I stayed with the movie waiting for a glimpse of real to life theory. I was under the impression , based on the beginning of the movie, that this would bring to life theories that Einstein had with the after life. This movie missed it completely making it a total let down of the magic of SciFi movies. I had to keep adjusting the volume, this always makes me want to slap whoever is in charge of the sound track. You cant hear whispers and the music was way over the top in dB. I as well, walk out of theater when that happens and always get a refund. Very difficult to understand exactly what was happening when he turns on the "infinite-energy machine" Why is it called an infinite-energy machine in the review? This was not a movie about green energy but quantum physics... more confusion. Wait, there is more..."a higher level of consciousness?" Change the title to "Fruit Salad Science"
19 Reviews
2 out of 10
g-jordan848 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I saw "The Scientist" at the sneak preview on March 2nd. The only thing I found enjoyable about the film was the fact that so many people I am connected with had something to do with it. The ONLY actor whose performance actually made an impression on me was that of Adam LeFevre. I thought the plot moved along entirely too slow, not to mention there were several points at which the sound was PAINFULLY loud. I left the theater feeling offended, not only by the abuse to my eardrums, but also by the fact that the main character decided to influence his neighbor about her reproductive choices. It was obvious that she didn't really want to have an abortion in the first place, but it was his arrogance in that regard that I found so offensive. It also didn't seem as though the writers actually did any research as far as what kind of process and treatment by the clinic a woman experiences when seeking an abortion. It's a sign of ongoing dysfunction that the couple "connected" once they decided to keep the baby. It made me unsure if he was being sincere or just faking it to get her to do what he wanted. I left wondering if this was just anti-choice propaganda disguised as a sci-fi film. And I don't think that is what it was supposed to be. It needed to focus more on the scientist himself, his work, and his family rather than the neighbors'. I am happy for all my friends who got to be in it, but otherwise utterly disappointed.
Borrrrring
boltadave30 March 2011
Cant believe how boring this film is after reading some of the other reviews, I honestly feel like I wasted an hour and a half of my life waiting for something to happen in this movie. Long silences every 2-3 minutes, at least there is plenty opportunities to make a cuppa. To enjoy this film at its best, take some matches to keep your eyes open. The acting was good, The story was average There is nothing more I can say or write about this movie but I have to write at least 10 lines before this can be submitted. Which is a real shame as I am sure that if watched a lot of people will agree that it was a terrible film, in fact if this was a book it would be about 10 pages long...
A Yawner
dirkbendwater26 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
If you love beautifully slow paced movies with irregularly modulated sound, fairly good acting and an intensity that will rivet your head to a pillow, then this is the movie for you.
Here we have your typical brilliant university scientist whom apparently lost his wife and child. He becomes neurotically reclusive and anti-social, swallowing more pain pills than House. He limps around with a cane (like House), for reasons unknown and peeks out the window a lot. He is building some kind of contraption, whose purpose is only vaguely hinted at. He never talks much but when he does, he swears and is angry like at his friends and neighbors. He hasn't been to work for years and can't handle his liquor.
His contraption breaks down. So he orders some parts. The parts, a Foo-foo valve and some Kenitson bits I think, are then installed in this whatever it is. A wheel with a light turns around and it sucks all the power out of his house. The lights get real bright then they dramatically go out.
New neighbors move in. He's some kind of chauvinistic, business-like, metro yuppie (at first) and she....well, she's kinda homely, I guess. She seems drawn to him, for reasons unknown. She comes by to say hi in one visit and the next time, to invite him to a housewarming party. He basically keeps tells her to GTFO. She is not happy with metro-yuppie man.
He turns on his thingamajig and that's where things get a bit convoluted and fuzzy. Stuff happens to him. I'm not really sure what though.
The movie has nice background music. If you like vague plots that make you fill in the blanks, see it.
Here we have your typical brilliant university scientist whom apparently lost his wife and child. He becomes neurotically reclusive and anti-social, swallowing more pain pills than House. He limps around with a cane (like House), for reasons unknown and peeks out the window a lot. He is building some kind of contraption, whose purpose is only vaguely hinted at. He never talks much but when he does, he swears and is angry like at his friends and neighbors. He hasn't been to work for years and can't handle his liquor.
