Shifter

Functional Sci Fi movies make sense internally and have a sense of cohesiveness. This one doesn't. At all. Because a young girl can assemble a clock, we are asked to accept the fact that she, as a young adult, can make a time machine from barnyard parts. No mention of HOW time travel or shifting is possible, what the method is, or how it was discovered, etc.

Then we shift into incredibly wooden acting and even worse dialog. Like a high school demo reel, if that.

Then it's on to fits of fast-forward (on my part) to see if there's anything worth watching.

And there isn't.

You have been warned.

Shifter currently sits at a 3.6/10 on IMDb, which is unfair to all the good qualities of the film. With a rating like that, I was ready and expecting to see something really awful, poorly shot, and cheesy. Shifter is none of those things, and it's actually quite good. Overall,

Shifter is definitely not a bad film. It's well shot and has a creepy pace with a downer ending. The performances are quite good too, which is especially impressive considering these are mostly local unknown actors. It certainly feels bigger than it really is. However, it's just a bit too slow; i appreciated the slow pace and the quiet ambience of the film, but after a while it just gets boring. Shifter feels more like a short film that was unsuccessfully stretched to feature length than it does a film that feels natural at 90 minutes...not even 90 minutes at that.

I enjoyed enough of the film and it certainly utilized its microbudget extremely well. I'd like to see what this creative team could do with a larger budget, but the budget was clearly not an issue here. Most of my problems had to do with the writing, which costs no money to perfect.

As a fan of indie film I'll watch anything, But then you get burned like this. Good premise, but bad acting, bad directing and miserable writing. The director has an eye for cinematography but he can't direct an actor or tell an enjoyable story. Bad writing is the worst culprit. I watched the whole thing as a fan of the time travel genre, I didn't even get a descent paradox, just silly reasoning and lazy writing to get us to the special effects scenes. Also worst time machine ever

"Shifter" from writer and director Jacob Leighton Burns was definitely not your average run-of-the-mill time travelling movie, for better or worse. There were some very interesting aspects to the storyline, to say the least.

Now, "Shift" is a semi-slow paced movie, to be honest, and it is because of the fact that you feel as is very little is actually happening throughout of the course of the entire movie. A fact, actually, because not all that much actually did happen in the movie.

I liked the part of the time travel, how one body becomes unraveled by the fabric of time as the other replace it. And it was definitely something very interesting in terms of originality from writer and director Jacob Leighton Burns.

Nicole Fancher (playing Theresa Chaney) carries the movie quite well with her performance. I am not familiar with her work, but I was pleased with her performance in "Shifter". And I also enjoyed the performance of Ashley Mandanas (playing Blake Douglass), even though I was fully unfamiliar with her prior to this movie. Just a shame that Ashley Mandanas wasn't given more screen time.

The special effects in the movie were good, and they definitely helped bring the movie to life on the screen.

Ultimately, it was the fact that so very little actually happened in the movie that made this movie suffer. And for me, it turned out to be a less than mediocre movie experience. Especially since there was so much potential readily available to be used here in the movie. It felt like writer and director Jacob Leighton Burns simply skipped on too many aspects of the movie or failed to delve deep enough to make it interesting.

My rating of "Shifter" is a mere four out of ten stars. I was disappointed with the pacing of the storyline and the fact that it actually feels like an incomplete movie.

I feel bad because I dislike raining on people who obviously cared deeply about what they were doing. Unfortunately, wht they were doing was producing an awful movie.

First, let me say that it was well photographed. A lot of small budget films don't put a lot of thought or money into lighting or camerawork, and it shows. This was shot ad lit by someone who knew how to do both.

And that's the est positive I can come up with. My guess is that this was someone's passiong project. I'd make a further guess that whoever it was didn't know much about writing. The movie consists of long sequences of pain, fear and struggle, punctuated by rare moments of intereaction with another character. There's little plot, and little driving it forward. There's nothing makng us care about the main character; it's hard to say whether this is the script's fault, the director's fault, or the actresses fault, or a combination.