Zone 414 (2021) User Reviews

Better than most

[Erik_Stone · 6/10 · 7 September 2021]

It's a fun Bladerunner knockoff, but that isn't a bad thing.

The villain wasn't good, across from Guy Pierce, who is a great actor.

It could have been more visceral, but it wasn't. It could have been great, but it wasn't.

Still worth the watch.

Missed Opportunity

[samyoung-82648 · 5/10 · 11 November 2021]

This film has good potential but misses the mark frequently.

The major criticisms are: some average acting (from all actors), linear plot, no connection to the characters, and a desire to push victim mentality throughout the film.

The film is clearly influenced by Blade Runner, however, I would say that it's quite different to Blade Runner as this film focuses mostly on characters rather than creating a detailed world. In theory, this should work, however, the dialogue is mostly exposition rather than giving you a sense of the characters. This isn't helped by average acting.

It's borderline as to whether or not it's worth watching. If I cared about any of the characters, it may be different.

Flawed but interesting

[supermellowcali · 6/10 · 8 September 2021]

Worth a watch for scifi fans. This one was not the right fit for Travis Fimmel (Ragnar Lothbrook in Vikings), whose makeup was even more distracting than the weird Viking accent which seemed fake and melodramatic here. Still, there were some redeeming aspects, including the "brother" played by Jonathan Aris, who stole the show as the most interesting character, and overall a high quality production with a cast of other excellent actors worth mentioning: Guy Pierce, Colin Salmon, Ned Dennehy and Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson, all of whom saving it from being a complete disaster.

A somewhat bland sci-fi thriller...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 16 October 2021]

I sat down to watch the 2021 sci-fi thriller "Zone 414" from writer Bryan Edward Hill and director Andrew Baird. I must say that I took an interest to the movie when I stumbled upon it, as the synopsis sounded interesting enough, and also because the movie has Guy Pearce on the cast list.

However, I should say that I hadn't heard anything about the movie prior to watching it, nor did I even know about it existing. So I wasn't sure what I was in for, nor did I have any expectations to the movie. So I entered the movie with an open mind and a clean slate.

And sure, aspects of "Zone 414" definitely were interesting, but the writing was just inadequate. "Zone 414" just felt like a knock off of the "Bladerunner" movie in many aspects, but at the same time managing to be original enough in its own way. However, for a futuristic thriller, then "Zone 414" just was lacking certain important elements to the storyline and to the overall feel of the movie.

The pacing of the storyline was a bit mundane and somewhat of a struggle to sit through, as there were severe slumps of period of nothing much interesting happening in the plot, and that definitely challenged my attention span of the movie. And the overall lack of futuristic environment and atmosphere, just took away so much from the movie, that was somewhat hard to buy into this being a futuristic movie with androids.

Guy Pearce was definitely nicely cast for "Zone 414" and carried the movie quite well with his performance. I am not overly much a fan of Travis Frimmel, but the way they made him look in the movie with the prosthetics and make-up was certainly interesting, and his performance was adequate, but somewhat diminished next to Guy Pearce's performance.

While "Zone 414" was watchable, it just wasn't an outstanding movie. Nor was it a particularly memorable foray into the sci-fi thriller genre. But if you enjoyed something like "Bladerunner", then chances are you will find something appealing about "Zone 414".

I found the movie to be rather bland, truth be told, and as such, my rating of "Zone 414" lands on a mediocre five out of ten stars.

It wants to be Blade Runner but could not do it

[subxerogravity · 5/10 · 4 September 2021]

Zone 414 had an awesome plot that for whatever reason it could not fully live up to.

The story falls short. It feels like it's trying to be like Blade Runner without ripping it off and it that confusion it lost its way (and still looks like its ripping off Blade Runner) I don't want to crap on the fact that this movie looks cheap but it does. Very little cyberpunk in the visuals even though the story is engulf in it.

Not really bad but just not worth the time.

Thinks it's smarter than it is...

[AnotherPersonInTheWorld · 5/10 · 3 September 2021]

They tried to make a clever sci fi movie, they gave it a solid shot using all of the existing common tropes, but it doesn't go anywhere. There is nothing new, nothing novel, nothing interesting or unique.

You have seen it before and you have seen it done better. It's a mediocre forgettable movie that won't leave you any richer after seeing it.

Slow burn Neo-Noir. Not for everyone.

[bails0bub · 7/10 · 5 September 2021]

This is not a perfect movie by any means, however it is better than several of the harsh reviews it seems to be getting.

One reviewer even said "worse than 5th element", which seems like a odd comparison (also, who hates 5th element, and is into scifi?).

