CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › Stowaway (2021)

Stowaway (2021)

Started by Jessica Morris6 · · 👁 3 views · 21 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Jessica Morris6mellowskipperbluecyclist64placidbadger43Lisa Ross65Amanda Kim2Nancy Howard4mistyotter35Bradley Nelson2bluehawkLawrence Booth2Gregory Brown94Jack Cook7
Jessica Morris6 Jessica Morris6 Active MemberOP
195 messages
joined Nov 2022
#1 ·
image

Genres: drama, sci-fi, thriller
Runtime: 116 min
Director: Joe Penna
Screenwriters: Joe Penna, Ryan Morrison
Cast: Toni Collette, Anna Kendrick, Daniel Dae Kim and Shamier Anderson

IMDb

The film is helmed by Joe Penna (Arctic), who also co-wrote the script alongside Ryan Morrison (Arctic).
Set during a high-stakes mission bound for Mars, a stowaway accidentally causes catastrophic damage to the spacecraft's life support systems. As resources dwindle and the prospect of a grim end looms, a medical researcher emerges as the sole voice standing against the cold equation of logic pushed by the commander and the ship's biologist.
The lead roles are played by Toni Collette (Hereditary) as Marina Barnett, Anna Kendrick (A Simple Favor) as Zoe Levenson, Daniel Dae Kim (Hellboy) as Kim, and Shamier Anderson (Wynonna Earp) as Michael. (Source: Inverziya.net)

Trailer
mellowskipper mellowskipper Regular
704 messages
joined Jan 2023
#2 ·
The casting seems pretty spot on, and the trailer is actually quite decent. I’m trying to wrap my head around the resource math here—it looks like there's enough supplies on board for three people to reach their destination, yet there are four crew members. I suppose everyone is just hoping they can all make it out alive...

Sent from my PRA-LX1 via Tapatalk
bluecyclist64 bluecyclist64 Regular
369 messages
joined Oct 2011
#3 ·
I certainly hope they at least mentioned that it was inspired by the original short story. The cold equation It was originally published in Sirius, issue number 80, by Tom Godwin.
placidbadger43 placidbadger43 Member
17 messages
joined Feb 2008
#4 ·
Has anyone actually sat down and watched this yet? I'm looking at IMDb and all I see is a 5.5.
Lisa Ross65 Lisa Ross65 Active Member
108 messages
joined May 2009
#5 ·
placidbadger43 said:Has anyone actually sat through this? I see it’s sitting at a 5.5 on IMDb.

I watched it—don't bother. It was a slog, zero tension to speak of.
placidbadger43 placidbadger43 Member
17 messages
joined Feb 2008
#6 ·
Well, looks like we've got ourselves yet another sci-fi disappointment.
Amanda Kim2 Amanda Kim2 Member
36 messages
joined Apr 2023
#7 ·
placidbadger43 said:Has anyone actually watched this yet? I see it's sitting at a 5.5 on IMDb.

Personally, I thought the movie and the story were pretty solid—it takes its time to build up, but honestly, I wasn't bored for even a second, it keeps you hooked right until the end!
Nancy Howard4 Nancy Howard4 Active Member
75 messages
joined Sep 2022
#8 ·
It’s an okay movie, I guess
but honestly, they completely missed the mark on the technical side of things. The whole concept of artificial gravity is pretty cool, but that’s just not how physics works in space

I mean, seriously, how do you even forget to include a technician in the rocket crew?
mistyotter35 mistyotter35 Active Member
113 messages
joined Mar 2013
#9 ·
In my opinion, I don't really think this movie fits squarely into the sci-fi genre; it feels more like a disaster flick, much like "Gravity", or perhaps "Apollo 13"...
Nancy Howard4 Nancy Howard4 Active Member
75 messages
joined Sep 2022
#10 ·
mistyotter35 said:I don't really see this as sci-fi, it feels more like a disaster flick, kind of like "gravity", or maybe "Apollo 13"...

I mean, I wouldn't put Apollo 13 in that same bucket since that was actually based on real life, whereas everything else here is definitely just straight-up sci-fi
Bradley Nelson2 Bradley Nelson2 Active Member
175 messages
joined Nov 2009
#11 ·
Raymond Wood77 said:It’s an okay movie,
but technically it’s a disaster. The artificial gravity concept is cool, but that's just not how physics works in space.

