Interception (I) (2009) User Reviews

Is this a comedy or something serious? I can't tell.

[dbborroughs · 3/10 · 3 May 2009]

It lists "A Clay Brothers Film" as if that will mean something. Who you may ask are the Clay Brothers? I'm not sure. One, the co director and star John Will Clay was, according to IMDb a volleyball coach in a Hannah Montana movie, a Sailor in Deja Vu and an uncredited groomsman in Elizabethtown. His brother's credits seem to be only this movie. Neither their credits not this film make me think that they'll be the next big thing anytime soon.

The plot of the film has a computer programmer getting the code key for a prototype weapon that was stolen by terrorists. The terrorists need the key to set off the weapon and so the chase is on.

Low budget film might have been something had the script been better, the directing more imaginative and the performances better modulated. The film is such that it looks good and actually reasonably professional (and trust me I've seen a great deal of bad looking films lately) but there is no clear indication as to whether the film is serious or not. Take for example the scene where star John Clay is grilled by a policeman after bringing someone to the hospital. The dialog is incredibly silly in that its of the Dragnet just the facts style of writing. Adding insult to injury is the performance of the actor playing the cop who seems to be mugging to the camera. Clay isn't much better since he seems to be reacting to a scene that is playing in his head and not what is going on in front of him. I wasn't sure if I was suppose to laugh or feel tension Actually I did neither and reached for the remote in anticipation of needing it for a rapid exit. This is just a silly movie. (Its also a film that feels like its a glorified home movie with all the friends and family being brought in to be part of it).

Its a mess.

To be honest I think the heading over the title should be changed from "A Clay Brothers Film" to "THE Clay Brothers Film" since I'm not sure that there will be another.

Not bad for the budget

[aaronjwyckoff · 4/10 · 4 March 2017]

If you're looking for a big budget Hollywood thriller, this isn't it, but for what it is, Interception is not as bad as some other reviews here would lead you to believe. This is one of those films that could easily have been a much better movie, but there were two major flaws. First, too many of the bit roles were done poorly, no doubt by friends of the producers and very possibly for free. In this case, they got what they paid for. There were a lot of stilted lines and just plain poor acting. On the flip side, the lead actors overall did a decent job - not great, and not always consistent, but not horrible, either. The second, and more significant, flaw of the movie was the script. While the actors often did a creditable job of delivering their lines, the lines themselves were not very good, and there were some gaping plot holes, including to some extent the basic premise of the whole film. Amateur mistakes, such as including unnecessary dialogue and a heavy reliance on profanity (nearly 80 instances of f---/f---ing alone), took what could have been an exciting story line and turned it into a sub-par production.

On the other hand, this was far from the worst movie I've ever seen, and had some redeeming qualities. The lead actors showed promise and could have been better with a better script. There were a few twists and several moments of intentional humor that help keep any thriller on track. In the end, not too bad for a low-budget film, but one that could have been much better, even at the same price.

Worst Acting EVER!

[yojimbosblade · 1/10 · 17 January 2009]

Made myself some microwave popcorn in anticipation of watching this movie after seeing the 7.9 score. However, turns out that this is a huge disappointment. A 16 year old media student could do better acting than this.

It's so obvious that all the lines are memorized, the acting and speech is not natural at all. There are also no facial expressions. For example a man about to die speaks with the same volume as the other guys. As a result I stopped watching this after 20 minutes, I couldn't bear it anymore.

I won't even talk about special effects which are terrible but seeing that it's a low budget I won't comment on that. However, the acting is what ruins this movie and deserves a score of 0!

Don't Bother

[forcefire · 1/10 · 17 January 2009]

Reading about this movie it sounded like a decent little action flick but I wasn't expecting it to be this bad. Poor acting, Poor script and bad directing. I was really disappointed with this, given a decent cast and a decent script and someone who can direct then it would have had the potential to be a good all round film. It could have been one of those films thats really good even without a big budget. The camera angles are terrible and the acting was truly terrible, a really shame. The effects where bad and poorly done, the stunts weren't that bad, at least it looked like some professionals were on the set, hopefully the food was better too. I can't Begin to put into words how bad this is, its long, drawn out intro of the film and then a rushed ending really spoiled it and made it hard to watch as it became boring within the first 20mins. After 30mins I could feel my eyes starting to close, it was putting me to sleep. If you have some time to waste then watch paint dry, its more entertaining than this film.

Like watching a high school "theater arts" assignment

[jamyn · 1/10 · 29 January 2009]

The premise of the movie seemed interesting, so I gave it a watch. Unfortunately, the acting was so horrible that I couldn't focus on the movie. This movie will probably stay in my "worst 10" list for a while. Why? The acting is beyond bad - all of the actors exhibit delayed, awkward, or incorrect emotions in almost every scene. It seems like the director/writer couldn't figure out whether they wanted a drama, comedy, or tragedy - so they mixed it all up.

It's a really awkward film with bad directing, acting, and plot. Some movies are so bad that they're funny, but this movie is just painful to watch because it's bad but tries to pretend like it's not.

In short, it's the first movie we've watched where my fiancé has said "We can turn this off if you want - this is horrible." If you want to see what a movie would be like with no real plot and bad acting and directing, by all means watch this movie. If you want to be entertained, however - stay away.

what is this?

[info-15498 · 1/10 · 28 August 2009]

I am really amazed how bad acting can really be, I guess that is an art too... You could not make it worse with the old form of Russian synchronization in movies, where every role is spoken by one (male) person and every sentence begins with "he sais" or "she sais"... Or wait a minute, is it maybe a new form of comedy? Is there a secret award for the worst movies - this would certainly make it to the top. I still really have no clue what it is about, a bomb attack on what by who and what for and... ugh, what is the matter with all the dialogs in the movie? Even first graders have a better vocabulary. But one has to admit, it is really hard to forget such a movie and you couldn't stop watching it either because you just can't believe what you see.

