User Reviews

My experience of this movie was mostly one of regret and longing for what it could, with minor improvements, have been, tempered with respect for what I believe its creators were trying to accomplish – in the words of its own website "…to excite audiences with a story that will seem credible and dramatic…".

To do this, they appear to have made, and succeeded in, and effort to avoid practically every sci-fi action cliché. This movie is essentially documentary in form, distinct from a true documentary in that it describes purely fictional events and people. On one level, this is refreshing, on another, tedious, but on any level, it is not cliché.

To succeed with this approach, however, a film's realism, with all the details that go into it, must be virtually flawless, so that well-science-informed viewers – who are likely to be the only people audience to fully appreciate and enjoy such a film – do not have their suspension of disbelief abused by such impossibilities as space helmets with visible gaps in their supposedly airtight seals, etc. Failure of such critical details effectively ruins the film beyond redemption, even if it succeeds brilliantly in other areas, such as the rendering of a convincing-looking Martian landscape.

Another area it can fail is if some or all of the characters fail to behave according to the well-informed viewers' expectations of how well-trained astronauts – or the viewers themselves - would behave. Though the interaction of the characters in "Stranded" seems genuine and realistic on occasion, it often doesn't, and, upon discovering the incredible, these supposed scientists and adventurers seem devoid of even normal curiosity. The only line of characterization that consistently feels real is the awe they feel at the beauty of the Martian surface and sky, despite the lethality these threaten.

I believe that the right technical consultant could have made this movie a classic on a par with "2001: A Space Odyssey" – while clearly made on a tighter budget, "Stranded" avoids the confusing metaphysical finale that many feels marred "2001". As it stands, I expect this movie will be lost and forgotten in the worlds discount DVD bins with barely a ripple in science fiction fandom. Even with its inevitable movie channel rotation, I will be surprised if it gathers 1,000 votes on IMDb.

A seven-man crew of international specialists formed by Commander Andre Vishniac (José Sancho); engineer Luca Baglioni (Vincent Gallo); doctor Jenny Johnson (Maria de Medeiros); astrobiologist Fidel Rodrigo (Joaquim de Almeida); pilot Susana Sánchez (María Lidón); geologist Herbert Sagan (Danel Aser); and pilot Lowell (Johnny Ramone) travels to Mars to explore the planet. On the arrival, Lowell stays in orbit in the mothership while the crew lands on Mars. However their spacecraft crashes on the planet and Vishniac breaks his neck. They learn that they are stranded in Mars and Lowell returns to Earth to bring a rescue team. Soon Luca calculates the oxygen, water and supplies and concludes that there are enough for only two of them survive until an eventual rescue team comes to Mars twenty six months later. They decide that the engineer Luca and doctor Jenny should be the ones to stay in the spacecraft due to their specialties. Susan, Rodrigo and Sagan wear their spacesuits to explore the planet and die. But while there is life, there is hope.

"Stranded" is an anguishing low-budget sci-fi developed in very slow pace that builds up tension. The plot is realistic and the pragmatic Luca is a hateful but coherent character. The beautiful cinematography shows the arid landscape of Mars as a hopeless environment for human life. The surprising conclusion gives hope to the survivors to be rescued one day alive. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

There are two camps about "Stranded." It either is a scientifically stupid and poorly acted piece of drivel that draws out an obvious plot interminably, or it is a unique low-rent take on something quite interesting with moments of sheer delight.

I am in the latter camp.

Sure, the science makes no sense. Anyone with the first clue about space can spot the numerous errors. These include instant communication from Mars to Earth and so forth. Go pat yourself on the head for having the astounding perception to spot that sort of thing and whine about it. If that sort of thing bugs you, well, it's a shame you can't just learn to suspend your belief and go with the concept rather than the details. Allow yourself to be entertained and maybe you will be someday.

Rather than dwell on the negative, though, I focus on the attitude and the story - and I liked both. The attitude is pure Vincent Gallo. If you don't know who he is, I highly recommend you go out and find "Buffalo '66" somewhere. It is one of the most original films you will ever see with all sorts of inside jokes (most hilariously about the placekicker who cost the Buffalo Bills a key playoff win, but that's another story). "Buffalo '66" is one of those films that sticks with you as you wonder, "did he really do that?"

I am not some kind of Vincent Gallo groupie. He is an acquired taste. Acerbic, downright annoying, and resplendent in his indifferent and almost vulgar acting style, Gallo is perfect for the role of the "smart guy" know-it-all usually portrayed in sci-fi pablum as aliens (Vulcans, androids, whatever). Here, Gallo goes stays in his standard lane to pile on the dislikability intentionally like shoveling cement into a post hole. Most unexpectedly, it works. Gallo easily the strongest figure in the film precisely because he is unpredictable, direct, and operates unexpectedly for his character with utterly base motives. He is the axis around which the plot turns, the car crash on the roadside everyone stops to look at, and saves this film from ossifying from predictability and tedium..

Everybody else pretty much descends into one stereotype or another. There's the guy who thinks he can fix any problem if he just tries hard enough, the self-doubting replacement commander, the easygoing guy who you know isn't going to make it but will be everyone's friend until he goes, and so forth. The writing for the most part is pedestrian and obvious and you can spot the ending a light year away.

However, you can enjoy this film, you just need to be patient (meaning, have nothing better to do). There are moments that are transcendent in their uniqueness for a complete film. A guy who knows he's got no time left starts randomly talking about John Carter and Barzoom. Another guy, circling in the command module high above like a Michael Collins and perfectly safe while knowing the crew below has no hope, goes abruptly, "I've got to head back to Earth in two days. Well, gotta go, cya!" There's wild humor in this stuff if you read enough into it and what this says about how humans viscerally react in such situations without the phony macho posing.

But the best moment of the film belongs to Maria de Medeiros, who you might recognize from "Pulp Fiction." After Gallo's character makes one of the worst come-ons in any film anywhere but is oh-so-right for Gallo, she turns him down with some of the most pointed jabs of all time. Her suggestions of how they might portray him with a statue (undoubtedly portraying him doing what she recommends he do to enjoy himself for his final hours) is hilarious and devastating at the same time. We've been waiting the entire time for someone to finally tell Gallo's character off and it is a moment of pure catharsis. That scene would be totally impossible in any Hollywood cookie-cutter sci-fi film where everything has to be oh-so-serious and for that reason alone is so enjoyable to watch.

Yes, "Stranded" has all sorts of amateurish moments. The opening credits sequence is arduous to sit through, and if if you made it through that, you deserve a medal. The next half hour isn't much better. But if you go in just suspending your belief and look for the humor and fun in the (of course, Mr. Or Ms. Smart Guy Scientific Genius) completely impossible complications and payoff, you may actually find yourself entertained. And that goes double if you, like me, are unbearably tired of the same old Hollywood factory films that all follow the same tired conventions and have the same tired "complications" and tired plot twists and oh-so-clever tired dialog. Go watch something with Kristen Stewart or George Clooney or Matt Damon instead if that is what it takes to turn you on.

"Stranded" may have a lot of problems, but it has original moments that are pure gold. I liked it. I bet you will relish and remember some of its delicious moments long after you forget the longwinded and mundane bits.

I wish there were more science-fiction films like this one being made today.

I can't understand all the negativity towards this flick! Here's a modest little film that doesn't depend on huge special effects and gratuitous action sequences in order to tell a cracking little story, with enough twists and turns to keep an old sci-fi fan like myself guessing until the end.

The premise is certainly nothing we haven't had before (think "Mission to Mars", or "Robinson Crusoe on Mars"), but this particular storyline was dense and well paced, no loose ends, everything for a purpose.

The other aspect of the movie I liked was the atmosphere that it managed to build through, what I think, are all the things that people have criticized it for.

It had a sense of calm, other-worldliness, to which the non-US accents, and at times off-beat delivery by some of the actors contributed. The dialog is more naturalistic than in a big-budget Hollywood action sci-fi flick, and this may be why some people found it "weird".

