Surveillance 24/7 (2007) User Reviews

A case of style over substance?

[Redcitykev · 5/10 · 25 October 2007]

I have been lucky enough to view this movie via a legal promotion copy which was sent to my local cinema manager. He felt that it might be interesting to show the movie as part of our film club presentation, alongside a q&a session with the director, Paul Oremland. As a member of the selection committee he allowed me to view the film and report back my views on it.

Well, here goes! Whilst the movie is not exactly bad I could not help but feel that the style and look of the film appeared to outweigh the narrative. The hand-held cameras, images ripped from the surveillance cameras etc did, at many moments throughout the film, distract from the story-telling. In fact at points the style became so distracting that the actual story got lost in the mix. I also could not help but feel that the use of such techniques has been done so much better in the past, especially in 'Red Road'.

As for the story itself, and without wanting to give anything away, the conspiracy (or not!) related within all added up to case, in my opinion, of "yeah, OK, so what!" Although having said that I am sure that if the film gets a wider enough release whilst a certain enquiry is in full flow then it will pick up a certain following from those who like to believe in the type of issues that the film deals with! I do wish Mr Oremland well with the film, I'm sure he will find an audience out there, but for me it was far too much a case of style over substance.

What a stinker...I walked out!!!

[zatoed-1 · 1/10 · 11 October 2007]

Never in my film going career have I walked out on a film, but this is the first. The director made certain visual choices that did not make any sense. Choosing to use the Closed Circuit TV Camera in random places, not evoking a sense of paranoia at all. The acting was sub-par, almost to the point of beginning actors doing a staged reading. I caught this flick last night at the Chicago International. Film Festival, the Director was in the audience, I was so tempted to tell him how I felt, but I did not wish to stick around any longer. Such a shame, a great idea, but poor follow through. The film felt as if the director did not have a clear point of view on how the paranoia should be viewed.

Avoid at all costs!

All Costs I say!

Good entertaining movie

[mattpen-1 · 7/10 · 14 August 2007]

I managed to catch this movie at a film festival that was held in New Zealand while I was traveling through.

This is a well acted independent production. The acting was crisp and the plot was thrilling and suspenseful. Without trying to give too much away I could see some similarity between a certain member of the current royal family and the rumours that have been swirling around that prince. One can only wonder if that was the source of inspiration of the screenplay.

The story is played out well and the ending is one that is so non- Hollywood! I have been guarded in what has been said so as not to give too much away.

I give it a 7 out of 10.

I want my $8 and 2 hours of my life back...

[gwmindallas · 3/10 · 28 February 2008]

I saw this movie last night as part of Q Cinema (Fort Worth) monthly movie series. Wow.... bad movie...

Let's start with the plot. Not actually bad and in the hands of a great director and cast could have been worthwhile. Our hero, Adam, a young, athletic, gay school teacher picks up celebrity photographer Jake in a bar and has a one night stand. Unfortunately, Jake is kidnapped and apparently killed after Adam leaves. Unbeknownst to our poor Adam, Jake is at the center of a major gay conspiracy. And now, Adam is being followed, stalked and harassed by various groups setting up the entire plot which is based on one contrivance and coincidence after another. For example, Jake just happens to be the son of the owner of a major news organization which just happens to employ Adam's ex-girlfriend who is an ambitious young reporter. Adam just happens to pick up Jake's cell phone by mistake that holds the clue to the big conspiracy. And if Adam would simply have worn a different jacket at any point in the movie, half of the people tracking him would have been confounded since that's where a tracking device was planted on him! I imagined Alfred Hitchcock directing this and what a good movie it could have been of showing an innocent man caught in a web of intrigue.

On the other hand, the dialogue and acting really let the mediocre plot down. Some of the dialogue is laugh out loud funny and this is NOT a comedy. Part of that is bad writing, part is bad acting. The main characters come off as amateurs spouting high school prose.

The entire execution of the film left me baffled. We're supposed to believe that not only does the government but a major news industry has created a network of surveillance cameras so complete that they can spy on us anywhere... at home, in a public restroom, at the bathhouse (let's hope that's not true but then again that footage would be better than this movie). So a large part of the film is shot to appear to be close circuit cameras which could have been a good plot device if not over used. After a while, though, I began wondering, how they got that camera there in that angle instead of watching the movie.

Another directorial choice made was to replay key scenes from different perspectives or after you've learned more. As a general rule, I find these distracting if not used well. Here, they are way overused. Sometimes we see the same scene 10 seconds later and the "replay" adds no value.

