dave-70421 Reviews

Self/less (2015)

Great and often emotional action film

[8/10 · 20 January 2017]

I have to completely echo what has been said, just what on earth do so called "professional" or "expert" reviewers expect from a film like this to rate it so bad and moan how it could be so much better etc?. This is a classic and possibly the best example I've seen to say and indicate that we should ignore and disregard the so called "professional" or "expert" reviewers and put more weight onto what the general public movie fans say instead.

For me this is probably the best film I've sen in the last year and I've seen loads. And certainly the biggest difference between what so called "experts" have said and felt myself.

Not to sure on the genre though as it has a bit of everything, action, thriller, drama & even a hint of sci-fi as well as being quite emotional in parts. And either way you see the film going it at least has an ending you cant really find anything to complain about which is a rare thing to see in films these days.

The cast and acting is top notch and with the story pretty much of award winning standard I thought. Story is good, flows well and is easy to follow and get into. Though the sci-fi element is slightly unrealistic in today's world, but maybe more realistic in the next 20 years or so.

For me, a great film, certainly not less than an 8/10 and came close to giving it a 9. So do yourself a favour, ignore the so called "professionals" & "experts" for once and watch what is actually a great film.

The Sector (2016)

Not a good stand alone film

[3/10 · 17 January 2017]

A decent effort for a reported $250,000\£211,000 odd budget.

But, as a standalone film it's rather poor and frustrating as way to much information missing and an ending that makes you feel has the film been incorrectly edited with missing scenes and the last parts missing etc.

In reality it feels more a feature length TV series pilot than a film as clearly it feels and looks to have been a setup for a TV series than a standalone film. Though sadly there seems to be no sign of a TV series being in development so who knows what the intent of this film really was.

If this was a confirmed pilot for a confirmed TV series I could easily have given it a 7/10. But as a standalone film it's fairly pointless and left me feeling frustrated and could not therefore give it any more than a 3/10.

Lost in the Pacific (2016)

Neither bad or good

[5/10 · 17 January 2017]

I feel this was an "interesting" film in neither a good or a bad way. There was something about this budget film that I found interesting and actually wanting to keep me watching it until the end. But to be honest I can't quite work out exactly what it is I liked about it that kept me gripped. Maybe more a film that had a number of elements in just part that I liked than any single element of the film as such.

I didn't think the acting was to bad compared to what others have said. Sure, not great but certainly a mix of characters that I wish the film would have elaborated about each a bit more. Effects were odd at times yet decent at others.

Story was fairly ropey with what I feel was a lack of missing elements such as to the animals creation, the research & researchers and destination of the plane background etc. As well as a few unrealistic situations.

A respectable 5/10 for me as 1 of them films I rather enjoyed yet on paper possibly shouldn't have.

Kill Command (2016)

A great film

[7/10 · 13 January 2017]

Well not perfect, but certainly far better than most budget films out there these days. But without knowing the actual production budget it makes difficult judging or guessing just how budget a film it actually was.

Either way, the CGI was right up there with decent major budget global films in my opinion and lots of detail and efforts in the CGI department. So well done to the CGI people on this film.

Acting was well above average for once to. Story was OK and not to much to complain about even if a lack of real back story. But back story aside and the ending maybe leaves things open for a sequel in the future. As this is 1 budget film that looks good enough to deserve a sequel.

All in all a very solid production.

LA Apocalypse (2015)

Not bad at all

[5/10 · 12 January 2017]

This film exceeded expectations based on the average ratings. At least there is very little padding scenes and the main story and action starts pretty much right away which makes a nice change for these budget films.

And whilst the CGI effects are pretty standard for these budget films these days they still put quite some efforts into showing as much CGI destruction scenes as you would expect in any major disaster film. Which for a budget film was great to see instead of the CGI action light scenes and a more claustrophobic feel you can find in cheap disaster film. You at least get a scale of size with this films.