Some of the dialog was a bit corny, but I think deliberately - a little tip of the hat to earlier tales of that ilk (one of the characters conspicuously starts quoting from "John Carter of Mars" at one point, and we feel we're in an entirely different movie for a moment)

The sedate narration from the main actress, the gorgeous locations shots, and even the interior of the Martian complex with its mysterious technology, all contributed to a dream-like and alien quality invoked by this movie.

Great fun!

Rating - 10 out of 10.

Do not see this movie.

Pros: Vincent Gallo

Cons: The directing, writing, acting (except V.G.), cinematography, etc. are insultingly bad. No, I'm not being harsh. This movie is terrible no matter what mindset you walk into it with. If you have an IQ over 80, you will find it derivative and, at times, highly dubious.

I hate the director with every ounce of my being. Worst yet, she has some kind of pseudonym she uses on this project - i.e., Luna.

Pretentious, pretentious, pretentious!

Stop calling yourself Luna. You're not deep. You're not clever. You have zero abilities and you're movie completely sucks.

I can't believe people keep working with this woman. She is untalented. She must have a famous brother, father, mother, aunt, or something to get her on the in of Hollywood.

Here's a letter:

Dear Hollywood,

Please desist all future projects with María Lidón,a.k.a. Luna.

Cordially yours, The World.

It's low budget. It's a Spanish sci-fi. The acting can only be described as wooden, especially by Maria Lidon. The science will not hold up to even cursory scrutiny. So why is "Stranded" so interesting? It's original, that's why. There are no sand monsters, in fact there is nothing to do battle with, except the hopelessness of the crew's situation. The underlying logic drives the film, not c.g.i. and that is why the originality. If you enjoy the thrill of discovery, and the deliberate pace is not going to be a problem, then this is a must see. The Martian landscapes are stunning. Even the ending is no cop out, which adds to the realism that has preceded it. - MERK

I remember seeing a film called 'nasty rabbit'. we gave up on that one after 5 minutes...

However I did manage to make it through this film.

I rented it because the story looked good. And it was. a very clever idea...

-but- the characters all felt so thin and clichéd (near-zilch character growth-fatal for art-house...), combined with some flaws in the audio and wooden acting, destroyed my hopes for this film. (María Lidón could do with a second facial expression too...) I understand that the director may be new, and she picked a good story, and made sure all the non-human elements were good. nice cinematography. terrific first few minutes (then the talking starts).

If there is one thing that the likes of 'eraserhead' and perhaps '2001' should have taught us... better to have no dialog than bad dialog...

Steve McQueen was known for wanting to replace dialog in the script simply with facial expressions or physical movement. Something he is acknowledge as being good at.

perhaps the film could be remade. perhaps it was rushed through shooting which forced them to accept crap takes....

either way I'm gonna skip 'Yo puta' and wait for something good to come from this (obviously talented) young lass..

Once you get past the first 20 minutes, which contains the worst of the acting and the expository dialogue that invariably that starts with "As you know, Mars/the spaceship/our oxygen supply...," this is an enjoyable and intelligent movie. Actually, with the proviso that this is indeed science fiction with regard to the more fantastic elements, they made a better fist of the science and technology than any of the Hollywood blockbusters about Mars. The production values are surprisingly high, although real space nerds will notice that the interior of the mars landing spaceship bears more than a passing resemblance to a shuttle mock up and Blake's 7 fans will notice the wandering-down-the-same-corridor-with-different-lighting trick.

Sweet merciful Christ...I have actually excreted more worthy things into the toilet than this film.

The only possible reason this has 5.2 out of 10 is simply because of Gallo's bug-eyed presence and all things said and done...he's not bad...at playing Vincent Gallo.

I don't know the ins and outs of this film's production (got it for 24p from Somerfield...oh yeah..) but the script was the most hilarious thing ever put into action. With sparky dialogue like "I'm a geologist. That's how I know to keep my feet on the ground" I really don't know how this missed that Best Original Screenplay gong at the Academy.

Also, the subtle methods of weaving in plot details by comatose voice-over was genius. I'm now spending my time debating just what level of heroin consumption could possibly imbue the actors with their clear passion and unstoppable zeal for the project. That newsreader in the intro? If he's not dead in a gutter by now he's immune to narcotics. I literally wondered whether he was gonna keel over or vomit or something whilst spouting "What's it like...*sigh* I mean *deep breath* you're flying around Mars....*vomits* (off screen)" Please please save yourself, even die-hard Gallo-ers, don't watch this offence to cinema. Light your eyes on fire and see how many times you can blink before losing consciousness. It would be more fun. Seriously.

