Occupation: Rainfall

Talk about milking the action scenes; of the 128 minute runtime of this well-funded B-movie, half is many unnecessarily long, dragged out and pointless action scenes, that are also poorly choreographed.

The other half is the most convoluted and basic-as-it-gets cliched story, from a frustratingly derivative screenplay. There are more plot and technical issues than running-time minutes. If you take every popular sci-fi like Star Wars, Star Trek etc, and throw them in a blender, this is the story you would get.

It's a shame, because the although overused and mostly dated S/VFX, alongside some excellent prosthetic costumes, and for the most part some adequate acting (how the heck did Ken Jeong end up in this?), this film had tons of potential. I never saw the first one, which apparently was much worse than this one, but who if funding this sinking ship? And there's going to be a part 3?! Are the Australian tax write-off's for lost revenue that amazing?

Had writer and director Luke Sparke at least consulted a seasoned sci-fi writer, there'd be hope for a cohesive story that would have continuity - and be exciting. Maybe he'll figure that out for part 3. And please stop that annoying, unfitting and overbearing non-stop score on your next film, I wanted to stick pencils in my ears to stop the pain. It's a very generous 5/10 from me.

I honestly question the truth behind some of these reviews. Very apparent that they don't match the film once you watch it.

Bad acting, uninteresting storyline and just tries too hard.

I walked out.

I'm not going to rate this highly just because I should support local talent. Let's call an apple and apple and a sub par movie a sub par movie.

Not good.

Plenty of action and special effects but the storyline is a confusing mess. Don't buy all the high ratings 4 is about right.

Current IMDB score of 5.4 is not too far away from the mark. I'd say it's around 4 to 5.5ish if I really push it. It's a very generic sci fi flick that doesn't aspire to be something greater or deeper than your typical shoot em up where all aspects of the story are skimmed through so you aren't really invested in any of them except staring at action scenes after action scenes.

Out of everything I thought the coolest thing was the alien queen's armor. Some parts of CGI were well made but it was generally inconsistent and towards the poorer side. I think with a budget of 25 million AUD they could've done better, perhaps take out a few action scenes but flesh out the rest and of course the script. But I enjoyed it nevertheless as I knew what to expect.

I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark on the big screen and it was one of the most glorious and spectacular cinematic experiences in my lifetime. To see these classics on the big screen just makes me happy and it's one of the greatest and most finely executed blockbusters that never gets old. Almost immediately after that, I watched Occupation: Rainfall... it became a reminder as to why I'm frustrated by today's modern blockbusters.

The only thing that's worth complimenting about Occupation: Rainfall is that it's an Australian effort to make a regional blockbuster and I'm interested to know the budget and filmmaking process behind the film. There's clearly a larger budget than the first film and Occupation: Rainfall presents itself as an ambitious sequel so it's going all out with what it has and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't impressed by the overall efforts... but crikey, it's about as dumb and irritating as a Hollywood blockbuster, and just because it's a bigger film doesn't mean it's better.

Occupation: Rainfall is visually unpleasant viewing from start to finish. It wants to be a visual spectacle, but it suffers largely from an overabundance of terrible CGI, poor lighting and lens flares, and noticeable green screen. Accompanied by a generic score and overwhelmingly loud sound design that can make dialogue incomprehensible, it's a technical mess. It also has editing so irritating that it gave me Resident Evil: The Final Chapter flashbacks, particularly in one action sequence towards the climax. The action does have entertainment value and I did enjoy it... whenever it was clear and comprehensible (that was rare) and I had more fun counting the jumpcuts in my mind.

While Occupation: Rainfall was never going to be great story-wise, it's also boring. Some of the dialogue is awful, the characterisations feel thin and the storytelling reeks of a generic nature, but where the writing tremendously fails is in its attempts to craft emotion. The emotional beats felt like unearned attempts to create audience investment and at the same time, it awkwardly injects comic relief that proves more to be distracting than unfunny, causing Occupation: Rainfall to suffer from tonal inconsistencies. Most of the performances fall flat to the point of being forgettable, but I was especially disappointed to see Jason Isaacs wasted in a terrible voice role and Ken Jeong deserves better comic material than what he's given. It's a blockbuster full of so many sci-fi clichés and ill-judged decisions that it led me to wonder how this got made. And knowing that the first movie played at only 16 cinemas and made $35,111 from a $6 million budget, it seems a third movie will be inevitably greenlit. And that's hinted by the atrocious cliffhanger ending, which is desperate to create a new Australian film franchise and go Full Hollywood on us.

Watching movies like Occupation: Rainfall mostly shows what's wrong with modern blockbusters. While I'll admit I'm impressed by the production values, some of the action and the overall ambition put into the direction, they all led to a safe and painfully generic end result that doesn't have much heart and it fails when it comes to both the technical and storytelling elements.

Plot and Characters (2/10) Presentation and Direction (4/10) Acting (4/10) Script (2/10) Setting/Locations (4/10) Tone/Action (4/10) Cinematography/Visuals (4/10) Sound/Music (4/10) Editing (2/10) Pacing/Length (2/10)

Score: 32/100.

LIKES: +Ambitious production values +Some entertainment value in the action

DISLIKES: -Flat, wasted performances -Generic story relies on safe clichés and unearned emotion -Uninteresting, thin characters -Messy visuals and editing -Irritatingly loud sound design -Slightly overlong runtime, boring pacing