Don't listen to the negative reviews

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I started off engaged and interested in this movie, initially there was some good pacing and dissemination of information, but as it went along I lost a lot of interest. Part of the movie involves getting vital information from the survivor but I found I got as frustrated at the crew at how slow the plot progressed past the initial phase and tried to resist skipping forward to find out what information they try to beat out of the survivor.The costumes immediately reminded me of ST TNG like others have stated in reviews and the dart seams (thanks smoke0, didn't know what to call those) on the women were distracting, gave the appearance of women having fake 'pokies'. The costumes otherwise were very flattering to the actor's figures and Sunny Mabrey has never looked better than in one of these jumpsuits. She probably was the highlight of the movie for me. The movie also did a decent job with special effects and making the surroundings look good.Plot holes were the unraveling of the movie for me. From the very start you see the spaceship had a rotating outer part but the crew is in the middle but somehow they have gravity. Also, the space station had 2 rotating rings but they do not dock there and the movie takes place in the main body that is not rotating and again they have gravity somehow. I was like OK, whatever and moved on but then more things like that kept pecking away.I was really put off about how they deal with the survivor and the companion bot. Why would you leave them on the compromised station instead of taking them back to the ship???The biggest "hole" is allowing the modified bot to just roam around the station...that is just too great of a liability and never would happen , it would have to be deactivated or contained. They were attacked by some small bots from the very beginning, why wouldn't they fear the same or worse from the survivor's modified robot companion? very big hole that destroyed any coherence.I really wanted to like this movie more and wished there were some more hooks or breadcrumbs or even plot misdirects along the way to keep me engaged but it takes the whole movie to get any information at all about what happened and by then I just wasn't interested. I found I wanted to beat it out of whoever wrote the screenplay as much as the crew wanted to get it out of the survivor.

Had this been a 50 million dollar project from a big studio with budget all over the place you'd have stars and perfect lighting, fresh dialogue, a lot of ka-boom, and whatnot, but probably also some really stupid plot holes.Then I would rant on about some of the camera, some lighting here and there, and some of the acting, but most of all about the plot holes. I have a problem with films that tell me one concept in the beginning, and then trash that ten minutes later, as if I didn't remember.But in this case, I just have to root for the makers. They only had a million, and came up with characters, and a pretty good story, that does not have the plot holes. So, at no point in the film I felt as if the makers thought I was stupid. On the contrary. The story even came up with a few twists, that I did not see coming.Is it as intricate and mind-beding as "Primer"? No.Is the acting as staggering as Sam Rockwell in "Moon"? No.But if you saw Primer or Moon, and you liked those, I think you'll have a good time with this one.Or if you like Star Trek.I would put it in the same league. It stays true to what science fiction is.Thanks, Ian Truitner! I also hope to see more from him.Last point: Yes, the acting. They need to work on that a bit, but since I can't act at all, and they really had a limited budget, maybe they just couldn't shoot that take the ten times it takes to get it perfect.

In the beginning two things attracted my attention and caused me to examine this movie: the poster, which is graphically original, and the title which is incomprehensible, unless you are familiar with Greek. After looking it up I learned TELEOIS stands for "perfection". So, my artistic sense was pleased, my linguistic knowledge increased - so far, so good.Then the time came to watch the film. Knowing its budget was limited I did not expect fireworks of production values, but it not necessarily makes a good sci-fi picture an impossibility. One spacecraft with a crew of 5 is sent to investigate the demise of the crew of another space vessel. A premise more than satisfactory. A certain parallel with EVENT HORIZON (1997) may by seen here, though the Paul W.S. Anderson's work itself is hardly original, as it borrows heavily from NIGHTLYERS (1987).The rest, with very few exceptions, is sorrowfully miscarried. The direction seems to be almost absent, or present at its incompetent worst. Majority of the actors are so lame it seems their acting lessons had the form of a correspondence course. Especially Lance Broadway, T.J. Hoban and Christian Pitre deliver performances of abysmally bad quality.However, Ursula Mills makes Lulu AH 320 an interesting robotic character. And then there's is ravishing Sunny Mabrey who can act and can bring some conviction to her lines, her final speech sounds quite poignant and dramatic, but it is not enough to save the misbegotten movie. More than a decade passed since she appeared in SPECIES 3 where she had little to say and served mostly as a nude window dressing. Now she is an accomplished actress and deserves much better roles.The costumes represent an utter lack of visual taste. And it would have sufficed to remove those hideous frontal brown areas, otherwise they are nicely female figure hugging.In summarum, this motion picture is worth viewing only for Ms Mabrey, other reasons are extremely difficult to be found. On second thoughts, some might be tempted to see Michael Nouri in his brief video transmissions to notice how he has aged since the time of FLASHDANCE (1983).

I had never heard of this until actually watching it. I didn't know what to expect but I would suggest if you like television based sci-fi then you will like this. In fact I thought until near the end that it might be one of those movies created as a pilot for a TV show. Some have compared it to Star Trek but I'd suggest it is more in-tune with Gerry Anderson's shows especially UFO. The sets, uniforms, hairstyles were much more marionette than human. I will admit I might have missed it but I thought the rescue crew were not just genetically enhanced humans but in part androids themselves. Likely cyborgs - this explained their appearance and their lack of emotion. Initially when I started to watch this crew I was struck by how bad the acting was until I realized that they were all supposed to not have emotions. In which case the blank faces made sense.There were plot holes but mainly unanswered questions more than anything. I suspect that was planned but it did come across as a little jumbled. For example there is no rationalization given for a scanning done of a fallen android near the end of the film. I suspect there might have been plans for that to go somewhere but it didn't. Or maybe the writers did it on purpose to make people like me question it.Overall I found it entertaining for an hour and a half. Like finding some rarely scene old sci-fi movie on late night TV.