Stowaway (I) (2021) User Reviews

Aerospace Engineer Here - Good movie, some good science, but also some misses

[sonic3974 · 7/10 · 23 April 2021]

This is my first review ever, but I felt like I should comment to clear up some of the science misconceptions.

First of all I would like to say I really enjoyed this movie and thought the acting, writing and cinematography was great. But that is not my specialty, so there will be plenty other more qualified reviews that cover those categories. This review will mainly cover the science of the film (at least the things I noticed from a single watch through).

Overall, I thought this movie did very well with the physics of the situation, such as the launch sequence, docking, the design of the ship and the attention to detail when it came to "gravity" situations. One review I read mentioned that the centrifugal tether design was theoretical and couldn't work due to the "energy that would be required to keep it rotating". However, this is incorrect as once the vehicle is set to rotating, the inertia of the system will keep it rotating at a constant rotational speed.

Also, from the same reviewer, he mentions that they should have scrubbed the mission once the stowaway was discovered. Scrubbing the mission at this point would be impossible as they are currently on a transfer orbit from earth to mars. The energy for this Mars Transfer Orbit (MTO) was provided by the MTO burn that happened around 3:30 min into the film. An orbit like this would rely on using the gravity of Mars to return home, or to refuel on Mars and relaunch for Earth. Trying to "abort" and head straight back for Earth on the outbound leg of an orbit like this would require enormous amounts of fuel that the vehicle is not carrying.

Although it is odd to me that they docked with the MTS after the transfer burn and not before. Seems like it would be much more difficult to rendezvous with the MTS during transfer.

The other reviewer also points out that these missions should have redundant systems, which is absolutely true. They should have a backup system to the CDRA, but I guess without this detail there wouldn't be much of a plot. It's kind of like Weir's sandstorm in The Martian.

And the other reviewer's last point about the algae I would mostly agree with as well. The small amount of algae is explained by the fact that its intended use was as samples for research. However, it does seem that the algae dies very easily and for no discernible reason. Typically algae is pretty hardy, just ask anyone who's owned a pool or aquarium. Maybe its a special weak algae.

Finally I would like to point out a few flaws I noticed myself. The first is small, but a strange little mistake. After they reach orbit of Earth and are burning for MTO they mention that they are now "Past max Q". This is a strange mistake because max Q is the maximum aerodynamic force on the vehicle. They should be out of Earth's atmosphere since they are performing a transfer burn, so there should be no aerodynamic forces on the vehicle. My theory is that they heard this term while watching the SpaceX launches and used it without thinking too much about it.

The other mistake in my mind is when they are tapping the LOX fuel lines to retrieve liquid oxygen. First of all, why would they have a tap like this? Maybe someone with experience working on the ISS or a crew capsule would know better, but it seems extremely convenient that they just have this tool onboard the vehicle. But the biggest mistake is the whole pressure situation. As someone who currently works on structural engineering for LH2 and LOX tanks for SLS, I can tell you that the pressure does not reach 500 psi or even 250 psi. And if it were at those levels, that pressure leak they mention would be extremely dangerous and probably catastrophic for the LOX lines themselves. If they were at 500 psi and she "tapped" into it, it would probably explosively fail and kill anyone nearby. Also, you wouldn't measure remaining volume of LOX by the pressure. Pressure builds up by boil off of the LOX and is automatically vented once it reaches a certain pressure.

The last point I have to mention is about the solar storm. Yes, we can detect solar storms early and yes you would want to be inside a radiation shielded area if it was directed towards you. But you would not be able to visually see the solar winds or CMEs in space. The reason we see them on earth is that they interact with the atmosphere and ionize the gases like oxygen, nitrogen etc, which causes them to glow like the gases within a neon tube. This is called the Aurora Borealis and the Aurora Australis. Since there is no atmosphere in space you wouldn't get this phenomenon. It's a cool visual effect though.

Well, it was a movie!

[nrgins · 5/10 · 22 April 2021]

Well, it had actors. And it had dialog. And there was a plot. So I guess it was a movie. Nothing overtly bad about this movie. But nothing really great either. Just a movie about a problem in space and a plot that crawls along, with no real twists (except predictable ones), no great dialog, no great acting. Just a movie about some stuff that happens. OK to watch if you want to pass the time. Just don't expect a lot.

great acting, terrible science

[ivko · 7/10 · 1 May 2021]

I really, really wish Hollywood would put a little more effort into the science part of their science fiction. The impression I get from movies like this is that they sell the movie on the hook, the 30 second pitch that describes what's interesting or unique about the story, and figure that the rest will either work itself out or that no one will care. To an extent I suppose I get it, Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Wars are called science fiction and they couldn't care less about the science end of things, but this isn't really the same kind of movie. This is a movie set in our universe, just a little down the road. There is a real effort to make it seem like this story could actually take place in 50 or 60 years; the ship and the mission are based heavily upon our current space programs and the astronauts' training and education are of the same type that real astronauts have. So with all that effort to make the story fit within our reality, you would think that when they want to introduce story elements that they would make the same effort to make them feel believable. Instead what happens here is that they throw out that reality the moment it becomes inconvenient to plot development. The frustrating thing is that it wouldn't be impossible to have the same basic story without abandoning reality, but instead of putting some thought into it they choose to take the sloppy, easy way to get there instead.

Let's start with the inciting event: an extra, unplanned passenger is stuck with the crew of a long-term mission after it's too late to get him off. The movie states that he was part of the ground crew who had an accident that rendered him unconscious while in a part of the ship that was out of the way and thus went unnoticed until it was too late. How, exactly, is this possible? First of all, crews scour every inch of a ship before launch, testing vital systems and performing inspections and documenting results. Those results are collected and analyzed before a launch is authorized, which means that if he was there he would have been responsible for performing and documenting some of those inspections. They would not just ignore the fact that those results were never reported in. At the very least they would have sent someone else to do the missing inspections, who would have then discovered him. Then there's the whole "hidden" thing. Seeing as he was sealed into a compartment, who sealed him in? Whether he entered from outside the ship or from within, one of those entrances would have had to be open, and someone would have had to close and seal it without noticing the large man hanging a few feet away. And finally, astronauts are sealed inside the ship well before launch while mission control performs all the last minute checks and monitors things like atmospheric conditions. It's not like jumping into your car and turning the key; astronauts sit there on the launchpad for hours even if everything is going perfectly. Add in the time for the launch and the checks from space before they hit the point of no return and you're talking about something like six hours or more. You don't get knocked unconscious for that long unless the injuries are extremely severe and life threatening. If he was out that long he would certainly not have been up and about a day or two later; the odds are good he wouldn't have survived at all without a fully staffed and equipped hospital trying to save his life.

So what could they have done instead? Well, lots of things. For example, a long term mission like that might very well require docking in space with a vessel carrying food, fuel, and other necessities that were collected earlier to avoid having too much weight at liftoff. Maybe he could have been a part of the crew from the supply ship who got stuck there via a series of unfortunate events. Or, a bit more of a stretch but maybe this ship is carrying an experimental stasis chamber to conserve resources on the mission and he somehow got stuck in one of them. Or maybe he was a part of another nations space mission all together whose ship experienced critical failures while on the same journey and they needed to rescue him or let him die. Who knows; the point is that it's possible to create the same basic conditions in a way that's at least feasible.

Other failures of basic scientific logic in the movie include the artificial gravity. Artificial gravity isn't a complex idea at all. It's just centrifugal force. You spin a room around the center of the ship. To people in the room, the floor will push "up" against their feet; the faster the spinning the more force pushing against their feet. At a certain speed the force pushing up will be the same as the force of gravity on earth. Hence artificial gravity. But if you move to the center of the ship or outside the ship, no gravity. So the scene where the astronauts are in space struggling to pull themselves up the ships tower makes no sense whatsoever. With no floor pushing up against them they would be and feel weightless. Worst case scenario they would be floating alongside the ship while the tower spun around, but even that doesn't make much sense because artificial gravity can be stopped. You just stop spinning the room! And we haven't even gotten to talking about why a long term mission wouldn't include replacement or repair parts for critical systems keeping the astronauts alive. Or how the ship could be so low on a critical resource like oxygen. Or how the ships power systems are so exposed that bumping into them could sever all power to the ship and yet somehow aren't affected by a lethally intense radiation storm. The list goes on and on. It makes absolutely zero sense that a multi billion dollar vessel would have so many single points of failure. This ship, the way it's presented, was a deathtrap from before it ever launched!

But if that's all this movie was, just a bunch of plot holes and logical inconsistencies, I would write it off as a bad movie and be done with it. Bad movies are a dime a dozen; there are literally thousands of them. What makes this movie a frustrating loss is that the I really enjoyed the acting. I think the actors nailed their roles. They felt very believable as that unusual combination of high-achieving, motivated, introverted intellectual that I always associate with astronauts. And they play to the drama of the situation really well, with moments like the scene where the captain literally begs to be the one to make a huge sacrifice because she can't bear the thought of forcing someone else to make it in her stead. Or the retreat to cold logic that drives one of the others to demand that someone sacrifice themselves for the sake of the mission, all to hide from his intense feelings of failure and powerlessness that he couldn't find a solution himself. I was never bored watching them despite this being a pretty low key movie, and I never questioned the reality of the characters despite the gaping failures of story logic. In short, I think there was a good movie hiding in there that could have been if they had put some more attention into the design of the story. There are excellent science fiction movies like 'Moon' that don't have big excitement levels but just really good acting and storytelling. It's unfortunate that 'Stowaway' won't be one of them.

Interesting beginning, ok middle and terrible end

[artem-nerd · 22 April 2021]

No explanation for Michael being "stowed away" even though that's the entire interesting point of this movie. This entire movie is basically about deciding who should die (in a group of 4) in order to have enough oxygen to reach Mars, since they only have enough for 3 people. That's it. Near the end, turns out they only have enough oxygen for 2 people instead of 3, but somehow one cannister of O2 is enough for the third person for months (??). And in the end, Zoe just flatout dies via sacrifice. Overall extremely underwhelming plot and character development, especially for a two hour movie about nothing.

I'd give it a 1/10 but the acting was decent and atmosphere was good, that's about it. That's why I rate it 2/10.

Don't waste your time.

Not bad at all

[brentgreen-22845 · 7/10 · 24 April 2021]

This is one of the rare times i agree more with the legit critics rather than the users.

Its not a 10. But certainly not a 5.5 either.

I dont know what people expect anymore. I wonder if its an ADHD thing.

The characters were good. Good story and writing too.

Sure its a slow burn but not a waste of time in my opinion.

Well paced with likeable characters

[jtindahouse · 7/10 · 22 April 2021]

Space is such a great and fascinating setting for a movie. You get the beauty of it, but you also get an unmatched sense of claustrophobia and isolation. 'Alien' used the tagline "In space no one can hear you scream", but it really applies to any movie set in space. You have to mess up pretty badly to make a bad movie set in space - I'm looking at you 'Jason X'.

I knew nothing about 'Stowaway' going in and it was a very different plot to what I expected it to be. I expected it to be more of a thriller with characters turning on each other and secrets being revealed. Instead it was very different to that, falling far more into the drama genre. It's a reasonably simple story when you think about it, but it's effective enough for the movie to keep ticking over. The runtime is nearly two hours, however it never feels like it's dragging.

I think the main reason it never feels like it's dragging is because the characters are so likeable. There are only four members to the cast, but they are all excellently written and all performed very well by what is a strong ensemble cast. No one character ever dominates or takes over the film. They all work nicely together and the movie is stronger for it.

Another thing I really liked was that I felt like I had no solid grasp on how the movie was going to end. It felt like anything could happen spanning the full range of the spectrum. A happy ending wouldn't have surprised me and a devastating ending wouldn't have surprised me. You'll have to watch the film yourself to find out how they went about that though. I had a good time with 'Stowaway' and would say it is worth your time.

A brief explanation for my low rating.

[wroclawkontakt · 1/10 · 24 April 2021]

Movie started. Good cast, nice atmosphere, shot nicely.

6 stars to begin with.

Up to 7 stars when the plot thickened with mysterious discovery.

Down to 6 stars when no one mentioned that the extra passenger was in a compartment with a lid screwed in from the outside.

Down to 5 stars when it turns out nothing is important about this extra dude, and no one botheres to explain anything.

Down to 4 stars when I'm made to believe that a 2 year space travel had no backup plan on board. No repairing machines, no redundancy for life support, nothing. What is this? RyanCosmos?

Down to 3 stars when upon facing solar radiation in 20 min, they decide to take one tank with them, risking their life. At this point extra passenger is out of the equation, but with algae gone they still need one O2 tank for crew of 3 instead of 2, so they are risking 2 lifes for one.

Down to 2 stars when they lose this tank in the most goofy and idiotic way possible.

Down to 1 star when the girl decides to sacrifice herself in a stupid heroic gesture, just because a monent ago she did not have a second to disconnect that one remaining leaking tank that was left.

Cosmos is full of stars, maybe they should fetch a few of them on a mission, instead of the oxygen tanks next time, because whatever was good in this motion picture, was wasted on my frustration with extreme stupidity that was presented.

It's a good movie.

