User Reviews

I forced myself to finish this movie in order to feel okay about writing a review; however, I really wanted to step away after the first major factual inaccuracies presented themselves in the first 5 minutes. As an environmental engineer, I feel more than qualified to comment on these inaccuracies. I'll outline several of them from throughout the movie for you here:

1) "... to harvest geothermal energy from other planets." (00:01:20) The prefix "geo" is defined as "relating to the Earth"; therefore, "geothermal energy" refers exclusively to thermal energy from the Earth. You cannot "harvest geothermal energy from other planets" anymore than you can harvest solar energy from a lightbulb.

2) "Sample 181B. Drawn from the sediment strata, should confirm or disconfirm the presence of bacterium able to use ammonium as a main oxygen source." (00:04:46) This quote contains two errors, so I will refer to them as "2a" and "2b". 2a) Ammonium consists of only Nitrogen and Hydrogen, so it could never be a "main oxygen source". In the unlikely case that by "ammonium" the writers were implying "ammonium oxide", it would be within the realms of a science fiction piece to make this claim. However, the fact that this is an isolated use of the term "ammonium" in the movie (the writers prefer "ammonia" in every other case, which actually is a different chemical compound), along with a later inaccuracy I will address, make the loose inference of "ammonium" to "ammonium oxide" very unlikely. What's more is that it is not a new concept that bacteria exist which can respire in such conditions. In fact, we have known that they exist for a long time and rely on them in many ways. I will mention this later on as well. 2b) In this quote, the singular "bacterium" is used in the plural sense. It's interesting that the writers were even familiar with the singular form when "bacteria" is colloquially used in the singular sense, and "bacterium" is almost exclusive to scientific literature and dialogue where it is always used in reference to a single bacterium or singular strain of bacteria. Later in the movie, another character makes the opposite but more forgivable mistake when he says, "Was it a bacteria?" (01:15:46)

3) "Anaerobic reproduction in a water-striding insect colony." (00:08:56) To my knowledge, there is no such phenomenon referred to as "anaerobic reproduction". That is not to say that this is impossible or does not exist. Let me explain. Anaerobic simply refers to processes which occur in the absence of a common electron accepter (e.g., nitrate, sulfate, or oxygen). Many organisms, such as anaerobic bacteria, do in fact reproduce in these conditions. However, this is not referred to as "anaerobic reproduction" because neither anaerobic nor aerobic conditions lend themselves to a specific type of reproduction. More than likely, the writers actually meant "anaerobic respiration". This makes sense in light of the "scientific" premise of the movie, which is the struggle of life on earth to adapt to an atmosphere contaminated with ammonia and implicitly low oxygen. The reference to anaerobic conditions also discredits the notion that the writers implied "ammonium oxide" when using the term "ammonium".

4) "We filter our drinking water through sand and charcoal. It's all it needs." (00:26:55) Assuming the water is contaminated with ammonia (like the air), sand and charcoal would do nothing to purify it. In wastewater treatment, where ammonia removal is a necessary process, nitrifying bacteria are used to nitrify ammonia. That is, they ultimately convert the ammonia to nitrate, hydrogen and water. This is a very complicated, multi-step process that involves balancing pH, dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand to achieve the desired effect. Had the writers suggested that Sam harvested nitrifying bacteria (likely quite common on an ammonia-rich Earth) and used them to treat her water, this would have been within the realms of a science fiction piece. But sand and charcoal would do nothing for ammonia.

5) "It's only cloudy like that because of the charcoal." (00:26:49) Charcoal filtration removes particles from contaminated water through adsorption. Most household filters use activated charcoal to improve the aesthetic qualities of their water (look, taste and smell). Implying that the charcoal would actually discolor the water is a major inaccuracy, since it would in fact do the opposite. Now, if the process actually added charcoal to the water instead of filtering the water through the charcoal, this would discolor it, but it would do nothing to filter the water. However, I doubt that is the implication when the "treated" water has a light brown hue. Charcoal would have turned the water gray or black, depending on the amount added.

6) "You'd think they could live up high like us." (00:30:27) This quote implies that the surviving humans were able to escape the contaminated air by living at a higher elevation. However, ammonia is lighter than air, meaning the ammonia concentration would likely be higher at an increased elevation, not lower.

7) Throughout the movie, Sam regularly monitors the air quality by sustaining a flame and observing its color. In the movie, a purple flame is supposed to represent contaminated air, whereas a yellow/orange flame represents clean air. When ammonia burns in the presence of oxygen, the flame is actually yellow, not purple. But let's look at this a little deeper. Ammonia has a flammable range of 15 - 28%. This means that ammonia will not ignite at a concentration of less than 15% volume of air or a concentration higher than 28% volume of air. According to the CDC, ammonia is "immediately dangerous to life or health" at just 300 ppm, which is just 0.03% volume of air. A concentration of 15% (150,000 ppm) or higher would not just be damaging to the eyes, nostrils and lungs, but also to the skin. The character would need to wear a fully-enclosed, airtight suit to protect herself against harm.

