AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
4,7/10
22 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaChampion gamer Max Troy discovers events in a new video game are being mirrored in the real world, and must join forces with the game's protagonist, Orson Creed, to unravel the conspiracy be... Ler tudoChampion gamer Max Troy discovers events in a new video game are being mirrored in the real world, and must join forces with the game's protagonist, Orson Creed, to unravel the conspiracy before the game's sinister plot overwhelms the city.Champion gamer Max Troy discovers events in a new video game are being mirrored in the real world, and must join forces with the game's protagonist, Orson Creed, to unravel the conspiracy before the game's sinister plot overwhelms the city.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
Stefan Hayek
- Slackjaw
- (as Stefan Hajek)
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
First off, I don't understand all the hate aimed at the people giving this movie a bad review. Come on.. it's bad.
Full of bravado and terribly weak story telling. To get this high of a ranking.. I call foul. Somethings broken in IMDb.
Second.. Graphics.. Poor.
Acting... Poor.
Writing... Completely predictable.
Directing... Now I'm not going to cut you down.. I've never tried to direct a movie. But damn, dude.. Your production values were pretty decent. Your actors were capable. And the cinematography was alright. So I'm thinking it comes down to you. I'm guessing your a nice guy, cause you should have reshot so many scenes and you know.. directed your actors.
There was nothing here worth watching. Ya, I know.. if I don't like it then don't. I honestly kept watching because I wanted to know how it earned such high reviews. But seriously man. This is bad. I mean, make a IMDb account just to complain about it's rating bad.
Totally unbelievable start to finish, especially the scene where a game maker.. someone who spends there life behind a screen and building the social dynamics needed to produce a game just happens to be able to kick 30 security officers butts in a row and walk on like it's just another Tuesday. (And that voice.. It's like watching a dumbed down duke nukem spoof)
Or how about the security officer holding his gun on the gamer while he lets him walk his puppet into the house and beat him. Right.. Sure.. everyone that dumb.
Sword scene on the roof while the blond stands emotionless and helplessly by.. wow man.. .. just wow.. There isn't enough testosterone in the world to excuse the ego here.
Someone in IMDb needs to look into this, seriously.. Things like this will ruin your credibility. This is a 3... max.
The only person here showing any acting chops at all was the gamer.. and he unfortunately couldn't hold up this pile. Koodos for trying though bro.
Full of bravado and terribly weak story telling. To get this high of a ranking.. I call foul. Somethings broken in IMDb.
Second.. Graphics.. Poor.
Acting... Poor.
Writing... Completely predictable.
Directing... Now I'm not going to cut you down.. I've never tried to direct a movie. But damn, dude.. Your production values were pretty decent. Your actors were capable. And the cinematography was alright. So I'm thinking it comes down to you. I'm guessing your a nice guy, cause you should have reshot so many scenes and you know.. directed your actors.
There was nothing here worth watching. Ya, I know.. if I don't like it then don't. I honestly kept watching because I wanted to know how it earned such high reviews. But seriously man. This is bad. I mean, make a IMDb account just to complain about it's rating bad.
Totally unbelievable start to finish, especially the scene where a game maker.. someone who spends there life behind a screen and building the social dynamics needed to produce a game just happens to be able to kick 30 security officers butts in a row and walk on like it's just another Tuesday. (And that voice.. It's like watching a dumbed down duke nukem spoof)
Or how about the security officer holding his gun on the gamer while he lets him walk his puppet into the house and beat him. Right.. Sure.. everyone that dumb.
Sword scene on the roof while the blond stands emotionless and helplessly by.. wow man.. .. just wow.. There isn't enough testosterone in the world to excuse the ego here.
Someone in IMDb needs to look into this, seriously.. Things like this will ruin your credibility. This is a 3... max.
The only person here showing any acting chops at all was the gamer.. and he unfortunately couldn't hold up this pile. Koodos for trying though bro.
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.
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 had an interesting gimmick that was destroyed by some terrible acting and dialogue. The plot was decent, the initial set up and first 30 minutes were even suspenseful. I managed to watch the entire movie, but not without being ejected from my suspension of disbelief more than once. This was not because of a bad script, but because of terrible dialogue and the very bad acting of a few individuals. In particular, Kevon Stover, who reminded me of a poor man's Danny Trejo, was so cringe worthy and distracting that I was unsure whether or not he was added for comic relief. It seemed a waste of some passable d-list actors. I'm sorry, I rated it a 4, below average.
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThe largest fight scene of the film, shot in Seattle's City Hall, involved the hero taking on 16 adversaries, and was shot as one long take.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosNothing is what it seems
- ConexõesReferences Tambores Distantes (1951)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Beta Test?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Бета-тест
- Locações de filme
- Empresa de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 1.600.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 10.104
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 5.778
- 24 de jul. de 2016
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 10.104
- Tempo de duração1 hora 28 minutos
- Cor
- Proporção
- 2.35 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente