Ejecta (2014) User Reviews

Under-rated low budget alien encounter film

[ladybug2535 · 5/10 · 23 August 2015]

A unique and interestingly different approach to the crashed alien space craft/alien contact genre. A take I've never seen before (and I've watched a LOT of these films) which makes it a must-see for any fan. However as it is, it would have been better as an hour long short. That really is it's main problem--not enough story to fill out a feature length film; otherwise it was a very worthwhile effort.

The story was stretched too thin for a feature, but it has its strengths as well; the acting was very good and it did manage to maintain tension despite the relatively slow pace. While it did use a bit of the "found footage" technique, it didn't over do it and how they used it made sense. Plus for those who hate FF, there is only a little (a reasonable amount of) camera shake (I hate that too). The story overall held together, but I was puzzled by why the interrogation was instantly hostile. It would have helped if there had been some kind of indication given--more background shown regarding the person in charge and her over-board hostility, and the explanation would have helped fill out the story. A missed opportunity for real story telling, it comes off as the bones of an idea rather than a full-fleshed film.

Still much better than many of the films of the genre and much better than the 3 rating on the IMDb page. I don't get it; there are far worse films with much higher ratings. Go figure. I was almost tempted to give it a higher rating than I did just to make up for it.

Won't have nightmares, but I sure could watch a few X File reruns!

[joeywilderjustiss · 5/10 · 18 March 2015]

I wasn't completely disappointed with this film. There were a couple of things that really were clever. I wished they would have capitalized on those nuances that were unique and steered clear of the "found footage" filming style. Haven't we had enough found footage films to last a life time? What worked well is the use of real complaints that some of the abductees report; missing memory, showing up in strange places with no way of knowing how they got there, and the sleepless dull pain shrouded in unadulterated fear. That was creepy storytelling. It was a twist to consider the idea something is also controlling some of the visitors just like humans are controlled. Assuming all alien contact is only part of a bigger conspiracy of highly intelligent entities controlling the rest was a bright spot. Dire film with simple special effects made for a solid picture to catalog along with others that make the grade! Quick moving fun!

disappointingly conventional and nonsensical

[david-baril · 4/10 · 9 August 2014]

Being a huge fan of Pontypool and the very bizarre and completely unexpected idea it brought to the concept of zombies, I went into Ejecta expecting the unexpected. Sadly, when the movie ended nothing of the sort had happened but I did get the feeling it tried. The scenario is a weird mix of threadbare tropes and some nonsensical elements with very little connections or consequences between them. The special effects are not as good as some TV shows.

One of the first thing we see is this testimonial from William, the main character of the story, about how aliens somehow came in his head and left something there, something that fills his sleep wit dreadful stuff that is beyond description. The delivery of the interview scenes are as chilling as it gets, but you can only speak of indescribable horror for so long before it starts being just vague. The fake documentary angle works though, and the delicate balance between the interviewer being impressed, skeptical, and a bit scared is well played.

Then the opening credits roll, showing every mythical alien photo we ever saw. It is fitting, because most everything about the alien's appearance, behaviour and obscure motivations does not stray an inch from the established alien lore.

So the titular solar ejecta happens, which somehow makes an alien ship fail and crash on earth... in the woods behind William's house. There is an ellipse, Soldiers are there. William gets shot. William gets captured and interrogated in a bunker. And this is where the situation gets from tense to grotesque, as he is being questioned and tortured by a women that people call "doctor" who is also single-handedly ordering the soldiers, when she's not shooting them in the head to ascertain her authority. I actually enjoyed the way she played fake-friendly and enthusiasm that switches instantly into dark sadistic glee, but I found the amount of multi-tasking a bit unnatural.

See, Dr. Tobin also found the footage of the incident (which has somehow been neatly edited with music in-camera) and is watching it for clues and learning about its content in real time, at the same time the audience is. The tape mostly contains very long chase sequences in the wood and the house. The alien's beastly behaviour and casual nakedness is never adequately explained, they just chase and bully the hero around, staying out of frame and out of light at all times, emitting a wide variety of growls, wails and that fashionable staccato growl every scary creature and movie trailer started making a few years ago.

Meanwhile, in the torture bunker, mysterious gadgets are used and misused with inconclusive results, there is much shouting and unpleasantness. Some weird things do happen at the end, but never really build up to a reveal or help in any way to explain the goal of the alien's actions. In the end there is no mystery, there is just the unexplained.

Eject it

[georgem4 · 1/10 · 23 January 2015]

I decided to watch this film besides the low score. That was my first mistake. It was immediately evident how bad it was going to be but I kept watching with the hope the it will improve later. That was my second mistake. And surely enough I was rewarded with one of the worst endings in the history of cinema.

I am trying to find a redeeming feature for this film. Perhaps Julian Richings's acting was sometimes bearable but I am not sure if it was because of effort or sheer astonishment at the stupidity of the script. Everybody else's acting was as bad as bad acting can get. They almost seemed they were doing this in a foreign language they didn't understand and then dubbed badly into some kind of English.

The storyline was mediocre and predictable. Huge holes in the plot and unexplained behaviour from absolutely everyone made this film quite cringe-worthy. The Blair-Witch-eqsue delivery was laughable and the video selfies *with* light while hiding from monsters in a dark forest were just bizarre.

I don't have this feeling often but after watching this awful, awful flick, I just want back the 77 minutes I wasted on it.

Move on people, nothing to see here...

Disappointing

[robert-h-mercer · 1/10 · 29 January 2015]

Having persevered with this horror movie and that is what it was, a horror right through to the end, I would have said suicide seemed a better alternative. I tremble at the thought of going through that sort of experience again. The plot was terrible, the scenery was infantile in that too much green, supposedly NV goggles? was used and it was repetitive. The editor should not have used the same scenes so often. It became boring. Disjointed is another word that springs to mind. Anyone on amphetamines would probably feel at home. One reviewer said the downside was that it was a low-cost movie. Well, I cannot agree. Nobody in his/her right mind would spend money on this waste of time so that is not really a consideration. My only positive suggestion is that it would have been better named by calling it EXCRETA not EJECTA.

Nah, this is not working at all.

[bbickley13-921-58664 · 4/10 · 28 February 2015]

I usually like low key, low budget, Science Fiction films, but I could not get into this one.

It just did not have a strong enough story I would expect from a cheap Sci-Fi film.

It's a shame to. Some of the visual moments could have been classic, but the movie itself was not memorable.

It seem incoherent and inconsistent, which would not bother me so much if the movie was either cooler or more horrifying.

Too much was going on and not enough was said.

Not everyone can be Cronenberg. This film proves that. don't go.

Avoid this.

[jim-1550 · 1/10 · 20 November 2015]

Do NOT believe it's under-rated.

It's just plain annoyingly bad.

Clearly a middle school project with supremely ludicrous dialogue. Too many late nights and obvious sleep deprivation leads to ridiculous "plots" like in this film. No common sense, no intelligent or coherent story at all. It's like something written by a teenager overdosed on Red Bull, who has never watched anything but extremely short glimpses of ET, Alien and X-Files. Go spend some time watching seagulls squawking instead, which is much more entertaining and not so annoying as this silly "movie".

Some great moments... But, sadly, just that. Moments... An excellent idea, but I feel the acting and writing really bring it down...

[lathe-of-heaven · 4/10 · 12 February 2015]

I have to agree with the reviewer Gavin; I think he summed it up pretty well, except in my lowly and wretched opinion, I think he was just a BIT too generous. I ALMOST wanted to give this a '5' because, as Gavin mentioned, the 'Pedigree' of the film. Also, there were some truly effective moments, especially in the last 10 minutes or so. But, in all objective fairness as a whole, I had to give it a '4'.

I also LOVED 'PONTYPOOL'; and I feel it is indeed one of the best Horror films to come out of Canada and certainly is a perfect example of how to make a VERY effective Horror film with very little. I think that in this case, if they wouldn't have tried to go so much with the 'Found Footage' type delivery (although I can understand why, maybe, because of the obvious, severe budgetary restraints) and instead spent some more time developing substantial dialog for the interview between the blogger and the main guy (for example 'THE INTERVIEW' - in that case, almost ALL of the film is the questioning of a guy by two cops. But, it is VERY effective - I think they should have used that approach instead of all the wasteful running around in the forest, etc.)

Also, maybe I am in the minority here, but I absolutely could NOT stand the woman who played the military interrogator. Seriously Gawd-frigg'n-Awful. I absolutely HATED her little cutesy approach; it was horribly clichéd and painfully corny, especially for one SUPPOSED to be in a high-level military position. If she had just played it VERY straight and disciplined, as a military individual WOULD have, then that part of it at least would have gone better. Also, perhaps if they had just cast a coldly beautiful woman in that role, again playing it STRAIGHT without all the nauseating cutesy stuff, I really do think that would have gone a LONG way to improving the film. Now, I'm NOT talking about some Barbie Bimbo with large breasts (not that there is ANYTHING wrong with that :) But, just a good-looking, but steely cold woman, and with MUCH more incisive dialog, THEN I can see that part of the film being a LOT stronger. Think about it... Imagine her coming across as stone-cold and calculatingly efficient, and with MUCH better written dialog. If done properly, I think the sharp contrast between her beauty and amoral coldness could have been quite chilling and effective, raising the hair on the back of our necks instead her inane dialog causing our eyes permanently to roll infinitely far back in our heads...

