Flashburn

The acting was terrible, the writing was weak and cliche, and the characters were shallow and empty. This was a complete waste of time and money. "Open the bay doors, HAL". "I can't do that, Dave." "Daisy, Daisy, tell me your answer, please." Just nonsense.

This is not a sci-fi thriller. It is a tedious, mawkish 2-dimensional linear script mess.

I'm not sure which film garnered the high scoring reviews under the title 'Flashburn' but I'm pretty sure it was not the one I watched.

Not sure where to start? The story might have been intriguing for a 15 minute short, woefully inadequate for the 90 minute snoozefest. As it stands, it is repetitive and requires far too much 'tell' and not enough 'show' to make things move. The plot reversals are amateur at best, and again, repetitive.

Dialogue is strained, and the 'computer voice over' both annoying and yes, repetitive. The script itself is basic, not a lot of acting skills required, and most of it is delivered in either excited (and repetitive bursts) or wondering monotone.

Production values are as low as one can get, but they did make good use of what they had, most scenes had plastic sheets and diffuse lighting as the backdrop and the empty run down warehouse did create an atmosphere, just not a very good one.

The acting was good, unfortunately limited by both script and dialogue. The two main actors had good range and delivery, their performances giving a weak film some structure.

On a positive note, for those involved in this film, they can only move onto better things.

Would I recommend this film? Hell no.

I just watched this movie and wasn't sure what to expect, but loved it. It was a ride worth taking! Very good storytelling. The acting was great, especially the lead actor. I would highly recommend this movie.

There is no doubt that this could have been a really good movie. With the current situation of several pandemic strains in the world, what seemed like an unlikely situation for humanity, the background of this movie seems quite possible today.

Sean Patrik Flanery is acting above everyone else in the movie, and he have clearly become an AAA actor and even better since the days as Indiana Jones.

The music is awesome, and it was a good idea to spend some extra money of the budget to get a known composer that could capture the mood of the story.

I loved the couple of twists and turns and they capture the slight panic, doubts and handicap of someone with memory loss.

Now , why the low score ?

Everything else in the movie screams " low budget ". I looks like a weekend project by a film student. They clearly had to cut scenes and places to film, by budget reasons, but that means that some dialogue in the beginning of the movie, doesn´t really add up as there probably were some actions scenes that had to be cut. The CGI is also really bad by 1995 standard, even worse today.

Post-apocalyptic stories add an extra level of difficulty in storytelling and to deliver a world that has ended. This movie avoids the cliché of focusing on the circumstances of surviving in this world and rather focuses intrinsically on a kidnapped scientist and his efforts to discover a cure for the monster he created which destroyed most life on the planet. A story of this caliber requires competent direction so the audience can enjoy the story as it is told. Another strong point of this project is the realistic acting of the main character, portrayed by Sean Patrick Flanery; his contribution to the film is essential. His acting is exceptional and speaks a lot for his experience as an actor as well as director Giorgio Serafini's mastery in guiding his actors to achieve what he has envisioned. Overall the film is very entertaining, the story line is both enjoyable and well-delivered, and it is a fantastic source of inspiration to all independent filmmakers.