Before coming to the IMDb to write my own user comments for "The Beyond", I had a feeling there would be a sharp divide in the opinions people before me wrote. I was correct - some people liked the movie, but there were other that despised it. Though I am one of the people that liked the movie, at the same time I will admit that it isn't perfect, containing some flaws that kind of hold it back from full impact. I liked that the movie was a more thoughtful than usual science fiction movie. It feels much more realistic than what you usually get in this kind of movie. There are some intriguing ideas sprinkled throughout too that give this some kind of original feel. And the special effects are very good. However, I will freely admit that the movie is extremely slow and mostly uneventful for the first hour or so. Things do pick up in the last half hour, though even then the movie seems to be taking its sweet time quite often. This movie is definitely not for audiences craving action and a fast pace. I still liked the movie despite its snail-like pace and lack of excitement, but at the same time the narrative could have used a bit more juice and action. The bottom line is that the movie does have features to be appreciated, but it's mainly for very patient viewers who are not craving popcorn entertainment but instead a more cerebral tone.
418 Reviews
The Beyond: Has its heart in the right place
Platypuschow1 April 2019
When an anomaly is detected in space and a possible alien life force makes its presence felt on earth the worlds best scientists take to finding a solution.
For some reason I took to the reviews on this one, I searched for the word "Propaganda" as I had a sneaking suspicion that some people might consider this movie as such. Let me be clear, it's not.
What I did find however was a lot of criticism over the films science aspects which I find rather laughable as this is a science fiction movie for crying out loud!
Filmed entirely in the form of a documentary its an interesting creature but certainly not for anyone seeking action. This is a very slow paced movie and considering the subject matter and the documentary approach that's how it needed to be.
The concept is a solid one, the sfx are ropey but passable but sadly the film isn't without its flaws. It struggled to engage me, the cast were very underwhelming and though the finale was great it's also very unintentionally depressing despite trying to be hopeful.
The Beyond is niche, I appreciate what they've done and totally understand how many will love it. On the flipside (And based on the reviews) I can also see why many hate it, though they clearly went in expecting something different altogether.
Want aliens, laser battles and action? This isn't for you.
The Good:
Strong message
Some nice ideas
The Bad:
Several plot holes
Drags, probably would have made a better short
For some reason I took to the reviews on this one, I searched for the word "Propaganda" as I had a sneaking suspicion that some people might consider this movie as such. Let me be clear, it's not.
What I did find however was a lot of criticism over the films science aspects which I find rather laughable as this is a science fiction movie for crying out loud!
Filmed entirely in the form of a documentary its an interesting creature but certainly not for anyone seeking action. This is a very slow paced movie and considering the subject matter and the documentary approach that's how it needed to be.
The concept is a solid one, the sfx are ropey but passable but sadly the film isn't without its flaws. It struggled to engage me, the cast were very underwhelming and though the finale was great it's also very unintentionally depressing despite trying to be hopeful.
The Beyond is niche, I appreciate what they've done and totally understand how many will love it. On the flipside (And based on the reviews) I can also see why many hate it, though they clearly went in expecting something different altogether.
Want aliens, laser battles and action? This isn't for you.
The Good:
Strong message
Some nice ideas
The Bad:
Several plot holes
Drags, probably would have made a better short
visually arresting, but...
urthpainter6 September 2018
The beyond is not a unique film, borrowing elements from Robocop, Europa Report, and other movies that strive for that real looking (but fake) documentary look. Robocop and Europa Report? Must be a good movie then, right? Wrong!
This movie drifts from idea to idea, and when it borrows - it forgets to borrow the most important film quality: Entertainment. I think this movie might be a good watch for people who multitask while a movie is on. Because whenever you take this movie in, there is generally something of visually interest. But actually sitting down, focusing and absorbing the content? One is pelted with a lot of unfocused ideas that kinda tell a story regarding future exploration and alien contact.
If there is one thing I really like about this movie is the optimistic take on the unknown, in this current era of intense social cynicism.