His contraption breaks down. So he orders some parts. The parts, a Foo-foo valve and some Kenitson bits I think, are then installed in this whatever it is. A wheel with a light turns around and it sucks all the power out of his house. The lights get real bright then they dramatically go out.
New neighbors move in. He's some kind of chauvinistic, business-like, metro yuppie (at first) and she....well, she's kinda homely, I guess. She seems drawn to him, for reasons unknown. She comes by to say hi in one visit and the next time, to invite him to a housewarming party. He basically keeps tells her to GTFO. She is not happy with metro-yuppie man.
He turns on his thingamajig and that's where things get a bit convoluted and fuzzy. Stuff happens to him. I'm not really sure what though.
The movie has nice background music. If you like vague plots that make you fill in the blanks, see it.
Way too preachy
jdgin8 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This had the potential to be a really good and thought-provoking indie film and then they had to go ruin it by beating everyone over the head with the pro-life message at the end. It was very disingenuous to build up the tension in the story and in the characters only to solve everything with a "don't have an abortion, babies are awesome" message at the end. That made the movie instantaneously preachy and left me, at least, feeling very cheated. I went in expecting a story and movie that was somewhat of a mix of "white noise" and "solaris" and instead got a really long commercial against abortions.
other than the one scene that singularly destroyed the whole movie, the scientist is well acted and shot -- if you count out the main character's eye twitch, which was way overused.
other than the one scene that singularly destroyed the whole movie, the scientist is well acted and shot -- if you count out the main character's eye twitch, which was way overused.
Having "science" in the title does not make this science fiction.
psamathos1 April 2011
Among all the other recent movies uncreatively named after the professions of their main characters, this one is the least descriptive. This movie could have equally well been called "The Artist," "The Carpenter," or even "The Housekeeper," and it would have lost nothing. The story has nothing to do with science or scientists, except that it happens that the protagonist used to be one. Even calling it science fiction is a stretch: at best, it's a hackneyed drama with some mystical overtones. Throw in some irrelevant side-plot about his new neighbour's wife, and that's about the long and short of it.
It's not all bad, of course: The acting, cinematography, and music are all well done, but the pacing is so painfully slow and the story so jumbled and ill-conceived that this is not worth watching.
It's not all bad, of course: The acting, cinematography, and music are all well done, but the pacing is so painfully slow and the story so jumbled and ill-conceived that this is not worth watching.
Most misleading Title of the Year!
sixbells993 December 2011
From the first line in the film it's clear that its trying to give its audience a DEEP metaphysical cerebral experience. The film starts with the actors looking serious, and spooning out deep dialogue about life the world and everything. The kind of stuff stoned first year philosophy students belch out on a Saturday night. As the film progresses we see the actors looking even more serious. The climax of the film is every actor looking serious even the birds seem to have a deep introspective stare. Lets not forget the little whirring machine that appears to be at the heart of it all. I don't know what it does, its never explained, but its DEEP and its serious so that should enough also it spins and whirrs, and that is about as scientific as the film gets.
If you're looking for a film where actors stare a lot and look serious, no plot and incomprehensible dialogue, then you've found the perfect film. Personally for me watching paint dry seems like a roller coaster ride compared to watching this. Oh by the way its go nothing to do with science, the guy is a scientist but might as well be a Russian acrobat.
If you're looking for a film where actors stare a lot and look serious, no plot and incomprehensible dialogue, then you've found the perfect film. Personally for me watching paint dry seems like a roller coaster ride compared to watching this. Oh by the way its go nothing to do with science, the guy is a scientist but might as well be a Russian acrobat.
I have a new worst movie ever
grahamth10 April 2011
I have just watched possibly the dullest film ever made. It was one of those you persevere with thinking "It will get better any minute...wont it?" but it just doesn't. Nothing happens! I felt nothing for the lead character and apart from the lady next door, the rest of the cast were wooden. I actually stopped the movie half-way thru to re-read what it was about. It makes no sense. And a previous reviewer was absolutely right about the sound. I had to watch with the remote in my hand. You either cannot hear the whispering or the windows are rattling with the music. Being John Malkovic has been my all-time worst movie...until today.
