Insectula! (2015) User Reviews

Can One Man be Stopped from making the Unstoppable? Thankfully not.

[ryangilmer007 · 5/10 · 19 May 2015]

Spoiler Alert...

This movie is about an Insect, a Giant one. It is crazy, stupid, dumb fun.

Really you shouldn't have to be told #spoiler to know this.

If you want an intelligent giant bug movie, watch...The brain bug from Starship Troopers

If, however, you want smart people acting stupid in obviously stereotype roles, then "Insectula!" is just the bug for you.....

#spoiler alert... all of those cardboard characters who have absolutely no character development .... well they are just meant to be annoying fodder for the bug anyway.

So, now that all of the #spoilerAlert insanity is out of the way prepare to stop the unstoppable Insectula by purchasing the video at

HTTP://www.Insectula.com

#thisIsNotAPaidEndorsement #ifYouDoNotGetTheIronicStupidittyOfThisSpoilerAlertGrrr #ThenNotTheMovieForYou #IfSo #ReadOn

--------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Peterson is just one man. One man with a daughter, a dream, and an insatiable appetite to make a movie about a giant bug and special effects

#spoiler - writer/director/SFX/camera/cameo actor/father/compositor/fund-raiser/come on man, I am running out of space here/fine/other

Seriously, major illnesses and setbacks were telling this guy to not complete the film, but gosh darn it, he would not be stopped..... "Insectula!" would be unleashed.

oh and a bunch of other people worked on the film, but really without Mike,(and producer/sound/mother Danielle Cezanne) his baby "Insectula!" would never have been born.

So, onto the plot summary portion of my review darn it and because the irony of spelling everything out for you in a blatantly redundant attempt to have you say #uhIGetItItIsAThrowBackBugMovie

#deal

This is really a simple movie told in an interesting way that sets up the typical Hollywood 3 part structure but blasts it to smithereens by having each part be its own mini movie in terms of tone or throwback references.

PART 1: serious set up monster Bug movie

Part 2: over the top gore-fest Bug Italian horror exploitation movie

Part 3: Mad scientist Satire throwback movie

Each part bleeds into the other as the story flows from one to the other.

Like --> Review Template,

Part 1: summary

Part 2: what works

Part 3: how things tie together

This review is referential and ironic and slightly covered in all parts.... SORT OF LIKE TAKING THIS SUMMARY PART 1 too seriously and beating your head into it like the movie did.

#IgetIt

In other words:

Simple summary. BUG MOVIE

Complete Summary.. Insectula is BUG MOVIE,THROWBACK MOVIE, MAD SCIENTIST MOVIE,EXPLOITATION MOVIE, and encyclopedic reference of a genre MOVIE.

#easterEggAlert Did you catch Brandon Van Vliet's characters name? There is the obvious horror reference. "Insectula!" also references the work of Elliot Diviney, whom is also a Minnesota filmmaker and whose latest feature dropped on DVD May 19.

The complete summery portion of the review also shows some technical aspects....excessive and cheap CGI, which at the beginning of the movie slows it down. Part one is probably the weakest. The characters are stiff, and if YOU Don't KNOW ITS MAKING FUN OF ITSELF, you check out.

it is supposed to be that way, but unfortunately part 1 is basically set up without payoff, so there is no fun in the....

The payoff really comes in part 2 and that is where the movie starts to rock.

Really it all boils down to the actresses and the cameos. I mean sure Harrison Matthews is good, but Nicole Kreux, Sarah French, and Arielle Cezanne are better, and to be fair for you ladies.. H.T. Altman is to die for in this film.....

If you claim that this movie sucks because it degrades women then you are missing the point. It is doing the exact opposite. The skimpy attire and dumb blonde staple of movies of the 60s and the ilk is in full effect here. Also, Peterson's instincts are on-the-money here with perfect casting. Nicole Kreux is essentially the Drew Barrymore role in Scream here. Sarah French is selling both her sexiness and her strong persona and presence. Each of these assets is equally useful in the film. The least clothed of the bunch is Michael's own real life model daughter, Arielle Cezanne.

NOTE: In my book if a director has the balls to put the film in the hands of his own daughter, in front of her mother, while birthing his new child, aka Insectula, and barely clothing her for the world to see, you would have to be insane to think that he is degrading women.

The most memorable roles in the film are the women... Well except for H.T. Altman... great scenes there.