Ultimately though - I felt the film lacked a clear narrative, lacked consistent pacing, and has marginal success in terms of casting, acting, directing.
not unwatchable, but imo an average 5/10
This movie drifts from idea to idea, and when it borrows - it forgets to borrow the most important film quality: Entertainment. I think this movie might be a good watch for people who multitask while a movie is on. Because whenever you take this movie in, there is generally something of visually interest. But actually sitting down, focusing and absorbing the content? One is pelted with a lot of unfocused ideas that kinda tell a story regarding future exploration and alien contact.
If there is one thing I really like about this movie is the optimistic take on the unknown, in this current era of intense social cynicism.
Ultimately though - I felt the film lacked a clear narrative, lacked consistent pacing, and has marginal success in terms of casting, acting, directing.
not unwatchable, but imo an average 5/10
At least grammar check your script
robinssa-9850720 August 2018
Lots of potential wasted here. There are neat cgi and cyber-human tech but the writing is ploddingly dull and inept. I was constantly being snapped out of suspension-of-disbelief by words used incorrectly, either miswritten or not picked up by the director editor.
Mysteries are perplexing, not complexing. Things that live forever are immortal, not mortal. You rose through the rank, you didn't 'rised'.
And everyone is so faux detached and pseudoscientific. Little or no emotional connection to or from anybody.
Dull as a congressional hearing.
Mysteries are perplexing, not complexing. Things that live forever are immortal, not mortal. You rose through the rank, you didn't 'rised'.
And everyone is so faux detached and pseudoscientific. Little or no emotional connection to or from anybody.
Dull as a congressional hearing.
A+ for visual effects. And F for everything else.
S_Soma11 January 2018
Question: What sort of movie do you get when you have a visual effects supervisor write, direct and edit his own movie?
Answer: Why, THE BEYOND.
Hasraf Dulull, the writer, director and editor of THE BEYOND has a well established career as a visual effects supervisor and in many other roles generally revolving around visual effects. And, truth be told, the visual effects in THE BEYOND are superior in almost every respect. As one professional reviewer noted, Dulull is quite expert in executing visual effects "in ways that make the movies feel bigger than their budgets". Dulull has very much succeeded in making THE BEYOND "LOOK" like a science-fiction summer blockbuster. Unfortunately, THE BEYOND fails in every other aspect of professional moviemaking.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Dulull can't write, can't direct, and pretty much can't do anything else effectively when it comes to moviemaking OTHER than create superior visual effects. The storyline is appalling, any grasp of basic physics is missing entirely (sort of a failing in a science-fiction movie...), the majority of the acting is stiff and wooden at best, and so on. Glacially slow, THE BEYOND is literally painful to watch. Adding insult to injury, the movie concludes on an incessantly preachy note that is all but unstomachable.
I know that brutally negative reviews are not well received on IMDb and that this review will be condemned as "unhelpful". But this movie is what it is and one would have to lie to say anything else.
So A+ for visual effects and straight F's across the board for literally everything else for THE BEYOND.
Answer: Why, THE BEYOND.
Hasraf Dulull, the writer, director and editor of THE BEYOND has a well established career as a visual effects supervisor and in many other roles generally revolving around visual effects. And, truth be told, the visual effects in THE BEYOND are superior in almost every respect. As one professional reviewer noted, Dulull is quite expert in executing visual effects "in ways that make the movies feel bigger than their budgets". Dulull has very much succeeded in making THE BEYOND "LOOK" like a science-fiction summer blockbuster. Unfortunately, THE BEYOND fails in every other aspect of professional moviemaking.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Dulull can't write, can't direct, and pretty much can't do anything else effectively when it comes to moviemaking OTHER than create superior visual effects. The storyline is appalling, any grasp of basic physics is missing entirely (sort of a failing in a science-fiction movie...), the majority of the acting is stiff and wooden at best, and so on. Glacially slow, THE BEYOND is literally painful to watch. Adding insult to injury, the movie concludes on an incessantly preachy note that is all but unstomachable.
