Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

mibs-51865 For a made for TV movie, it is surprisingly good. Very good camera work, better-than-usual-for-TV acting. The theme is fine, the story is simple (best kind) and makes good use of a number of sub-threads. Some irritating characters, but then people really are like that. The script itself could have used a couple more coats of lacquer on it, but that's typical for Hollywood. The movie's ending falls apart a little (but only a little), but that's also typical for Hollywood, TV or otherwise.Let's say, "between made for TV" and the title itself, the experience was better than I was prepared for.

Jape Du Marie This movie is a bad acted sad performance. The only thing that I can find as positive is the bugs. They are well animated and look fine. That's why I rated this movie with a 3. Some score for the bugs. Also the spaceship is animated nicely. The actors really need some actor lessons - it's to awful to watch. The girl who plays the bounty hunter is the most bad actress I ever seen in a movie. The first scene with the farmer who carries uranium is also not acting how it should be. His answers are cold and it's like he reads his text from a text board.The movie is not going fast enough and the dialogs are to slow and boring. No, sorry this is not how it should be.

HeadMMoid Considering the utter garbage which has come from the SyFi Channel in the last few years, this movie was quite pleasantly surprising.The plot was reasonably fresh and mostly logical. The actors delivered acceptable performances. The outfits were good. The setting was quite acceptable and looked like the northwestern U.S. CGI, if not great, was at least better than typical SyFi fair. The ending was, of course, predictable, and left unanswered questions.A nice point was that the mandatory scientist (Jules) was not the typical all-knowledgeable font of information. Although he did make a few statements which included knowledge which did not yet exist in 1890, along with some that were just plain wrong; this role actually made fairly good sense within the situation.There were a number of questionable items. The female bounty hunter is not something which would be likely in 1890. Many, but not all, of the firearms where very clearly modern. (Does anyone who produces movies ever listen to someone with knowledge in this field?) Finally, the repartee between characters who are opposed to each other before the arrival of the "invaders" begins to strain credulity.Altogether and unexpectedly, this was a movie worth the watching.

DevastationBob-3 Caught it on-demand. Surely bound for the Sci...SyFy channel, but actually not too shabby. If you're gonna do low budget CGI, sure, you can do a snake that doesn't really look like a snake, but why not go for alien uranium suckers. I mean, how would you know what one would really look like anyway? The effects aren't too bad, and the cast of unknowns led by James Marsters (Spike from Buffy/Angel) does a good job. While the ending seemed kinda abrupt to me, I would have liked to see more of an epilogue, the script is engaging and doesn't drag. In the all-too-small genre of Cowboys vs. Aliens, High Plains Invaders is worth checking out.