41

This is an amateur film and parts of it are good, but for the most part it is still very amateur. Perhaps the best aspect is the directing and editing, which are probably good enough for mainstream film, but nothing amazing. The editing was well done, but again, fairly standard. Like any amateur film the acting ranges from reasonable to bad, but that's not exactly the directors fault given the limited budget.

By far the biggest problem is the script which at times is quite poor, most noticeably when attempting to pose deep, metaphysical questions. At times I could hear the voice of the director speaking through his actors, and this sounded inept. In amateur film the scripting and plot are perhaps the only things not really held back by a restricted budget, and unfortunately neither aspect was that good. The film failed to evolve a coherent sense of empathy for the main protagonist, it feigned emotion more than produced any and nothing ever really became that interesting or exciting. Some characters, most noticeably the cops, were little more than 2-bit cliché's, and there were quite a few moments which were unnecessary, melodramatic and time-wasting.

Having said that it's not unwatchable and as amateur film goes it's probably one of the better ones. But the director, in my opinion, is not ready to make feature length titles and needs to develop his abilities further, especially his screen-writing and scripting if he wants to write his own material. On the positive, however, I have seen Hollywood films that annoyed me far more and that's saying something.

This is a curiosity. I like it. It's entertaining, and sufficiently engaging to keep watching through to the end. I don't have any specific reason to doubt the skills of anyone involved. I'd like to see more features from everyone involved.

Yet whether we're talking about Heath Brown's score, the editing or production of writer-director Glenn Triggs, or the performances drawn out of the cast, almost everything in '41' is unremarkable. I don't mean bad - it's absolutely not bad - just unremarkable. Almost nothing here is especially noteworthy; nothing leaps out as a defining element. I watch it and think to myself, "That was good!" - then move on with my day, end of story.

I did say "almost"; there are a couple scenes in the screenplay that stick out. For one thing, halfway through we get a dialogue in which protagonist Aidan joins a group of high-minded middle-aged men philosophizing about this and that, and he approaches them with questions about the time travel quandary he has stumbled into. One of these conversationalists is especially cynical, and as Aidan defines the hypothetical terms of time travel, that naysayer casts aspersions on the notions being put forth. In short: A character within the film is critiquing the plot of the film. I couldn't help but laugh; this was clever.

Second, in the last quarter of the feature, as Aidan seeks resolution to the issues at hand, he makes use of the time travel he has discovered in a way I certainly didn't anticipate. From very early on in '41' I thought I knew exactly where the plot was going to end up - and I was wrong. Kudos, Mr. Triggs; you got me.

And yet for all that the ultimate ending, the very last few minutes, aren't satisfying. I don't find this conclusion to the story convincing, as though there's a hole somewhere in the twisted weave of the time travel, and its tangled ramifications, that I can't quite place my finger on. Maybe that's just me. But it does mirror, in its own way, the vast majority of these 80 minutes that is just simply flat in tone, unprovocative in its build, and overall mystifying.

Again, '41' certainly isn't bad. I do like it; I think it's worth watching, if not necessarily going out of one's way to find. I just feel so much of it to be weirdly undistinguished, however well done it may be.

This movie has an admiring audience, and apparently I'm just not part of it. I'll say this much though, my curiosity is piqued by the bizarre duality of being largely unexceptional, yet still solidly crafted. It may be a subjectively wrong way of keeping my attention, but it was kept nonetheless. Well played, '41' - I think?

A most excellent and entertaining film, well written and scored. The dialogue was at times thought provoking and, to be honest, was more or less in line with my thoughts on time travel which is as good a reason as any to like it! Perhaps a better script might have ruined it, and special effects would not have suited the films nuances and quirks. I have never come across a bad Australian film and this, being no exception, is a better one than some other highly glossy and commercial ones. In many ways this reminds me of a typical British film shot with lots of love on a low budget - earthy and local, with no pretensions. Plot holes were easy to forgive given that there were few for the given budget, and that, apart from the police scenes, the acting was of a quality any director would be pleased with. I enjoyed it. I would have bought this!

Delving into this area of extremely low budget time travel sci-fi gets with it the inevitable comparison to 2004 film "Primer" which was a masterwork of excruciatingly hard sci-fi.

Here, the mechanisms are largely unimportant, even though there is an entire scene devoted to basically expo-dumping how it works in the form of hypotheticals and quizzing of a small group of four philosophers and scientists.

Some guy named Aidan is driving in his car with his ex-girlfriend when suddenly someone jumps in front of the car while he's driving at night and it crashes, killing her and hospitalizing him. He meets a seemingly loony old man in the hospital who tells him to go to a motel and go to room 41 and crawl in a hole in the bathroom floor. Earlier in the film, someone who looked exactly like him told him not to go to that motel. So naturally he goes in.

From there he learns that going through the hole and emerging brings him about 12 hours into the past. From there, he tries to change what happened with his ex-girlfriend and the like.

Where the film falters, for me at least, is that it seems to not be able to decide upon what type of "time travel paradox" to go with. The presence of himself earlier in the film and the revelation about the cause of the crash would seem to imply a predestination paradox where he is in a situation where time is fixed, and any attempt he makes to change the past has already been done.

But then at the same time, other mutually incompatible paradoxes are toyed with as well, including a "multiple universes branching off" and some others. Toying with many different ideas for time travel would be something interesting to see if done well; the problem is it is not done well here. In some cases we don't even know what is happening and the determining factor as to whether Aidan is able to change something in the past amounts to "Whatever the script feels like".

As well, it drags in several places, and takes an awful long time to get to a really intriguing "Wow" moment, by which time the film was essentially over with barely 10 minutes left. Whether or not the extra focus or attention to detail would've helped or hindered the film I probably wouldn't be able to say, but for what it is, it was a neat enough film.

This film is pretty good makes you think makes you pay attention. I thought I would turn it on and watch it for a few minutes and end up turning it off; like I do eight out of 10 movies these days. I found myself not wanting to turn it off. It's good and has a great twist.