I know that brutally negative reviews are not well received on IMDb and that this review will be condemned as "unhelpful". But this movie is what it is and one would have to lie to say anything else.
So A+ for visual effects and straight F's across the board for literally everything else for THE BEYOND.
Awesome potential, but fell into a hole.
mozmugo10 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie started off with an awesome premise. From the intro leading on you could feel a building sense of suspense as to what would happen next.
But after about 20 minutes, it started suffering from the 'stop and go' nonsense that so many shows cannot seam to get rid of. Stop and go meaning spurts of activity and things happening followed by talking about feelings and other irrelevant things that don't really add anything to the story-line.
Then the end of the movie fell into the second worst cliche that has ever befallen Sci-Fi movies since way back when. 'They must have seen something in the human race worth saving.' That is LAZY Hollywood. LAZY. It completely killed the ending of the movie.
Intro: 9/10 Development: 6/10 Cinematic: 6/10 Plot: 4/10 The Climax: What Climax? The Ending: Heavens no
Should you watch it? Well, are you bored with nothing else to do?
But after about 20 minutes, it started suffering from the 'stop and go' nonsense that so many shows cannot seam to get rid of. Stop and go meaning spurts of activity and things happening followed by talking about feelings and other irrelevant things that don't really add anything to the story-line.
Then the end of the movie fell into the second worst cliche that has ever befallen Sci-Fi movies since way back when. 'They must have seen something in the human race worth saving.' That is LAZY Hollywood. LAZY. It completely killed the ending of the movie.
Intro: 9/10 Development: 6/10 Cinematic: 6/10 Plot: 4/10 The Climax: What Climax? The Ending: Heavens no
Should you watch it? Well, are you bored with nothing else to do?
NOT a film for those who need intense action
dj_pike12 January 2018
I found the film to be very interesting despite having flaws and a pretty slow pace. If you are someone who needs constant action and drama, then this film is probably not for you. I'm not the type of person who typically cares as much for the more artistic visual side of a film (as it's usually more about the plot for me)...but I will say that it seems the visuals were done by some pretty talented people. I'm assuming it's pretty low budget so a great job was done in that department. The acting was also pretty decent too...not amazing but definitely decent with the dialogue they had to work with. Overall the film isn't going to blow anyone's mind, but if you don't have A.D.D. and can handle a slower pace you might just be intrigued by the mystery presented in this film.
expositions over narrative
SnoopyStyle27 May 2018
Gillian LaRoux is a leading manager in the international Space Agency based in London. One day, an anomaly in space appeared over the sky and they name it The Void. Assuming it to be a wormhole, the agency is preparing a secret mission to explore the phenomenon. They use an experimental cyborg project where human brains are implanted into a cybernetic body called Human 2.0.
This is Arrival without Denis Villeneuve or 2001 without Kubrick. I don't know anything about writer/director Hasraf Dulull. He seems to have a few interesting ideas and some special effect skills although he has no skills in story telling. This is a movie layout by expositions more than a plot and any character development. First, Dulull introduces Gillian but she goes into the background. Every character does the same thing. Nobody has a personal story. Nobody sticks. It's just as well since these are day players. None of them has great charisma. The narrative is mechanical only to lay out the plot such as there is one. While I like the ideas and final reveal, this needs a story and fleshed out characters.
This is Arrival without Denis Villeneuve or 2001 without Kubrick. I don't know anything about writer/director Hasraf Dulull. He seems to have a few interesting ideas and some special effect skills although he has no skills in story telling. This is a movie layout by expositions more than a plot and any character development. First, Dulull introduces Gillian but she goes into the background. Every character does the same thing. Nobody has a personal story. Nobody sticks. It's just as well since these are day players. None of them has great charisma. The narrative is mechanical only to lay out the plot such as there is one. While I like the ideas and final reveal, this needs a story and fleshed out characters.