So So Boring,,, and Ridiculous !!! Like a low budget commercial about a product that no one understand what is the product finally.
drklabs26 March 2011
This movie must have been called kinder garden scientist , it is really so boring no target no acting no plot just guys and woman moving around and thinking about future past and whatever i really don't mind ,i m really "pissed" with people that writing the idmb reviews this for sure are guys payed by the director or whoever is related with this movie . They always write good things and you go to see a movie and touch down the movie finally sucks and you lost 2 hours from your life. The movie sucks as all the stuff of this movie sucks . Stay Away and if you really don't see the truth that this movie is really disgusting then go to a shrink to have a look on you, only mental problem people will see good things about this movie,also director go drawn your self, the DVD cover or poster is good "as always the smart trick we make a POSTER and we sell the crappy movie" the content is crap and sucks .Also for the smart guys that wrote about acting ... what acting? acting for what? you mean acting is freezing like idiot and put the digit into your mouth and thinking for 2 hours?? if this is acting sorry but i cant but to lough about it. . sub below 1/10
Sound spoiled the experience
hendry-robert27 March 2011
I could have easily watched this all the way through had it not been for the movies sound. I cannot fathom what on earth the sound people think their doing. During quiet voice sections I was constantly having to rewind and turn the volume up to hear what the actors were saying and then turn it down during the loud music sections. Just after half way through I switched it off which was a shame because its a decent film but you need to get in to the vibe rather than automate the film with the remote control. Perhaps it was just the copy I watched?
I may pick it up again when Im in the mood and knowing what the sound is like I will be better prepared because I would have liked this movie for its interesting story.
I may pick it up again when Im in the mood and knowing what the sound is like I will be better prepared because I would have liked this movie for its interesting story.
This was never intended to be a good film; just a tax scam
bob315c19 October 2012
According to the article below; the sole purpose of this movie was to scam the Iowa film board. Iowa gave among the most generous tax incentives to have movies made in the state. This one certainly didn't help anyone in Iowa. The people involved were prosecuted.
The site is io9.com The article is the biggest science fiction movie hoaxes and scams of all time.
I only watched a few minutes of this movie then checked out the reviews. The article from IO9.com explained why someone would even bother to make this.
Don't waste any time on this.
The site is io9.com The article is the biggest science fiction movie hoaxes and scams of all time.
I only watched a few minutes of this movie then checked out the reviews. The article from IO9.com explained why someone would even bother to make this.
Don't waste any time on this.
THE SCIENTIST: A Clear Look at a Murky Subject
gypsyhouse-14 May 2010
I expected to be confounded by "The Scientist," a low-budget film with a science-fiction premise and a humanist message.
Instead, I found director-producer-writer Zach LeBeau an efficient, and fairly linear, job of storytelling, which makes it all the more effective.
Often, I've found films made on a shoestring — and that's most of them — are either too short to adequately get their point across, or sabotaged by the filmmakers' indulgences. Many a good indie movie has been undercut by a director's need to over-cut — to over-edit, over-think and over-"art" their films. Either through film-school pretense, an attempt to compensate for the lack of big-budget special effects or simple ego, they turn what might have been fine stories into jumbles of flashbacks, distorted images and other pretentious, unnecessary trickery.
(I'm thinking of one film in particular, which I rented recently to see the performance of an actor-friend of mine. The filmmaker made the mistake of including the original opening scenes as "bonus material," which made it glaringly honest that his "final cut" had been turned into an incomprehensible mess.) Happily, LeBeau keeps his story (he co-wrote the screenplay with Chase Brandau) at the forefront. Though the film, a taut 88 minutes, is artfully edited and beautifully shot (by Matthias Saunders), it never loses track of the story it's trying to tell.
It also benefits tremendously from the performance of its lead actor, Bill Sage, a veteran character actor who offers stunning proof that he's capable of carrying a film, with work of great intensity and emotion.
Sage plays Marcus Ryan, a physicist who's been coming gradually unhinged since the deaths (the result of some unnamed tragedy) of his wife and young daughter. He's holed up in the family home, which includes a laboratory where's secretively constructing a machine that generates psychic energy — ostensibly to try to make some contact with the spirits of his dearly departed.
He's visited by a colleague, Alan (Adam Lefevre) and the couple who move in next door, Jessica and David (Brittany Benjamin and Jamie Elman). But he's oblivious to everything but his project, and his pain. He's already tried to take his own life once — and hobbles over a cane because of injuries suffered in what Alan tactfully refers to as "the fall" — and, in the film's single most gripping scene — is thwarted in a second attempt by a gun that providentially jams.
