Ejecta

I have to agree with the reviewer Gavin; I think he summed it up pretty well, except in my lowly and wretched opinion, I think he was just a BIT too generous. I ALMOST wanted to give this a '5' because, as Gavin mentioned, the 'Pedigree' of the film. Also, there were some truly effective moments, especially in the last 10 minutes or so. But, in all objective fairness as a whole, I had to give it a '4'.

I also LOVED 'PONTYPOOL'; and I feel it is indeed one of the best Horror films to come out of Canada and certainly is a perfect example of how to make a VERY effective Horror film with very little. I think that in this case, if they wouldn't have tried to go so much with the 'Found Footage' type delivery (although I can understand why, maybe, because of the obvious, severe budgetary restraints) and instead spent some more time developing substantial dialog for the interview between the blogger and the main guy (for example 'THE INTERVIEW' - in that case, almost ALL of the film is the questioning of a guy by two cops. But, it is VERY effective - I think they should have used that approach instead of all the wasteful running around in the forest, etc.)

Also, maybe I am in the minority here, but I absolutely could NOT stand the woman who played the military interrogator. Seriously Gawd-frigg'n-Awful. I absolutely HATED her little cutesy approach; it was horribly clichéd and painfully corny, especially for one SUPPOSED to be in a high-level military position. If she had just played it VERY straight and disciplined, as a military individual WOULD have, then that part of it at least would have gone better. Also, perhaps if they had just cast a coldly beautiful woman in that role, again playing it STRAIGHT without all the nauseating cutesy stuff, I really do think that would have gone a LONG way to improving the film. Now, I'm NOT talking about some Barbie Bimbo with large breasts (not that there is ANYTHING wrong with that :) But, just a good-looking, but steely cold woman, and with MUCH more incisive dialog, THEN I can see that part of the film being a LOT stronger. Think about it... Imagine her coming across as stone-cold and calculatingly efficient, and with MUCH better written dialog. If done properly, I think the sharp contrast between her beauty and amoral coldness could have been quite chilling and effective, raising the hair on the back of our necks instead her inane dialog causing our eyes permanently to roll infinitely far back in our heads...

So, unfortunately since the very two things I mention are pretty much the entire film, I do feel that if they had approached both of those parts in different ways, but still kept all the other story elements and style in place, that REALLY would have boosted the quality of this film and made it FAR more entertaining.

In my opinion, the film makers just took what could have been a decent, entertaining idea, and ruined it with a lazy and stupid approach.

Sad, but I think unfortunately true...

The story of one night on earth that changed everything we know about the universe.

Right off the bat, you have to admire the great casting of Julian Richings ("Wrong Turn") as the sleepless, wiry man with a deep connection to extraterrestrials. His very presence is unnerving, and that is before he opens his mouth. Dee Wallace, a woman who needs no introduction, also appears uncredited and might draw in a few viewers.

There is a loose connection between "Ejecta" and "Pontypool", one of Canada's finest horror films, through the casting of Tony Burgess and Lisa Houle, who both appeared in that film. In fact, Burgess had written the original novel "Pontypool Changes Everything". Even Ari Millen has a strong genre background, appearing in the cheesy (but fun) "Monster Brawl" and the widely popular sci-fi series "Orphan Black".

No surprise, Burgess also wrote this script. Dread Central points out that "Burgess, never one to spoon feed you answers, slides in the subtext in an almost inconspicuous manner, compelling the viewer to truly think about what they just watched." This is true of both this film and "Pontypool", which makes Burgess among the better horror writers working today. He prefers the intelligent scare over the cheap jump, something that will keep his films remembered for years to come.

And also like "Pontypool", the scares are largely auditory and less visual. We know the story involves aliens, but we are left in the dark about how they appear. In "Pontypool", we had zombies, but they were always outside of the radio station and never in front of the camera. Does this trick work twice? Yes, it does.

The downside to this movie, however, is the low budget. Sometimes that can be helped, or worked around. The lack of aliens was a wise decision not just for storytelling but also to keep the budget down. But a few too many scenes look barren, or just lacking something, and this is where it does not quite hit the mark. Faulting a film for its budget may be unfair, but sadly that was the loose link.

This is still worth checking out if you enjoyed "Pontypool". And, by the way, if you have not seen "Pontypool", go out of your way to track down a copy now. One of the best horror films of the last decade in any country, hands down.

I usually like low key, low budget, Science Fiction films, but I could not get into this one.

It just did not have a strong enough story I would expect from a cheap Sci-Fi film.

It's a shame to. Some of the visual moments could have been classic, but the movie itself was not memorable.

It seem incoherent and inconsistent, which would not bother me so much if the movie was either cooler or more horrifying.

Too much was going on and not enough was said.

Not everyone can be Cronenberg. This film proves that. don't go.

17 August 2017. This review offers possibly the only real positive review of this movie. After watching hundreds of science fiction movies and plenty of horror ones too, this movie stands out for being a strikingly different and admirable addition to the science fiction genre. Thank you for a limited film budget. Makes for some daring and experimentally brilliant filmmaking.

What perhaps most vital to even appreciate this movie is to summon up and keep in mind the possible historical dark secret about a Roswell conspiracy cover up and a sinister government discovery of aliens years ago which would lay a reasonable foundation upon which the movie plays out to make sense of what follows.

This science fiction-horror fusion is one of the few successful transformational films. Unlike Event Horizon (1997) that started with a strong sense of science fiction fascination to only descend into a crazily skewed horror motif, Ejecta manages to intermingle and blend The Thing (1979) with creepy intelligence using the riveting found footage technique pioneered with The Blair Witch Project (1999) to offer a dirty version of the clean intensity of The Signal (2014) which Was released the same year as Ejecta. The low budget special effects fit well with the movie's overall cinematic photography, using electricity as well as different rougher textures and darker colors to provoke a strong unique visceral alien intensity. The difficult use of flashbacks captured the sense of chaotic, off-balanced twisting, emotive weirdness all the while maintaining a coherent, intelligent progression of the main storyline.

The only significant weaknesses of this movie occur with the difficulty of managing the overuse of revealing alien presences without losing the scary shocking fear intensity and the almost two-dimensional reaction of one of the characters when faced with the alien unknown.

The performances are outstanding with the odd and strikingly strange William Cassidy character who apparently is experiencing an otherworldly phenomenon who is being interviewed by Joe Sullivan who was mysteriously invited to meet with Cassidy. Julian Richings as William Cassidy offers an award- winning performance with his schizophrenic presentation, striking physical features, and a fascinating personality. Another story is also concurrently presented with a sinister female interrogator, one of the most potent, strong solid female antagonist who is seeking to discover and confirm alien life by any means possible. What occurs then is a back and forth reveal of the entire story while massive ejecta from the sun closes in on earth. While not as fascinating or tight in its scale or glamour as The Arrival (2016), it has a comparable emotional cinematic bite as Phantoms (1998). By the end of the movie there is a puzzling sense of haunting dark balanced satisfaction as the story nears its completion.

Do NOT believe it's under-rated.

It's just plain annoyingly bad.

Clearly a middle school project with supremely ludicrous dialogue. Too many late nights and obvious sleep deprivation leads to ridiculous "plots" like in this film. No common sense, no intelligent or coherent story at all. It's like something written by a teenager overdosed on Red Bull, who has never watched anything but extremely short glimpses of ET, Alien and X-Files. Go spend some time watching seagulls squawking instead, which is much more entertaining and not so annoying as this silly "movie".