Aside from the aforementioned Harrison Matthews, the Guys in this film are the standard, staple characters... because they are written that way. Harrison sells his character well and so does Joel Thingvall as his assistant. Both are eccentric and creepy. Shout out to Pasquale Pilla for his set up and threw line character. His is in the weakest portion of the film; its not because of his doing. Edel, Flemming, Giger, Niel Johnston, and the aforementioned Altman, Van Vliet, and even Peterson show up in genre staple cameos...

Cameos sell these kind of movies; here most work.

The sets are gorgeously sadistic. High quality low tech laboratory equipment. Mike spared no expense; time appropriate era phones, locations, caves and woods. OK its practical locations, but nice scouting and of course the cheesy effects sell the cheese of the low budget picture. Maybe a bit to over the top.

In the end the film keeps on giving with credits that sell the women of the film and perhaps purposely have errors (another nod to the old films). We are left with Michael Peterson's baby Insectula, starring his baby Arielle, all grown up and unleashed onto the world.

What did I just watch?

[jazmyn-135-201131 · 4/10 · 3 September 2017]

This movie is so corny it needs the worlds largest Dr Sholl Footpad. Where did they find fake mustaches so fake looking? I think drawing them on with a sharpie would have looked less fake. Was this movie made just to attract Rifftrax or MST3K? Is it supposed to be a comedy? A student film gone horribly wrong? I gave it a 4 out of respect for the actors who had the cojones to appear in it and the fact I kept watching it see how bad it could be..

Not that bad

[scarlettsdad · 5/10 · 8 January 2024]

Here's the thing: I tend to enjoy movies that are intentionally bad-especially ones that are making fun of other movies that are bad, but weren't intentionally so. "Insectula!" is such a film, and it had the makings of something I'd want to have in my collection along with the Larry Blamire movies. But unfortunately, what started out well just couldn't maintain the idea to the end.

Starting as a 1950s monster movie-Ed Wood-ish intro, the film could have done better by going black and white, although the unusual cinematography almost appears like colorization. Not sure if that's what they were going for but I found it distracting.

Still, it hums along fine and silly until the third act, where the film seems to lose it's focus as well as it's time era, as the 50s now is peppered with cursing, nipple piercings, contemporary apartments and modern military equipment. This causes the movie to really fall apart, as well as the long stretches of nothing humorous or interesting happening. It's a shame, as this could have been a much better film.

"Hey, Handsome! What's Your Name?!"...

[azathothpwiggins · 8 June 2021]

INSECTULA! Opens with a wonderful parody of "Criswell Predicts" from PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, warning us of our human folly. We are then whisked away to the "planet of monsters", the place of origin for the title creature. Back on Earth, something crashes into a lake, unleashing horror beyond belief!

A beautiful woman is annihilated, and EPA agent, Aldo Delbiondo (Pasquale Pilla) is on the case. He's especially interested since the victim was his girlfriend. The autopsy performed on her noggin is a great example of gooey, low-low-budget cheeeze done right!

Delbiondo vows to uncover the mystery, leading to a nice take-off of VERTIGO. Then, it's revealed that Dr. Banning (Christian Hanson), who performed the aforementioned autopsy, has a history / agenda that makes him very interested in the titanic beast.

It must be mentioned that this movie boasts several gorgeous women. Can our beloved planet, and its female hottie population, possibly survive this bloodsucking behemoth and its odious enabler?

Loaded with satire and silly homages: THE TWILIGHT ZONE, PSYCHO, THE FLY, etc., this movie is a showcase for tongue-in-cheek, DIY filmmaking. Is it preposterous? Yes, in a great way!

P. S.- Be sure to watch the end credits to discover the fate of a certain scientist, as well as to see some spectacular dancing!...

Plan 9 and Birdemic rolled into one

[cromwell_316 · 1/10 · 26 April 2015]

Okay, so I can only assume that the previous review was done by someone who was more than a friend or else they confused Insectula with a real movie.

The movie (loosely using that word) is what you get when someone has an old camera lying around and thinks what a good idea it would be to make up a script to surround themselves with some nice looking girls who have been fooled into believing they will see their name in lights.

Appalling acting, sound, camera work, effects, script, lighting, and did I mention acting and sound.

Now I like terrible movies, no matter how absurd the concept, but this stretches the limits, Plan 9 was bad, Birdemic a master class in how not to make a movie, but to their credit they knew that and were the perfect accompaniment to go with booze (and anything else) for a night in to have a laugh. Insectula will ensure you never have friends around again.