If you dislike slow pace, and needs lots of explosions or adventure in your science-fiction films, avoid Stranded. You won't enjoy it.

But if you like slow, realistic, thought provoking sci-fi (films like 2001 or Solaris) with a twist of psychological drama, then give Stranded a go.

On a tiny budget, I believe the makers of Stranded have achieved a deeper, more interesting Mars film than any other to date.

Six Astronauts aboard the first mission to Mars, crash their ship when landing, and the only hope of rescue is a potential 3 year wait for another ship from Earth. With not enough air, water or energy to last for 3 years, the film asks - what would you do? The settings are believable, the acting a little varied (some accents might even be dubbed), and the special effects merely OK. It looks like a mere BBC TV special. But try not to be distracted by these quibbles.

Apart from an initial space travel shot or two, special effects aren't needed. The film's real strength is the tension between the characters as they sit huddled in the wreckage of their ship, and the harsh reality of their situation.

Even a science fiction twist at the end remains believable, thanks to it's understated nature.

I went into this film expecting a terrible b-grade sci-fi film. Instead, I found myself on the edge of my seat from beginning to end, and was frankly blown away by it's mature effort (on such a tiny budget) to portray a sci-fi scenario on Mars.

Highly recommended for lovers of sincere and realistic sci-fi drama.

Many problems with this film, from editing to bad acting. It even starts with the worst news anchor I have ever seen in a movie. The guy presenting the news does not even try to act. Because it is right in the beginning, you know that the acting will be bad throughout the movie.

The guy in the mothercraft (also a bad "actor") looks like a Hitler without the moustache.

Many times when someone starts saying something, the camera shows the person that is listening, not the person that is speaking. You can see by their lips that the actors are speaking English. Nevertheless (probably because they have terrible accents), they were dubbed. The dubbing of the blond girl is the worst one, often out of sync with her lips.

For some reason, in all movies about space exploration the crew is always a bunch of idiots. As soon as they land somewhere, instead of working together to survive they start fighting with each other, thus making stupid decisions. This movie is no exception.

If you ignore all that (and some other things), this movie is watchable. From time to time, you may need to press the fast-forward button.

I picked up this DVD after reading a number of comments here. A lot of people really derided it, but there were a couple highly supportive positives, so I decided to check it out.

Yes, I suppose there are a couple reality question marks, but far fewer than the typical outrageous Hollywood film (and I happen to like Mission to Mars, Red Planet, Robinson Crusoe on Mars, Earth Vs The Flying Saucers, etc.). Stranded is a very good psychological study of a group of astronauts who crash land on Mars, have very limited resources, and no expectation of quick rescue.

The activity is driven by perfectly reasonable dialog (not sure if Hollywood remembers how to do this -- much harder than the typical action stuff). The acting is perfectly adequate to support the dialog and deliver the story. The strain associated with the circumstances is effectively communicated and the frictions here and there are entirely appropriate. As mentioned elsewhere, the cinematography is very well done and I had no problems at all with the closeups -- nice job.

I would suggest that anyone who doesn't appreciate the classic film "Lifeboat" by Alfred Hitchcock, definitely wouldn't like "Stranded". (Sure "Lifeboat" is clearly the more powerful of the two, but "Stranded" has a similar character.)

Photos of Mars show canals, rock formations resembling a human face, immense valleys, and weird designs. So, Earthlings (who are all from Spain, which is coincidentally where the film was made) send a group of explorers to see just what it all means, if anything. From the title, it's pretty obvious what happens to these pioneers, when they arrive at the Red Planet.

More of the film seems to occupy itself with character study than a study of Mars. There's a lot of arguing between the marooned crew members, until your ears start to bleed. Luka says three must die, which makes everybody mad, for some reason. As annoying as he is on that issue, his request of a fellow astronaut will prove this clown a total schmuck. One of the funniest lines is Dr. Jenny's rebuke to this gloomy Eeyore goof ball. Just as you've had enough of the mono tonal banter of that "genius" Luka to choke on, the film finally concerns itself with exploring Mars.

The imagery inside the spacecraft isn't bad, and the acting is decent enough. The exteriors seem based on the then recent photography from the Martian surface, and are pretty impressive: an endless desert imbued with a red hue. As the explorers embark on what will probably be a suicide walk, things start to perk up and get interesting. After diverting from a space exploration story to a survival story, the film makes a welcome return to the spirit of wonder that the mysterious Martian world offers. What the astronauts encounter poses more questions than it answers. This is the essential sci-fi approach, and it works fairly well in this film.

This movie may have gotten overlooked in the shuffle of movies about Mars that came out around the same time. It may not have had a budget equal to some of the others, but it stands on its own pretty well. Not a bad way to spend a rainy afternoon.

These days sci-fi tends to be all about action, gleaming spaceships, and aliens with wrinkly tentacles. No fantasy, no mystery, no bizarre unknown. Action flicks or relationship dramas set in space. That's not my idea of sci-fi.

This film takes its time. We spend a good chunk of the film watching the crew crash-landed on Mars without enough supplies, trying to figure out what to do. It takes a long time before we get to the mystery, and for once, we don't get to see the dwarf behind the curtain. If this were a Hollywood film, all of Stranded would be cut down to about 15 minutes, and the rest of the film would be an action film where the surviving crew are being chased by some lame baddie, maybe a crew member gone mad, or some rusty martian janitorial robot with a few screws loose.

I like the film. Make no mistake, it has a lot of BAD things about it. A few awful casting choices, amateurish directing, and absolutely awful voice-over narration. The first five minutes are so awful you wouldn't believe it. But once the film gets underway, there's enough good to it to let you ignore the bad.

If you like Hollywood sci-fi, don't watch this film because you'll absolutely hate it. But if you like films such as 2001, Solaris, and THX-1138, then you might want to give this film a chance. By no means is it up to the standards of such masterpieces, but it's far more memorable and interesting than any other Mars-flick made in recent years.

Only watched it because it was on Netflix online and I'm a sci-fi freak. I went past the 10 minutes to give it a chance. I got to 30 minutes and I want to vomit. I think this would be a great movie to show terrorist prisoners as a means of torture. The 2 blondes (guy and girl) and the worst actors I've ever seen, making Steven Segal look like Laurence Olivier. OK, TELL US WHERE THE BOMB IS OR YOU'LL HAVE TO WATCH THAT BLONDE LADY ACT FOR 5 MORE MINUTES! I really wanted to invest in this movie but the acting is just way too crappy to ever believe.

Think I'll Fast Forward through the rest of this and move on to something with better acting like Barney the Dinosaur.

The movie started slow but the overall conflict kept me watching. Once the plot twists began to kick in the movie gained a lot of momentum that kept me riveted. Some of the acting is soft but it kind of adds a bit of realism to the goings-on.

This movie takes some turns that I did not expect and I'm a professional screenwriter so i think that's saying a lot. There are a few threads hanging at the end that I wish were fleshed out more but I did not leave unsatisfied.

If you're in the mood for some thoughtful sci-fi I highly recommend that you give this flick a try.

I am a big Sci-fi fan and love the last people on earth plot lines in any movie. When I first started watching this one I could see where the reviews came from for low budget and even some with poor acting comments. The beginning is a bit slow and sometimes disappointing. I feel the beginning helps set the feeling of what they are now up against with all the training and planning that brings them all to this juncture. But trust me it will pick up. Especially when they decide to explore. I recognized most of the main characters so I felt I should stick with it to see where it goes. They have been in better movies and are in this one. They had to see something. Well the last 30 minutes of the movie really make the watching worth while. I wish it would of been a bit longer. Now understand it is still not a blockbuster but for entertainment value and story line I was very satisfied. If you liked the movie Moon, Silent Running, and Robinson Crusoe on Mars this may fit your taste.

I was interested in the concept of this film and so I watched it despite the 1.5 star cable TV rating it got. I was immediately drawn into the predicament of the characters and loved the ending.

