7/10
No gaping plot holes and a few surprises
30 April 2018
Had this been a 50 million dollar project from a big studio with budget all over the place you'd have stars and perfect lighting, fresh dialogue, a lot of ka-boom, and whatnot, but probably also some really stupid plot holes.

Then I would rant on about some of the camera, some lighting here and there, and some of the acting, but most of all about the plot holes. I have a problem with films that tell me one concept in the beginning, and then trash that ten minutes later, as if I didn't remember.

But in this case, I just have to root for the makers. They only had a million, and came up with characters, and a pretty good story, that does not have the plot holes. So, at no point in the film I felt as if the makers thought I was stupid. On the contrary. The story even came up with a few twists, that I did not see coming.

Is it as intricate and mind-beding as "Primer"? No.

Is the acting as staggering as Sam Rockwell in "Moon"? No.

But if you saw Primer or Moon, and you liked those, I think you'll have a good time with this one.

Or if you like Star Trek.

I would put it in the same league. It stays true to what science fiction is.

Thanks, Ian Truitner! I also hope to see more from him.

Last point: Yes, the acting. They need to work on that a bit, but since I can't act at all, and they really had a limited budget, maybe they just couldn't shoot that take the ten times it takes to get it perfect.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed