Paradox

I've read the reviews on here and I tend to agree with all of them - Yes, I agree with the people who criticised it AND the people who loved it.

Is it low budget? Yes

Are the opening scenes and character exposition a little "amateur"? Yes

Is it poorly acted? For some of the lesser characters, perhaps.

Is it a very good idea for a time travel thriller? Yes

Has the time travel plot been meticulously planned? Yes, Kudos!

Is the overarching story line well executed? Yes

Are the lead actors and actresses engaging? Yes

Does it make you think, even after the movie has ended? Yes - and that's bang for buck!

Does it make sense? Yes

So that's it - a good idea for a film with a couple of interesting characters and relationships that,based around time travel, and a good time travel plot (which is a rare thing)

It didn't set the world on fire - low budget time travel films never do.

Zoe Bell probably was the best of the actors - I read on here she is also a stunt woman - which makes a lot of sense - She has a great physique and the director knew how to use her skills and assets - Reminded me a little of Sigourney Weaver in Galaxy Quest!

The other actors were a little forgettable, sadly.

So over all - some poor performances and a slightly amateur exposition did not diminish from the stronger points of the movie, which were a good time travel synopsis that was well executed and a good performance from Zoe Bell.

I've seen worse. Let's start with the music. Very soap opera reminiscent and a tad too loud. The lighting seemed fine, but the sound was odd. During the scenes where the actors were speaking in a normal volume, it was good. During the scenes where the characters were in a panic (and the actors were way over the top), the sound was somehow...hollow. I can't explain it. It was almost as if they knew the sound quality wasn't great, so they bumped up the volume on the music.

The premise, of course, is always fun. You could spend hours pondering the time travel paradox through your mind to no avail. The screenplay itself wasn't bad. I can only assume that the direction given the actors was to be intentionally over the top. Less is more in film, they know that. These are experienced actors. Was Michael Hurst simply catering to the B film fans?

Then again, Michael Hurst is providing work to actors that need to keep working. He's also likely having fun shooting, making a little money and building his own resume. I love Scifi...quality Scifi. If you enjoyed Ex Machina, Europa Report, Predestination, Snowpiercer, Automata, et cetera, then you will not find this to be worth your time. It could have been quite good had they slowed down and allowed for quality acting to come through. It felt like they rushed through to save money and were quite satisfied with just another B movie. It's a shame.

All things considered, this is more than watchable. It has a simple idea, a simple set and it executes it without too much hassle.

I didn't really get on board with any sense of drama and/or nervous tension, and I was unable to commit myself to the characters. Finding a lot of the acting a touch wooden with predictable scripting, although this may have been an intentional 'cheesy humour', I couldn't quite tell ! There was one character who didn't have many lines but was playing a 'thug/heavy' role, and in response to some techno babble asked for it to be dumbed down ... I did laugh out loud!

However, I am glad I watched to the end as there was an unexpected twist!

Deep in the heart of the city, a group of brilliant young scientists, led by the mysterious Mr. Landau, are on the brink of completing a machine that will let them travel one hour forward in time. When the first to time travel comes back with dire warnings of the rest of the group's impending demise, who can they trust? More to the point, will they survive, or is their fate already sealed?

Paradox has all the usual ingredients of modern, low budget sci-fi thrillers, from the convoluted story packed with twists and turns, to wonky sets, ropey CGI and hammy acting. The thing is, it actually seems to work for the most part.

The movie is pacey, energetic and unpretentious. Despite it's obviously low budget and limited crop of acting talent, the ensuing 90 minutes are rather enjoyable. Naturally, Zoe Bell is the cream of the acting crop here and she's always worth watching. Her physical talent is a touch underused during the film, but when she gets the opportunity, she uses it well. The rest of the largely unknown cast, despite having some truly naff dialogue to work with, are at least appealing despite some, shall we say, enthusiastic performances.

The direction and editing are pretty snappy and the movie motors along at a fair old click. It's silly, perils of time travel sci-fi hokum, so if you're expecting anything more, this movie is not one for you to watch. If however, you fancy some cheesy, undemanding fun with some campy acting thrown in with your thrills and spills, then there will be no contradictions in you giving Paradox a view.

I was tricked into giving this one some time by the first 2 reviews in the list. They lied. While the story synopsis implies there might be an interesting sci fi setup floating about, the first 10 mins of terrible acting, stale scenes and exposition make you not care about waiting to find out. The first scene was like an 80s kids drama of 'acting'. All fake urgency and 'drama'. The next scene with 2 cops in a car giving us the run down on the central group of scientists they were watching dragged on for what seemed like hours. I'm not sure it ever stopped. The 'scientists' were giving it their best 'teen 80s delinquent' impersonations which made me wonder if this movie was a tongue in cheek nod to those crappy movies of that period, (like we need more of them?), but that thought soon left my mind as I wished it to be over as soon as possible, but that wasn't going to happen till the full 90 minutes of excruciating was over. This is not worth your time. It's not clever, it's not funny, it's just boring, and badly done at that.