It's at that point — when Marcus has hit bottom, undone by his grief and frustration — that the wonder of his invention, and of LeBeau's story, begins to kick in.
Until then, Sage has given us a portrait of a destroyed, desperate man, tragically submerged in the memories of his family and consumed by his long-shot bid to re-establish some sort of contact — cross-consciousness, cross-dimensional, however — with them. At one point, he screams his frustration at the machine, "Bring them back!" After his second failed suicide attempt, Marcus begins to see evidence that his contraption, whirring away in his lab, might actually be working — creating or transferring energy, cutting through waves of consciousness, opening lines of communication. Its work manifests itself in echoes of voices and subconscious glimpses of his wife and daughter, but also in his ability to "overhear" the thoughts and conversations of those physically near him, including the couple next door.
Through his psychic eavesdropping, he learns that he doesn't have a corner on the unhappiness market. The young wife, Jessica, is trapped in a marriage to a complete tool, and carrying a baby she's convinced she's neither ready nor willing to bring to term.
Thrilled by the hints of success, Marcus is transformed. Realizing his invention might prove much more than just a conduit to his lost loves, he rediscovers his own humanity — and, consequently, cops a shower, a shave and some much-needed sleep before offering the comfort that Jessica needs.
As mentioned before, the film is pretty to look at. Saunders swathes its nondescript outdoor locations — Council Bluffs, Iowa, Omaha, Neb. and Minneapolis — in glorious fall colors and comforting sunlight. He also avoids the indie-film bugaboo of dark interiors, allowing us to clearly see what's going on even when the lights are out.
The sound department doesn't fare as well, though. The more forte bits of Steve Horner's otherwise-lovely score, and some of Marcus' more intense experiments, are loud to the point of distortion.
The film also falls victim to a few minor sci-fi clichés (like the pensive solo-piano accompaniment through much of the early going), and takes a few narrative shortcuts (like David's almost jarringly sudden transformation from tool to non-tool). But there's nothing that detracts from the storytelling — the holes that are left are not gaping, and, thankfully, LeBeau hasn't tried to plug them or distract from them with cheesy special effects he probably couldn't afford anyway.
The sci-fi aspect of "The Scientist" won't dazzle you. But it's really just a component of the storytelling, which is admirable both in its aspirations and its execution. With the terrific Sage as its centerpiece, it's interesting, thought-provoking and affirming — attributes that are consistently lacking in big-budget, CGI-dominated movies, sci-fi or otherwise.
Instead, I found director-producer-writer Zach LeBeau an efficient, and fairly linear, job of storytelling, which makes it all the more effective.
Often, I've found films made on a shoestring — and that's most of them — are either too short to adequately get their point across, or sabotaged by the filmmakers' indulgences. Many a good indie movie has been undercut by a director's need to over-cut — to over-edit, over-think and over-"art" their films. Either through film-school pretense, an attempt to compensate for the lack of big-budget special effects or simple ego, they turn what might have been fine stories into jumbles of flashbacks, distorted images and other pretentious, unnecessary trickery.
(I'm thinking of one film in particular, which I rented recently to see the performance of an actor-friend of mine. The filmmaker made the mistake of including the original opening scenes as "bonus material," which made it glaringly honest that his "final cut" had been turned into an incomprehensible mess.) Happily, LeBeau keeps his story (he co-wrote the screenplay with Chase Brandau) at the forefront. Though the film, a taut 88 minutes, is artfully edited and beautifully shot (by Matthias Saunders), it never loses track of the story it's trying to tell.
It also benefits tremendously from the performance of its lead actor, Bill Sage, a veteran character actor who offers stunning proof that he's capable of carrying a film, with work of great intensity and emotion.
Sage plays Marcus Ryan, a physicist who's been coming gradually unhinged since the deaths (the result of some unnamed tragedy) of his wife and young daughter. He's holed up in the family home, which includes a laboratory where's secretively constructing a machine that generates psychic energy — ostensibly to try to make some contact with the spirits of his dearly departed.
