IVE WATCHED IT TWICE...STILL CANT REMEMBER ANYTHING OTHER THAN LIEV.

The movie is not that dumb, it just suffers from poor execution.

@MongoLloyd said:

And that's in a field almost entirely populated with dumb movies. How you go to all that trouble making a film that is just a space zombie movie is mind boggling.

Please list the other films so we know where your coming from

Other films like this one perhaps?

Zombies from Outer Space - 2012

https://youtu.be/99vdTl3pIb8

https://youtu.be/BgfCMiyHy5s

In my movie roi database of 1,850+ titles from 1926 to present, this...er... film has the dubious distinction of being the only film that paid $0.00 (rounded to the nearest penny) back for each $1 in budget. The actual return rate for revenues of $24,084 over a budget of $10.6 million is just a little less than one quarter of one percent.

Shucks, even Police Academy: Mission to Moscow paid 4x that, returning a sterling penny for each budget $1 thrown out on it.

While the average ROI across all 1850+ movies is $3.93-ish, movies about Mars notoriously don't make money - The Martian is an extraordinary exception to that rule:

• Mars Attacks! (1996) paid $1.45
• Red Planet (2000) paid $0.42
• Ghosts of Mars (2001) paid $0.50
• Mission to Mars (2006) paid $0.68
• Mars Needs Moms (2011) paid $0.26
• The Last Days on Mars (2013), paid $0.00
• The Martian (2015) paid $5.83

Thing is, in 2013, when The Last Days on Mars was released, there was no The Martian to give hope that, this time, they'd stumbled on the key to profitability. Perhaps they thought the $38M in revenue that Mars Needs Moms produced gave hope, but they really had no business foisting this hot mess at paying audiences, and it didn't take long for money to talk and shout very loudly it did - this movie sucked!

I'll concede, I haven't seen it, so I don't have any material basis for making up my own mind about it - I'm just here to say the numbers support your contention!