[imdblisk · 7/10 · 22 April 2021]

Perfectly fine movie with a human dilemma at the center of it. Go for it.

Promising start, thrown away by dumb writing

[steelcity25 · 1/10 · 27 April 2021]

So the first 20 minutes was great, felt like it was going to be really great movie, then they discover the stowaway, somehow he was inside a bolted hatch, hmmm. Ok, I will let that go, I am sure it is integral to the plot. Next it seems the stowaway seems to have destroyed the co2 scrubber, and apparently there is no backup, hmmm, ok, seems kind of sloppy to spend billions of dollars and not pay for a backup system, but let's continue. So now they decided to use Algae to create oxygen, O dear that failed as well, boy this trip is unlucky. Now they have to tell the stow away he has to kill himself as their is not enough oxygen, but wait they suddenly discover another source of oxygen as far away from them as possible so they have to perform a space walk, oddly this space walk seems somewhat blase as they just winged it. Luckily they made it and filled 1 canister, which apparently had enough oxygen for the trip to Mars, how this is possible, answers on a postcard please. Then a solar storm, rush back to ship, drop canister, pick the Dr to go back out to certain death and get a 2nd canister because who needs a doctor and then it ends.

Real shame, had promise, but yet another Netflix film that fails to deliver.

Solid survival drama

[rhett-p · 7/10 · 22 April 2021]

Just like this director's other feature film 'Arctic', 'Stowaway' is a solid survival drama this time in the guise of a semi-hard sci-fi. If you enjoy survival films then this is probably worth your time.

The one-sided conversations go a long way to reinforcing the isolated nature of the crew, and the ending is entirely satisfactory (despite what some other reviewers might suggest). It looks good, has an atmospheric sound track and a small but solid cast featuring the always terrific Toni Collette.

It's not quite as good as 'Arctic' but I still enjoyed my time with this one and will be checking out the director's future work.

Great movie if you can ignore all the incredibly stupid things they do

[recklessron · 3/10 · 22 April 2021]

Does anyone remember the Apollo 13 mission where they had to build a CO2 scrubber to clean the air? One would expect that someone at NASA would. What do you think the odds are they would launch a mission to Mars without at least 1, if not several fully functional replacements. I certainly did.

So when the whole mission goes to hell because the SINGLE CO2 scrubber on a two year long mission to Mars is broken beyond repair .... well that is kind of hard to believe.

Then they go outside. The majority of the time they are untethered. When climbing a pole they go hand over hand, some of the time, without being tethered and, occasionally with BOTH hands off the pole! Any climber knows you always keep 3 points in contact and only move 1 at a time. In this case they only have 2 but you would NEVER take both hands off even if you were tethered, which they are not.

Then the most important thing they are carrying slips and flies away. Why? Because it wasn't tethered either. Smh

There are other flaws but those alone are enough to remove all possibility of suspension of disbelief.

This is all the writers fault for not having a clue they were doing.

Acting is good enough and so are the special effects.

It the braindead plot that turns a 7 into a 3.

Shame on everyone involved for not demanding the script be rewritten to be at least close to plausible. :(

Not blockbuster, but nice calm sci-fi movie

[chosetrans · 8/10 · 22 April 2021]

What can I say, there are no big bangs, no supermans, no Gravity suspense. In my opinion this is the way normal astronauts would act. They got that spot on. There is a lot of problems from the point of science (imprecise and impossible), but well, who cares. It is a movie, not a documentary. I actually liked it. I see those negative reviews as a little too harsh. It is not a film for everyone. Not a film for adrenaline junkies. But if you like space and space adventures, then it is for you.

Solid space film

[balthesaur · 7/10 · 14 September 2023]

Zoe (Anna Kendrick), David (Daniel Dae Kim), and Marina Barnett (Toni Collette) launch into space on a two year trip to Mars. Less than a day after takeoff, a 'Stowaway', Michael (Shamier Anderson) is found in an access panel and with his discovery, the life support systems begin failing. It becomes a race against time to find a way to survive aboard a space craft without enough oxygen for four people.

The acting is fairly well done and the script is predictable, but entertaining. The flow is solid and the ending is satisfying, but a lot of questions are raised about the validity of the science around the film. Why do certain plot points need to happen? This film feels a lot like 'Gravity' (2013), in that it's enjoyable if you don't think too much about it.

Worth a once over.

Really challenges your intelligence

[dushyant-desibrah · 3/10 · 23 April 2021]

I get that you're supposed to suspend your disbelief when you watch Sci-Fi movies, but this movie takes it to another level, and not because of the science fiction elements.