When I watched this movie, the first thought was "Stupid Americans".

[lilita-jpb · 1/10 · 8 August 2009]

In fact, anyone who saw this silliness, was unscrupulous cheated. Potboiler like this, can be mocked up anyone, and then they collect money for tickets... If every nitwit pay to once see this film - authors get nice cash. I agree with all comments before me - there really can see cheap, poor acting, ugly script, plot and bad directing. As I said - stupid Americans. If you have some time to waste... Yes, I agree with "Don't Bother, 17 January 2009". This is a huge disappointment for everyone, who spend his money to tickets or DVD rent... You must sue "Clay Bros. Motion Pictures" - they had You. Really. (Sorry for my grammar, I use Google translator)

It's hard to imagine a worse movie.

[billtomlinson · 1/10 · 30 January 2011]

Most of the other reviewers have it right, but no one mentioned the inconsistencies. Here's a list. 1: There is a disk that will be used to set off or turn off an atomic devise and it has to be encrypted before it will work. Apparently any method of encryption will work. It might make more sense if an unencrypted disk was needed. 2: When the main guy is handcuffed behind his back and not tied to anything, he apparently believes he needs to get un-handcuffed before he can make his break. 3: Similarly, when the girl has her hands tied and mouth taped, that seems to be enough to keep her from trying to escape. 4: The nuclear bomb is blown up with a smaller bomb to disable it, but no one seems to worry about radiation and there is none reported 5: The bad guy wants to blow up a large Colosseum with gobs of people in it so that he can sell the plans for making the device to other terrorists. Are plans what is needed for any terrorist to make a nuclear device? Wouldn't detonating almost anywhere be as good for advertising purposes? 6: When our hero tries to get the water out of the lungs of the lady after going under water, his first attempt seems to be to exert pressure on her neck, not her chest. 7: When they use a card to break in on a Saturday in a highly regarded information center, there is no one on guard. You just need the entry card. Meanwhile the bad guys find a way in without a card. It's never shown how. These were just the things that jumped out at me during the playing. I'm sure that if I were to see it again (not a chance) and looked for the problems, I could double or triple the list. So, if someone ties your hands behind your back and puts tape on your mouth and makes you watch this movie, just walk away.

who is that girl??

[richrankin468 · 10/10 · 11 May 2011]

I am not joking when I give this movie 2 thumbs up. The star of the movie in my humble op ion was the actress who played Sarah. According to the movie credits her name in Ashley Morgan.

I found her performance in this feature to be nothing short of Oscar worthy.. I can't wait for the sequel, I hope there is on.. Ashley was an absolute scene stealer. I found myself routing loudly for her character.

I honestly found this movie very entertaining, I found it accidentally when go ogling the movie Inception.

I now have seen both movies, and dollar for dollar I would rather watch Interception every time.

I mean, I still don't understand the plot of that first movie, I don't know who was asleep and when,or even why the characters kept going to sleep and dreaming more and more dreams.

At least, I could follow the plot in this movie.

I bet dollars to donuts, Ashley Morgan goes on to become a famous actress.

Could become a cult film - enjoyable "fan film" type movie.

[r_william_davis · 7/10 · 8 April 2009]

Hey, give these guys a break.

OK, it's not Die Hard 4.0, but if you consider that it's the first effort of a small group of independent film makers, who wrote, produced, edited, scored, and everything else, it was a truly outstanding effort.

Good plot, and funny acting. Remember how stiff the acting was in the first Star Trek (TOS) movie? "Wrath of Khan" was the next one in the series, and it was maybe the best.

I'm looking forward to their next effort. Remember the first time you did something? You got better the next time, right?

Keep at it you all. Consider the comments here and grow with the advice.

Exciting Independent Film Is A Thriller In The Classic Mold

[jlthornb51 · 10/10 · 18 June 2015]

Independent film makers the Clay brothers wrote and directed this pulse pounding thriller with incredible originality and vision. The influence of Noir and classic Hitchcock and Fritz Lang are evident but the movie still offers something very fresh and new. Also starring John Will Clay in a superb performance that reveals him to be a quite gifted and charismatic actor. Bret Hopkins and Ashley Morgan lend strong support in roles that might well have otherwise been clichés if not for their skillful characterizations. There is high action indeed as the authorities move desperately to recover a prototype weapon that has been stolen and threatens to be detonated. The Clays make excellent use of Cincinnati locations to dial-up the suspense and the chase proceeds at a breakneck pace. Filmed on a meager budget, the lack of money never shows and any deficits in production values are well compensated for through stunning creativity, spectacular visuals, and a sharply written screenplay. This is one of those films that makes audiences truly appreciate the talent and vision of the motion picture independents.

Bret Hopkins and cinematography save this film

[seanmcclure · 6/10 · 26 March 2009]

I came in to this film knowing it was low budget so keep that in mind when reading this.

The Clay Brothers showed promise with better than average cinematography. The final scene on the bridge is a prime example.

The plot was a little cliché', but tolerable. The acting for the most part was sub-par, mainly because it was really their first go-round if I heard correctly. John Will Clay showed flashes of brilliance despite the superfluous number of lines he had in each scene.

Another bright spot in this film was the villain, Jack Bradford, played by Bret Hopkins. When the film was over, I felt like I would be seeing him in a Sundance movie in the near future.

If you want to see future stars in the industry developing watch this film. It's not as bad as the other reviewers say and I think it is in international distribution currently.