Homeworld (2008) User Reviews

This story deserves a "real" movie...

[Playbahnosh · 5/10 · 2 January 2009]

After reading the summary here, I got interested and finally gave Homeworld a chance. I still have mixed feelings. Sci-fi movies nowdays tend to be awful, so I was a bit skeptic all through this movie, and for part of it, I was right.

Let's get the bad things out of the way first: low-grade special effects, the script is awful, and the props and camera-work could be better. Homeworld being an extremely low budget movie, these things are kinda expected, so no biggie there. The acting is a little corny too, but seemingly the actors are giving their best at least. The characters have speaker names (Gray, Bane, Heart, Fulsome...etc), which is kinda strange in a movie like this, but at least they are mostly true to their characters.

The good part is the story itself. Although it feels like it was taken square out of Outer Limits, it still enjoyable. The ending is the best. It manages to do a rare thing, which is to turn the tables around, making an awful movie feel much better in the long run. It completes the story, but leaves the rest for the imagination. Loved it.

Interesting concept and good story. Too bad the low budget ruined the picture. Better script and dialogs, better props, scenery and effects could've made the difference. Homeworld is not a bad movie, but sadly, not a real good one either. If you like a good story, give it a try. If you are out for the flashy CGI, Homeworld is not a movie for you.

Well written, great concept, ruined by poor acting

[egodraconis · 5/10 · 5 January 2009]

It seems that a lot of hard work and thought went into writing and filming this movie, however the person(s) responsible for casting blew it.

I really enjoyed the story line. It was thought provoking, possessed continuity, and stands out as one of the better crafted movies of this genre for 2008.

The people responsible for cinematography and effects in this movie did a fine job, and the music was original and fitting.

As for the acting, Kenneth Sears was not just a bad actor in the film, but his accent was distracting and annoying making any scene in which he spoke a chore to experience. The rest of the actors in the movie delivered mediocre performances as well, but none were as bad as Sears. I felt as though I was sitting through a 1970's porn before the sex scenes started.

The Outer Limits......only longer....and a happy ending

[garlick_2 · 3/10 · 5 January 2009]

The outer limits was a tremendous sci fi, TV show that explored this very concept many times over. Are we really helping or hurting our society with what we're doing?? The only problem with this movie is that the production quality wasn't nearly as good as the TV show's was, and that's saying something. This movie was shot on such a low budget that there really wasn't much "sci fi" about it.

The aliens looked like something out of the old version of Doctor Who, you know the one that your older brother watched on PBS in the late 80's early 90's. The CGI graphics are sci fi channel bad. The explanation of why the crew's ship crash landed was not very realistic, let alone the video showing the crash was just terrible. The human colony was never seen up close.

I was also amazed at how in the end the bad guy switched to the good guy so quickly, and then everything was OK. Like the whole struggle throughout the entire movie wasn't worth any of the pay off.

The pacing of the movie was also very slow, which is strange because there wasn't much to explain. Normally when things are slow, you get a lot of explanation or character development, but that never happens.

There were also two deaths of characters in the film, yet neither really felt natural or real. One character was just introduced, not given much to do, then killed off.

The one thing that really upset me, was the acting of Kenneth Sears as the doctor. He was awful. I just didn't understand what in the world he was doing at any point, and his accent. I couldn't figure out if he was doing it on purpose, or it was just how he spoke, but it was annoying and distracting.

The one redeeming performance was from Beau Ballinger as Lt. Gray. Even though I would never believe in his character's choices, that has more to do with the script and the writing than it does his acting. He was actually believable as a young, yet inexperienced soldier.

Still, this is not a good film, and I can't recommend you take the time to watch it.

I fell asleep watching this movie

[gerry137 · 2/10 · 23 February 2009]

Really, no action, no aliens that I could see, no nothing I felt that this was the worst movie ever, and believe me for me to post a comment on this site..well, just does not happen. If you really have problems getting to sleep at night, put the bible away and watch this, guaranteed to be asleep in seconds and no pills required. I must admit at first it looked promising, spaceship crash lands some survivors have to go into survival mode but thats it. The acting was predictable, special affects, well they sucked. All in all I did not have any patience for this movie. But at the end of the day its the viewer that decides what they like, for me it was a waste of time. You will get more enjoyment weeding your garden..

Horrible

[FlorRombain · 1/10 · 28 March 2009]

Lame movie, special effects that even can't be called effects, and when reading this comment you have to keep in mind that I like science fiction movies. The story of this movie seems pointless, it leads to nowhere. Certainly low budget. The acting ain't great, no action,... watching this movie is simply a waist of time !

The story basically comes down to this: a couple of humans are sent to a planet to spread a virus that will kill their enemy, the mendax, once their spaceship has crashed on the planet, they try to make it to a village of the mendax, at a certain point they run into what they at first think is a mendax, but turn outs to be a human.