I understand that science fiction writers are not scientists, but the premise behind science fiction is to provide a somewhat plausible scenario that is at least loosely based on some scientific truth. Even fantasy pieces, which delve into realms far beyond the scope of even pseudoscience, do not attempt to rewrite or misrepresent well-known, established scientific fact without some sort of explanation (even if it's something as ludicrous as dolphins that suddenly bound from the ocean into deep space because of their sentience and connections to other-worldly beings).

It's quite disappointing to think that so much money and effort could be put into a movie on the part of writers, producers, actors, videographers, and visual effects specialists (to name a few) and yet they didn't think to have somebody with at least the qualifications of a middle school science teacher read over the screenplay.

I'm an odd sort of fellow, so these end-of-world scenarios always appeal to me. I like the idea of Sam, the main character, living up on a hill, in an old observatory, with her own kitchen garden and survival setup. There isn't a lot of action or dialogue for for large stretches, so if you can deal with a slower (yet interesting) storyline, you'll find this watchable. If Sam looks familiar to you, it's because Margaret Qualley is Andie McDowells daughter.

I'm either really overthinking this movie or the people that wrote it really had no freaking idea what they were talking about. Personally I think it's the latter and they chose Io because it sounded cool.

I have no problem with the Earth getting so polluted and toxic that we have to leave. It's just nothing is really explained. And then why Io of all places? Not only is Mars closer but it's larger but it's less toxic than Io is. A moon that is being squeezed so hard by Jupiter that there are massive volanoes shooting out molten basalt as well as sulfur dioxide. Some blasts are so powerful they literally shoot out some 500km into space. And for some reason all of humanity, that didn't die, wound up there?

The rest plays off like some movie of the week from the 70's. It's tired, cliche and just not interesting.

And then the lead, who really can't act I might add, winds up being able to breathe at the end. Okay. So either she somehow "adapted" to the new environment or it's just more lazy writing. My money is on the latter.

I get it. Netflix is really trying to stretch their creative muscles and become a real broadcast and production service. We're just going to have to go through a lot of dross before we find the true gems.

The story starts good with a girl in love of someone just out of reach and a deceased father she can't let go of. Bring another person into her life to show her the value of true companionship and plan to sail through space to find a home. And then just as she's beginning to live .... she wants to stay behind and die alone ... wait what ... The story has no real ending which just makes it all the worse.

Ok, so there are some clear scientific issues, and occasional signs of low budget shots... But what has happened to suspending your sense of disbelief? Are we not meant ever to do that these days? Quite a few reviewers here have set a high bar for scientific accuracy this time.

The premise is that a heavier than air pollutant cloud has poisoned Earth to the extent that almost every human survivor has left - evacuated to a colony on Io - the moon of Jupiter. Almost everyone has gone... But not quite. Sam (Margaret Qualley) is still here, living in a mountain-top observatory, apparently with her father, although he doesn't seem to be around so much. There may be others.

The film starts with Sam down in "the Zone" where she has to wear an oxygen mask and can only stay a few hours. Loneliness has played some tricks on her and left her with a perhaps rather pretentious obsession with mythology. You might also see some echos of the Tempest.

The action of the film is fairly slow and a little dreamlike, but in places the cinematography is nice and I've seen films that are a lot less realistic. Maybe it's a story that will resonate if you give it a chance. 6.5/10

This movie was slow, but if you make it to the end, and ask how she survived, go back and watch it again. If you ask that question, you obviously were not paying attention.

Also, hello? Did everyone miss the child?

The movie was about having hope and never letting go. Sam pushed through because she KNEW humans could adapt, and she was absolutely correct.

The movie's intention is to challenge the idea that humanity must save itself by spreading to the stars. Instead, we should take a greater interest in our home planet and reinvigorate our commitment to taking good care of it.

The movie brought in mythological references that sailed right over my head. That's okay. Most things do.

I didn't mind the movie's slow, thoughtful, low-stress tempo. I kind of liked it, actually.

The one thing that really irked me was the main character's inexplicable underreaction to the sudden intrusion of a rude, entitled, and almost domineering man into her, yes, somewhat public but ultimately private world (her lab and home). I understood she was lonely, yes, but was she really so desperately lonely that she would just let anyone barge into her home, demand personal information from her, and then threaten not to leave until he got what he wanted? Was she not aware she might be robbed, killed or raped? How was this otherwise admirably self-reliant character so stupidly passive about this man? She had a plan for everything but this. This part seemed like a good setup for a teen romance novel, not a supposedly more mature meditation on our responsibility to our home planet.

It's fine.

What I really wanted to know at the end was: how are they going to make human #3?

The film is called "IO" though we see nor hear nothing about IO, also humans left because they couldn't breathe anymore but suddenly at the end sam can breathe again ? No explanation to what happened? What's the point of this film?