Nice story but shooting it like a documentary wasn't a good idea.
deloudelouvain11 April 2020
The Beyond deserves a higher rating. I wasn't totally satisfied myself, thought it could have been much better, certainly with the potential it got. The story is well written, and by that I mean the plot, it's an interesting topic, futuristic but entertaining nonetheless. The problem I have with it is the fact it's filmed like a documentary, to me that was just a big mistake. The acting isn't bad though, neither are the CGI's. It's just too bad they made it look like a documentary, it slows down the story a couple of times, could definitely have used a faster pace. The idea was there and for that Hasraf 'HaZ' Dulull did a good job, he has interesting ideas, it's just the execution that could and should have been better.
'Shakey-Cam' seriously detracts
jennielbrow11 January 2018
I'm only ½ way through, but I need to stop and take a break.
Several scenes are happily on tripod, but the handheld scenes
are nearly un-watchable. Why is shakey-cam still a thing ?
And why zoom-into-focus on nearly every scene ?
Clearly intentional, because simple editing could have done away
with that. Anyway, the premise (so far) is interesting and looking
forward to see where it goes.
Smart SciFi appreciated here.
rwitmer-2242626 February 2018
I'd describe this as a bit of Arrival and Contact, maybe some 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you enjoyed those movies you may enjoy this. If you didn't don't waste your time, go see the latest comic book movie.
I love these hard SciFi type movies, but they are few and far between. Always rewarding to find a gemstone like this.
I love these hard SciFi type movies, but they are few and far between. Always rewarding to find a gemstone like this.
Films don' thave to be blockbusters to be enjoyable
boydapeters20 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
You know what, this wasn't too bad at all. I think it tried to be something else (ie Interstellar) and maybe decided that half way through when it had dragged on and maybe they didn't know where it was heading.
In any case, persevere, if you have free time watch it. Don't be afraid to fast forward through some interpersonal dialogue, in the scheme of the movie most of it is not material. I've watched a lot worse and been entertained. If you like sci-fi, and a bit of mystery, drama and arthur c clarke, why not. Also, its a positive film and this works well in this one.
Give it a go if you can enjoy these kind of films you won't be disappointed. Actually you'll probably be uplifted after
Its not a blockbuster but it is entertaining, and family friendly content
Dull, but beautifully made.
Sleepin_Dragon25 August 2018
The Beyond is without a doubt one of the most boring films I've sat through in ages. I expected a sci fi thriller/horror, and instead got ninety minutes of dull scientific gobbledegook. So little happens, which is a shame as the ideas and concepts are huge. The acting is decent rather then good, it doesn't feel like a B movie in terms of acting, just in terms of everything else. The reason why I haven't scored this a two or three is because of the production values, this is a beautiful looking film, with some fantastic special effects, it looks like money was put into the production.
Overall it's not bad, it's watchable, mainly for the effects. 5/10
Overall it's not bad, it's watchable, mainly for the effects. 5/10
"new look" jiigle camera work makes me sea sick!
lapratho8 June 2018
Ok directors and producers, get this: I am not the only one who is sick and tired as well as sea-sick from your constant abuse of jiggly camera work. Was there no tripod in the budget? But of course there is something different happening here. This jiggle camera work was initially pushed in the 80s for advertisements to make them look like documentaries, as well as to keep the observer's brain busy trying to constantly correct the undue motion of the camera. This allows to sell anything and brainwash people into consuming yet another thing they do not need, or get them to vote for the worst possible political candidate, etc. I sampled the entire length and the jiggling never stops. This tells me you are trying to sell junk. I refuse it.
Script sounds like it was written by a machine learning algorithm.
rorymatthewsea20 August 2018
No joke the worst film I have ever seen. And I have seen some terrible movies.
Cliche after cliche, trope after trope, boring character after boring character. Drawn out build up with no pay off. Terrible acting, barren dialog, stolen ideas, mediocre visual effects.
Just a really awful, terrible movie. No hate to the director or anyone involved, it just was not good. Absolutely staggers me that this film is currently at 5 stars.
Please do yourself the service of avoiding this.