So, unfortunately since the very two things I mention are pretty much the entire film, I do feel that if they had approached both of those parts in different ways, but still kept all the other story elements and style in place, that REALLY would have boosted the quality of this film and made it FAR more entertaining.

In my opinion, the film makers just took what could have been a decent, entertaining idea, and ruined it with a lazy and stupid approach.

Sad, but I think unfortunately true...

This is worse than any video on YouTube... not kidding.

[purseldave · 1/10 · 29 July 2016]

I do believe this is possibly the absolute worst movie I've watched in my entire life. As a fan of the genre, I really hate to see this movie lumped in with sci-fi at all. Because it really gives sci-fi a bad rap. Yes, it's that bad. I think the best thing Lisa Houle could do is to try another career. Her 'performance' is the absolute worst acting I've seen from any human being... ever. For this reason alone I just could not recommend that anyone waste their time watching this piece of wasted cellulose. The plot has holes that just cannot be reconciled. The only saving grace in this video is that I didn't have to spend actual money on it. This is just bad all the way around. Don't waste your time.

Communion

[tieman64 · 26 March 2015]

Directed by Chad Archibald, "Ejecta" stars Julian Richings as William Cassidy, a man who has experienced a series of extraterrestrial encounters. Cassidy is visited at his secluded home by a documentary filmmaker, Joe Sullivan (Adam Seybold), who hopes to learn more about Cassidy's encounters.

"Ejecta's" reasonably creepy premise quickly degenerates into needless mayhem. A UFO crashes, soldiers bumble about in the dark and Cassidy is taken hostage by a woman who uses the opportunity to indulge in exploitative torture sessions. Whilst "Ejecta" does have several good scares – most of which find our heroes assaulted by aliens in a wooden house – and does capture several genuinely creepy nighttime images, this is ultimately a poorly written film which panders to low-budget horror conventions. Written by Tony Burgess.

5/10 – Worth one viewing. See "Fire in the Sky" and "Session 9".

Is it a bad movie?

[SamALMan · 2/10 · 6 September 2016]

If you are looking for a general viewing purpose then yes it is a bad movie..but if you are viewing this movie as a science fiction movie then you might enjoy it a little.

a typical sci-fi movie under low budget made it little less than enjoyable for some. It is not that type of movies that keeps you thinking after the movie finishes, but it could feed the fear in some who watch this movie. I find the core story amazing and Julian Richings was good in this movie (his role enhanced the viewing of this movie).

It needs lot of execution improvements but the core story is amazing and freaky! (this movie could be also under horror movies).

If you are a sci-fi fan then you might like to give it a chance.

My rating is 2/10 (2 means it is good for watching once)

A non disappointing movie for me

[KikyNez · 8/10 · 18 August 2017]

I don't do many reviews unless the movie deserve it, and this one really deserve it!

This is a hybrid, no doubt of it. We have a mockumentary within a third person storytelling. I didn't expect much, specially from the rating in this site. I usually don't read the reviews and if I do I take my chances and watch under my own risk.

We watch Julian Richings (an amazing performer) as William "Bill" Cassidy, who is interviewed by Joe Sullivan who is making a documentary of Cassidy because he is famous for his "alien history".

At the same time we see that William is actually imprisoned by military forces leaded by Dr. Tobin, and they intend to torture William with alien devices to reach an answer about all what he knows.

Everything take a twist when we realize that Dr. Tobin is watching the documentary that reveal more than William is willing to. And is more twisting when we found out why William can survive all alien torture devices... I confess it was not surprise at first to me, but then all went freaking unexpected: William is William... and is more than that.

So, I do like this film a lot. The acting of Richings was great as usual, and the rest of the cast try to comply the level with all their acting abilities, not all of them can do it, but is a good work.

The best: I like the opening a lot, the cinematography was good, the setting was pretty decent, the acting was good, the music was awesome, excellent script.

The worst: some scenes are unnecessary and don't match the plot. Some acting is not good in supporting performers (fortunately they don't have much screen time)

8/10

I do recommend this one.

Watch at your own risk ... We are all critics, but must see to give a critic.

Almost excellent low budget film

[siderite · 6/10 · 30 January 2015]

Come on! If it doesn't have a budget of hundreds of million of dollars it's a bad movie? The IMDb rating is way too low for this film.