So they start to doubt, going on, they find out that their minds have been implanted with memories by the mendax (they are clones, people who look the same, are the same, have been sent for the very same reason to the planet before). Later on they discover that they are actually sent to end humanity with the virus, but later on they discover that that ain't the case and that it's actually a virus to release the humans from mendax (created by a mendax)...

This might sound like an interesting storyline, but I assure you, it ain't !

Homeworld - a review

[dean-202 · 1/10 · 4 January 2009]

This is one of those films where the producers know they can get quick cash from the scifi fanbase, then get out without refunding anyone's money. This film isn't a labor of love, it is just labor - as in 'uninteresting drudgery'. * Apparently in the future the military consists only of bad, out of work actors - or some horrible alien cliché weapon made them stiff, robotic and unable to speak in normal human conversational tones. *Once you get a few minutes in, you wonder - "Is the plot of this thing going to be about a group of soldiers who THINK they are human but are actually the 'aliens' they are setting out to fight?" Yes it was a Deep Space 9 plot. * when fighting in a forest, you either stay perfectly clean, or completely filthy. There is no in-between. Looks like someone in makeup found a smudge stick in their kit and used it exclusively. * When you establish a 'head wound' it should still be visible when the camera changes angle..... thanks again makeup, stellar work. * If you do not use the word "lieutenant" in EVERY line of dialog, people won't remember that this is the "military" *Apparently it IS OK to pull your punches during fight scenes, as long as the camera shakes a bit while your actors miss the mark. * If you like Adobe After Effects as your visual effects software, this film does not disappoint. * Is it "Mendex", "Mendax" or "Mandex"? The cast used all 3.

The one thing this film teaches you is this: If you have ever WATCHED film school dropouts make an amateur movie, that is all the prep, skill and talent you need to create a work such as "Homeworld".

Oddly enough the music for the film by John Vincent McCauley wasn't half bad. I wouldn't mind seeing Bronston Delone ("the black guy") in a real movie as he seems to have talent, though the director of this "film" did his best to hide it.

*There is one scene about 35 minutes in.... no actors, just a hill, fog and the sun fighting through the cloud - and it is breathtaking especially with the music design. This ONE '4 second' shot was so good in comparison, it is completely superior to this entire movie.

Now, I actually can't watch this show to its conclusion.... it is just so horrible, so I can't tell you if they stole the previously mentioned plot line from DS9, but really... who cares if they did? Are the soldiers actually Mendex? Probably. Do I care? Hell no.

A message for writer/director Phillip Hudson: Pick a department and get good at it because you suck at both of your current choices.

Good story for the cost

[southbaylaguy · 7/10 · 27 November 2009]

I was pretty impressed by the outcome of this story. Yes, the CGI is not good and unfortunately hurts the realness of the plot itself. I was also disappointed by not seeing the creature more, but that wasn't as bad as the costumes of the natives.

However, I loved the music and the story itself was good. And given the other comments I have read on here, I personally thought Kenneth Sears did well as Dr. Bayne and actually made his own character different from the norm. I thought his character and Beau Ballenger's character, Gray, had good chemistry. But enough with the cliché' characters!

When I found out that this movie's budget was so small, I realized that the project was good and is better than most things I see on the Sci-Fi channel.

Summary of Homeworld

[wils5742 · 9/10 · 8 December 2008]

I was a bit hesitant to rent this, as Sci-fi movies you first see on the shelves tend to be appalling. I was pleasantly surprised to watch a thought-provoking film that made me really try to figure out the ending before it happened.

The special effects were cool, but don't expect to see much, since they obviously spent most of their FX budget on the first scene. The acting was good for a low budget sci-fi film, but there were some moments at the beginning that almost made me turn it off.

Every sci-fi film needs a hot chick, and this one will suffice. As far as the writing goes, what I thought was a bad story progression was actually pretty original and intentional considering the ending, so watch with an open mind, and enjoy the internal struggle you will face watching it.

I immediately checked here after watching for some insight into the ending, so I may make another with spoilers attached, to share what I think the ending meant.

Great story, I wish they had put more money into it, and acquired some more substantial acting and music. But all in all, it was an intriguing movie that anyone who likes movies that makes them think should watch.

Interesting film

[jahnke · 7/10 · 15 June 2009]

Yes this film is obviously a low budget movie, and that is a shame, perhaps with a bigger budget the film crew could have done a more "round" experience.

But on the other side: Today it seems that all movies with a big budget are dumb. This movie is not great, but far better than 90% of the big budget blockbusters I have seen this year.

The story is good with interesting twists. The actors are decent, but the character of the docotr is annoying. Why has interesting low budget science fiction movies, like this one or "cube" for example, always such an annoying charakter in the script? Is this something script writers learn on school?