If you are at all into Neo-Noir, it is well worth the watch. A bit predictable, and not exactly cyberpunk. More near future I suppose. But maybe that is because of us inching closer and closer to a high-tech dystopia.

You've seen it all before and better

[ChungMo · 4/10 · 3 March 2022]

Nothing here that hasn't been cribbed from other movies about dystopian futures and/or robots being exploited by depraved humans. Perhaps a few rewrites and some added action would have saved this. The actors are clearly up to the task but not when asked to present such indifferent material. Some good lines are peppered throughout but there's clearly not enough script so the movie has to fill the time with way too many atmospheric shots. This works when we haven't seen something like this before but not when the sources are so obvious and been around for 30 years.

SF Noir

[Pairic · 7/10 · 12 December 2021]

Zone 414: A Blade Runnerish SF thriller set in near future UK. Guy Pearce is David, in the Deckard role and at one stage kills an android but that isn't his real job. He's hired by a billionaire to track down his missing daughter, Melissa. Matilda Lutz is a pleasure model android, more advanced than most, philosophises a lot about her predicament, sees a counsellor. But Lutz is no passive victim, she aids David when he arrives in Zone 414 where humans and android are allowed to interact. Thus begins a dark journey where both human and android life don't count for much. Olwen Fouéré is suitably sinister as the madam for the pleasure models. The budget wasn't quite high enough to achieve a full Cyber Punk aesthetic in Zone 414 (or the cities) but it's suitably run down and grim . A couple of plot twists and some rather violent scenes. Directed by Andrew Baird from a screenplay by Bryan Edward Hill. Saw it on Virgin Media Movies. 7/10.

Watch it with an open mind.

[LuckeyMick · 8/10 · 13 September 2021]

I feel like most of the "It's a Blade Runner rip off" reviews on here were written by people that went into the viewing of this movie with an already jaded attitude towards it and the mindset that it simply could not compare to some of the deep and compelling futuristic sci-fi movies of this genre that have some before.

That being said, if you watch this movie with the mindset that you'll take it for what it is, and enjoy the excellent acting of Guy Pearce, than you might be pleasantly surprised.

This movie is obviously low budget, but hides it well with some decent actors, a few cool special effects and a reasonably well written story line. It paints itself as a bit of a cerebral movie in the fact that if you do not listen to all of them dialogue, you will definitely miss important plot points. Zone 414 is dark and brooding with well placed theme music to accentuate the mood in many of the scenes.

Anyways, my synopsis is: Is it great? No! Is it good? Yes! Guy Pearce doesn't make a bad movie, and this film deserves more of a chance than it's gotten so far. Worth a watch.

Could've been much better, but still better than I expected.

[Top_Dawg_Critic · 7/10 · 8 September 2021]

This film had some amazing eye candy filler - especially for having a low 5m budget, but the story needed more substance and better pacing.

This is director Andrew Baird first full length feature film, and he did great. For an international (Irish) low budget indie film, it was better than some recent big budget Hollywood blockbusters I've seen lately. The cinematography by James Mather was outstanding, and even made basic inexpensive sets feel like that post-apocalyptic grungy future one would expect.

The 98 min runtime felt a little long with the slow pacing and progression of the story. The writing by Bryan Edward Hill had some plot and technical issues with some convoluted dialogue, and the screenplay could've used some tweaking by a seasoned writer. Had the film been cut down to about 85 mins with faster pacing, and/or had more grit and suspense with a little more character development, this could've been a cult classic.

The score I found to be excellent, especially for a B grade film. It was fitting, and certainly set the look and feel of the film appropriately. The performances were great by all, especially Fimmel, but I felt Pearce's character could've used more expression and energy.

Overall I did enjoy this better than I expected. I just wish that the story had some tweaking that could've made this great. It's a well deserved 7/10 from me.

If reviews use expressions like "have an open mind", "read between the lines" or "slow burning", you can be pretty sure it's bad.

[StarbucksBatman · 4/10 · 5 November 2021]

It's clearly visible that the budget was very low, but at least the story should have compensated for that but it didn't. Very uninteresting and very slow.

The acting from Guy Pierce is decent as expected, but you cannot tell the same about the others.

Not even a good time-waster!

[fmatt99 · 4/10 · 5 January 2022]

A truly uninspired film with absolutely no one or nothing to hope for except that this waste of money would end.

This is the sort of thing Netflix is built for. It is s a time-waster.

The production value is good. The actors do their jobs. Hiring Guy Pearce to lead the boring caste was reasonable. But in the end what would happen if the Robots were unleashed on mankind?

West World has already answered that question.

I won't watch this again.