In terms of form, the effects, the sets, and the filming were believable and good. The acting has been much criticized, but I find that in real life, real people aren't such good actors. This film's acting had a documentary feel about it and is definitely worth watching.

The quiet pace of this film establishes a mood that reinforces the lonely exile facing the characters. It doesn't quite live up to the eerie feel of Kubrick's 2001, but it comes close.

The basic idea of this film--people facing death in space exploration, is a noble one, and the ending gives a payoff worthy of this film's purpose.

I note that this little film from Spain has earned a lot of viewer comment, both positive and negative, much of it passionate. I find that interesting. However, I was disappointed with many of the negative reviews. I think they missed the point of this film.

I was lucky to buy - and watch - this movie before I looked it up on IMDb, as the comments here would doubtless have put me off! I respect anyone's right to not like a movie of course, and to say so. But I am surprised by some of the reasons given.

'The acting was terrible'/'the script was rubbish': a ha, OK...so we all know how people in this situation should act and what they should say? But of course we do; they should act in the expertly modulated delivery of a professionally trained and honed actor - voices dripping with the carefully rising degrees of tension dictated by the director's dramatic vision...except, oh wait, that makes _real_ people in _real_ situations terribly bad actors (just listen carefully to yourselves and your workmates or family sometime)! And this is the problem I have with almost every movie that depicts real people such as, in this case, astronauts and scientists. _Real_ people actually do talk all at once, hesitate, talk in monotone when they're trying to mask their feelings, etc etc.

That brings me to _this_ movie which surprised me with its honest attempt at realism: the voices sounded authentic, as distinct from other movies in this sub-genre such as 'Mission to Mars' and 'Red Planet' where dialog was all "acted" and the astronauts seemed like the writers' _idea_ of an astronaut rather than a real astronaut. However in this movie I suspect the almost documentary, real-people-talking feel of it was a deliberate instruction on the director's part.

'the story did not explain everything that happened': hey, welcome to the real world people! The fact this movie did _not_ neatly tie everything up struck me as one of its best features. It added (again) to the realism.

Realism (note I do not say 'reality', this is fiction after all) - combined with an amazingly evocative sense of atmosphere and mystery (aided by a superb soundtrack that continued to haunt me) - is why I think this movie is brilliant. Actually one of the best I have ever seen.

As a scientist (albeit decidedly _not_ an astronaut and decidedly _not_ having ever been "Stranded") I found the voices, reactions, decisions, and thought processes authentic; the events and experiences throughout the movie believable; and even the climactic discovery credible: indeed to me it mimicked perfectly a sense of what scientific mystery is all about. I found it a totally satisfying movie experience.

The voting clearly shows this movie is not for everyone! Only a small minority gave it ten as I did; and the most frequent choices were either 1 or 6. Still I wonder if some of the sixers at least might not reconsider on a more thoughtful viewing, looking at it as a highly non-formulaic work?

I note the director (who also took a lead acting role here, 'very badly' of course) has one other movie to her credit, apparently with a documentary style to it. I think that reveals a lot about her approach here. I also think I shall watch her career-arc with interest.

Its not your billion dollar Sci-Fi but it certainly looks good. The director curiously was the weakest actress.. two others are well known portuguese actors and did a good job. Vincent Gallo plays the mr. logical role well and is the guy you love to hate.

The story does develop somewhat erratically but certainly is very interesting. Some of the lines were great... stuff I always wanted to hear in Sci-Fi disaster movies !!

So if you want to see a different Sci-Fi production that is not american and some good fotography I recommend this film. If you want action packed space flights and lasers stay away. 8-8.5/10

First, I would like to say that I am a Sci-Fi fan. Therefore it is a given that I do not consider the plot of a movie to be the most important part. However, it is nice (at the very least) if it is believable.

Unfortunately, this is not true of this film. Also, the cast were obviously dragged off the street (hint: when casting for a film make sure they have been to acting school). Not a single one could act to save their lives so all five of them deserved to die (the guy in space too).

The only positive thing I can say is that the special effects were quite good. There was no cardboard in sight and the props were well made. Perhaps the effects guys should have starred in the film?