bbriddell I writing a review as the only reason I took the time to watch the movie was related the reviews I had read. In one review the main female character is noted as an Android. Nope, she's a synthetic human. The "special effects" not Space 1999, they were better. The story was more of a quarter baked notion, not even half baked. The story is like a frozen hamburger you put in the microwave for one minute and then eat. The whole story is contained in the first 15 minutes. She's a synthetic human that doesn't have rights as a person = slave. She wants to be free. She gets a hold of valuable information and then goes rogue. The company goes after her. She wins the end.To state the story was a mess and thrown together would be giving these kinds of films a bad rep. It was so disjointed it's section was obvious and cliché but so off the wall you didn't know what the next transition would be from one video section to another. There are serious gaps, like the grand canyon, in plot points. The ship needs supplies for the trip, so the guy lays down to sleep; the next morning there's a fight and they take off without getting any supplies/fuel or anything. The woman has a chip in her head that will kill her in 72 hours after activation, so they go to a planet to the person that put her genetic code together to save her. The guy (Birkman) takes her there, hands her over while she's sleeping, the next morning they meet and agree to go to the planet where the alien ship for salvage is. What happened with the deadly chip? If there was a story board, then there would be five index cards in a freshman college paper format; Intro, 3 supporting paragraphs, and a conclusion.Suspension of disbelief: Nonexistent. For example, when they get to the alien ship for salvage there are blue skies with clouds like on Earth and a con trail from a jet plane in the shots. Near the beginning when they are taking off to get away from the big bad corporation she kills two guys; so the film took the time for her to dispose of the bodies by opening a bay door and throwing two obvious dummies to land on an obvious mat one at a time; like one wasn't bad enough. Acting wooden & stupid. Directing would have been better by a 12 year old. Story Elementary school style. There were a lot of low budget OK films in the 80s; this isn't one of them.Doctor Who with Tom Baker has more story, better acting and directing; as well as better special effects than this movie and that was late 70s to 1981. ***I only watched due to the positive reviews. Save your time and watch anything other than this. Seriously not even so bad it's good; just pointless.***

djkinney Watching this on Netflix streaming, within ten minutes I could tell that this film is exactly what young filmmakers should be watching to see what can be done with very little. Excellent because People today have forgotten what "suspension of disbelief" really means. It has become code for accepting the unacceptable. Instead, what it really means is allowing the story itself to shine through limitations or handicaps. The story here shines to an extent, but it is really the genuine talent that produced this film that remains a worthy object of attention.It looks older than it is, mostly due to the film stock, and maybe that adds to the appeal.

lvcambot-2 This "Effort" was made in the 80's.. but Geeze!Checking through the limited Sci-Fi fare available on Netflix streaming download I finally had a chance to see this.What is wrong with this movie? Maybe a better question would be "What went Right?"Here is a list of what I think was wrong to very very wrong:A totally incoherent music score.Did anybody else catch the "Solaris" theme roll by?It's like Gerry Anderson's Model shop collides with a 3D effects program that stumbles into a Roger Corman and the latest Robert Rodriguez film projects.In order of WORSEness:1. Overall Audio Quality 2. Musical score? 3. Actors? Scenes? 4.Script? Story? (I mean come on!) 5. Directing? (I mean ditto ditto!!) 6. Ships going "Pa-Tank" when they land. Just like they did when you played with them in the sandbox as a kid. 7. A character named "Brickman?" ala the James Cameraon Abyss movie. 8. So the main lead was this "Hot" Sexy babe. In the end you settled for an untalented, wooden, MILF with BIG HAIR?9. Fighting Scenes = Bump & Fall Down. 10. What exactly was this film about again?Now that film distribution is finally breaking through to the HOME Big Screen Internet Connected TV and your hand-held smart Phone.. I'd love to know if this movie is NOW making money?How much did this 16mm epic cost in 1986? How much did it cost to re-edit it for today?Is it making money? Is it making money Now?Thanks,GENE

macmillan-3 At first glance one might think this is going to be just a cheap SF B-movie, but if one considers how it was made (practically "in the backyard"), it is simply fantastic. A lot of care went into the production, even with the very limited constraints these independent filmmakers were working in, and one can notice this.One thing: this is not a movie of the "Spielberg-Lucas-etc.-Roller-Coaster-Ride-with Special-Effects"-kind, so if you expect something of that sort, you will be disappointed. Though it comes with an action-style plot, this is almost a quiet movie - which is one of its charms, if one can appreciate that.The story, about an female android seeking freedom and teaming up with a space pilot to find a lost alien spaceship, battling an evil corporation on the way, is no big deal, but quite nicely done, human and believable in its context - more than can be said about some multi-million-dollar-productions. The acting sometimes is a bit on the heavy side, but strangely this somehow adds to the atmosphere this film manages to produce (rare in a SF-Film nowadays), and even helps in creating a sense of wonder, which you wouldn't expect in a movie on that budget ... The special effects are done with miniatures and they are in in their way almost stylish, so that you know you're looking at models but you don't care; one can admire what has been done here with a extremely tiny budget and how the filmmakers even managed to achieve a certain visual consistency in their film. I bought this video by chance, not expecting much, and now find that I've seen it several times already and will continue to see it again from time to time, because in its own unpretentious, not-quite-professional way it manages to take me into another world of infinite possibilities, and what more could one ask from an SF-movie?