So, I watched the entire film (with an open mind). (My mates &) I would like to know why there are so many insiders on IMDB praising this film?
I understand that they only had $10K to work with. Having said that, if my budget were $10K, I could have done better. Feel free to contact me with bank account details if you would like for me to "prove it."
Assuming you're trolling but if not, you're an idiot and I'm sure you've got no mates!
shareI am in my 30's and I am data analyst for a South Pacific telecommunications company, about as far as can be from movie production, in whatever country this was made.
I know you don't have to believe this and I know you probably won't, but it is indeed true.
I hate when people associated with productions vote up movies to 10/10 and post bogus, obviously biased reviews
It is insulting and betraying for anyone who worked, on or knows the people who worked on, a movie and post bull**** comments and votes.
Even worse is when the movie actually sucked balls; as if tricking someone into watching a film (that they will then most likely think is crap) is going to change the fact that it is a steaming turd.
I hate it.
Simply put, it's a decent film, and as you say it only cost 10k, and I did not know that.
Makes the film even more worthy of 7/10, mate.
"I understand that they only had $10K to work with."
Did the film only cost $10K? I couldn't find details on the budget.
I found it quite flawed, but if it only cost that much, the producers IMO got great value for their dollars.
I would like to know why there are so many insiders on IMDB praising this film?
I gave it a 9, and I'm not an "insider" (I'd be willing to prove it to the op troll, if I knew how to prove a negative). It told a good story with good actors, and took no digressions. That's quite a lot nowadays when it comes to movies.
shareThis film is good for the production value it got. I am not an insider and I give it 7.5/10. No many indies can be as good as this.
I do not believe you can make a better movie with 10k budget. If you can prove it that you could make a better movie with 10k then I will give you that 10k. But if you fail to make a better movie then you have to pay me back 20k. Deal? Or Troll?
$10,000 for a budget is chicken feed.
Someone who thinks that they can make a film better than this for 10K (astounding if that was truly the budget) hasn't had much experience in film (or at least in making movies that actually have a chance at distribution).
And the claim that 'insiders' are the folks on IMDB who give this film a decent/good rating?
I see that accusation so often on these boards, especially re: independent productions.
Some folks *may* do that, to help the PR along (it's basically free PR but actually minimal exposure), but to assume that someone *is* doing that should take some...evidence??
BTW: I am not an 'insider' and I liked this film ~
~~ Truth exists; only lies are invented. ~~ G. Braque
prove it
shareThe only thing I knew about this film was that Netflix's algorithm predicted I would give it 4.2 stars, which in the past has always meant it was worth renting.
I gave it 5 stars and 8.7/10 (8.5 to 8.9 is highly recommended, must-see). My field is psychology, and this is one of the best and most perceptive science fiction movies about the nature of memory. It's easy to say that it owes a lot to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and to Inception, but at the same time it's thoroughly original. This is a serious contender for the best straight-to-DVD sf movie ever.
Oh, that's also the opinion of a World Fantasy Award nominee for critical work and a film buff for whom this was the 156th film I'd seen in the last year. Which is actually down quite a bit from the previous two years.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.share
IMO the story and idea were pretty good and intriguing,
BUT
something was off in the way the movie was made.
editing? actors? direction? all of these?
don't really know but still, i found the pacing tiresome.
there were a few tedious talks,
or maybe the actors just couldn't give a believable performance.
that's the reason it didn't have more success i think.
After I wrote that blurb, I watched it a second time (in the span of four days) and upped my rating to 9.2.
I hate to play the "you didn't get it" card, but the only way I think a viewer could possibly find the pacing tiresome, or some of the talks tedious, is if they failed to understand what was going on. All of the people who complain about being bored and who mention a specific part of the movie point to the middle of the movie, and that's precisely the point where it gets most interesting in terms of playing out the sci-fi premise.
You have to understand that the action in most of the movie is taking place within virtual realities constructed from memories, and you have to understand the rules governing the ways the characters can interact with those realities and with one another. Since all of that is fascinating to figure out (and quickly leads to a series of very emotionally charged plot points), and the section that people are complaining is slow is the section where you learn all of that, I have to conclude that they are in fact failing to figure it out. Perhaps, I would say, failing to think about it, or going even further, failing to realize that they had to think about it. This is not a movie that you simply watch; it challenges you to become an active participant in constructing its meaning.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.share
I hate to play the "you didn't get it" card, but the only way I think a viewer could possibly find the pacing tiresome, or some of the talks tedious, is if they failed to understand what was going on. All of the people who complain about being bored and who mention a specific part of the movie point to the middle of the movie, and that's precisely the point where it gets most interesting in terms of playing out the sci-fi premise.