The whole premise of a stowaway on a spaceship was interesting, but the way they brought the character in was really stupid. I mean, who the hell screwed the panel on top of him? How does that even happen? How were people who went into the spaceship not all accounted for? So many questions.

When the stowaway becomes "normal" again, he seems so callous about the whole situation. Like, he just eases in so quickly and easily that you begin to feel like it was all part of his plan all along, except that it isn't. He doesn't even pretend to be a professional, doesn't really seems like he knows much about the ship (except for the one "fun fact" he drops about the safety panels being stripped off), and doesn't really show any emotion when he isn't goofing around.

Thirdly, how come there were no maintenance/service robots on this supposed 2-year mission? How is there absolutely no contingency planning? How are there no backup repair tools/units for something so critical? It seems rather impossible to me that a mission like this would be planned with absolutely 0 plan Bs.

Don't even get me started on the oxygen cannisters... so you're telling me that this supposedly highly trained astronaut doesn't even bother to tether the cannister to something? And she doesn't realise that the gravity was going to pull her in, even though it was something she heavily referenced earlier?

The cannister being lost was one of the dumbest parts of this entire story. And of course, the same goofball who lost an entire cannister is sent back once again to retrieve the very last hope that the entire crew had for survival, despite multiple people volunteering for the same.

Also, wasn't the cannister also exposed to the same radiation as the astronaut? I don't understand why they couldn't have brought her in too? Why did she have to die? And even if she did have to die, why didn't they give her the same injection that Michael was given so that she could pass out peacefully, instead of getting shredded by the radiation?

Absolutely dumb movie, and if it wasn't for the visuals it would be a complete waste of time. It really questions your intelligence on a whole other level.

Bare bones moral dilemma

[nancyldraper · 6/10 · 25 October 2021]

This is the first time I've seen Anna Kendrick in a serious dramatic role and she nailed it. This is a movie based on a moral dilemma but it also deals with themes of courage, self-sacrifice, hope and resourcefulness. There were a lot of science inconsistencies but the movie was not about science but was all about the premise. Excellent casting with Toni Colette, Daniel Dae Kim and Shamirr Anders giving solid performances. I give this film a 6 (fair) out of 10. {Moral Dilemma Drama}

Mostly good film, somewhat scarred by plot holes

[rhubarbcapital · 6/10 · 23 April 2021]

I can't say this is a bad movie, but there are many glaring plot holes which are so obvious that they do take away from this otherwise good film.

The first big plot-hole is that there is a stowaway on the ship, and the explanation for his presence is never given - and quite frankly - it practically defies all explanation. The more you try and think through *how that is even possible* the less it makes sense. (Did he lose consciousness while working, somehow, and then someone else screwed a panel over him?!)

While that doesn't make sense, there is something deliberate there because this lack of knowing creates a definite tension for the bulk of the film. Is the stowaway there because he is seeking glory and thought he could cheat his way onto a space mission (and is therefore of questionable ethics and sanity)? Is he a psychopath who will start killing the others? Did we go through some sort of worm hole into a parallel universe? That element of this plot hole was, at least initially, not only excusable but possibly additive to the suspense and overall film.

Some incredible acting by Shamier Anderson there, because he is able to keep you guessing about whether or not he is a good person for most of the film, until his true (good) nature is revealed. And the scenes about him deliberating over whether or not to take his own life really hit home and felt real, I was in despair alongside him as I considered his options...

The second great plot hole of the film centers around the extremely improbable lack of engineering and procedural redundancies/safe-guards on this mission. What's really unfortunate about these, too, is that it wouldn't have taken much effort to work them out.

As others have mentioned, there is no way a modern spaceship would be engineered without multiple units for maintaining breathable air on even a transactional mission into space, let alone a 2 year mission to Mars and back. So why not come up with some reason explaining how they end up in that 'one-in-a-million' scenario where multiple systems fail all at once?

And then later on, you watch professional astronauts spacewalk without being tethered to anything, on a ship that is SPINNING to create artificial gravity; and when they are transporting the one item they risked their lives to get on that spacewalk, they didn't tether that item to anything either. A half-second image of clasp failing (or something) would have at least shown some effort, instead, we are forced to believe that none of these trained astronauts would have considered a tether.

If there was only one of these plot holes, It would have been noticed, but you would have been able to forgive it. All of these plot holes together, unfortunately, create too much distraction and ultimately do hurt the film.