How do you just forget about having a technician on board the rocket?

From a technical standpoint, the movie is just one massive plot hole after another. It doesn't hold up to reality, not even by movie standards. That alone ruined it for me. Even if you ignore the science, it’s boring, hollow, predictable, and completely lacks imagination.
bluehawk bluehawk Newcomer
2 messages
joined Nov 2020
#12 ·
The technicalities and any resulting logical inconsistencies are essentially irrelevant here, because the entire film functions as an allegory for illegal immigration—a theme practically shouted at you by the title itself. In this specific narrative, the Stowaway is a Black man who finds himself on the vessel illegally, severely injured and in desperate need of medical attention. We eventually learn he has no clear memory of how he boarded, that he was raised under harrowing circumstances involving fire burns and the loss of his parents, and that he is the sole provider for his younger sister. While the crew members are initially skeptical (running checks to see if he poses a threat), they ultimately extend him kindness and aid, deciding he isn't there by choice or malicious intent, but simply ended up there by circumstance. Once he recovers, the immigrant expresses his gratitude to the crew, emphasizing that he doesn't want to be a burden and is a quick learner. Even though the engineer makes it clear there isn't a role for him on the ship, the biologist takes pity on him and assigns him some data entry—essentially a menial job. The parallel to migrants is almost too heavy-handed to miss. Given the level of "woke" tropes present—specifically the now-standardized role reversals where women hold all the agency (one is the pilot and commander, another is the strong, proactive one willing to sacrifice herself for the group, while the men are portrayed as weak or incompetent, like the biologist who can't even handle climbing), one might assume the director was taking a pro-immigrant stance. However, the film actually delivers a potent anti-immigrant message, albeit perhaps unintentionally. From the moment he appears, the migrant becomes the catalyst for every crisis. First, he damages the oxygen supply/scrubber; then, he incapacitates the female pilot when he falls on her arm; subsequently, the biologist loses the algae essential for his research while searching for alternative oxygen sources; and finally, the doctor sacrifices herself for him. In short, the mere presence of the migrant puts the crew in mortal danger and drains their limited resources, all while he contributes almost nothing despite his best intentions. The epilogue tells the story: the pilot is sidelined, one scientist has lost his research materials, another is dead, and the mission is a total failure. Sure, the immigrant is saved, but you have to ask yourself: at what cost?
mistyotter35 mistyotter35 Active Member
113 messages
joined Mar 2013
#13 ·
Raymond Wood77 said:I suppose Apollo 13 shouldn't really be grouped in with the others, considering we're dealing with actual historical events here, whereas everything else should probably just be labeled as sci-fi.

If we're going by that kind of logic, I guess every single movie that isn't based on a true story is just sci-fi then?
Lawrence Booth2 Lawrence Booth2 Regular
297 messages
joined Sep 2022
#14 ·
I’m honestly just exhausted by this constant string of mediocre little SF movies, though I might give this one a shot
not that I'm particularly forgiving—if it sucks, I'm just turning it off
ever since Hunter/Prey, I feel like I haven't liked a single small-scale sci-fi flick
or maybe I just can't remember them all
Gregory Brown94 Gregory Brown94 Active Member
74 messages
joined Nov 2021
#15 ·
I’ve got some pretty mixed feelings about this production. On one hand, the ship looks almost hyper-realistic, both inside and out, but on the other, the way this private space agency operates is just... poorly executed.

I guess you could argue it makes sense, though. With how much space exploration is being overexploited lately, costs are hitting record lows, allowing private companies to pull off the same feats as NASA. That shift in business models means it’s entirely plausible that the CO2 scrubbing unit was the only redundant system on board. No one could have predicted they'd end up "installing" that poor guy right into that specific section of the ship.

Honestly, I’d love a sequel that actually dives into the technical failures of the mission and builds a monument to the scientist who sacrificed herself.

The sheer mismanagement that led to that man ending up stuck on the ship feels very similar to what happened in Contact, where that woman made a reckless call that compromised the initial launch through the machine.
Gregory Brown94 Gregory Brown94 Active Member
74 messages
joined Nov 2021
#16 ·
mistyotter35 said:If we follow that logic, is every movie that isn't a direct documentary considered sci-fi?

