User Reviews

Starts so-so ... continues even less so-so ... picks up where it's a little too late ... ends nicely enough although weak amateurish acting (despite all the effort everybody puts into making it look professional) is probably the main problem with this not so well made movie just as it is with most other low budget ones ...

the winter setting is kinda cool but not cold enough ... ;-) some shots and scenes are also fine enough to make me like them, especially in terms of lighting ...

overall, it reminded me of some really cheap and failed movies i used to watch in the Syfy channel in the mid 2000s (when it was still named Sci-Fi or something like that) and that was why i stopped watching that channel almost totally and started seeking better scifi stuff elsewhere on regular channels ...

Enjoyed several elements in this film, not the least of which was the performance of its lead actor Paul Sidhu. His character was quite cliché, but he dressed it up with a solid, believable performance. The rest of the cast was equally cliché, pretty much every character trope you've ever seen in a sci-fi action film. Unfortunately, most of the other actors, with an exception or two, did not pull off their performances as well as the lead. The action, and pacing we're good and the overall production quality was pretty decent. The plot is basically Blade Runner in a winter apocalypse with elements of Aliens and, well, five or six other sci-fi movies. It's a bit of a mess, story wise, there were flashbacks to the main character's backstory that were uninteresting and distracted from the action, but it held together enough to keep me wanting to see what happened next.

Formulaic pseudo-post apocalyptic film, with terrible action scenes and the flimsiest excuse of a plot, carelessly patched together by common myths infesting actual movies.

There's really little to none redeeming value in this.

1)As sci-fi it doesn't even compete; it raises no questions, introduces no new ideas, creates not even a shadow of an actual futuristic setting.

2)As a thriller it has no tension; nobody can summon the willpower to care for "characters" who systematically act out the most inane choices and the amateurish direction doesn't help.

3)The backbone of the plot is so.. safe, it feels like a sham. I'll occasionally stomach the pseudo-intellectual doctrine that passes for liberalism in Hollywood these days as long as it is attached to a 100M production. But in an independent production - and a sci-fi to boot - I expect to be presented with the unpopular opinion, the 'truth' that lacks recognition or exposure, not to be spoon-fed the mainstream dogma!

In any case there were a couple of decent lines - maybe even competent - so I'll give it a 2.

The story is not unique, but actually a good one. However when you combine that good story with bad acting, poor CG, terrible dialogues and immense plot holes, the output is inevitably below par.

I say bad acting because any mimic, gesture and voice acting are so exaggerated that you feel an urge to slap their faces to help them back to their senses. Other than a few main roles, every character is either shouting hysterically or acting overly self-confident.

Poor CG is acceptable in consideration of the lower budget.

Terrible dialogues are everywhere. Either there are lots of cut scenes or several writers authored the script individually and than shuffled the pages to make a scrambled innovation. The result stinks like a bowl of deteriorated and uncooked scrambled eggs.

Plot holes. Oh my! Countless. Self detonating non-explosive things, inverted hands with absurd axis shifts in camera view, unexplained relationships, and most importantly climate defying "everything"... In a movie of which the plot is about extreme climate change, some clothing freezes in water, which is surprisingly present in extreme low temperatures and some organic tissues survive in the same water source.

All in all, it would have been a masterpiece, toppling "Oblivion" of Cruise in many ways.

If you really have a two-hour spare time and the movie is free, watch till the end, against all odds. The ending is satisfactory. But the journey may get really boring and your thumb would reach out for the stand-by button any time.

From the very beginning, you can already see how the acting is, simply, horrible. The chemistry they tried to create between the squad members is so so so painful to watch that I had to turn off the tv. Could not get past 20 minutes.

It seemed like a good plot/concept but the execution makes it unwatchable.

I have seen some bad films in my time but this topped the list. It wasn't even good-bad it was just a boring film that took its self way too serious.I couldn't wait for it to end it was so dull. If you want a bad sci fi film but gives you a good laugh try Taking Earth which had worse line delivery and acting but just felt a better film.

As to setting a premise, and then violating at every turn = 100 But then: As intelligent entertainment = zero As for quality acting = zero As for budget to make = must have been close to zero As to ability to raise audience heart rate through enjoyment = zero As to appropriateness of title = zero Seriously, other than indulging the creator's personal interests and desires, how could one, in good conscience, put this out as anything but an insult to an audience? Best left as a "home movie".

300 years in the future, after the whole planet is frozen over, Bishop (Paul Sidhu) is asked to hunt the renegade android ASH 393 (Branden Coles). The high intelligence and supeerhuman strength of his opponent makes that an extremely hard task in a hostile environment. Besides, Bishop's general hasn't told him the whole story before he sent him on that mission...

