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.***

Nardac Blefscu Originally released in 1987 as "Star Quest: Beyond The Rising Moon", this movie is a minor indie triumph with ambitious and charming old school, "Space:1999"-style model work and effects supporting stiff performances, pedestrian direction, and a derivative, predictable screenplay. That version is currently available on Youtube. The "Outerworld" version now on Netflix and other sources is an appalling attempt to update and revise the film a la George Lucas's tweaks to the original STAR WARS trilogy and is about a thousand times less successful (and Lucas attempts were abject failures). No attempt has been made to mesh the original effects with the tacky and immediately-dated 2005 CGI and the film source appears to come from a very dated, late 1980s master. At the very least, a new film scan should have been struck and the original, unadulterated version made available to exist along side this "special edition" abortion but that is not the case. Ugh.

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.

mikey-242-435767 Contains possible spoiler(s).Several reviews mention how this is a very low budget movie. But look at what they did with that supposedly low budget. This is somewhat "made for TV" quality but the director scouted many locations which were used to maximum advantage to make a very good presentation.There is some blue screen work which is not of the utmost quality but about average for the time it was made. That is not a negative, just a comment on the state of the art then.The miniatures are obvious in some cases but well done. Many a toy store was raided, I expect, to get the various models needed and then lots of innovative painting ensued. There are some average to low quality mattes, too, consistent with a low budget. But also some traveling mattes or a good simulation of that process. Still, they are effective. That's what you have to do to make a low-budget movie.The story gets off to a slow start, doing the back story but then takes off. Don't miss the first 15 minutes. The entire setup is there. And you get plenty of shots of a not-hard-to-look-at lead character.There is a strange thought in the plot that the android could steal information then try to use that information for personal gain. And "she" thought that was legal and moral. It is a slight morality play in this regard.The ending is somewhat abrupt and sappy. I was not totally satisfied with it. But I have seen worse.However, even with the small faults, I can recommend this movie. You won't feel cheated.