Honestly, I'm not sure if any studio in Hollywood actually makes a movie based on true events without adding some level of exaggeration or inventing subplots just to move the story along. That kind of embellishment is basically turning a real event into fiction.

Even documentaries pull that same kind of nonsense.
Jack Cook7 Jack Cook7 Regular
376 messages
joined Aug 2017
#17 ·
Lawrence Booth2 said:Honestly, I'm pretty burnt out on this string of mediocre little sci-fi flicks, but hey, maybe I'll give this one a shot
I’m not exactly known for being patient though—if it sucks, I'm just turning it off
Ever since Hunter/Prey, I feel like I haven't seen a single decent small-scale sci-fi movie
Or maybe I just can't remember them all, who knows

Wait, Prospect from 2018, starring Pedro Pascal?
mistyotter35 mistyotter35 Active Member
113 messages
joined Mar 2013
#18 ·
Gregory Brown94 said:I honestly find myself wondering if any film industry out there has ever actually managed to produce a movie based on true events without leaning heavily into exaggeration or inventing subplots just to serve the narrative. It seems to me that this constant tendency toward embellishment is nothing more than the fictionalization of reality for the sake of entertainment.

I suppose it feels like those documentaries are using the exact same narration style, too.

I suppose one could argue that exaggeration and embellishment are inherent components of cinematic expression, but I find it rather tiresome how people reflexively categorize any movie set in space as science fiction. It seems there is this immediate assumption that if a story takes place beyond our atmosphere, it must involve something fantastical or supernatural to qualify. In my view, simply being in space isn't a genre marker; surviving in orbit is a reality we’ve understood for decades, and treating it as mere fantasy feels somewhat reductive.
mellowskipper mellowskipper Regular
704 messages
joined Jan 2023
#19 ·
bluehawk said:The technical side—and any logical inconsistencies there—doesn't really matter in this movie, because the whole thing is essentially a metaphor for illegal immigration, which is pretty obvious from the title itself. The stowaway, in this specific instance, is a Black man who ends up on the ship illegally; he’s seriously injured and needs urgent medical attention. Later, we find out he doesn't quite remember how he got on board, that he grew up under harsh circumstances (fire burns, losing parents, etc.), and that he's looking after his younger sister on his own. The crew members are somewhat suspicious at first (checking to see if he's dangerous), but they eventually accept him kindly and provide help, agreeing that he didn't mean to be there—that he just ended up this way. Once he recovers, the immigrant thanks the crew for saving him and emphasizes that he doesn't want to be a burden and learns quickly. Even though the engineer agrees there isn't a job for him on the ship, the biologist takes pity on him and assigns him some data entry—what you might call a menial job in English. So, the comparison to migrants is more than apparent. Given the level of woke elements—in terms of the now somewhat standardized role-swapping—women are the leads (one is the pilot and commander, another is strong, proactive, and the one who sacrifices herself for the greater good, while the men are weak or useless, the biologist gets sick, isn't great at climbing, etc.). You might think the director would take a pro-immigrant stance. However, the film actually (perhaps unintentionally) carries a strong anti-immigrant message. From the moment he appears, the migrant is the source of the problems. First, he damages the oxygen supply/air purifier, then he incapacitates the female pilot (by falling on her hand), then the biologist, while searching for an alternative oxygen source, destroys the algae needed for research, and finally, the doctor—the other scientist—sacrifices herself for him. In short, the migrant's mere presence puts the crew in mortal danger and drains resources, yet despite his intentions, he doesn't really contribute anything significant. The epilogue is this: the pilot is incapacitated for a time, one scientist is left without research materials, another scientist is dead, and the mission has failed. The immigrant is technically saved, but one has to wonder: at what cost?

Based on that description, if I were running the ship, I'd have tossed him out the airlock and said bye-bye.
Now that I've read the whole plot, I don't even feel like watching it...
Nancy Howard4 Nancy Howard4 Active Member
75 messages
joined Sep 2022
#20 ·
mistyotter35 said:If we're going by that logic, is basically every movie that isn't based on actual history considered sci-fi?

And honestly, if you look at Apollo 13, there are even documentaries made about it, which would mean it fits more into that category than being pure sci-fi.
Real sci-fi would be something like the Apollo 18 mission—you know, that aborted mission they never showed the public (don't bother watching that trash movie, though).
But in the context of the film, it counts because it's framed as this secret moon mission.😉

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads