NOT making an accusation that those one star votes are false but it seems to me that their quantity does not accurately reflect the overall feelings of viewers about MOONTRAP TARGET EARTH.
Why do I feel this way? Have to admit that's my subjective opinion. Which is that the movie has an unique entertaining story (I especially liked the Easter eggs to classic sci fi films) and the acting is totally solid (check the IMDbs of the 3 leads for their credits).
It's not 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY (what is?) but isn't a bad way to spend 90 minutes.
At the film's site I noticed that were 3.257 votes for it with an average rating of 4.8. Not great but not necessarily awful because it's an AVERAGE figure. However, only 47 of the "voters" gave reviews...that's (if my math is correct) slightly more than 1%. And of those 47, 28 gave it one star. Therefore (still with me?) that's 60% of the votes.
That seems to be a misrepresentation of the feelings of what the total voters probably feel.
NOT making an accusation that those one star votes are false but it seems to me that their quantity does not accurately reflect the overall feelings of viewers about MOONTRAP TARGET EARTH.
Why do I feel this way? Have to admit that's my subjective opinion. Which is that the movie has an unique entertaining story (I especially liked the Easter eggs to classic sci fi films) and the acting is totally solid (check the IMDbs of the 3 leads for their credits).
It's not 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY (what is?) but isn't a bad way to spend 90 minutes.
The 1-and 2-star reviews here abuse whole meaning of that level
webmaster-736-44474114 December 2017
As of this moment, Moontrap is ranking 73-up to 15-down from YouTube viewers. While not a great or very good movie, it is way better than a cargo ship of bad movies one can watch.
These people reviewing at IMDB must've been expecting a blockbuster and got knocked over by the less than star-power big-budget directing product. But it's a perfectly fine clearly presented outcome. And the acting is okay too. Plus the added benefit of a plot that has not already been done to death.
The soundtrack is quite professional, neither hokey or overdone. The lead actress carries her role. And the bad guy gets the job done as well.
One issue that does often fail for me is when supporting actors are given lead roles in certain lower-budget films. There seems to be a disappointment in realizing they are unable to carry a scene. Strangely though, the same exact performance would probably be just fine from a different face, an unknown actor.
Maybe that's because we've seen the supporting actors next to bigger talent and get reminded of that powerful screen presence because of seeing only the supporter, not the larger figure he has been in scenes with during other movies.
I would advise producers for that reason to not put supporting actors in lead roles. It's just about money anyway, playing on the name for box office. That gamble might fail due to the psychological effect just mentioned.
Okay, so remove expectations coming in. You get a perfectly worthy background movie for letting play while dusting or looking at cameras on eBay. And plenty of scenes are worth glancing over to see what is accompanying the sound.
Anyway, I have no reviewing skill but wanted to jump in to correct what looks to me like an injustice done to a nice little movie done fairly well by a cast and crew of people who no doubt put their heart into the project.
These people reviewing at IMDB must've been expecting a blockbuster and got knocked over by the less than star-power big-budget directing product. But it's a perfectly fine clearly presented outcome. And the acting is okay too. Plus the added benefit of a plot that has not already been done to death.
The soundtrack is quite professional, neither hokey or overdone. The lead actress carries her role. And the bad guy gets the job done as well.
One issue that does often fail for me is when supporting actors are given lead roles in certain lower-budget films. There seems to be a disappointment in realizing they are unable to carry a scene. Strangely though, the same exact performance would probably be just fine from a different face, an unknown actor.
Maybe that's because we've seen the supporting actors next to bigger talent and get reminded of that powerful screen presence because of seeing only the supporter, not the larger figure he has been in scenes with during other movies.
I would advise producers for that reason to not put supporting actors in lead roles. It's just about money anyway, playing on the name for box office. That gamble might fail due to the psychological effect just mentioned.
Okay, so remove expectations coming in. You get a perfectly worthy background movie for letting play while dusting or looking at cameras on eBay. And plenty of scenes are worth glancing over to see what is accompanying the sound.
Anyway, I have no reviewing skill but wanted to jump in to correct what looks to me like an injustice done to a nice little movie done fairly well by a cast and crew of people who no doubt put their heart into the project.