CGI, whilst quite regular and fairly big scale, they could have tried using more finer particle effects in falling buildings and debris than they did. As it would have given a far great element to detail and realism to many destruction scenes. As I often felt it was almost like watching partially SD effects on HD footage such was the lack of fine detail in some of the CGI effects.

Acting was fairly good, if standard, and the overall story passable. Overall an acceptable TV disaster film that's worth a good 5/10 for me.

Toxin (2015)

Not as bad as rating claims

[4/10 · 12 January 2017]

I often come on here looking at reviews and overall average ratings before deciding on my next film to watch. And I thought I'd give this a try based on having a few known and established actors. And that it has one one the worst average ratings for a budget film I think I've ever seen that I've looked at.

Yet another example of even if below an average film that the IMDb average review rating seems well off. I mean, what the hell are people comparing such films to in order to give such low ratings?. If you want to see a £50-£100 million plus budget film go and see 1 than watch these budget films yet judge these against Hollywood films with countless times the budget. People should try to judge films far more fairly based on a number of criteria.

However, that's not to say this is a great film as it's far from that. A reasonable passable effort at best thats made the best use of getting known and established actors on board that clearly carried and probably influenced the performance of the supporting actors. A shame no budget is stated as always nice to try and base a review against its budget.

At first I thought the film was some ten minutes short (maybe a higher than normal budget to the main stars might explain this). But in reality and on reflection it could easily have been several minutes shorter again due to scenes that had no place in the film and look only to have been put in to pad out the production to get to a minimal film length production.

Had this been several minutes shorter, pointless scenes cut out and more a one off TV special this would have been and felt a much better production. Overall story is not the worst for these films, but not great either.

Sadly another film that had potential yet fell well short even if using established and known actors. Acting overall was good to decent, but more a feeling of more a showcase film for upcoming actors and film makers to showcase their talents alongside established actors.

Stormageddon (2015 TV Movie)

Exciting budget sci-fi action film

[6/10 · 11 January 2017]

1 thing I've learned to expect from budget straight to DVD\TV\streaming type sci-fi films is to not expect to much. But this film actually exceeded most expectations in most areas.

Can't find any real budget info on this film, but they sure did an excellent job of locations for shooting and set\studio pieces. And clearly they put a lot of effort into this aspect and is shows in the resulting film. Acting is well above average for what seems to be unknown actors and they all look to have done a decent job.

Special effects and CGI were for the best part very good and passable for films with much higher budgets. Nice easy story with only 1 irritating aspect, that being no real explanation (unless I missed it during a break) how Adam managed to go back in time or the technology used.

Apart from that, a very polished and decent film with decent action scenes.

The Carrier (2015)

Better than average rating suggests

[6/10 · 11 January 2017]

Certainly not less than a 6 for me this film and to be honest, in my opinion this is a pretty decent production.

Though I fail to see directly where the film's stated estimated £3 million budget comes from or goes as such, unless the cost of using the plane for the main set piece used a big chunk, nothing about this film indicates or shows it to directly be a relatively budget based film. As simply put the production values are great on this film.

The story is fairly solid as is the acting throughout for the best part even if a few dodgy aspects towards the end of the film. Though a better back story to the film would have been good to see even if to add just several minutes more to the running time. Yet another film I fail to see or understand the low average rating for as certainly 1 of the best budget films I've ever seen.

Earthfall (2015 TV Movie)

Can be difficult to watch as a serious film

[3/10 · 11 January 2017]

Not to sure this should be called a sci-fi film as such, maybe more a small budget disaster film than anything.

Certainly nothing great to say about this TV film except acting was acceptable. But feels more like a generic cheaply made Hallmark Channel drama film to fill 90 minutes on a Sunday afternoon than anything.

The given situation that the planet turning on its axis so much and spinning out of orbit and yet parts of the planet pretty much unaffected (barring meteors and weather storms) is highly unrealistic and lacks any scientific basis to the given situation to make enjoying this film really possible. So it makes difficult to accept that there is any believable aspect to this story in any form. Which then begs the question as to the type of audience the film sees its target audience demographics?.