If you are bored and love the 80's

[alexleizerovichcoaching · 6/10 · 4 September 2021]

This movie is a ripoff from movies like Blade runner etc. It has that wacky 80's vibe. The problem is the story and the characters are half baked. It was supposed to be a detective story but the mystery was done bad. The only character that was good is Jane. Frankly I hope the actress appears in better movies. Guy pierce's though guy persona works for me, but the writing for his role wasn't great.

falls short of what it attempts

[ivko · 5/10 · 4 January 2022]

Zone 414 desperately wants to be Blade Runner. It outright copies numerous elements including the dystopian view of a future where humans can build intelligence but cage it to service our darker passions, the gloomy atmosphere where civilization seems trapped in perpetual night, even the anachronistic use of outdated machinery alongside futuristic technology that suggests a kind of sociological stasis despite wonderous scientific achievement. But for all it mimics, Zone 414 fails to recreate the moody, thoughtful experience of Blade Runner.

Part of that is in the casting, as the Blade Runner franchise benefited from some of the top talent in Hollywood. Part of it is from the lower budget of Zone 414 that doesn't allow for the same level of set design and special affects. But the biggest part of it comes down to the fact that Zone 414 doesn't tread any new ground. When Blade Runner was released it struggled to find an audience because it presented an unusual take on the future: it presented a world where mankind had accomplished feats we can only dream of, but instead of Han Solo and Princess Leia it presented only a world of broken and unhappy people desperate for something that their society seemed to have lost. Instead of science making our dreams come true, it had instead stagnated and isolated us.

Zone 414 very much implies a similar future, but instead of a fresh take it feels trapped by its inspiration to recreate the same dynamics, right down to the leads being a broken couple who ultimately find the only solution is to run away together hoping to find something better together than what life handed them individually. The problem this created for me is that if the movie is so directly copying another, better creation, what is the point of it?

Anyway, that's my impression of the movie. I found it mildly interesting at parts but mostly kind of dull. The basic plot, for those who are interested, is a future in which hyper-realistic human androids have been developed. Their cost makes personal ownership prohibitive for all except the one percent of the one percent, but a city entirely populated by androids, Zone 414, has been created where the merely rich, as opposed to the filthy rich, can visit to live out their personal fantasies. The inventor and industrial tycoon who owns the city hires former detective David Carmichael to find his daughter who has disappeared in the city, and connects him with the most advanced android model, Jane, that lives in the zone, to assist in the search.

David is a salt of the earth type who doesn't care for androids and doesn't see them as sentient beings while Jane is so advanced that she finds herself tortured by her existence as a disposable object of entertainment for humans. It's not quite a love story, but each of them seem drawn to the other by qualities they possess. The movie follows the pair as they solve the mystery of the missing girl, which has a very anti-climactic and unsatisfying conclusion, and gradually open up to one another about their tortured pasts.

The movie ends on kind of a 'meh' note, technically sewing up loose ends but in a very minimal fashion. If sci-fi interests you you might find it an interesting diversion for an hour or two, but probably don't count on it becoming a favorite.

Pretty good

[hawaiialin · 7/10 · 2 January 2022]

Low budget, yes, but lots of good action, in depth acting that makes this worthwhile to watch. Loved it. Lead characters all have solid performances, and the ending was perfect, something that can't be said of so many over budget flops.

It's a grower. Guy Pearce keeps it above water.

[amesmonde · 9 January 2022]

Private investigator David Carmichael is hired to track down a missing person and teams up with an advanced humanoid A. I. to guide him through Zone 414, a dangerous city of robots.

With echos of Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 in terms of themes, director Andrew Baird and writer Bryan Edward Hill offering hits a sci-fi nerve. With heavy sound design, accompanied by Raffertie's edgy music, Baird delivers an atmospheric moody piece with some great locations, sets and effects.

Thanks to James Mathe cinematography (even if a little clinical at times) it has interesting visuals. It tries to find it's own identity, but by default finds itself emulating some classics. Which isn't a bad thing, when it's upfront and paying homage. Beneath some of the light theatrics of Zone 414, it borrows from the aforementioned films and some elements are reminiscent of; or in the vein of: Vice, Split Second, Cherry 2000, Westworld, Nirvana and The Machine to name a few.

The cast are solid enough, Jonathan Aris is on form and Olwen Fouéré leaves an impression, but like actors Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson and Colin Salmon they are sorely underused. Travis Fimmel is almost unrecognisable under make-up and has fun hamming it up as the filthy rich eccentric Marlon Veid. Antonia Campbell-Hughes who plays multiple versions of the same A. I. deserves a mention. Even though void of big action setups lead Guy Pearce offers plenty of weight and credence to the production and stops Zone 414 becoming a trope filled old hat. There's also a good performance from Matilda Lutz as emotional A. I. Jane.