A plot in search of a suitable story
dave-84722 May 2017
Somewhere in this plodding, underdeveloped mish-mash of a movie there is a story worth doing. Sadly, it wasn't done correctly here. You will find yourself wondering why they didn't do "X" or "Y" all the way through it. That is, if you can stay with it long enough. This movie could have been done in half the length of time it took, and the result would have been far superior. Vast chunks of time are wasted on long, lingering shots of ...... nothing important. Or s-l-o-o-o-w pan shots that do nothing to advance the story. The SFX are mediocre, at best. The dialog goes from snappy to dull in the blink of an eye. With a few more bucks in the budget, and a director and cinematographer who actually cared, this could have been a half decent B flick.
Save your precious dollars, and find another flick to watch.
Save your precious dollars, and find another flick to watch.
don't pay money to see it
pafcrazy200327 May 2017
Nothing at all happens until 55min into the film. The above comments are ditto here. Go watch the original. The 1989 original's effects are WAY superior to this 2017 sham. There is even a robot fight scene that looks just like Rockem Sockem Robots !! The producers should have just continued the story where the first one left off. Maybe have the government send an expedition to the moon to get ancient but superior technology to fight a Kallium outbreak back on Earth.
Do bad movies also need a worst sequel?
gabrielguerena-4786012 June 2017
I have to say that the story doesn't sound bad but just by watching the full trailer (and the robot fight which is pretty much a 3d version of the Red vs Blue board game) you can assume how horrible this movie is.
Low Budget, Low Quality. This movie is a sequel of the 1989 sci-fi horror film called 'Moontrap' and it was written by the same guys who wrote the original film but it seems this time they had a budget of $500 and hired a youtuber for the special effects.
Very, very slow pace, a few sci-fi cliché tropes, awful effects (had to say it again) keeps you bored until the end. Don't waste your time.
If you are brave enough to torture yourself for roughly 100 min, do it all by yourself.
Low Budget, Low Quality. This movie is a sequel of the 1989 sci-fi horror film called 'Moontrap' and it was written by the same guys who wrote the original film but it seems this time they had a budget of $500 and hired a youtuber for the special effects.
Very, very slow pace, a few sci-fi cliché tropes, awful effects (had to say it again) keeps you bored until the end. Don't waste your time.
If you are brave enough to torture yourself for roughly 100 min, do it all by yourself.
nothing like the original...
adaplect18 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The original movie was dark and of far higher quality. I am a fan of the original so i was really excited when i learned that a sequel was in the works. But as soon as info started coming in -even from preproduction phase- i realized that i was about to experience a huge disappointment. I was not wrong. Now i've watched this wreckage and boy they did an awful job. Yes i understand that it is a low-budged film but even that is no excuse for the god-awful script and laughable effects. I won't say anything about the script because really i'm too mature for that (It's like it was written by a toddler). I'll say this about the effects though: They used CGI. Modern times right? Thing is with CGI though it can be either mind-blowing or ridiculous. There is no middle ground. Good professional CGI can look amazing. Poor cheap CGI on the other hand is unwatchable. As the producers knew they had a very *very* limited budget in hand they should had opted for good- old fashioned effects, like in the original movie. I'd choose a real- metal robot even if moved by visible wire any day over a cartoonish animation that doesn't even blend with the background. So i don't accept the low-budget argument as an excuse for ruining potential. They should be ashamed for doing this to a classic sci-fi horror.
Holy balls this is bad
alphaswift9 February 2020
WARNING: Easily one of the worst Sci-Fi films ever made , if not THE worst !
gdox25 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
And, with a good reason, too: This is the only Sci-Fi film in par to it's predecessor, Moontrap 1989 ,that's dealing with the "advanced lost civilizations" subject, leaving artifacts on the face of the moon to be discovered after thousands of years ! So the team made a great job by totally discrediting the whole god damn theory in the eyes of the public, and with utter success! If THAT was their goal, then rest assure they've completely accomplished their well-paid mission! And if i were Hancock , Daeniken or Tsoukalos, i'd sue the b@st@*ds who contributed into making this disgrace of a "movie". They often say, Indiana Jones films, are just a bunch of B-movies. Well, this one easily gets into the Z field! Pretty much alone at that matter. That said, it may as well be the worst Sci-fi film ever conceived as far as i'm concerned. And , as another contributor suggested, it would even be an insult to 6-yr old kids, should we even try comparing it to whatever movie even a toddler can make nowadays.
terrible
trashgang20 March 2017
Nothing to do with the original Moontrap (1989) this one delivers nothing. It's extremely slow moving and there aren't any real effects used. Or when there are effects, like the spaceship it's done in a laughable way. Maybe the face replacing a cyborgs face is the only thing well done. And the cyborgs moving around are really slow and are lame. There are two covers circling around and one has the two cyborgs fighting which you will make you think, ahaa another transformer well forget it.