It is not perfect, that I admit, but it is far from bad. I think the worst part of it was the interrogation room. They used some weird tech and they made a great effort to explain that no one knows how it works, only what it does. It had absolutely nothing to do with the story. Also the psychopathic doctor cliché went a little bit too far and for no good reason.

It basically played out like an over extended Outer Limits episode sans the budget. Lots of annoying clichés were used like the evil shadowy government organization, the humanoid alien that makes cameras fizzle right when it enters the shot, the found footage bit, the black eyes, etc. However it stops right at the edge of being too much and overall it kind of works.

Bottom line: the ridiculous low budget shows in the special effects, the sets and, unfortunately, the acting quality. The story, though, is interesting enough to keep someone watching and always trying to understand what is going on. I wouldn't recommend it, but I can't tell people off, either. A bit too long for the content, though.

Above average acting, garbage plot

[matrix-baker · 3/10 · 16 August 2021]

I'm all for low budget film with an original, well thought-out idea behind it. What I'm not for is a lod budget flick that tries to play in a big league by adopting every possible cliche punchline to drag out the below expectations reveal in the end. As previously pointed out, the interrogation scenes are fillers and a waste of time.

Overall, solid acting (I'm genuinely interested in seeing the lead actor in a good movie) and sub-par, cliche-riddled plot/mystery and dialogues, making the movie a waste of time for anyone already neck deep into the sci-fi genre.

4 out of 10

[lf-877-541627 · 4/10 · 19 April 2015]

Julian Richings is one of the few positive things about this flick, I literally kept falling asleep but tried to stay up hoping for some plot twist to make it more interesting .

It's a low budget movie but instead of making up the lack of funds with creativity 2 things are particularly annoying, the soundtrack at times is so loud it's almost impossible to hear the dialog, the "blair witch" camera work is annoying , please directors all over the world take note, that crap is stupid please stop using it !!!! There are more negatives about this movie but not as annoying as the 2 above, the story is so predictable and save Julian Richings the acting is very very poor feels more like a high school students project than a real movie, maybe that's what it was in which case they did a great job . There is one interesting idea in this story and that is the aliens controlling the subjects.. anyway, again a movie that could have been easily made into a captivating with an interesting plot but the writers decided to stick with a "been there done that" story..

Uh, no.

[kirachloe · 2/10 · 13 September 2023]

If you are in to esoteric movies this movie could be in your wheel house. If you are into movies that entertain, maybe but not necessarily have an actual plot, then you might want to pass on this.

The acting was not bad and the cinematography was adequate, barely. Not sure what other positives I can say. The short cut of all the scenes either being dark (so you don't really need a set) or inside/outside a single house so it can accepted to be hand held ... come one, your audience deserves a little more effort than that. In fact, taking shortcuts seems to be the hall mark of this movie.

This is just not one I can recommend for anyone except a thespian looking to view other someone else's 'profound' study of something.

Finally a Decent Sci Fi Horror Hybrid

[tabuno · 8/10 · 10 January 2019]

17 August 2017. This review offers possibly the only real positive review of this movie. After watching hundreds of science fiction movies and plenty of horror ones too, this movie stands out for being a strikingly different and admirable addition to the science fiction genre. Thank you for a limited film budget. Makes for some daring and experimentally brilliant filmmaking.

What perhaps most vital to even appreciate this movie is to summon up and keep in mind the possible historical dark secret about a Roswell conspiracy cover up and a sinister government discovery of aliens years ago which would lay a reasonable foundation upon which the movie plays out to make sense of what follows.

This science fiction-horror fusion is one of the few successful transformational films. Unlike Event Horizon (1997) that started with a strong sense of science fiction fascination to only descend into a crazily skewed horror motif, Ejecta manages to intermingle and blend The Thing (1979) with creepy intelligence using the riveting found footage technique pioneered with The Blair Witch Project (1999) to offer a dirty version of the clean intensity of The Signal (2014) which Was released the same year as Ejecta. The low budget special effects fit well with the movie's overall cinematic photography, using electricity as well as different rougher textures and darker colors to provoke a strong unique visceral alien intensity. The difficult use of flashbacks captured the sense of chaotic, off-balanced twisting, emotive weirdness all the while maintaining a coherent, intelligent progression of the main storyline.

The only significant weaknesses of this movie occur with the difficulty of managing the overuse of revealing alien presences without losing the scary shocking fear intensity and the almost two-dimensional reaction of one of the characters when faced with the alien unknown.