He's visited by a colleague, Alan (Adam Lefevre) and the couple who move in next door, Jessica and David (Brittany Benjamin and Jamie Elman). But he's oblivious to everything but his project, and his pain. He's already tried to take his own life once — and hobbles over a cane because of injuries suffered in what Alan tactfully refers to as "the fall" — and, in the film's single most gripping scene — is thwarted in a second attempt by a gun that providentially jams.
It's at that point — when Marcus has hit bottom, undone by his grief and frustration — that the wonder of his invention, and of LeBeau's story, begins to kick in.
Until then, Sage has given us a portrait of a destroyed, desperate man, tragically submerged in the memories of his family and consumed by his long-shot bid to re-establish some sort of contact — cross-consciousness, cross-dimensional, however — with them. At one point, he screams his frustration at the machine, "Bring them back!" After his second failed suicide attempt, Marcus begins to see evidence that his contraption, whirring away in his lab, might actually be working — creating or transferring energy, cutting through waves of consciousness, opening lines of communication. Its work manifests itself in echoes of voices and subconscious glimpses of his wife and daughter, but also in his ability to "overhear" the thoughts and conversations of those physically near him, including the couple next door.
Through his psychic eavesdropping, he learns that he doesn't have a corner on the unhappiness market. The young wife, Jessica, is trapped in a marriage to a complete tool, and carrying a baby she's convinced she's neither ready nor willing to bring to term.
Thrilled by the hints of success, Marcus is transformed. Realizing his invention might prove much more than just a conduit to his lost loves, he rediscovers his own humanity — and, consequently, cops a shower, a shave and some much-needed sleep before offering the comfort that Jessica needs.
As mentioned before, the film is pretty to look at. Saunders swathes its nondescript outdoor locations — Council Bluffs, Iowa, Omaha, Neb. and Minneapolis — in glorious fall colors and comforting sunlight. He also avoids the indie-film bugaboo of dark interiors, allowing us to clearly see what's going on even when the lights are out.
The sound department doesn't fare as well, though. The more forte bits of Steve Horner's otherwise-lovely score, and some of Marcus' more intense experiments, are loud to the point of distortion.
The film also falls victim to a few minor sci-fi clichés (like the pensive solo-piano accompaniment through much of the early going), and takes a few narrative shortcuts (like David's almost jarringly sudden transformation from tool to non-tool). But there's nothing that detracts from the storytelling — the holes that are left are not gaping, and, thankfully, LeBeau hasn't tried to plug them or distract from them with cheesy special effects he probably couldn't afford anyway.
The sci-fi aspect of "The Scientist" won't dazzle you. But it's really just a component of the storytelling, which is admirable both in its aspirations and its execution. With the terrific Sage as its centerpiece, it's interesting, thought-provoking and affirming — attributes that are consistently lacking in big-budget, CGI-dominated movies, sci-fi or otherwise.
The Metaphysicist
krachtm19 October 2011
I'm surprised that so many people hated this movie, and yet I'm also not surprised. It's obvious that the director was going for an art house vibe, but, judging by the reviews here, I think that people were expecting Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich, instead of Stanley Kubrick. The people who'd ordinarily like art house movies were turned off by the pro-life message at the end. The name of the movie is called The Scientist, yet there's no actual science involved here -- just metaphysics and quantum mysticism. At one point, the titular scientist even delivers an anti-science rant, where he calls Einstein a fraud. If the rationalists weren't alienated by all the metaphysical mumbo jumbo beforehand, they're definitely ready to get up and leave now.
Luckily, it takes more than artistic pretensions, slow pacing, metaphysical mumbo jumbo, or a preachy pro-life message to drive me away from a movie. However, what I find a bit off-putting was the way the director ripped off 2001: A Space Odyssey, though I suppose you could call it an homage, if you were feeling kind. Though it lacks some of the more surreal or symbolic elements of 2001, I got this continual feeling that the director was doing his best to channel Kubrick into every single scene. There were also obvious influences from Solaris. Now, I'm as big a fan of 2001 and Solaris as the next pretentious film snob, but, really, there comes a time when you need to stop studying those movies and move on with your life, so that you can develop your own style, independent from them. Unfortunately, it seems as though this director hasn't quite reached that point yet, though I'll say that he's got good taste in cinema.
The pro-life message and mystical mumbo jumbo are a bit annoying, but I think they're forgivable. I find much to admire in Romanticism, but when it becomes this reactionary, irrational, and sentimental, I quickly lose interest. If you're into that sort of thing, though, I'm sure this movie will resonate with you. However, for those rationalists out there, I'd probably suggest you skip this. It's a gigantic middle finger to you and your beliefs. Of course, as in all wish fulfillment scenarios, the metaphysical beliefs of the titular scientist are proved correct, and once the imperialist asshole imposes his beliefs on his neighbors, their lives are magically transformed into a fairy tale romance, bringing them back from the brink of divorce. Come on. That's just over-the-top. Nonetheless, it's artsy enough to score some points with me, making up for the didacticism and errant philosophy.
Luckily, it takes more than artistic pretensions, slow pacing, metaphysical mumbo jumbo, or a preachy pro-life message to drive me away from a movie. However, what I find a bit off-putting was the way the director ripped off 2001: A Space Odyssey, though I suppose you could call it an homage, if you were feeling kind. Though it lacks some of the more surreal or symbolic elements of 2001, I got this continual feeling that the director was doing his best to channel Kubrick into every single scene. There were also obvious influences from Solaris. Now, I'm as big a fan of 2001 and Solaris as the next pretentious film snob, but, really, there comes a time when you need to stop studying those movies and move on with your life, so that you can develop your own style, independent from them. Unfortunately, it seems as though this director hasn't quite reached that point yet, though I'll say that he's got good taste in cinema.
The pro-life message and mystical mumbo jumbo are a bit annoying, but I think they're forgivable. I find much to admire in Romanticism, but when it becomes this reactionary, irrational, and sentimental, I quickly lose interest. If you're into that sort of thing, though, I'm sure this movie will resonate with you. However, for those rationalists out there, I'd probably suggest you skip this. It's a gigantic middle finger to you and your beliefs. Of course, as in all wish fulfillment scenarios, the metaphysical beliefs of the titular scientist are proved correct, and once the imperialist asshole imposes his beliefs on his neighbors, their lives are magically transformed into a fairy tale romance, bringing them back from the brink of divorce. Come on. That's just over-the-top. Nonetheless, it's artsy enough to score some points with me, making up for the didacticism and errant philosophy.
The Schizophrenic Scientist
teunkloosterman29 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is a story about a once prosperous scientist who seems to have lost his wife and children and leads an agoraphobic life ever since.
One of his former colleagues and the only friend he seems to have left regularly checks up on him to bring him packages with dolls from all over the world that he doesn't like to send to his house directly but to his former workplace.
This colleague tells him some new students picked up his old research on particle accelerator and urges him to accompany them since he's the best expert and most engaged on the subject.
After a failed suicide attempt, he makes something like a photonic centrifuge which is supposed to create infinite energy. After booting it up, it starts running uncontrollably and he tries to stop it with his wooden cane.
After that the plot is blurred. My best bet is that he became unconscious and dreamt about his family. He wakes up to stop his neighbour from getting an abortion and gives her the only package sent directly to his house (a stuffed animal). He then goes back to touch the device once more and is found unconscious by his worried friend. This friend, pragmatic scientist as he is, completely ignores his friend and reboots this unknown apparatus in the basement of his mentally unstable, unconscious, friend.
One of his former colleagues and the only friend he seems to have left regularly checks up on him to bring him packages with dolls from all over the world that he doesn't like to send to his house directly but to his former workplace.
This colleague tells him some new students picked up his old research on particle accelerator and urges him to accompany them since he's the best expert and most engaged on the subject.
After a failed suicide attempt, he makes something like a photonic centrifuge which is supposed to create infinite energy. After booting it up, it starts running uncontrollably and he tries to stop it with his wooden cane.
After that the plot is blurred. My best bet is that he became unconscious and dreamt about his family. He wakes up to stop his neighbour from getting an abortion and gives her the only package sent directly to his house (a stuffed animal). He then goes back to touch the device once more and is found unconscious by his worried friend. This friend, pragmatic scientist as he is, completely ignores his friend and reboots this unknown apparatus in the basement of his mentally unstable, unconscious, friend.
Lovely weird, and unshut
klaus-850-6382366 September 2011
Lovely weird. That's my description. Rarely have I seen a movie, that has no stunning grand visuals, yet relies so little on dialog. It is refreshing that there are still directors out there, who can tell a story in such an opaque way, that the audience is left with no choice but to think about it. That's very nice.