About the only unmitigated praise I can give the film is that the star is a good lookin' guy. So there's an eye candy benefit.

Not Nearly As Bad As Some Overly Critical Posters Have Said

[mmcloughlin · 7/10 · 12 November 2015]

The point is made at the opening of the film that, thanks to everybody and his sister having CCTV everywhere - from public bus and train services to private business establishments, especially retail stores - it's possible to track a "target" from point A to point B very easily.

And that is how a few of everybody and half their sisters are able to keep an eye on Adam, mild-mannered IT teacher at a private school for boys. Thought it is hard to believe, as stated at the opening, that all of the shots actually *were* drawn from CCTV cameras. Anyway, that's the theory.

Anyway, Adam spends the night with someone who ends up dead because he had a secret that involved somebody in the Royal Family. The establishment (i.e. the government of the day, as distinct from the Royal Family - who have no control over such things) did not care about the secret as long as it was secret but the establishment does care about someone's not-so-veiled threats to make the secret public.

But the documentation is not found on the person on someone after his demise because Adam apparently picked up someone's phone by mistake, not realising he already had his own phone stuffed away wherever he had it stuffed. It's when he goes to give the phone back to someone that he almost gets stuffed himself.

So Adam goes to old girlfriend who's a journalist, and she gets in on the act as someone *else* - actually "elses"; it takes a while for Adam to realise that more than one bunch of someone elses are after him - starts making things difficult for Adam.

The climactic scene is very climactic and presents a twist ending that was not expected. In the end, everything ends up normal and safe for Adam, and no harm done - except for one of his best friends getting killed in the process.

Hopefully, I have not given too much of the plot away. In terms of technicalities, the direction is fine, the story is good, and the acting ranges from very good to not bad. The script could be more tightly written, and the plot could be organised *much* better than it is.

Another reviewer has complained about plot holes. I didn't notice any actual holes but because the plot is not as well organised as it could be it is very easy for parts of the plot to hide, and some of them might by hiding in holes (hence the term, "hidey-hole," I suppose).

I think what another reviewer called "sub-plots" is actually meant to be background information about the characters. There's really just the one plot. The film is meant to be a more or less simple melodrama, so it's important that one do not dig too deeply for meaning or motivation, or you'll end up passing it.

Otherwise, we need to actually see Amy's reason for getting involved; and there needs to be a better reason for the biker getting killed (or that bit needs to be scrapped - e.g. put him in hospital with an accident). But mostly the plot needs better organisation and the writing needs to be tightened up, to make it more suspenseful and less confusing.

Worth seeing as a matinée or other cheap show, though it's probably not making the rounds of theatres any more. Worth having the DVD if you can get it free or cheap, so you've got something to watch on a rainy weekend afternoon when you're tired of perennial repeats of Tarzan and Shirley Temple.

It could be a lot better than it is, and perhaps someone will re-make it as a better film someday soon. But it's not nearly as bad as some of the other reviewers have said.

Excellent idea that fell short of it's goal

[Kanthsmith · 1/10 · 15 March 2009]

Surveillance was a bad attempt at a good idea. The ever increasing lack of privacy and "surveillance" by government agencies is a good topic for a film, just not this one! I felt there was no thrilling moments in this film, cerebral or otherwise. The plot was transparent and predictable. Not to mention superbly large plot holes and incredulous moments.

I didn't buy into it.

The exchanges between characters were shallow and poorly acted. I felt no trepidation for the characters, in fact I felt nothing for the characters. The cinematography was alright. I found nothing extraordinary about using CCTV cameras. The editing was sloppy and seemed haphazardly executed.

There were many potentially incredible ideas in this film, however they were poorly combined and fell short of the film's goal.

Agree... falls short of the mark.

[wave54 · 3/10 · 27 April 2009]

My opinion is much like that of others commenting here. The film has a great plot line that just goes horribly wrong with lackluster acting and the odd use of multiple media to replicate CCTV cameras.

The story weaved back-and-forth from subplot to subplot without achieving any real traction. What was the crux of the movie: the gay affair involving a royal, Adam and his relationships with former "ex", friend, father, etc., or the overuse and dangers of too many surveillance cameras? By trying to tie all these elements together cohesively, the viewer probably will come away feeling cheated in that no subplot or element is fully fleshed out. Any one plot line could have been compelling -- all of them threaded together just didn't work in this case. 3 out of 10 stars.