Sadly, leaving some interesting character beats until late in the game takes the edge off the twists and turns which hampers the pay offs. Editor Tony Cranstoun's pacing is in keeping with the somber tone, but the handful of inserts of David Carmichael's interview is debatably unnecessary, and may have sat better chronologically.

Overall, it's a grower, it tries to give superior sci-fi thrillers a run for their money and certainly surpasses the numerous low budget CGI driven science fictions that find there way to VOD streaming platforms.

Abysmal Blade Runner rip off

[radhrh · 3/10 · 5 September 2021]

Guy Pierce stars in this low rent detective tale set in the world of Blade Runner. Excruciatingly slow, nothing very much happens for most of the movie and when something does happen it's predictable. Give this one a wide berth.

This is not a Bladerunner Rip-off. It's True Affinity is as an Adaption of Issac Asimov's Literary Scifi Classic "THE NAKED SUN" from the "ROBOTS OF DAWN" SERIES.

[jmasseysr7 · 9/10 · 18 September 2021]

This is not a Bladerunner Rip-off. It's True Affinity is as an Adaption of Issac Asimov's Literary Scifi Classic "THE NAKED SUN" from the "ROBOTS OF DAWN" SERIES. Asimov's meta-themes of a Dystopian future where mankind has technologically evolved to the point in which androids have supplanted humanity's societal hierarchy of needs to seek out human companionship and presence has given way to absolute social isolation. Physical presence of others has become literally taboo. And it is Asimov's detective protagonist android partner who possesses the last vestiges of human qualities as humanity creeps ever so further into depravity of amorality especially in it's off-world colonies...

It's okay, not good, not great... but could have been.

[darthpax · 6/10 · 4 September 2021]

I found almost every element in this movie just slightly undercooked. The director has done well to hide an obvious low budget but where it suffers is in the story elements. Obvious comparisons to Blade Runner aside it is not a good detective story, they go here, they go there, they meet whacky weird characters, but no real sense of intrigue or suspense. The main character is a half baked unoriginal copy, the a.i. Character is done well but again, nothing original innovative or different, though very well acted. It was just so very MEH, when the bones were there for something surprising and different i am left knowing i will forget it very soon.

the Mandela Effect

[A_Different_Drummer · 3/10 · 6 September 2021]

In a parallel universe someone took this same story and these same actors and made a good movie. But not this universe. Pearce at 53 is a still a reliable lead. And Fimmel, if you want him to, can chew up the scenery with the best of them. Avoid this at all costs, especially the soundtrack.

Bland

[CaptainHamhock · 3/10 · 14 March 2022]

There is simply nothing here to point out as a high point or redeeming feature. It seemed like a low budget film more often than not. There were hints of a good idea now and then, but nothing was done with them and they all faded into bland quickly and quietly. The 'self aware' robot idea could have been explored, but was simply used as a plot point that the viewer is expected to just accept and move along.

Final word? Skip.

Another AI

[jeroduptown · 4/10 · 7 December 2021]

Pearce is in robot city investigating a missing girl; and he gets a female AI to help. It's not great sci-fi or great drama...the topic's been extensively done...and done better.

I just don't care - Meh.

[thejdrage · 2/10 · 3 January 2022]

OMG! What are Guy Pearce and Fionnula Flanagan doing in this snoozer of a dark ............ slow ............... loud dark music movie. I have no idea. I have watched 52 minutes with 46 long dark miserable minutes left. Can't finish it. Won't finish it. No reason to. While at least I know why he's there, I don't care that he's there. Don't care about the girl he's after and certainly don't care about her lovely father. And he has this so called bad-guy East Coast sounding non-descriptive accent (Long Island? Bronx? Queens?? I don't care!). I don't care about anything in this movie at this point. So, I'm shutting it down and going to have a nosh and try something else. Not knowing the ending will not keep me up at night - nor during the day.

Flawed but gripping sci-fi noir

[queensowntalia-515-400783 · 7/10 · 7 December 2021]

Slow out of the gate and at times slightly confusing, but great world-building and visuals. One part sci-fi, one part detective noir, and one part horror; while the film has obvious parallels to Blade Runner, the plot is different enough to let it stand on its own.

Positives: mostly pretty solid acting and a decent script, GREAT sets, and intriguing cinematography that incorporates recorded video segments and dreamlike flashbacks that enhance the horror feel.

Negatives: one OUTLANDISHLY cartoonish character. I did not understand the purpose of depicting him in such a manner. Fortunately his scenes are relatively minimal. He's so grating, though, he might turn some people off entirely.

Overall this is a pretty solid sci-fi mystery well worth checking out!