Ejecta

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".

I'm all for low budget film with an original, well thought-out idea behind it. What I'm not for is a lod budget flick that tries to play in a big league by adopting every possible cliche punchline to drag out the below expectations reveal in the end. As previously pointed out, the interrogation scenes are fillers and a waste of time.

Overall, solid acting (I'm genuinely interested in seeing the lead actor in a good movie) and sub-par, cliche-riddled plot/mystery and dialogues, making the movie a waste of time for anyone already neck deep into the sci-fi genre.

Come on! If it doesn't have a budget of hundreds of million of dollars it's a bad movie? The IMDb rating is way too low for this film.

It is not perfect, that I admit, but it is far from bad. I think the worst part of it was the interrogation room. They used some weird tech and they made a great effort to explain that no one knows how it works, only what it does. It had absolutely nothing to do with the story. Also the psychopathic doctor cliché went a little bit too far and for no good reason.

It basically played out like an over extended Outer Limits episode sans the budget. Lots of annoying clichés were used like the evil shadowy government organization, the humanoid alien that makes cameras fizzle right when it enters the shot, the found footage bit, the black eyes, etc. However it stops right at the edge of being too much and overall it kind of works.

Bottom line: the ridiculous low budget shows in the special effects, the sets and, unfortunately, the acting quality. The story, though, is interesting enough to keep someone watching and always trying to understand what is going on. I wouldn't recommend it, but I can't tell people off, either. A bit too long for the content, though.

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.

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...