Produced for less than a million dollars, the movie is quite ambitious for its low budget. Its frozen future world reminds me a little bit of Robert Altman's 'Quintet', but unfortunately '2307' enjoys its gun battles in trash movie style too much and has only actors with limited capabilities while suffering a bit from pretentiousness. The best supporting actors are Timothy Lee DePriest as Ishmael, whose harmonica playing is another reference to western movies, and Arielle Holmes as Kix, the most fanatical member of Bishop's team. What we finally get is a movie that fits into the 'Cyborg' subgenre of the 80s/90s Terminator rip-offs, but with a modern design and a better story that most of them.

Throughout the movie you see actors with shaky hands fumbling with things that are supposed to be natural. The movie itself is ok but nothing that interesting or special. The fumbling starts about 1 minute into the movie when an actor almost knocks a tray out of a waiters hand...

It's pretty hard to watch because it tries to be too edgy as well. There is way too much emphasis on the use of vape pens and it looks extremely unnatural. The people using them arent even inhaling just making as much vapor as possible as quickly as possible lol. Add in the rat faced girl soldier who is chewing tobacco and constantly spitting clear saliva in a cup...it tries WAY TOO HARD and looks like a joke.

Now the special effects...If you have a limited budget I understand that this part would be lacking but some of the stuff they do just makes it look like a joke. An exampled? Dump truck randomly has it's engine explode and then when they lift the hood it looks like someone is using a sparkler inside of an exhaust pipe.

It's pretty bad.

If you don't like to think, or really like clichés then this is the movie for you. Hardly an original thought in the entire plot. In my case I spent the time figuring out where I first saw each cliché, they range from the 60's clear through the 90's. I could see the ending come from the end of the first hour yes it was that obvious.

In my case I had lots of free time and the movie cost me nothing so I guess it was worth the price.

As a huge fan of sci-fi, and someone who often loves even "B" movies, I wanted to like this. But! The irritating, whispering voice of the narrator totally destroyed any chance that this movie had of being watchable. It is such complete garbage, on every level that I will be warning people to avoid it. The only positive thing that I can communicate about this movie is that they cast some erotically buff men for the few minutes that I was able to tolerate watching it. If the director had any sense, then he would have found a different actor for the voice over and done a better job directing the action. The script writer appeared to have been rushed and totally out of touch with the sci-fi genre. An elementary school child could write better dialogue and a better narration than what was crafted by this movie's incompetent writer(s). Do yourself a favor by skipping this movie.

I'm a huge fan of the post apocalyptic genre, and don't mind low budget.

But i CAN'T STAND bad acting, which this film is full of. It's like they intentionally hired the worst actors they could find, and then decided to give them the most ridiculous, cliche' dialogue that's been said 1000 times, (and always better) by someone else.

Shot decently, but the direction is sorely lacking. Then again, if you're not bothering to hire people who can act, why bother having a director who could direct?

This film is worthy of an MST3K fest and that's about it.

Completely and utterly unwatchable.

There's nothing here you haven't seen elsewhere. An army unit hunting a renegade. The futuristic setting gives it a sci-fi background, but they were so quick to find an excuse for the laser guns to stop working that I guess they ran out of special effects budget.

It is watchable, without the need to engage your brain. A two-hour diversion. However, I wish they hadn't insulted our, the viewer's, intelligence with a puerile voice- over.

Not a lot of thought went in to this debacle that's for sure. It's ram jam packed with clichés, poseurs and dreadful ham acting. Gung ho rubbish with elements of cheap Bollywood effects. Give this what it deserves, a wide berth.

15 October 2017. This movie came out in limited release in the United States on the same day that Blade Runner 2049 had its wide release. The parallels in the subject matter and plot are hard to ignore. While Blade Runner 2049 might be described as a futuristic film noir movie, 2307: Winter's Dream might be described as a futuristic western action movie, even to the extent of the use of a harmonica. While 2307 had ASH-393, a humanoid, the original Blade Runner (1982) had Roy Batty, a replicant. Both humanoids and replicants have supposedly limited survival prospects. Humanoids can't procreate. Replicants have a specific termination date. Both humanoid and replicant eerily resembled each other. In both Blade Runner movies, there was a single protagonist, a rather beaten down individual character tasked with the retirement of replicants. In 2307, this task is assigned to a military-like Western posse. It's interesting that the character-driven Blade Runner 2049 under-performed at the box office like its predecessor. As an action sci fi adventure movie, 2307 was scripted and directed as a popular but typical American mainstream movie.

