This movie truly dishonors the short story on which it is based. Some reviewers have tried to excuse this on the basis that any short story must be padded out by screenwriters. I don't buy it. If a short story is not suitable for a feature-length movie, then it isn't. Just deal with it and make a short, or use it as an episode in an anthology. (This same short story has received much better treatment as just such an episode.) All the love story and social justice elements in the movie do nothing but detract from the fundamental themes of the original story. In particular, the main female character has been transformed from a sympathetic young woman to some sort of manic-depressive "anti-heroine" with whom we are unlikely to empathize. This movie is just sad, and not in a good way.

People under pressure do foolish things at times, but nature is indifferent to intent.I didn't expect much from this movie which I picked somewhat randomly out of a bargain bin, but it pretty much blew me away. The acting, which is 99% of the movie, was excellent. There were no cheesy special effects on what was obviously a low budget, and no hammed up characters. What surprised me most was how the story drew me in and forced me to re-examine my initial opinions of the characters.It reminded me in an odd way of 12 Angry Men. Most of the focus was on human interaction, and initial impressions gradually evolved through the movie. I went from "jeez, chuck her out" to seeing the deeper implications of it all.The one negative imo was the usual attempt to lecture us on 'evil corporations'. This is a really tiresome theme, but one that was at least not repetitiously intrusive.

Nice to see a show that sticks pretty closely to the original story -- one of Ben Bova's discoveries when he took over at Analog from John Campbell, if I remember rightly.However, I recall that the original story did not have the odd subplot about the corporation and the fungus quite the way the movie showed it. This seems to be a by-product of the times in which the film was made, when there had to be a "bad guy" to blame. (Other comments here are more harsh about the story treatment, perhaps with cause, but it's very difficult to turn most short stories into films -- take a look at "Enemy Mine" for example.)The printed story in this case had more pathos, because of the implacability of the Cold Equations -- simple laws of physics and nature that none of the characters could overcome. No corporation needs to be blamed; the story tells clearly of the danger of innocence and naivety in the face of a universe which neither knows of nor heeds the actions of puny individual human beings.When I first read the story, it was very reminiscent of Robert Heinlein (two of his lunar stories) and Arthur C. Clarke. Worth looking up -- I don't know if it's been anthologized, but the original was published in the early 70s in Analog.

I haven't read the story of which other users are bemoaning the destruction so I didn't go into this feature with any preconceptions. I still didn't like it.The central -- and undoubtedly short -- story in this movie is good: How do you cope with an inevitable death? How do you cope if you're the agent of that death? The recipient? When this movie followed that small, tight core it was good. When it strayed from that core, delving into "corporations (and/or bureaucracies) are evil" territory (with a smidgeon of a Messiah complex thrown in for no good reason), it was bad.In the end I found the time I spent watching this movie to be wasted.