Cliche after cliche, trope after trope, boring character after boring character. Drawn out build up with no pay off. Terrible acting, barren dialog, stolen ideas, mediocre visual effects.
Just a really awful, terrible movie. No hate to the director or anyone involved, it just was not good. Absolutely staggers me that this film is currently at 5 stars.
Please do yourself the service of avoiding this.
The visuals were better than usual indie, but...
billking666624 August 2018
This was a horribly done movie. you can hear the cheap echo of low budget audio. The actors were terrible and seemed to be normal people trying to act like important people.The science was awful, as they seemed to think dropping terms like string theory, dark matter and wormhole would glue sci/fi fans to the screen, but without actual science behind any of the buzz words used, with the possible exception of the wormhole, which everyone knows is a intergalactic shortcut. The bad science, unexplained questions and loose ends are too many to count.
This is the kind of Arthur C Clarke-esque, positive Sci-Fi film with big bold ideas we need to see more of!
pentiumofborg9 January 2018
The trend towards deeply unpleasant themes in screen adapted science fiction over the past couple of decades has been lamentable and I must say, compared to all those noisy, grimy coloured (what IS is with all those muted colours? Digital really is extremely limiting. Give me Technicolour Film any day) action filled noisy trashy crowd gut pleasers, this was a breath of fresh air. Sure the effects were terrible, lots of potentially beautiful procedural particle effects inexpertly compositied under (with no apparent plan or reason) other jarring and unsuitable procedural effects but the essential core of the films' narrative was engaging and the ideas interesting. A good little sci-fi, if you like your sci-fi science-like. Of course it won't stand up to deep scientific scrutiny, but then again, what does?
Where to start.......
jrees-7759521 August 2018
I am a big fan of high concept sci-fi films with big technical well realised ideas. This isn't one of those films.
To start with it looks like it was made on someone's laptop with a budget of £50. Badly photoshopped photos of the cast as astronauts appear early in the film, and that gives a clue as to the quality of what follows.
Badly acted, badly written (what does "complexing" mean - should that be "perplexing" by any chance?!), no chemistry, no acting ability, no believability.
Others have said they like the ideas in this film, but everything on show here has been lifted from other films and books - 2001, Interstellar, even Robocop to name but a few. That would be forgivable if it works, but it really doesn't.
And the ending... words fail me.
All I can say is this film left me irritated and disappointed.
To start with it looks like it was made on someone's laptop with a budget of £50. Badly photoshopped photos of the cast as astronauts appear early in the film, and that gives a clue as to the quality of what follows.
Badly acted, badly written (what does "complexing" mean - should that be "perplexing" by any chance?!), no chemistry, no acting ability, no believability.
Others have said they like the ideas in this film, but everything on show here has been lifted from other films and books - 2001, Interstellar, even Robocop to name but a few. That would be forgivable if it works, but it really doesn't.
And the ending... words fail me.
All I can say is this film left me irritated and disappointed.
Imaginative story line
dasreich15 February 2018
Well worth watching
masterquack2 September 2018
Really liked the concept and style of the movie.
This is not an over-acted "Hollywood style" blockbuster film, but a well thought out and interesting movie.
This is hard science fiction, not science fantasy.
If you are looking for lots of fast action and explosions then this is not for you.
If you want a film that actually makes you think about what is possible , then sit back and enjoy.
Interesting concept, with way too many inconsistencies that ultimately hurt the movie
petar-9430816 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
High concept science fiction movies will always draw negative attention, because we have to make up for impossible science with movie magic. And like many movies before it, The Beyond tells an interesting story, but shoots itself in the foot by raising very interesting questions and never answering them.
