NOTE IMDb
5,9/10
7,6 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA university research scientist, about to lose funding and status, has a lab accident and discovers he can see people's true intentions -- making his situation even worse.A university research scientist, about to lose funding and status, has a lab accident and discovers he can see people's true intentions -- making his situation even worse.A university research scientist, about to lose funding and status, has a lab accident and discovers he can see people's true intentions -- making his situation even worse.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 7 victoires et 6 nominations au total
Sridhar Maruvada
- Ram Tambel
- (as Sid Veda)
J. Michael Silver
- Van Tromo
- (as Michael J. Silver)
Avis à la une
Based on the information beforehand, i expected this to be a movie in the style of " Flatliners ", but halfway through, the story went in a entirely new direction.
It became a thriller with heavy tones of philosophy, and a really good one of that.
The movie could have been better with a bigger budget as indoor scenes often seemed " unused " and the lighting seemed crisp but " cold ".
The acting and dialogues were on the other hand outstanding. Friends reacted like friends do, met with extraordinary news. The actors did an awesome job here, and to be honest, the " bad " guy here - had some really compelling arguments on why he had his verion of ethics. I really loved that scene.
In the end, you get many questions to ponder about in regard of society, connections to other people, and ethics.
I saw the movie spring 2021, just when the discussion on patents on life saving medication needed all over the world is at its peak. So we have here a 5 year old film, debating ethics that are more current than ever.
The most unusual thing about this movie, even as a big watcher of movies for many years, i could not see the twist and turns before they happened, and i loved that.
It became a thriller with heavy tones of philosophy, and a really good one of that.
The movie could have been better with a bigger budget as indoor scenes often seemed " unused " and the lighting seemed crisp but " cold ".
The acting and dialogues were on the other hand outstanding. Friends reacted like friends do, met with extraordinary news. The actors did an awesome job here, and to be honest, the " bad " guy here - had some really compelling arguments on why he had his verion of ethics. I really loved that scene.
In the end, you get many questions to ponder about in regard of society, connections to other people, and ethics.
I saw the movie spring 2021, just when the discussion on patents on life saving medication needed all over the world is at its peak. So we have here a 5 year old film, debating ethics that are more current than ever.
The most unusual thing about this movie, even as a big watcher of movies for many years, i could not see the twist and turns before they happened, and i loved that.
I really enjoyed this picture! This movie is timely as the story line addresses medical ethics during a period when science continues at an amazing speed to make astonishing advances in all areas. This is classic sci-fi: a scientist conducting an experiment is suddenly jolted into a bizarre new realm due to an accident in his lab. Although initially intrigued, he soon realizes that his data needs more research as his visions become terrifying. Unfortunately, those in the pharmaceutical industry who fund the scientists hear about his latest discovery, and our hero has to protect his research from being used for malevolent purposes. Thus begins a tug of war between the forces of good and evil that keeps the viewer on the edge of his seat. There are many twists and turns that lay ahead, as well as some terrific new characters going in and out of the fray. "96 Souls" is a film unafraid to ask big questions and for that reason alone is totally worth seeing.
Sure it has a lot of the flaws you expect from this type of low budget film. The dialogue makes you wince a few times as the writer was going for clever and it just sounded clunky coming out of the mouths of the actors. But the acting was fairly solid (with a few notable exceptions, but not where it counts). The cinematography was quite good, and even the "special effects" weren't too distracting. The editing was magnificent, and in many cases that's the key difference between good and bad in films. You don't notice it unless it's done poorly, and in this case, it was pretty much seamless.
Despite is flaws, there was something about the story, and the developmental arc of the characters, that kept me fascinated. I watched it more like I was watching an art project than a movie, and I was able to really appreciate what they were trying to do.
I watch a lot of indie films, and some are definitely horrific (although many of them have some merit buried in there somewhere. This one was definitely worth a watch. Someone had a pretty clever idea, developed it, and managed to work in some thought-provoking philosophy along the way.
Despite is flaws, there was something about the story, and the developmental arc of the characters, that kept me fascinated. I watched it more like I was watching an art project than a movie, and I was able to really appreciate what they were trying to do.
I watch a lot of indie films, and some are definitely horrific (although many of them have some merit buried in there somewhere. This one was definitely worth a watch. Someone had a pretty clever idea, developed it, and managed to work in some thought-provoking philosophy along the way.
Sorry to say, this is not a good film. Not the acting, the script, the dialogue, the pace.. really, it's hard to find anything good to say about it. Even if the premise had a chance at all, the way it's portrayed completely ruins it. So - two thumbs down from me.
The movie started with what seemed to be a well executed story line but somehow lost the plot half way through. The director could have either done away with the pseudo philosophy , or at least developed it properly. Amateurish special effects and cardboard acting from some actors did not help.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesWhen Dr. Redfield (Paul Statman) pulls Ram (Sid Veda) aside to be sure he will cooperate, Ram's co-worker Medina (ShaiFali) asks what he wanted. Ram responds, "Directions to NAMBLA." Sid and ShaiFali improvised the exchange and it such an unexpected dig on the film's antagonist, the director decided to keep it in the film.
- Citations
Dr. Jack Sutree: For a minute there... I lost myself.
- Crédits fousThe end credits celebrate the entire cast utilizing their likeness along with their name and role. Even though the end credits are among the shortest in modern film history, every single person who worked on the film is credited, even the extras.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Starfilm (2017)
- Bandes originalesSlavonic Dance No. 12 in D-Flat Major, Op. 72. No. 4
Composed by Antonín Dvorák (as Dvorak)
Courtesy of Naxos of America
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is 96 Souls?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- 96 душ
- Lieux de tournage
- Los Angeles, Californie, États-Unis(Loyola Law School)
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée1 heure 52 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.37 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant