Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

mergatroid-1 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....

johnsamo-1 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.

Palomar Jack 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.

Helen Kay 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.