I respect your opinion Bitterman and it apparently is the majority opinion at this board. However, this movie was entertaining and there wasn't any "WTF" moments you usually find in a bad movie. Except maybe when Fishel's arm gets chopped off, but other than that it's pretty much a good, satisifying movie. The zombies of course get knocked at, but come on, it's a virtual zombie. This is not "Night of the Living Dead." We're talking about a "virtual zombie." The main reason why this film was good (on a scale 1-10, I say a 7) is not the plot- the plot was good but could have been a little more developed, but was the acting. I felt the acting was very good despite the subject material. If I was an Oscar-winning actor, I doubt I could portray the main character (Nate Richert) as well as he did. Props go to the supporting cast as well, including a cameo by one of the Hillenbrand brothers.
Overall, this is the best film to date made by the Hillenbrand brothers. I've seen all their movies, and this ranks first, with King Cobra as second.
As for the PS2 controller on the cover, I agree. If PS2 has nothing to do with the movie, it shouldn't be there. But it needed something to appeal to someone walking in a video store aisle. A virtual zombie is not going to catch his eyes like a PS2 controller would.
reply
share
gladrius
17 years ago
I mean no offense, but the acting saved the movie? Come on. Nate Richert's performance was simplistic when it wasn't juvenile. Maybe he's a great actor, I've never seen him in anything else, but even great actors can only do so much with a half-baked script.
reply
share
CleverTitania
17 years ago
I disagree, entirely. He was great. Instead of going the standard route, and having him turn into hero boy in the game, he kept it light and real. He played like a guy who had experience with video games, but was thrown by one playing him instead of him playing it. Not to mention the differences between in game Charlie and out of game Charlie. It was barely the same guy.
Also, the visual look was intentional. I don't think it's about the budget. If you consider this to be a 'this is happening right now' movie, that is the most you would expect visually from a VR game. The technology that runs the AI and actually connects to your mind would be so sophisticated, and expensive to develop, that the game elements wouldn't be visually stunning. Think a souped up version of the goggles games that we just got into malls about 10-15 years ago. The only elements that were very visually killer were the ones stolen from his real life. The IR elements (esp. the diner exterior) were gorgeous, because it was taking them visuals from his head. Everything else was basically a cheap game graphically.
The less a man makes declarative statements the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect.
reply
share