Beta Test

Some times a year you just end up with one of those C-class movies, and this time it was Beta Test. Though the plot was quit interesting (the obvious reason why I watched it; almost as from an Ernest Cline novel), the movie in total was awful. The acting was lousy (cheap pron stars?) and the director obviously had better things to do than being on the set; no drive, no mind twisting turns. Nothing but amateur fighting to keep the movie afloat.

Highlight? Only 83 minutes of your life gone.

3/10 for being a movie the Cohen brothers, J.J.Abrahms or the likes could turn into something quite cool.

After seeing the rating for this on here (currently at 7.0, although I suspect that will change) I thought that this might actually be really good.

But uhm, let's just say I think the director have a lot of good friends who are kind with their ratings.

It's not completely awful, but it's not that great either.

I've always liked Larenz Tate so it's cool to see him in something new, so there is always that, and he hasn't aged a day in 20 years (he's 41 believe it or not).

He plays a gamer who's been given a beta version of the latest game bound to conquer global fandom, and the plot is decent enough but it's just such a low-budget film and that shows in every aspect of the movie.

First of all the "game" that he's playing looks like it's well over 10 years old, and it simply doesn't make any sense why they couldn't just use real footage in the game scenes instead. Then at least Larenz would have a clear reason to be so blown away by the details in the game.

And the "twist" about the game of course would have made A lot more sense too.

Kevon Stover is one of the bad guys, and his attempts at being so stereotypically tough would make even Hulk Hogan cringe. I suppose that could be intentional to get a bit of 90's video-game feel to the character. But yeah, he's a chippendale appearantly which doesn't come as a surprise at all.

The first hour is still semi-watchable if you manage to look past the flaws but the last 25 minutes is a bit of a drag to say the least.

Hey, it's just a fun, mindless romp of urban science fiction with a great plot, decent directing, some sketchy dialog, good and bad acting, and you can even write a love poem while watching it and never miss a thing.

There is even a very 'Ballsy' stoke of genius in this movie, in that the scene from about 104:12 to 110:12 is a continuous shot. 6 full minutes. That took guts. I have to respect anyone who would do that and be willing to risk the whole movie. There was obvious no real risk here, and that's probably why it worked.

For the whiners out there who constantly wail: "I want my 2 hours back!" "Worst movie ever!" "I walked out in the first 10 minutes."...Just shut the hell up. You really do NOT how to watch a movie using basic 'discernment' techniques rather than judging the hell out of it like an old, angry housewife.

See, discernment allows an evaluation to grow while a judgement puts an idea or concept inside a contemplative box where it can never evolve beyond that place within your own mind where you originally judged it. That is indeed the most wretched excess of a personal 'opinion'. It wastes everyone's time and energy. You reviewers who prattle on like wounded princesses here are seriously lacking in the most basic of intellectual evaluations skills and shouldn't even be posting your reviews with educated adults. Jesus...

So, in regards to ANY movie, when you see the trailer and read some professional reviews, you pretty much know what you're in for. But anyone who plays the 'princess-victim' of utter disappointment after spending a dollar at Red Box seriously needs to ease off the meds.

...or at LEAST take some creative writing classes.

The movie starts with a seemingly interesting idea and that's the only good thing that I can say about it.

Unfortunately, as the story develops it turns to boring, amateurish cringe-fest. It's especially disappointing if you consider that Manu Bennett was in better shows (Spartacus, Arrow) and here you can see him in a lame role with lame fighting scenes and brain-cell destroying dialogues. To top that he still gives the best performance so you can imagine the rest of the cast.

I do not recommend watching it, unless you plan to use some mind-altering substance and even so it will probably be a bad experience.

In short: stupid storyline, half-baked concept, people with moronic behavior, badly choreographed and unrealistic fights.

I'm not the review-writer really, but after seeing this movie and the absurdly high rating it gets here on IMDb I just had to write my 50 cents worth. To sum up some things about this movie in short:

• Acting: Poor/lacklustre/wooden/amateuristic - Directing: There was a director on set?! - Writing: Nice try, but utter fail - Production: Cheap

Guy is beta tester for a gaming company to find out he's controlling a real person (ex-employee turned against the company). If you like this premise alone, I strongly suggest you go and watch 'Gamer' because in that film this concept is executed 100 times better. Gamer and ex-employee turned avatar go against company, have a couple really slow-paced unbelievable fight-scenes towards the end. Director of gaming company has a popcorn-frenzy somewhere in the last part of the film... I mean really? Someone must really thought let's flip off our viewers and shove them some bs down their troath. Even for an Indie-movie with a low production budget this is an insult to nominal human intelligence in general, and they should have spend that money on repaving some road in Texas or something.

This movie is Into The Woods bad (and that movie was really bad). There's not a single thing that I can credit as being positive about this movie... Wel... some of the music was OK. You'll be craving the endtitles before the first 3rd of the movie has passed!