MovieChat Forums > Radio Free Albemuth (2014) Discussion > Oh my GOD! This looks cheap and awful

Oh my GOD! This looks cheap and awful

posted 10 years ago by HereComesMadness
17 replies | jump to latest

This movie supposedly cost 3 million, but it looks like Alanis Morissette paid for it with one of her credit cards. Where did the other 2,995,000 go? All the other PKD film translations got a decent cinematic treatment (at least production-wise) until now, thanks for breaking the streak with this one, guys! This movie sat on the shelf for five years for a reason. I expected the Sharknado to pop up in the trailer at some point.

This is going to make The Room look like The Godfather in comparison. I really hope everyone watches this dismally no-effort abomination because it's going to be a meme factory. Why don't they just label it a comedy just in case.

------------
No one is on my ignore list, because I'm not a pussy
Formerly, HereComesSadness

[–] Duragizer 10 years ago

Cool story, bro (or sis).

I'm Laura Bertram's husband in another universe.

[–] HereComesMadness 10 years ago

U mad. Seriously, videos shot on a Go Pro on Youtube look better than this movie.

------------
No one is on my ignore list, because I'm not a pussy
Formerly, HereComesSadness

[–] Duragizer 10 years ago

The acting and writing are both far more important than the stupid effects; if the former two cut the mustard, then who gives a damn about the latter?

I'm Laura Bertram's husband in another universe.

[–] HereComesMadness 10 years ago

Even the worst acted movies can have decent effects these days. 3 million should be enough to buy you a decent looking small-scale film, not something that looks like it was made by people who never discovered what a movie was until the day before shooting. This looks like a no-budget sci flick from the nineties. If someone wanted to marathon some PKD inspired movies, this one would comically stick out like a sore thumb. It's beyond amateurish.

------------
No one is on my ignore list, because I'm not a pussy
Formerly, HereComesSadness

[–] MadSimian 9 years ago

I agree. Since I don't feel like repeating myself, here's what I said of the movie in another thread I made:

Well, I've just finished watching this on Netflix. Overall, the execution of the story itself is very much Dickian(is that a even a word? lol), however, I'm going to have to say that the movie world is a bit too "clean". By "clean", I mean that most of Dick's works have a "dirtiness"(sometimes subtle, sometimes not) to them like he was viewing the world through whiskey-colored glasses. And, I don't mean that he was drunk or an alcoholic(which he was), just that the worlds he created had a amberish, brown/yellow feel to them like they were covered with a thin layer of nicotine that has accrued from countless cigarettes being smoked over the years. The kind of brown/yellow that one subconsciously associates with sickness, filth and the like.

Oh, I don't know...I hope everyone gets what I mean because I don't think I'm getting my point across very well. lol Otherwise, as a longtime fan of Dick, I found the movie highly enjoyable.

So...there you have it. Actually, I found the overall production value to be VERY similar to two other modern adaptions of a mid-to-late 20th century sci-fi book. Those being "Atlas Shrugged" Parts 1 and 2. Sure, say what you will about production values and the authors' views and opinions about the world around them but you can tell both this and the "Atlas Shrugged"s were made with love by people who appreciated the original novels. They can't help it if they don't have the budget to make the next "Blade Runner". They did the best they could with what they had and showed the respect the original stories deserve which is about all you can ask for when someone is adapting someone else's work into a movie. :)

The future belongs to those of us still willing to get our hands dirty. SaschaKonietzko

[–] simplymail 9 years ago

Good points! I read this book years ago... I never quite 'got' RFA when I read it, but this adaptation felt very much like what I can remember from the story... and makes me want to read the book again.

Many of the PKD screen adaptations are too glossy, IMHO, as compared to his writing.

[–] MadSimian 9 years ago

Glossy! That's a more appropriate term for what I was trying to say. That'll teach me to try to write such a post when I'm near the end of my day and about to go to sleep. lol

Yeah, I'm also thinking about going back and rereading a lot of PKD's stuff. It's been far too long. ;D

The future belongs to those of us still willing to get our hands dirty. SaschaKonietzko

[–] bruce-129 10 years ago

Sometimes the look and effects of a film or movie are important, and other times not. If cheesy effects were at the top no one would have ever watched the original Star Trek series. It was not bad, and in fact I liked this movie a lot. I just had some problems with the fidelity of the sound so I turned on the captions and there were none showing up.

[–] fourswords2003 10 years ago

Thank you for starting this post, if you hadn't I would have. The movie looks like it is from the mid '90's and & if the preview are the best bits, what does the rest look like?

Television : The people medium, for medium people.

[–] Dali-Fan 10 years ago

Frankly, I didn't git a toss about the 'looks' of this one, but with all the damn hype about it I expected a tad better acting, of which there is little. That said
I'm at the 1:14 mark and hoping to hell it gets better. Yes, I'll pay rental when the fecker is out on the shelves.

[–] jason_leo 10 years ago

Thats because it was.
I read some reviews and looked at the rating and actually thought it might be watchable.
It was dragging from the get go and never seemed to end.
It looked like a mad for tv movie only the effects were awful.
The story of a big conspiracy was no way enough to make up for the bad acting which even if it was amazing would not have made up for the awful effects.
From what i hear the author created alot of very good stories used in many good movies however this was diabolical.
Either everyone who voted it good was in it or they all only just turned old enough to watch it. There is no way it deserves the score it got it is very misleading

[–] stazza 9 years ago

I couldn't it through the whole movie, and I really tried. Really wanted to like it being PKD and all, but the presentation was lacking. I can appreciate the effort they put in but it needed better of everything.

It is interesting the director came here and asked for people to not give it buzz.. That's ridiculous! If it not good, which it is not, then face up to it and fix it. And move on. Rare someone hits a home run first time to bat. Gotta keep swinging. Completing a movie is not the same as making a good one.
Take the free constructive criticism and use it to make it better. Make the next one better.

[–] Protozoid 9 years ago

They say it cost $3 million. It looks more like $30,000 to me.

But don't let that keep you from watching if you are somebody whose taste in sci-fi movies isn't completely superficial in nature. It's a genre of ideas, after all.

[–] Ehronn 9 years ago

Reason it costs so much is permits, licenses, sag fees, and license fee to Phillip dick estate for permission.

The 3 million covers permits and those above, the actors usually do a low pay indie for free cred or to keep their sag membership.

Like Depp did Dr Parnassus freefree and the Hunter Thompson doc free

Cinemassacre avgn reviewer made a real movie but shooting permits required him to kick starter and he raised half a million

He saved money by stating that no sag members could audition. He kept it non sag film to not pay union fees and extra benefits required by sag.

And rest went into equipment rental, dolly, crane, a red camera, and rest were owned DSLR cameras.

[–] danzig138-668-939218 9 years ago

I'm not a pussy

Only morons use "pussy" and derivatives as pejoratives. Tha explains the rest of your post.

here's what I said of the movie in another thread I made:

Something pretentious and wrong? Why point that out to us?

-----
WORDS MEAN THINGS!

[–] andreouaggelos 9 years ago

Just saw the movie. The problem was not the effects, was the VERY BAD acting. I mean, it had probably the worst cast in the history of cinema.

[–] Xcalat3 8 years ago

it is cheap and awful.

Libera te tu temet ex inferis.
pro ego sum diabolus, pro ego sum nex.