It's not 100% clear cut what's going on here. It would seem, that our main character is looking for a way to reconnect with his dead wife and daughter. Perhaps trying to bring their consciousness back or extend his own? I don't know, what the main character is planning exactly. It's never told, and this is part of then charm of the movie. This is where you have to start interpreting.
A previous reviewer spoke of an intend to create a machine to elevate consciousness to a higher level through manipulation of psychic energy. Well, that would be one interpretation. But I must remark, that at no point does the word psychic appear in this movie.
So, if a delicate subject is so delicately told, why only 5 stars out of 10? Well, the ending is predicable and must be considered the low point of the movie in quality of directing as well as acting. Sorry, but that should be changed, if possible. There are shining points through out, but not enough. That, and the storyline next door. It is totally ignored in the end. Maybe we are shown too much, since I actually started to care for her. But in the end, it was just segway into showing his final transformation.
In the end, Bill Sage's acting skills were what I applauded, wholeheartedly.
So, thank you for making this movie. Now take the subject to the next level, and give us something more breathtaking.
It's not 100% clear cut what's going on here. It would seem, that our main character is looking for a way to reconnect with his dead wife and daughter. Perhaps trying to bring their consciousness back or extend his own? I don't know, what the main character is planning exactly. It's never told, and this is part of then charm of the movie. This is where you have to start interpreting.
A previous reviewer spoke of an intend to create a machine to elevate consciousness to a higher level through manipulation of psychic energy. Well, that would be one interpretation. But I must remark, that at no point does the word psychic appear in this movie.
So, if a delicate subject is so delicately told, why only 5 stars out of 10? Well, the ending is predicable and must be considered the low point of the movie in quality of directing as well as acting. Sorry, but that should be changed, if possible. There are shining points through out, but not enough. That, and the storyline next door. It is totally ignored in the end. Maybe we are shown too much, since I actually started to care for her. But in the end, it was just segway into showing his final transformation.
In the end, Bill Sage's acting skills were what I applauded, wholeheartedly.
So, thank you for making this movie. Now take the subject to the next level, and give us something more breathtaking.
Great idea, yet failed to deliver
dallas-r-keever23 January 2015
The premise behind the machine the scientist creates revolves around contacting people once they are dead. The machine constructed is an exact replica of Eric Dollard's Cosmic Induction Generator (CIG) that is used to harness the free flowing electrical induction that is all around us, known as Zero point energy, Orgone, Ether, etc.
In the movie the wound co-axial coils can clearly be seen on either side of the machine, with an magnetic rotary wheel in the middle where the induction is centralized. Replacing the wheel with a vacuum tube would create a galaxy like formation within the tube if placed within the coils.
All of this information is just now becoming popularized with the emergence of Electric Universe cosmology, to include people like "SuspicousObervers", Dollard, Arron of Energetic forums, and many more who are shining the light of the flaws of relativity brought to us by the plagiarism of Einstein even though he was well meaning. This is even discussed in the film at the local bar segment.
But, as the movie goes on to show, some things are not meant to be known, nor tampered with.
In the movie the wound co-axial coils can clearly be seen on either side of the machine, with an magnetic rotary wheel in the middle where the induction is centralized. Replacing the wheel with a vacuum tube would create a galaxy like formation within the tube if placed within the coils.
All of this information is just now becoming popularized with the emergence of Electric Universe cosmology, to include people like "SuspicousObervers", Dollard, Arron of Energetic forums, and many more who are shining the light of the flaws of relativity brought to us by the plagiarism of Einstein even though he was well meaning. This is even discussed in the film at the local bar segment.
But, as the movie goes on to show, some things are not meant to be known, nor tampered with.