Officially unwatchable

[Coventry · 1/10 · 3 November 2022]

Not once, not twice, but three times I tried watching "Insectula!". I always gave up after approximately half an hour. The fourth time I did finish it, although I must admit I was mostly occupied with checking random things on my phone or gazing at how my cat drank from her water fountain, because even that is more fascinating than this darn thing. So, four attempts, that makes "Insectula!" officially unwatchable. For me, at least, feel free to check for yourself, in case you have absolutely nothing better to do with your life.

I'm so fed up with reading how people claim this film (and similar ones) is "deliberately bad". They are not deliberately bad; - they are just plain bad! If you want to make a deliberately awful movie, then don't stuff it with endless and pointless padding footage, and incomprehensible monologues. It's even worse when "fans" start claiming it's a homage/throwback to Sci-Fi and horror from the 50s. That's literally insulting everyone who ever worked in the Sci-Fi and horror film industry of that decade. Finally, spreading messages about climate change and global warming is an admirable initiative, but if you're doing it via godawful movies like "Insectula!", the message will never land.

Now, I know flicks like "Insectula!" have - for reasons my simple mind fails to comprehend - a lot of loyal and diehard fans. In other words, I'm expecting a lot of non-useful votes for this review. Go ahead, I don't care. I appreciate that you are friends or family of the guy who made this (sorry, I honestly can't refer to him with terms like "writer" or "director") but it's unwatchable, and he should find a new hobby.

Wait, there was... No, just no. Don't even bother...

[paul_haakonsen · 2/10 · 9 June 2018]

Sure, when I sat down to watch "Insectula!" I knew that his was not going to be a massive Hollywood blockbuster. In fact, I knew that the chances were that this movie was going to be a low budget and most likely a horrible one. But hey, on the odd chance that this might be a creature feature that would impress, then I sat down to watch "Insectula!".

I managed to endure 35 minutes of this ordeal that passes for a movie. Then I gave up. I just simply had enough, and I wasn't entertained in any possible way.

"Insectula!" had laughable CGI effects, which weren't really doing anything to help along the movie in any way.

There was some really wooden and rigid acting from the cast. And while there weren't any famous people on the cast list.

"Insectula!" had no plausible script or storyline, and there just was nothing of any worth to be witnessed on the screen.

I gave up on the movie out of complete and utter boredom, and do not intend to return to finish the movie.

Who is rating this movie so highly?

[smdst35 · 2/10 · 4 February 2022]

I tried. I did. I'm always willing to give low budget movies a chance and I love a good creature feature. This is not that. The tone is all over the place. It can't decide if it wants to be campy or serious so it winds up falling on all sides. The acting is painful. The gore is just over the top, and not in a fun way. None of the characters behave like actual human beings and their relationships are never explained (who are Hanna and Yasmine to the detective? Girlfriends? Daughters? Random hookers?). We slip into bizarre dream scenarios or episodes of insanity. There's a scientist (?) who seems to randomly remember he's supposed to be putting on a fake German accent. And I guess there's also a giant bug from space? This movie isn't fun, or funny, or even entertaining. It's stupid and gross and a total waste of time. There are some great no budget horror/sci-fi films out there - like Evil Dead or Bad Taste. Don't waste your time on this.

Campy indie spoof

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 24 February 2018]

INSECTULA! is a typically cheesy indie comedy monster spoof in which characters are menaced by a killer giant mosquito. It has a good and gruesome gag at the opening involving a severed head floating down a stream but that's about it. The story is full of the usual campiness and overacting from amateur performers who bring new meaning to the phrase 'tongue in cheek'. Plot elements include a mad scientist, a buxom woman, laboratory scenes, and lots of gooiness. It's cheap, trashy, and not very good.

Fun

[arfdawg-1 · 6/10 · 1 May 2015]

The Plot:

A giant alien mosquito-type insect is drawn to earth from the CO2 pollution in search of blood.

Del, a government agent, loses loved ones to the creature and is on a personal vendetta while the Dr. Kempler is captivated by it and attempts to help the creature cleanse the earth.

The one bad review here is just idiotic. This movie is intentionally bad.

It's a throwback to Plan 9 and it does it very well.

A great late night find.

Epic motion picture....wait, wrong movie, sorry

[Das_Fenster2000 · 1/10 · 8 May 2023]

This movie, I'm not even sure how to even attempt to write a review. I guess the star of the show would be Del's mustache because you can't take your eyes off of it. It changes from scene to scene, it's hypnotizing. For a movie made in 2015, it has a 1970's feel to it in the way it was filmed, in the sleazy cast of nobodies who have no business being on screen, to the weird sexual stuff and finally the god awful effects. If you've read this far, watch this movie at your own risk. It's a big ol' nothing of a film that when it's over, you will be left with nothing but lost time you will never get back.