A film for people who think that science fiction could be more than spacecrafts, action and aliens.

Good story, bad special effects

[Moody2008 · 6/10 · 27 February 2009]

I saw this movie without thinking i would get something out of it, but it seems the story was actually captivating. Especially the ending was a bit of a surprise, although it was kind of spoiled by final words before throwing the virus at the city more exactly it was kind of a cliché. The acting wasn't all that good, i didn't see anyone that caught my attention as an actor in this film. The special effects weren't necessarily bad as they were almost missing. But the good part was the story. It was kind of a psychological SF film. I tend to ignore the lack of special effects if the story is right because i think a movie is made by the story not by the special effects and that is what i appreciate most. So it depends on what you want in a movie to decide if you should watch this movie or not.

great but two problems

[allanesl · 8/10 · 1 October 2009]

I have no idea why it scored so low. At first the actors seemed thin. The doctor was less than convincing. But as the movie progressed it became more life-like. The idea of being brainwashed twice kept me, the audience, interested. This is a sci-fi that doesn't rely on special effects but rather an interesting story line and plot. Two problems though. I couldn't understand the Mendax's voice near the end of the movie. Sure, it sounds alien-ish, but it was really hard to understand its slurring. Second, it was a little corny that humans were the only race of beings the Mendax couldn't conquer entirely. That detail could use a rewrite. Aside from that, it was intriguing throughout and deserve a might higher rating.

Mixed review but overall a success

[nstobor55 · 7/10 · 26 April 2014]

I agree for the most of with most of the reviewers. I am very skeptical about low budget movies but I do appreciate small film makers trying to make something. Overall, I think this movie was a success for the resources it had available.

For example, the script had a smart premise. I was actually wanting to find out more. And I think the actors did a good job for the project present. I was more intrigued with Sears's performance, but I did feel the characters themselves were poorly written and totally predictable which made them annoying. But the actors themselves did a good job but needed better direction. The music was great, even though it was too similar to Battlestar Galactica.

Several problems that showed that this was a low budget film:

The computer graphics looked low budget. The Aliens's costumes made me laugh There were way too many scenes of walking through the forest. If the editor took out 10 minutes of that footage, it would have been a much better film overall.

I would be intrigued if this film was remade with a bigger budget and more less stereotypical characters.

Nice Concept But Faulty Presentation

[tabuno · 7/10 · 8 January 2019]

5 December 2017. The elite team that lands on this alien world in order to destroy its inhabitants to save Earth don't present themselves as the most elite team as witnessed in many other action adventure movies, such as the recent 2307: Winter's Dream (2017). The initial banter and the scripted inter-personnel conflicts seem somewhat artificial and clique driven. Later on, there are it appears some character, motivation changes that seem inconsistent or suddenly suspicious, even taking into account the overlying concept of the movie thought might explain such changes. And what's all the groaning about more than half way through? What's even more inexplicable, oddly enough, is why most of this elite team manages to remain alive and not wondering what the hell is going on? Then there the killings, one of which might be considered rather emotionally manipulative in that typically someone else usually would die in such circumstances. And are there any consequences for murder on this planet? This movie was scripted and directed as a psychological thriller where with every behavior and statement, murderous paranoia and suspicion reigns. What is real and what isn't? There are scenes that raise moral questions, cerebral existential conundrums attempting to elevate this sci fi film into a more substantive product. The several scenes of supposedly mental visions are at times themselves pretty obviously scripted and unconvincing. Unlike the classic sci fi space adventure Alien (1979), the characters aren't as authentic and natural in their performances something that the director, Ridley Scott, emphasized along with realism for art design and setting.

The overall presentation of this movie is somewhat like an extended science fiction television episode from the updated Outer Limits (1995-2002) even to the plot outline used by several episodes. The immediate irritable behavior and attitude of the doctor is such that unlike the more devious and even more horrifying normality of Ash from Alien, the doctor's presentation is almost too stark and unconvincing. As with John Carpenter's The Thing (1982), oftentimes it is what seems normal but is not that is even scarier because we as human's are unprepared for the unsuspecting danger of the creeping or sudden strange. Because of the large amount of non-action on screen, the dialogue and individual performances are crucial to the success of the movie.

Conceptually, the storyline is solid and creatively imaginative if not original and its apparent with some of the scenes how this movie with a better script and possibly different director and actors could have been a superb contribution to the sci fi movie genre. The latter part it's difficult to tell how much it was the screenplay that created most of the problems with this movie. A much better movie presentation using some of the same themes as Homeworld would be horror genre movie, The Devil's Tomb (2009) released a year later. The attempt at a twist of a twist seems to succeed at the end, but in some ways, it still feels unconvincing. As for the ending, John Carpenter's horror cerebral genre movie, Prince of Darkness (1987) actually has a much more haunting and captivating ending.