The performances are outstanding with the odd and strikingly strange William Cassidy character who apparently is experiencing an otherworldly phenomenon who is being interviewed by Joe Sullivan who was mysteriously invited to meet with Cassidy. Julian Richings as William Cassidy offers an award- winning performance with his schizophrenic presentation, striking physical features, and a fascinating personality. Another story is also concurrently presented with a sinister female interrogator, one of the most potent, strong solid female antagonist who is seeking to discover and confirm alien life by any means possible. What occurs then is a back and forth reveal of the entire story while massive ejecta from the sun closes in on earth. While not as fascinating or tight in its scale or glamour as The Arrival (2016), it has a comparable emotional cinematic bite as Phantoms (1998). By the end of the movie there is a puzzling sense of haunting dark balanced satisfaction as the story nears its completion.

Great Pedigree, Less Than Perfect Execution

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 22 January 2015]

The story of one night on earth that changed everything we know about the universe.

Right off the bat, you have to admire the great casting of Julian Richings ("Wrong Turn") as the sleepless, wiry man with a deep connection to extraterrestrials. His very presence is unnerving, and that is before he opens his mouth. Dee Wallace, a woman who needs no introduction, also appears uncredited and might draw in a few viewers.

There is a loose connection between "Ejecta" and "Pontypool", one of Canada's finest horror films, through the casting of Tony Burgess and Lisa Houle, who both appeared in that film. In fact, Burgess had written the original novel "Pontypool Changes Everything". Even Ari Millen has a strong genre background, appearing in the cheesy (but fun) "Monster Brawl" and the widely popular sci-fi series "Orphan Black".

No surprise, Burgess also wrote this script. Dread Central points out that "Burgess, never one to spoon feed you answers, slides in the subtext in an almost inconspicuous manner, compelling the viewer to truly think about what they just watched." This is true of both this film and "Pontypool", which makes Burgess among the better horror writers working today. He prefers the intelligent scare over the cheap jump, something that will keep his films remembered for years to come.

And also like "Pontypool", the scares are largely auditory and less visual. We know the story involves aliens, but we are left in the dark about how they appear. In "Pontypool", we had zombies, but they were always outside of the radio station and never in front of the camera. Does this trick work twice? Yes, it does.

The downside to this movie, however, is the low budget. Sometimes that can be helped, or worked around. The lack of aliens was a wise decision not just for storytelling but also to keep the budget down. But a few too many scenes look barren, or just lacking something, and this is where it does not quite hit the mark. Faulting a film for its budget may be unfair, but sadly that was the loose link.

This is still worth checking out if you enjoyed "Pontypool". And, by the way, if you have not seen "Pontypool", go out of your way to track down a copy now. One of the best horror films of the last decade in any country, hands down.

mediocre flick with simple effects

[trashgang · 6/10 · 6 September 2015]

I can understand that this flick isn't loved by many but now that i have seen it I must say that i liked it, it isn't going to be an Oscar winner but it do offer some good moments sadly it also has a few points that will give you a seen that before feeling.

The story is rather simple and towards the end it's easy to guess what will happen. It's a bit of a slow starter but when it starts it do deliver excellent moments if you are into mockumentaries or shaky cams. If you think you are going to see a flick full of effects, forget it, it flows on the simple thing, if you don't see it it will scare you even more and by adding creeping sounds some will be triggered towards the godfather, Blair Witch Project (1999). What didn't do any good to the flick is the night vision used. It's always the same you see, a gun. But as i said before, it do has a few good points and the red stuff is seen a few times, seen better but also ween worse.

Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

What do they want from us?

[gpeltz · 6/10 · 19 August 2015]

Ejecta (2014) Is a movie, Directed by Chad Archibald and Mat Wiele and it was written by Tony Burgess.It's a Canadian production. Spoiler Ahead. The movie's central focus is on William Cassidy played by Julian Richings, and his sadistic interrogator Dr Tobin, played by Lisa Houle. William had met an alien presence and the nasty Doctor wants to literally get into his head to learn what he would not disclose , Scenes are revisited as flashbacks, each return revealing a touch of new information to the plot. All in all I found the technique to become tiresome after a while, It seemed to be done to conceal a weak plot

.Running in the dark with a night vision lens is a horror movie cliché that deserves to be shot. Amazing how much time was wasted on this repeated segment. Everything else in the movie was done to confuse the plot rather than clarify it. Having seen it once, i would still have a difficult time telling you what it really is about. If I may be honest, some of the dialogue went past me, Why the actors felt a need to whisper their lines when there was no reason in the story for them to do so, is beyond me. Did I miss anything important? If you mean did I miss anything that would make this story make sense, then yeah, I must have missed it.Six out of Ten "they tried" Stars. What do they want? go figure.