One of the reasons I came across it is the fact that Sarah Butler is in it. First time I saw her acting was in the I Spit On Your Grave (2010) remake. She immediately became a scream queen in so many hearts of horror geeks. But here she also doesn't add a thing towards this flick. The director was clever enough by knowing that Sarah is used to show her body but here she goes all the way out of focus. Really?
I ain't going to give it a 1 because for the only reason that they did an effort to make a sci-fy sadly it failed and the acting was okay.
Gore 0/5 Nudity 1,5/5 Effects 1/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5
One of the reasons I came across it is the fact that Sarah Butler is in it. First time I saw her acting was in the I Spit On Your Grave (2010) remake. She immediately became a scream queen in so many hearts of horror geeks. But here she also doesn't add a thing towards this flick. The director was clever enough by knowing that Sarah is used to show her body but here she goes all the way out of focus. Really?
I ain't going to give it a 1 because for the only reason that they did an effort to make a sci-fy sadly it failed and the acting was okay.
Gore 0/5 Nudity 1,5/5 Effects 1/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5
As much as I like low budget films...
jan-hranac26 July 2018
I have nothing against low-budget pieces. In fact, I even prefer them to recent Hollywood blockbusters. Why? Because quality of a film does not come from the amount of money invested into it but from other criteria such as whether it does tell an interesting story and whether it makes any sense at all.
Unfortunately, this film lacks severely in the logic department and in the end doesn't make any at all.
Great Story and Very Entertaining
andy-876-4621325 June 2019
I really enjoyed this film. The story kept me engaged, the acting was good, and the production design was clever. This is not a sci-fi film that depends entirely on a million visual effects; rather, it is a good story with interesting characters, a sense of humor, and some nice surprises.
Unique vision
capnpeebo-800-7937821 May 2019
Some films take a little percolating after viewing to settle in and give the viewer a better perspective. This is one of those films. It's more classic "science fiction" than the pop-culture centric "sci-fi" in presenting some challenging ideas while still having a solid dose of action for good measure. Give it a shot - and don't be too hasty in drawing a conclusion.
Just Say No
yard_boy24 March 2017
I gave a extra point for the lovely "Scout" (Sarah Butler) who in the first 15 minutes is also a cunning linguist, delivering dialog in a gravel pit outside Troy, Michigan while standing next to an 8 foot plywood pyramid. Bravo.
While other reviewers say this film is bad, I say it's hokey and consequently, entertaining to some. YMMV :)
While other reviewers say this film is bad, I say it's hokey and consequently, entertaining to some. YMMV :)
Forgotten already
rontorbay26 June 2017
I watched this movie 3 days ago, from anticipatory beginning to completely baffled end. Can someone please remind me of the premise and/or the plot of this film, as I've have totally forgotten.
I was so bored by the end, I don't even remember the robots that other reviewers talk about. Seriously!
I do remember a scene or two, involving a gallery of blurred outlines of some people supposedly in charge of something, but that's about all I remember. Honest ......
I was so bored by the end, I don't even remember the robots that other reviewers talk about. Seriously!
I do remember a scene or two, involving a gallery of blurred outlines of some people supposedly in charge of something, but that's about all I remember. Honest ......
The CIA needs to use this for enhanced interrogation.
frankblack-7996118 November 2019
I've seen a lot of bad movies, but this one is one of the worst. The 2 main actors need to be put on a blacklist so they can never infect another movie or tv show. The woman is an extra special kind of bad. The script writer(s) need to go back to high school and retake English Composition. The dialog is just awful and erratic. The special effects arent horrible but it doesnt really matter when everything else is trash. Hoping these folks stay out of the movie biz. Should be used by the CIA for torture.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