We're presented with the characters, a bunch of scientists giving video interviews. The movie is made in the style of a documentary. The scientists mention early on in these interviews that the recording is for internal distribution, and not for the public, which explains why they openly talk about things that they maybe shouldn't be talking about. So far, so good. The interviews are believable for the most part, but each time one of the scientists explains a very complex problem in ridiculously vague and simple terms, it kind of throws you out of it for a moment. The movie definitely knows how to pull you in by presenting very interesting issues, but then stumbles around them until you're left wondering why they even bothered bringing it up. The visual effects are sub-par, but this is clearly a movie about science, and not visual spectacle. Bad CG doesn't distract too much. I will fully support any filmmaker who attempts to make a movie about science, and I'm fully aware that not everything can be The Martian, Sunshine or Interstellar.
The acting is alright. I want to mention that David Bailie and Nigel Barber did great, in particular, but the script is dodgy and you can actually see them struggle with it.
I have three problems in particular with the story in The Beyond. Beware of spoilers from here on.
1. A wormhole appears near Earth. The humans send probes into it, but the moment the machines "cross over", the signals dies. They catch a glimpse of a planet on the other side (There is a BS explanation about some of the signal making it out before the immense gravity cuts it off. I don't know how that would work, it made no sense to me) so naturally, they decide to send humans. However, David Bailie's character explains that humans would get spaghettified when nearing a singularity, that this wormhole cleary is based around. So they put a human brain into a super slick looking suit that they call Human 2.0. No joke. A big part of the movie is about them tweaking and developing this suit and its connection to the brain inside of it. But I didn't understand WHY the suit was necessary. A singularity doesn't care if you're made of meat, metal or Lego's. If you think it would spaghettify a human, then it would spaghettify a human brain inside of any kind of suit, as well. How the hell does this suit stop the wormholes gravity from tearing everything we send into it, atom by atom?
2. The wormhole has absolutely no effect on the Earth. This thing orbits near the ISS. We see an astronaut get pulled into it early on, so we know it's really damn low and close to the planet. Wouldn't its gravity mess a lot of things up on the surface? They mention nothing about the properties of this thing, but since they're afraid of spaghettification, it can't be safe to have it in close orbit around our planet. Right?
3. When all is resolved, the movie concludes by sort of claiming that these Human 2.0 things are a next step in human evolution. A new planet appears, and the suits (with brains in them) are sent to colonize and explore it. Humanity modified itself and is starting over on a new planet. Basically, something you'd read on a futurism or transhumanism WordPress website. It's just.. I'm not buying it, at all. I literally have no idea what these suits are or why they're the next step in our evolution. Evolution is based around small and incremental improvements that help a species thrive. Just because we put a brain in a suit, doesn't mean anything's been improved. The suit loses senses, and just seems like it would need maintenance over time. No healing properties are ever mentioned. There are way too many mysteries about this central issue in the story.
I liked the idea here. I just wish they sat down and fleshed out the science a little bit. It's way too simple and it jumps over full-stop problems without explaining them properly (and in some cases, at all). What really made me sad is that I can see a lot of hard work put into this movie, to make it look as believable and real as possible, only to have it all fall apart once you realize that the science - the central point of the whole damn movie - is just... terrible.
We're presented with the characters, a bunch of scientists giving video interviews. The movie is made in the style of a documentary. The scientists mention early on in these interviews that the recording is for internal distribution, and not for the public, which explains why they openly talk about things that they maybe shouldn't be talking about. So far, so good. The interviews are believable for the most part, but each time one of the scientists explains a very complex problem in ridiculously vague and simple terms, it kind of throws you out of it for a moment. The movie definitely knows how to pull you in by presenting very interesting issues, but then stumbles around them until you're left wondering why they even bothered bringing it up. The visual effects are sub-par, but this is clearly a movie about science, and not visual spectacle. Bad CG doesn't distract too much. I will fully support any filmmaker who attempts to make a movie about science, and I'm fully aware that not everything can be The Martian, Sunshine or Interstellar.
The acting is alright. I want to mention that David Bailie and Nigel Barber did great, in particular, but the script is dodgy and you can actually see them struggle with it.
I have three problems in particular with the story in The Beyond. Beware of spoilers from here on.
