This movie is trash. The writing's bad, the concept isn't, at all, interesting, and it seems to pose as a sci-fi movie -- which, it isn't. This is my assessment, after making it through twenty-nine minutes of this film.
To be fair, it is possible that there's some sci-fi element to this movie, and I just didn't bother to stick around long enough to find out what it is. Like I've said, I only lasted twenty-nine minutes.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that may be considered sci-fi, is the notion of automated surveillance. If that's the sci-fi concept, then it's pretty thin.
I stopped watching this movie because it's painfully boring, and doesn't seem to have much of a direction. After a while, I found myself wondering, "What, exactly, am I looking at?"
After turning it off, I read the synopsis, and concluded that the synopsis does a better job explaining the movie, than me actually watching the movie. This is a clear sign of terrible writing.
If your audience watches twenty-nine minutes of your film, and is confused about what they're watching, your writing isn't clever, or innovative, it's just bad. After reading the synopsis, I came to realize that I hadn't missed anything. My confusion wasn't due to me not paying attention. After all, the synopsis seems to fill in the gaps and explain what I was watching. However, if I have to read the synopsis, in order to make the movie more coherent, then the writer has clearly dropped the ball.
I don't recommend this movie to anyone. Unless you're the writer, or unless you helped create this movie, in some way, or are a friend of someone in either of these capacities, then you're not likely to find any value in this film.
I give this movie two stars because, although the writing and execution are terrible, the filmmaker does have competent technical skills. The camera isn't shaky, the audio is fine, the acting is adequate -- things like that. However, that's a low bar, when we're talking about the quality of a movie.
To be fair, it is possible that there's some sci-fi element to this movie, and I just didn't bother to stick around long enough to find out what it is. Like I've said, I only lasted twenty-nine minutes.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that may be considered sci-fi, is the notion of automated surveillance. If that's the sci-fi concept, then it's pretty thin.
I stopped watching this movie because it's painfully boring, and doesn't seem to have much of a direction. After a while, I found myself wondering, "What, exactly, am I looking at?"
After turning it off, I read the synopsis, and concluded that the synopsis does a better job explaining the movie, than me actually watching the movie. This is a clear sign of terrible writing.
If your audience watches twenty-nine minutes of your film, and is confused about what they're watching, your writing isn't clever, or innovative, it's just bad. After reading the synopsis, I came to realize that I hadn't missed anything. My confusion wasn't due to me not paying attention. After all, the synopsis seems to fill in the gaps and explain what I was watching. However, if I have to read the synopsis, in order to make the movie more coherent, then the writer has clearly dropped the ball.
I don't recommend this movie to anyone. Unless you're the writer, or unless you helped create this movie, in some way, or are a friend of someone in either of these capacities, then you're not likely to find any value in this film.
I give this movie two stars because, although the writing and execution are terrible, the filmmaker does have competent technical skills. The camera isn't shaky, the audio is fine, the acting is adequate -- things like that. However, that's a low bar, when we're talking about the quality of a movie.