Horribly good

[kondamin · 8/10 · 5 May 2015]

There is a lot going on in this movie, if everything had been worked out a bit more it could have been a TV series with a bigger plot and more realistic fleshed out characters than netflix daredevil.

But I was very tempted to stop watching a minute in to the movie. For some reason they opted to make it look as if the movie was shot on worn out VHS tape. Lucky for me I got over that, somehow they managed to do everything so wrong in a manner that kept me interested, entertained and in wonderment how they managed to get people to play and the roles they played.

I enjoyed it.

Yes, VERY silly... Yes, a bit too long, but with moments of cleverness and hilarity... Blu-ray: Very Good A:8 V:8

[lathe-of-heaven · 6/10 · 26 October 2017]

Okay, every other reviewer here has gone into the story, so I won't do that here. And YES, it appears once again that we either have dubious gushing 10 star reviews, or people completely dumping on the film, as usual...

Sooooo... Look, the 'movie' such as it is is very, VERY silly. And, the only real criticism that I have is that if the film makers had simply trimmed away about 15-20 minutes of the parts that weren't so funny, THEN you would have really had a great film! (Well, maybe 'great' is a bit strong...) But, you would have had a really tight, fast paced, MUCH more funny film in my lowly and wretched opinion. There are entire sequences that I thought didn't work that well and could have easily been eliminated (like the segment with the plane, and some of the military stuff, and more) I get it though... You are a first time film maker and you are all excited to put in EVERY bloody idea you can think of into the movie. Sure, understandable. But, that is part of ultimately being a good director, is KNOWING exactly how the movie comes across to your audience and how to maximize the entertainment value of it. Just takes experience, I guess.

Anyway, some of the parts were just hilarious, especially with the doctor. He had such a GREAT deadpan delivery. And good ol' Del... Man, WHERE the hell did they find these people?! There were honestly some VERY good conceptual shots and atmosphere here too, which I feel really shows the talent and potential of these guys. I mean, there were some REALLY lovely shots and some great little snippets in there, such as the 10 second part about how the doctor got the name for the creature. Awesome! But, unfortunately, by keeping in so much additional blah material, I felt that it sadly diluted the excellent parts of the rest.

So, I would say, that first of course, if you 'get' what they are doing here and accept that at face value, that is a good start. But, if you like really serious-faced, deadpan, SILLY humour, then there is a chance that you might find this little film kind of fun.

(Honestly, I really feel like going in there and editing out about 20 minutes of it myself, because I'm pretty SURE that after doing that, you would have a truly great, funny little movie here!)

In a world where creepy old men score with beautiful young women...

[max_e_lemberger · 6/10 · 21 March 2020]

This movie was better than I thought it would be. Great special effects. A tribute to the old fashioned Saturday SCFY/Horror classics. It's got more cheese than the state of Wisconsin and more blood than Red Cross. At 1hr 44min its' a little long but other wise a great escape from COVID-19 and ironically, tongue in cheek a cautionary tale of nature gone off the rails.

Bad Insect! Bad!

[Chris12955 · 8/10 · 16 June 2015]

Insectula parodies and pay homage to many B and Z science fiction films, and it pays off. This is surprisingly well done for a low budget film made independently over many years. Does this mean it is Citizen Kane? No. It is, however, one crazy fun ride, replete with INTENTIONALLY bad dialogue, cheesy effects, absurd circumstances, excessive fake blood, and strange performances. The actors must have known they were making this kind of film.

The movie follows Aldo Delbiondo(known as Del) on a quest for justice for his girlfriend's murder. So the suave, sexy, middle aged, pudgy, short, balding, porn star mustachioed Del uses his clout as an agent for the Environmental Protection Agency to take charge of the FBI investigation into her death. But where would we be if the film didn't goof around a lot more before getting to the big confrontation with the alien killer? Over the course of the film we are treated to more strange and bizarre characters and situations. The alien mosquito looks good for hardly any budget, and there are more special effects than I expected for a labor of love project.

As a native Minnesotan I also enjoyed seeing places I recognized as well. Seeing my own state capital being terrorized by a giant version of what we affectionately call "the state bird," was a hoot. If you do not get a chuckle out of movie cheese, then you will not like Insectula, but if you do, it is worth your time.