I'm guessing this could be seen more as showcase film for actors and budding CGI artists seeing as there was some reasonable efforts on the CGI front.

Arcadia (I) (2016)

Neither bad or good

[5/10 · 11 January 2017]

Well more an OK film and a 5 from me.

The best part of this film for me was the script and overall story. As the script and story itself was very good, certainly deserving of a far bigger budget and better design and location shooting.

I'm not going to analyze the film scene by scene as clearly there is script padding. But it's a reasonable and thought provoking realistic vision on how some may well eventually envisage the future of mankind in a way in the future when population numbers may well start to outstrip resources to feed it. Conspiracy theorists will say this will happen in the future to try and control the population.

Acting was OK, certainly a miss match of acting abilities between some of the actors (maybe reasons for that as seemed a rushed production at times). Sadly production values, well more the budget was seriously lacking with this film. And what could have been more a 7 out of 10 for me is sadly a more realistic 5.

Approaching the Unknown (2016)

An OK effort

[6/10 · 10 January 2017]

I often fail to see what some people expect when watching films like this to the point of giving highly negative reviews.

OK, it's not a great film at all but certainly not a bad film either. I rather enjoyed it even if lacking any real action scenes as such. But then again, I don't recall reading any claims to any of the film being an action film!.

The spaceship interior was actually rather good for what is clearly a budget film, and clearly some genuine efforts went into some of the set design which was good to see. Acting was OK and story reasonable, overall an average budget film with some above average set design.

Paradox (III) (2016)

Good film for the budget

[6/10 · 9 January 2017]

Clearly this is made on a relative small budget for straight to TV\DVD release, which maybe some should consider if scoring based on films with ten to a hundred times the budget with visuals to match.

So I try to review based more on acting and story. The first 15 minutes or so of acting in fairness did seen rather poor but certainly picked up during the film.

Sadly the time machine itself seemed very unrealistic and I was left feeling they could have put far more effort into that than they did with what seemed like nothing more than a bit of stage rigging that you often see in pop-up form in shopping centers etc when they have "celebrity" appearances etc. However I tried to not let that bother me to much and just try to enjoy what was clearly a budget film. Soundtrack was decent enough and certainly helped with the atmosphere for the film quite a lot so top marks on that.

The story itself was certainly above average for these budget films and no real pointless angles or daft endings even if a very slight twist in the end. Sure, if you over analyze the script and scenes you will find plot holes to complain about quite easily. But it's not supposed to be or claiming to be a factually or theoretically correct on the script front. If your willing to just sit and watch the film without over analyzing or judging it to much based on budget it's quite an enjoyable film to fill 90 minutes.

400 Days (2015)

Not bad at all

[7/10 · 9 January 2017]

Difficult to interpret the second half of the film as most seem to have differing opinions. Anything from script time restrictions, left open for a sequel, rushed production, poor script writing etc etc. But I've a slightly different opinion.

First off, undoubtedly a "frustrating" ending which would not fail to leave anyone with unanswered questions. And certainly unanswered questions such as the injections and how the mouse would have gained entry etc. But to be honest, in my personal opinion I think the script writer was trying to be rather clever in using the second half of the film's script to underline the major psychological affects of such a long space mission in such relative confined and isolated conditions.

And I'm left feeling the outside scene's were more a kind of visual metaphor on the psychological effects the crew were suffering from. As quite frankly, those scenes otherwise served no purpose and this film could easily have simply been a 50 minute drama instead, so those outside town scenes must have had a deeper meaning many may well have missed. I mean, when the hatch opened at the end, clearly there was strong light entering so maybe as said, a visual metaphor on the psychological effects that if ending the film with a welcoming committee outside the hatch, would have made the outside town scenes even more frustrating and pointless to some viewers I'm feeling.

And as for the crew, I'm feeling that maybe there was only ever really 2 of them and maybe the injections were possibly an hallucinogenic drug to help give a false impression of extra crew. But hay, unless the writers care to explain the script I guess we will never know for sure.