The movie's plot incorporates the dystopian elements found in the classic George Lucas THX-1138 (1971) with a survival theme used in Alejandro Innarritu's award-winning The Revenant (2015) and Antonio Banderas's own individual survival struggle with rebellious robots in Automata (2014). What makes this movie distinctive within the action, sci fi movie genre are the serious attempts to maintain some integrity with the military, special ops discipline that is so quickly abandoned in most notably James Cameron's Aliens (1986). The storyline also takes time to demonstrate a military camaraderie and integrity, including a scene of respect about their own dead. There's also a sense of authenticity of humans versus physically superior humanoids in combat and resulting in consequential damage and survival in most of the scenes. The presentation of bio-genetic engineering technology is competently achieved. What appears to be a pulse rifle is an apt futuristic weapon, unlike many low budget movies that rely mostly on contemporary weapons, but that is not to say that futuristic weapons are necessarily the weapon of choice in this movie. There are several narrow bridge scenes which are used for an atypical carefully-crafted atmospheric backdrop. The movie also incorporates some refreshingly literally cool beautiful landscapes and decrepit photographic townscapes. The amazing icy frozen features are artistically on display as well as the Auris Borealis.

The movie, however, is not without its weaknesses. There's a supposedly scary sequence with the use of light sticks, except that one, the natural lighting seems too bright for their use and, second, it seems someone forgot about the ready availability of night vision googles. In another possible slip, there's a lapse in discipline when one op members going blindly into attacking a humanoid as a pretty dumb, idiotic and suicidal act; though there was another scene in which something similar occurred in the hard-hitting, realistic Vietnam War presentation of We Were Soldiers (2002). The "futuristic" military truck used in the movie doesn't really seem suited to the icy, winter conditions. The use of the futuristic 3-D projections for both for communications and dairy/journal entries are typically inhibited in their seemingly inferior quality presentations, like in George Lucas's Star Wars (1977). But by now, the technologically savvy audience is likely to be used to the belief that 3-D imaging will likely be quite crisp and clear in most instances. Finally, the screenwriter apparently didn't give any thought to tying one's supplies and equipment onto one's self so that they can be kept on one's person? And what's with the distracting resemblance of Paul Sidhu, the lead character, to adult Wil Wheaton from Star Trek: The Next Generation fame? While Blade Runner 2049 might be considered artistically superior along with a well-crafted performance and character study, 2307 remains a worthy counter-point. In contrast to the dour bleak ambiance of Blade Runner 2049, this movie offers a motivating action-focused script more prevalent in American cinema. Considering today's social turmoil over immigration and racial purity, 2307 captures a pertinent theme in the female combatant obsession over Hitler's Mein Kampf. This movie contains a decent and valuable twist worth experiencing. Perhaps predictable to some and maybe even too typically theatrical for others, but it still urgently resonates in today's social milieu, especially considering the significantly higher ratings from female audience members.

The film is set 300 years in the future in a post-apocalyptic world that has completely frozen over. It begins in an underground city, which is the world's last remaining population centre. Noids (or Mules), which are genetically modified humans, are bred to work. A number of the Mules have "gone rouge", and one Mule, involved in one particular event, leads to a military team of four people being sent on a mission across the frozen wasteland to eliminate him.

This film has some problems. Some of the acting is a little poor. There are plot holes. It sometimes seems that essential dialogue is edited out of scenes. I get the impression that the film has been cut down a great deal. It moves far too quickly. At the beginning of a scene, long shots and positioning shots, instead of being lingered on, flash before us for an instant. There is also some fairly untidy camera work. It also seems that the whole film has been dubbed and everyone sounds like they are speaking in a small room, which I think might actually be the reason you get the impression of poor acting.

That said, this is a credible movie. The story moves on at such a fast pace that the film's 101 minutes could easily stretch to 130. The film certainly has its foundations in good, solid sci-fi. The Mules could be straight out of Brave New World. There are some great plot twists. There are some decent sets. The effects are, with some exceptions, quite good as well. I got the impression that towards the end, the film seemed to sharpen up a little. The plot, especially the ending, was very good.

If you can forgive this film its failings, and it has many, you have a pretty good sci-fi yarn. Very similar to, but not quite like, anything that has gone before.

More like winter sleep this movie is utterly ridiculous and silly 4.4 ratings is like 10 for this if you get my drift maybe 1 out of ten at best terrible plot/acting the list is so long this movie is wack. Please post this OK thanks and Watch at your own risk. Can't believe people really sit down and make or write movies like this for entertainment thats why the world is such a sad place.

If you have nothing else to watch why not. The only thing that was really a problem for me in this movie was the Nazi female Marine.... did they come up with her script using fortune cookies? She is a terrible actor and that is just a flat out awful character.

Watch if you must but this one is pretty painful.