IMDb रेटिंग
3.7/10
1.5 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंThe story of one night on earth that changed everything we know about the universe.The story of one night on earth that changed everything we know about the universe.The story of one night on earth that changed everything we know about the universe.
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 2 जीत
Cat Hostick
- Heather
- (as Cathryn Hostick)
Dee Wallace
- Ashley Winnington-Ball
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I wasn't completely disappointed with this film. There were a couple of things that really were clever. I wished they would have capitalized on those nuances that were unique and steered clear of the "found footage" filming style. Haven't we had enough found footage films to last a life time? What worked well is the use of real complaints that some of the abductees report; missing memory, showing up in strange places with no way of knowing how they got there, and the sleepless dull pain shrouded in unadulterated fear. That was creepy storytelling. It was a twist to consider the idea something is also controlling some of the visitors just like humans are controlled. Assuming all alien contact is only part of a bigger conspiracy of highly intelligent entities controlling the rest was a bright spot. Dire film with simple special effects made for a solid picture to catalog along with others that make the grade! Quick moving fun!
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".
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.
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.
A unique and interestingly different approach to the crashed alien space craft/alien contact genre. A take I've never seen before (and I've watched a LOT of these films) which makes it a must-see for any fan. However as it is, it would have been better as an hour long short. That really is it's main problem--not enough story to fill out a feature length film; otherwise it was a very worthwhile effort.
The story was stretched too thin for a feature, but it has its strengths as well; the acting was very good and it did manage to maintain tension despite the relatively slow pace. While it did use a bit of the "found footage" technique, it didn't over do it and how they used it made sense. Plus for those who hate FF, there is only a little (a reasonable amount of) camera shake (I hate that too). The story overall held together, but I was puzzled by why the interrogation was instantly hostile. It would have helped if there had been some kind of indication given--more background shown regarding the person in charge and her over-board hostility, and the explanation would have helped fill out the story. A missed opportunity for real story telling, it comes off as the bones of an idea rather than a full-fleshed film.
Still much better than many of the films of the genre and much better than the 3 rating on the IMDb page. I don't get it; there are far worse films with much higher ratings. Go figure. I was almost tempted to give it a higher rating than I did just to make up for it.
The story was stretched too thin for a feature, but it has its strengths as well; the acting was very good and it did manage to maintain tension despite the relatively slow pace. While it did use a bit of the "found footage" technique, it didn't over do it and how they used it made sense. Plus for those who hate FF, there is only a little (a reasonable amount of) camera shake (I hate that too). The story overall held together, but I was puzzled by why the interrogation was instantly hostile. It would have helped if there had been some kind of indication given--more background shown regarding the person in charge and her over-board hostility, and the explanation would have helped fill out the story. A missed opportunity for real story telling, it comes off as the bones of an idea rather than a full-fleshed film.
Still much better than many of the films of the genre and much better than the 3 rating on the IMDb page. I don't get it; there are far worse films with much higher ratings. Go figure. I was almost tempted to give it a higher rating than I did just to make up for it.
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...
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...
क्या आपको पता है
- गूफ़(at around 46 mins) The shackles are attached and the main "hose" is running next to Bill's arm. The hose disappears and reappears in subsequent shots.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Ejecta?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 22 मिनट
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें