Interface

A college professor & an unlikely female ally get targeted by a computer-worshiping cult.

This one took a lot of acclimatisation. A lot of characters are introduced in the beginning, most of them not to be seen until the very end. The hero, a college professor who has neither balls nor ethics, is a hard lead to root for. The fun begins when the techno-whiz cult, in garish & spooky costumes, start their killing spree and the wife of one of the victims tries to solve the riddle in very unconventional ways (kudos to Lauren "The Nanny" Lane for adding much-needed spunk to the movie).

This has all the charm of naive 80's sci-fi movies, with big, bold letters sending big, scary messages on big, green computer screens. Atari slasher. The whole set-up is extremely silly and the director constantly winks to the audience, but the humor actually weighs the story down. Fortunately, it moves quite fast and the interaction between the leads is the main attraction. Cheap fun if you're not too demanding.

When I picked up this movie, it sure had a cool cover. And it was a second-hand cassette that I could buy for a price the same as renting it. So I thought that I could never be screwed buying it. I was quite wrong, I must say.

To begin with something positive, the idea of the movie is quite good. A society of students uses their computer skills to kill off degenerates in the society. For me, that's an idea that have could been used to make an entertaining movie. But director Andy Anderson has chosen the very wrong way and tried to make a mixture between SF and some kind of buddy comedy. The 2 main characters (John Davies & Lauren Lane) try to be funny, but they don't succeed, resulting in a irritated viewer. Also, a young Lou Diamond Phillips in the first 5 minutes of this film. The budget is also very low, but that didn't bother me.

I will even say that many low budget movies are better then those big budget special effects movies Hollywood likes to churn out. But again, the idea of this movie was good enough to make a great movie, but no cigar. Anderson would later make the great Detention (if you believe the comments this movie gets on IMDB), but this sure isn't a great debut for him.

Was this movie made by someone like Jim Wynorski (who made entertaining movies of The Lost Island and Chopping Mall), it would have be nice, easy entertainment. Had David Cronenberg been the director, he would have made a neat, little but intelligent SF/horror flick with some shocking effects. But Andy Anderson made it and this is the result. And you already know what I think about it.

Greetings And Salutations, and welcome to my review of Interface; here's the breakdown of my ratings:

Story: 1.25 Direction: 1.25 Pace: 1.25 Acting: 1.25 Enjoyment: 1.25

TOTAL: 6.25 out of 10.00

Interface surprised me when I saw the tally I gave it. I thought it would come out around the four mark. However, even though the movie isn't that great and has some weak points, it possesses more strong moments and elements.

For one, the story has a great notion. The writer and director, Andy Anderson, took the essential principle of The Star Chamber and dropped it into the computer age. A group of disguised computer machine heads have created a new game using the university's mainframe. Using data hacked from various sources, they let the CPU run its algorithms to calculate if their prey deserves their brand of justice - getting paintballed from the shadows. However, when one execution goes awry, the bad guys pull a gun, and people start dying. This misadventure gives the second in command of the jury a grim idea. Why shouldn't they dole out this increased final brand of punishment because the Master Computer never ers? After a short discussion, everyone is on board with the new regime, even the neigh sayers. But little do they know that their course professor and a police inspector are on their trail. Luckily for them but unluckily for the Prof, the detective believes the murders to be his doing. Though there are plenty of opportunities to make the story a tad more moralistic, Anderson decides not to go down that road. The neigh sayers are few, and we seldom hear their thoughts on the killings. Had we been given a better argument between the two factions of the jurors, this would have strengthened the moralistic side of the tale. It's always nice to be able to pick sides. Would you condone the killings or not? It would have also allowed for more growth of character in these individuals. Due to the masks and the role-playing, we don't get to know them and cannot relate. What Anderson excels at in Interface is the pairing of Professor Rex Hobson and Amy Witherspoon. These two have a wonderfully entertaining relationship. Both are solid characters, and when they team up, things become stimulating. Thanks to these two individuals, the story isn't a washout.

Sadly, Anderson's direction is as good as his writing, which means there are some good sections and some not-so-good. Though overall, he does present an above-average movie. His visual composition is good, and his comedic timing, though not fantastic, is passable and helps with the scenes staring the Prof and Amy. When he shoots the mainframe scenes, he drops the lighting down a notch or two to create an ominous feel, but it isn't quite enough. Even the homemade futureware the jurors don doesn't send shivers down your spine. Worst yet, most haven't fared well with time; you may find yourself giggling with the 1980s Dr Who feel of it all. At least the murders are ingenious and well-thought-out.

As for the performances, these are okay. But I wonder who did the casting as the teens in the university all look older than their professor. One of them, the jock, has a receding hairline that only a grandad should possess. Luckily for the viewer, the chemistry between the Prof, played by John Davies, and Amy, portrayed by Lauren Lane, is darkly divine. And, by far, the best thing about the movie.

For me, Interface is more of a Science Fiction Thriller as there are no substantial horror elements. In which case, I'd only suggest that Sci-Fi fans give this little picture a look-see. It's not brilliant, but it's worth one watch, and if you need something to pass an hour or so, you could do worse.

Now, the master computer has passed judgment; please examine my IMDb lists - The Final Frontier and The Game Is A foot, to see where I ranked Interface before we commence executing justice.

Take Care & Stay Well.

This film is so bad it's good. It's dripping with '80s nostalgia complete with Doctor Who-era costumes. If you ever remembered the cheesy voice from the robot in "Mr. Roboto" by Styx, you'll be quickly reminded of it throughout this film. . This is definite computer geek fare, all in 1984! You can tell they were running short on ideas for keeping the plot together, which includes, but is not limited to a car chase with a Studebaker and getting caught with your clothes off. oh, and don't forget that cheesy investigator! A weird and stupid movie all around. This would be good to watch at a Quake party with or without Joel's robot buddies after several beers.

I know I have a different perspective on watching Interface because I worked on it. Interface when we made it, was an exercise in low budget, quality filmmaking. We put the money on the screen, so to speak in filmmaker terms-had high production value.

This film was made by a college film production department, University of Texas at Arlington(UTA). Keeping that in mind it deserves a big congratulation. It was not very easy in this year to pull something like this off. It would be fun to look it up and see how many other colleges in the 80's did this, if any.

When I watch it I see my family's Family room furniture and lamp being used in the scene of Rex Hobson's Living room. I see that the day I had to do makeup by myself I put too much blush on the Boley character. I like seeing myself and my bro in bit parts.

Over the years watching it has changed. back when I first saw it I was so close to it I could not see it as objectively. I lent my cast/crew VHS copy to someone and they never returned it. So over a decade passes and I buy a copy off the internet. I watched it around the year 2002 and I liked it quite a bit.

I watched it again this year and what jumped out at me was the good camera work so often in it. One of the cameramen Roger Pistole still does camera work around the world. I watched it with a friend who also does film work and he gave the credit to the other cameraman Leighton McWilliams but I cannot recall who did what.

Little things we had access to we used which is something that was popular for DIY filmmakers a half generation later like Rodriguez. We did it first and every low budget filmmaker before us has done similar things like using the Studebaker we had access to.

Yes, in this time period with armchair critics bursting at the seems it is criticized and rightly so in many ways. However comparing what we were able to do for so little money using sets on the UTA campus using well trained actors for the main parts and all kinds of folks for the bit parts it was a hell of a good production! Although they don't mention it (I looked again and Lane does list this movie on her IMDb page now!)because time has eclipsed it's good aspects, it was the entry point for both Lou Diamond Phillips and Lauren Lane (C.C. Babcock on The Nanny) launching into acting careers.