Why was the mustache necessary?

[perillomike · 7/10 · 14 March 2022]

So you give your protagonist a laughably fake mustache and then decide to use closeups every chance you get ? Why did his character require a stache ? Also why is he like 70 years old ? I get some older men date younger attractive women but they are usually famous or rich etc. Not a government employee. As for the doctor who keeps forgetting he has an accent, thank you for the topless karate in the mirror scene. As a matter of fact this movie has more topless geriatric men then i ever care to see. Most of the wardrobe was purchased at party city. There are some pretty well done effects along with the standard leas than adequate CGI effects. The acting is as you'd expect from a cast of unknowns. All in all i watched it knowing it was gonna be like this and it held my interest so theres that. Plus you get to see the least erotic pillow fight between 2 hot girls for good measure.

Better than the bad reviews here claim

[scottdou · 7/10 · 15 January 2022]

The opening intro was a nice homage to the corny intro by Criswell to Plan 9 From Outer Space and the rest of the movie was better than I had expected. The quality of the film copy/print was very good as it should be for any modern movie and while the special effects were at times campy, that was to be expected and some were quite funny. The females were gorgeous and the ending was great by making a hero of the nerdy EPA agent.

Fun, Horrific and a Masterpiece of B-Movie Zaniness

[joelthing · 9/10 · 2 May 2015]

Ugly Men, Beautiful Women, Over-the-Top Acting, a Giant Bug, Scream Queens. Mix it all together and you have Insectula! - a Homage to B- Movie Madness from the Wilds of Minnesota, home of the Giant Mosquito. It lands in one of 10,000 Lakes, it finds early victims, the Moustache Man goes on the Hunt, he is intercepted by the Evil Scientist. There's a Pillow Fight (A pillow Fight?!?). Kudos to Mike Peterson pulling it all together in a film that plays wonderfully in your man-cave gatherings and should be a staple of midnight shows across the nation for years to come. It is what it is and it is a fun and bizarre film. And surely a sequel could hatch from the end!

I finally liked one!

[karenLovesMovies007 · 8/10 · 7 May 2015]

I have to start off by saying I dread watching micro-budget movies. I don't know if I ever made it all the way through one, but this one looked like it just might be good.

It was!

I'm not saying it was the greatest movie, it had its problems – sound, timing, confusing plot (maybe intentional?), but overall I was laughing most of the way through. For a micro-budget this is very, very ambitious stuff! This is this guy's first movie, and Hollywood, if you have any sense you will give him a budget because he is your next Peter Jackson. Obviously Peterson has an encyclopedic Knowledge of B movies

Acting came and went a bit, but the FX who I read were all done by the director were decent and clever.

Now this review that wrote Birdemic and Plan 9 were aware of what they were doing but this film was not (!) has got it 100% backwards. I was pretty impressed by the camera-work and lighting and to prove it go to the picture gallery and tell me the interior shots are poorly lit. Give me a break. I can understand that many people won't like this movie, you will ether "get it" or not, but that doesn't make it a 1 star stinker. It clearly isn't.

If more micro-budget indies were like this movie I would be a big fan and I hope some see this and pick up the ball and run with it! At least make another film like this one Mr Peterson

One of my new all time favorites!

[djsleepre · 10/10 · 14 March 2015]

I'm very picky with my movies and I'm a huge fan of silly and ridiculous movies. I was in tears the whole time! I'm going to see it again tomorrow and this film deserves much, much more recognition and I hope it gets what it deserves on a national scale or beyond. After seeing the movie I found out it was filmed in St. Paul and I saw someone who looked like the main character in the movie and it was! He was very nice and allowed me to take a picture with him. Afterward I did a little bit of research on the movie and found out Mike Peterson and his friends and family doing the movie, he even taught himself how to do CGI. I'm going to be bringing as many friends as I can to see it tomorrow. I hope you do really well in theaters this is the best indie film I've ever seen and I can tell you guys put your heart into it. You've got yourselves a hardcore fan and I hope to see more from you in the future!

great fun

[omotamm · 9/10 · 6 February 2020]

Very good movie, seems like you watch something from the fifties. no boring things here!

Another MACROTIGER movie review I Insectula

[MacroTiger · 9/10 · 14 July 2015]

ANOTHER MACROTIGER MOVIE REVIEW !!!