1. A wormhole appears near Earth. The humans send probes into it, but the moment the machines "cross over", the signals dies. They catch a glimpse of a planet on the other side (There is a BS explanation about some of the signal making it out before the immense gravity cuts it off. I don't know how that would work, it made no sense to me) so naturally, they decide to send humans. However, David Bailie's character explains that humans would get spaghettified when nearing a singularity, that this wormhole cleary is based around. So they put a human brain into a super slick looking suit that they call Human 2.0. No joke. A big part of the movie is about them tweaking and developing this suit and its connection to the brain inside of it. But I didn't understand WHY the suit was necessary. A singularity doesn't care if you're made of meat, metal or Lego's. If you think it would spaghettify a human, then it would spaghettify a human brain inside of any kind of suit, as well. How the hell does this suit stop the wormholes gravity from tearing everything we send into it, atom by atom?
2. The wormhole has absolutely no effect on the Earth. This thing orbits near the ISS. We see an astronaut get pulled into it early on, so we know it's really damn low and close to the planet. Wouldn't its gravity mess a lot of things up on the surface? They mention nothing about the properties of this thing, but since they're afraid of spaghettification, it can't be safe to have it in close orbit around our planet. Right?
3. When all is resolved, the movie concludes by sort of claiming that these Human 2.0 things are a next step in human evolution. A new planet appears, and the suits (with brains in them) are sent to colonize and explore it. Humanity modified itself and is starting over on a new planet. Basically, something you'd read on a futurism or transhumanism WordPress website. It's just.. I'm not buying it, at all. I literally have no idea what these suits are or why they're the next step in our evolution. Evolution is based around small and incremental improvements that help a species thrive. Just because we put a brain in a suit, doesn't mean anything's been improved. The suit loses senses, and just seems like it would need maintenance over time. No healing properties are ever mentioned. There are way too many mysteries about this central issue in the story.
I liked the idea here. I just wish they sat down and fleshed out the science a little bit. It's way too simple and it jumps over full-stop problems without explaining them properly (and in some cases, at all). What really made me sad is that I can see a lot of hard work put into this movie, to make it look as believable and real as possible, only to have it all fall apart once you realize that the science - the central point of the whole damn movie - is just... terrible.
Fake documentary style with plenty of setup and no knock down
shirtlessbearfighter26 August 2018
An hour into the movie and I realized that the "exploring other worlds/interacting with aliens" bit wasn't in the cards. An hour about the laughable mechanics of merging humans with machines and the only interaction with actual aliens or other worlds was a series of glorified lava lamp/ink drop in water graphics and a bit of POV footage of someone wandering around a Scottish bog, complete with that garbage "digitized footage glitch" trick low budget filmmakers use to try to obscure the bland or unconvincing subject matter being shot. I'm frankly pissed at myself for waiting until the end for some kind of payoff, and I am a guy who has a huge capacity for enjoying low rent scifi. This is like Annihilation, if 85% of the movie was before they finished choosing the team.
Good visuals, no story, horrible dialogs.