Plot holes aside, this is a very poignant psychological thriller that challenges the viewer to consider the fragility of life, and the meaning of sacrifice. There are moments of tender intimacy, and at times, the situation becomes almost Kafka-esque. It brings you right to the brink of the void, and lets you experience what it would be like to spend your final moments sitting on the edge of infinity, beyond the rubicon.

The acting is subtle, but good. The visual effects are stunning. The soundtrack is great. This movie has many elements of a great Sci-Fi/Space film, but greatness slip away from it, like an untethered air-canister.

The story... just... stopped.

[zappatattoo · 3/10 · 22 April 2021]

Excellent and plausible buildup to a suspenseful nothing. Plot holes galore didn't prepare us for the monumentally abrupt ending. Despite the lack of character development the movie was working well. But the lack of dialogue regarding their predicament only compounded the fact that the tale was lost from the get-go. Some lovely scenes, competent acting, elegant special effects. But at some point, the producers rang on the red phone to say that the party was over. Very disappointing.

even though gravitational issues...

[ops-52535 · 6/10 · 24 April 2021]

And a cloudy atmosphere all the way till the outer borders of the exosphere, and a little bit anticlimactic ending without big brawling fight for survival its an ok'ish movie i think...

it has moments of sensational intensity, it has also got some very nice visual effects in between, and the usual spaceflight vs survival in space takes some twists thats rather new to me. What that maybe i wont tell, but i can tease as much to say the plot gives in by itself in a sunstorm implotion like finale. Almost every spacemovie made dwells over impossible survival issues some due to lack of O2, others due to monsters etc , the issue here is a defect co2 washer that makes the flight to mars an impossible mission. They may survive but only under special circumstances.

Acting is nothing more than directed, and the story is made so you have to make some inhuman desicions in your mind to find a solution to the problems. So it becomes a bit sentimental here and there, but its survivable. I didnt like the last 20 minutes and definately not the end. So therefore just a 6 from the grumpy old man.

Netflix STOP!!!

[tracy-97320 · 2/10 · 29 April 2021]

Stop raising the price of people's subscription to keep churning out this utter garbage all the time! The cast literally means NOTHING without a decent well written story & this was just a predictable snooze fest!

Great special effects, shame the plot sucks

[doujyr · 6/10 · 24 April 2021]

Wonderful special effects, made it very believable. Unfortunately the plot was so mundane and really very ordinary! Even the unspeakably cute Anna Kendrick couldn't make it interesting (bit of a departure for her?). Should've spent more money on the script.

This movie makes no sense at all!!!

[marcusvmleite · 1/10 · 24 April 2021]

The beginning is promising, but it's just it. There is absolutely no explanation on how Michael ended up there. This movie is a TOTAL waste of time and I have no idea how could someone approve this script to be filmed.

Stupid People

[ted409 · 10/10 · 15 May 2021]

Just made it 10 to try to bring score up because people are stupid.

Better than expected

[yaornw · 7/10 · 23 April 2021]

This movie is basically the famous short story the cold equations retold with a slightly bigger cast so I went into it not expecting a whole lot that would engage me or challenge me, but Anna Kendrick's performance maybe one of the performances of her career. By the end of the movie I went from feeling it was cliché I am OK but nothing special to be in on the edge of my seat with intensity of caring about the outcome of these characters especially the doctor and that's saying something. There's only four people in this movie and they're trapped together in a spaceship. But they unpack a lot of drama and that's saying something given the rest of the cast. I would recommend this film.

One of the worst movies ever - here's one more reason

[spinosa5 · 1/10 · 29 April 2021]

Throw logic out the air lock, as many other reviewers here have already noted.

Here's a question: they need more oxygen to survive a 5 month trip to Mars because now they have an extra person breathing it. Never mind that the CO2 scrubber being broken (and they left all the spares back in the garage) is the real issue. Their solution is to bring back one tank of O, filled to 250 LB pressure. We see the tank is maybe 3-4 times bigger than a standard scuba tank. A scuba tank gives you roughly 40 minutes of breathing time. So HOW in the holy name of NASA can this one tank make an appreciable difference? Even chief engineer Mr. Scott couldn't fix this issue.

Could be better, could be worse

[evilcho · 7/10 · 1 June 2021]

If you don't dig into the details of the movie you'll probably enjoy it. I tried not to and it wasn't half as bad. There were interesting and intriguing moments. Rating would be somewhere around 6.5 but I rounded it up to 7.