Insectula (2015) MT Rating: 9/10

Executive Summary

An encyclopedia of sci-fi/horror genre. Joins Macro Tiger's list as one of the top four films ever shot in Minnesota. Some sound problems and perhaps excessive CGI marginally reduce watchability. Altogether, very funny, with tons of obscure genre references and inside jokes. The attention to detail that went into the film must have been humungous. Acting very solid. Some very fine camera set- ups, some less-so. Every indie producer/director/writer/crew should watch this film several times. At least one of the cast, A. Cezanne is a potential star.

Plot:

Giant insect from outer-space plops into White Bear Lake and starts stabbing people to death. Apparently some victims become zombies but that's left a little uncertain. Some psychological stylistic elements are introduced, especially with the two main scientists - one of them good, one of them bad, both troubled. This is in keeping with the genre, back then people had great hopes and faith in psychology. I am just old enough to have watched the films upon which Insectula is based on TV as a kid, and I watched them then without irony. I genuinely was concerned with the stomping of a town by the Man Who Grew 7 Feet a Day or the horrible monster destroying Tokyo. I was NOT old enough to have seen these films in the theater.

Actresses :

Yeah. Now you're talking. Others have mentioned the skimpy attire. Peterson et co instincts are on-the-money here. Trying to be a prude with a sci-fi/horror film? No way. I think I might have pushed this even farther, but all in all, Peterson hit the nail on the head here. All the actresses looked great. Arielle Cezanne was gorgeous as lead female. I would not give her an A+ on acting (yet) but she's got charisma and commands the viewers attention, more than can be said for a lot of Hollywood actors. She is a superb choice for this role. I recall an old girlfriend who would pan any movie if the lead female was not absolutely beautiful. Another angle on this is once you've seen the director is not afraid to have his actresses sexy then you know he is capable of doing anything, and that's when you start thinking you might need another bag of popcorn. Nuff said here. Sarah French (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2720796/) and Hannah Hudson receive a lot of air time and look great on film.

Actors :

Sufficiently eccentric and creepy. Well-developed given the restrictions of the genre. I recognized several of these from my films, the great Edel, Thingvall, Gilmer to name a few. All were effective ... and more fully clothed than the ladies. In my films I have all the men fully nude. Some of us go there for our art. Some of us don't. Acting was solid and engaging.

Cinematography :

A lot to be admired here. A lot of clever angles and lighting. Camera movements nice and in keeping with genre. It is evident crew spent a lot more time on some shots than on others. This is understandable. I have no idea what the budget for this film is but without Hollywood money corners have to be cut. I liked the camera work and will study it for my own films. In particular I liked very much the scene in which Dr. Kempler (Harrison Matthews) plays a piece by Rachmaninoff on his piano and contemplates his career. Also the shot of Gen. Ripper at his desk (John Edel) was beautifully-done. I noticed Jon Springer has made a documentary about the Mekons, a group I've been in touch with about a couple things. Give my regard to Ms. Timms, I love Ghosts of American Astronauts.

Costuming :

Very nice. I think I would have dressed the army men in WW2-style uniforms and given them M1 Garand rifles, in keeping with the spirit of the film. Scientist garb is excellent. John Edel as Gen. Ripper (a la Dr. Strangelove?) and Jeff Gigler as Gen. Erickson are superbly outfitted. Of the actors I didn't know I was especially impressed by Christian Hanson's short screen-time as Dr. Banning, a rival scientist.

Set Decoration :

Superb. The laboratory equipment is first rate. I like the old phones. Ihought perhaps the mobile phones should have been dispensed with. Also would have preferred 1960s cars.

Music and Sound :

The music was spot-on. Only complaint is that, on the version i watched, the dialog is sometimes difficult to hear over the music.

SFX and Editing :

I liked a lot of the special effects. Here budgetry concerns bite hard, but I would have liked more physical modeling and less CGI. Editing: now here I will be a hypocrite given the snail's pace of a film I've been part of - the editing appears solid but I would have liked a faster pace in places. A couple more close-ups here and there could have been an improvement, but Im not complaining. Editing on the original scifi/horror films was often spotty.

Miscellaneous :

I liked very much the dancing girls at the end, although really that's a 1970s thing and violates the genre, but I'm not complaining. I engaged the same ending in Land of Sky Blue Water. I can't help adding one nagging issue, I really wish the film had been shot using actual film, perhaps in b&w 16mm, however I realize I am in a small minority here and there may be cost advantages to digital. In short, thanks for the film, Michael Peterson. I enjoyed it greatly and hope to catch it on the big screen. I hope you make a whole lot more!!!