support-3628712 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The Beyond
The movie The Beyond consists of some nice CGI-imigary alternating with utterly poor and boring interviews with people explaining or commenting on what they/we just saw. Humanity has just experienced two mind-blowing events, a wormhole appearing in Earth's orbit and hundreds of huge, black, indestructible, threatening spheres hovering only a few hundred meters over the ground, spreading fear. A major, though classified, breakthrough in science. A person (I don't remember the name and do indeed not care) has made the ultimate sacrifice to make a dangerous journey from which there might be no return. Altogether potentially fantastic stuff. One thing potentially more exiting than the other. However, all potentiality is killed by repeating interviews like this: The boss of the person sits down with her own daughter, telling her, there was an incident with a rocket and the person, a friend to the daughter, died. The daughter wonders whether it was necessary that the person was on the rocket and the mother says yes. And then they hug. 60 seconds, embarrassing to watch, boring and pointless. And to really kill every slight expectation that this movie might improve further on, we are now treated with an interview with the mother in which she confesses that it was hard to lie to her daughter. Well, her acting was poor, but not so poor that we missed that, since it was indeed the only point of that conversation and we had been warned in advance about its content several times earlier. Another pointless 20 seconds wasted. That conversation could have been deep, discussing ethical, political, social, economic, environmental or psychological implications both on a personal and a global level. The Beyond, however, has no depth, no story, no characters to care for and I do not understand why it comes to that. Many will disagree when I say there is no story. However, a STORY is not putting events, scenes or images back to back and let them run, but to put them together into a CHAIN that pulls you from start to end. It is extremely expensive to make all this CGI and action stuff, to build models, some of them real life, design, animate and render them. Scenography, makeup, costumes, all the small details. While it costs practically nothing to write a good story and dialog that even a mediocre actor can perform convincingly. There must be thousands of writers who would happily work for free to get a chance to show their talent. Why do so many filmmakers underestimate the importance of a good story and well crafted words or gestures? It would have been much more touching if we had only seen the daughter crying in the arms of the mother/boss for 10-15 seconds. The face of the mother showing guilt and shame for the lie and pain she causes, fighting with the excitement to send the person on to the journey. We would have cared. No words and no triple explanations needed. If that was to much to demand from the actors, shoot it from 10 meters, no faces visible, zooming in on some picture of person and daughter at the beach, fallen on the floor. All this CGI-action-s**t is really boring without the tension of human emotion and conflict. 6 points for the visuals, 3 for the actors, non for the script, gives an average of 3.
The movie The Beyond consists of some nice CGI-imigary alternating with utterly poor and boring interviews with people explaining or commenting on what they/we just saw. Humanity has just experienced two mind-blowing events, a wormhole appearing in Earth's orbit and hundreds of huge, black, indestructible, threatening spheres hovering only a few hundred meters over the ground, spreading fear. A major, though classified, breakthrough in science. A person (I don't remember the name and do indeed not care) has made the ultimate sacrifice to make a dangerous journey from which there might be no return. Altogether potentially fantastic stuff. One thing potentially more exiting than the other. However, all potentiality is killed by repeating interviews like this: The boss of the person sits down with her own daughter, telling her, there was an incident with a rocket and the person, a friend to the daughter, died. The daughter wonders whether it was necessary that the person was on the rocket and the mother says yes. And then they hug. 60 seconds, embarrassing to watch, boring and pointless. And to really kill every slight expectation that this movie might improve further on, we are now treated with an interview with the mother in which she confesses that it was hard to lie to her daughter. Well, her acting was poor, but not so poor that we missed that, since it was indeed the only point of that conversation and we had been warned in advance about its content several times earlier. Another pointless 20 seconds wasted. That conversation could have been deep, discussing ethical, political, social, economic, environmental or psychological implications both on a personal and a global level. The Beyond, however, has no depth, no story, no characters to care for and I do not understand why it comes to that. Many will disagree when I say there is no story. However, a STORY is not putting events, scenes or images back to back and let them run, but to put them together into a CHAIN that pulls you from start to end. It is extremely expensive to make all this CGI and action stuff, to build models, some of them real life, design, animate and render them. Scenography, makeup, costumes, all the small details. While it costs practically nothing to write a good story and dialog that even a mediocre actor can perform convincingly. There must be thousands of writers who would happily work for free to get a chance to show their talent. Why do so many filmmakers underestimate the importance of a good story and well crafted words or gestures? It would have been much more touching if we had only seen the daughter crying in the arms of the mother/boss for 10-15 seconds. The face of the mother showing guilt and shame for the lie and pain she causes, fighting with the excitement to send the person on to the journey. We would have cared. No words and no triple explanations needed. If that was to much to demand from the actors, shoot it from 10 meters, no faces visible, zooming in on some picture of person and daughter at the beach, fallen on the floor. All this CGI-action-s**t is really boring without the tension of human emotion and conflict. 6 points for the visuals, 3 for the actors, non for the script, gives an average of 3.
What an utter pile of garbage
urstoryz20 May 2018
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