Sentimental yet distant
amoryb855 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I saw the trailer for this movie on Apple Trailers a little over a year ago. I thought the minute compilation of this movie looked great, thrilling. The concept of a man dealing with a loss of his family intrigued me, since movies like The Weatherman and Reign Over Me were favorites of mine. Today, I saw it finally. However, there's something that the film doesn't feel to accomplish. Maybe its the lack of a big name lead, or no clear message that the film tries to deliver. The emotional settings shots are there, but they don't bring any substantial emotions from the viewer, so it ultimately fails as a character study or as a mood piece. The film is too average, and the hard to achieve rank of an emotional journey sans strong plot, as directors like Sofia Coppola have expertly done before, is unattainable without anything spectacular in the film. It's not the slowest movie I've seen, and it's not the worst. The film is pretty well produced, as it doesn't scream low budget at any particular point. The problems were that I couldn't connect with the emotions of the lead, the side story was well acted but also not very investing, there wasn't enough action or sciencey bits to otherwise fill my interests. I wouldn't say that the film contributed anything new to me. The best part was the cinematography, but the content of the shots was not striking enough to leave any lasting impressions.
"A great story about the potential of mankind, as we evolve into a higher state of consciousness"
kincaidvirginia5 March 2010
The above summary is a quote from a reviewer who stated it better than I could. "A journey past the known and into the unknown, ... this film ... uses sci-fi elements to enable the main character - a physicist whose specialty is quantum mechanics - to selflessly uplift and have an effect on those around him in a positive manner." Bill Sage does a marvelous job of character development. The supporting cast is excellent as well. In the interest of full disclosure, since I had a bit part in this film: Lest you think this is a self-serving review, my small scene was cut.
The audience all left the theater feeling better than we did when we came in. I urge you to see this unique film.
The audience all left the theater feeling better than we did when we came in. I urge you to see this unique film.
It had my brain and heart on the edges of their seats
sterlingda7 October 2010
Back in July, Gypsyhouse Entertainment sent me the DVD ''The Scientist'', by Zack LeBeau, to review. It's about a reclusive physicist who creates an infinite-energy machine in his basement that changes his life and all those around him.
Unfortunately, the DVD got lost in a stack of stuff piling up next to my desk until I cleaned up the stack a couple of days ago; at which point I decided to watch it, rather than put it off any longer.
I usually have my laptop open when I watch movies so I can multi-task, depending on how much I get into the plot of the movie. But this movie had me every second. After about ten minutes I just closed my laptop and turned off the lights (which I usually keep on to see the keyboard).
I was expecting a B-rate movie, which probably contributed to how much I ended up liking the movie. If you over-rate a movie, even a great movie can be a let-down – and vise versa.
The film had a lot of things that captured my interest: metaphysical mystery, eccentric inventor struggling with his personal life, caring neighbors and friends, exotic energy device, healing via the device, time travel, mainstream vs. fringe science, synchronistic events, ESP, inter dimensional stuff.
The cinematography was brilliant, the way the camera angles and starts and stops were executed. It had my brain and heart on the edges of their seats. The portrayal of the device was awesome: spinning, shining, with mini-lightning sparks pulsating.
The subtitle of the film, on the top of the cover: "What do you think happens when you die?" doesn't seem to be very fitting for the actual contents of the film, though that concept was touched on.
I would definitely recommend it to you, and I think it will appeal equally to males and females, having elements for both.
It's great metaphysical food. But don't build up your expectations too high. Just watch it, and enjoy.
Unfortunately, the DVD got lost in a stack of stuff piling up next to my desk until I cleaned up the stack a couple of days ago; at which point I decided to watch it, rather than put it off any longer.
I usually have my laptop open when I watch movies so I can multi-task, depending on how much I get into the plot of the movie. But this movie had me every second. After about ten minutes I just closed my laptop and turned off the lights (which I usually keep on to see the keyboard).
I was expecting a B-rate movie, which probably contributed to how much I ended up liking the movie. If you over-rate a movie, even a great movie can be a let-down – and vise versa.
The film had a lot of things that captured my interest: metaphysical mystery, eccentric inventor struggling with his personal life, caring neighbors and friends, exotic energy device, healing via the device, time travel, mainstream vs. fringe science, synchronistic events, ESP, inter dimensional stuff.
The cinematography was brilliant, the way the camera angles and starts and stops were executed. It had my brain and heart on the edges of their seats. The portrayal of the device was awesome: spinning, shining, with mini-lightning sparks pulsating.
The subtitle of the film, on the top of the cover: "What do you think happens when you die?" doesn't seem to be very fitting for the actual contents of the film, though that concept was touched on.
I would definitely recommend it to you, and I think it will appeal equally to males and females, having elements for both.
It's great metaphysical food. But don't build up your expectations too high. Just watch it, and enjoy.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
