The Reconstruction of William Zero

It took me three attempts to watch this movie. Five minutes into the first attempt I went to sleep. Of course that's not fair. No movie is that bad. OK, very few movies are that bad. On the second attempt I got to about 20 minutes in before falling asleep. On the third attempt, after being well rested, I completed the movie.

By now you're probably wondering why was I so committed to watching this movie. I don't know. So, the one word I have for this movie is: somniferous. That is to say sleep inducing.

"The Reconstruction of William Zero" was a movie about cloning, and not a good one. Dr. William Blakely (Conal Byrne) is the subject of the cloning and two wrongs don't make a right. In other words, if you take one lifeless character and clone him what do you have? Yes, that's two lifeless characters.

The story was thrown together. There was a little twist in there but that did nothing to save it. Somehow we were supposed to care about him and his wife whom we saw for all of five minutes. It was just one slow, drawn out drama detailing number 5,362 of why cloning is bad.

When Dan Bush (Co-Writer, Director, Co-Screen Editor) and Conal Byrne (Co-Writer, Main Character Actor) sat down to put this project together, I'm sure they were enthusiastic and knew they had an interesting story to tell. They do.

However, either because of run-time editing or they were negligent in the telling of the story, the viewer is given too much information too soon in some ways (first plot twist revealed at about 19 minutes in; second at about 31 minutes) and not enough information too late, if at all, in other ways.

Meanwhile, one has to fight against the sleep inducing, hauntingly slow, lullaby-like synthesized keyboard and "rain-on-a-pond" two-fingered piano poking that carries throughout the entire film.

The cinematography adds to the vertigo of sleep in that, at no point does it seem, the camera operator/director can make up his/their mind if something (other than Conal Byrne) should be or remain in focus. There are a few times when we are seeing things through another's failing eyesight. Fine. But that wouldn't justify all the other times.

There is a cast of characters in this film but we don't get to know them or care about them except for Amy Seimetz's character, "Jules". Ms.Seimetz did an admirably fine job to establish her character and insert "Jules" into the viewers consciousness despite so little screen time.

Conal Byrne performed very well with the different but somewhat similar personalities he had to keep distinct for the viewer. I'm not surprised, however, since he co-wrote the story and didn't have to create the character after landing the role since he wrote the role for himself. Nevertheless, he showed skill and talent in his portrayals.

This film is categorized as "sci-fi"/"drama" in the same respect 'Flowers For Algernon' is. But this is no "Flowers For Algernon"... would have been nice if it were as 'William Zero' is only part way to achieving was was achieved in 'Algernon'.

"The Reconstruction of William Zero" shines as a story but this sleep-inducing version of it begs an awakening in a remake.

The premise of this story is very promising - a thriller based on the concept of an apparent twin who turns out not to be all he, at first, thinks he is.

At the risk of not wanting to spoil the movie, I won't say more about how things turn round, but the focus is always on the lead actor, Conal Byrne, who has to play William and William Zero and another allied character with enough distinction between the three that you can keep up with exactly which one he is meant to be.

Thankfully Conal is up to the task and switches characters enough to be identifiably 'different' until the last chapter of the movie when the distinctions deliberately become blurred. As William Zero he has to appear practically clueless as to what is happening to him in the beginning and he almost pulls this off.

Unfortunately the script advances too quickly for us to get a real feeling for the dilemma in which he finds himself and the progression, from what seems to be amnesia to the dawning of understanding exactly what he is, happens abruptly and without enough reaction to be credible.

Similarly the reactions of the other characters in this story are also hurried and, therefore, appear unrealistic. Amy Seimetz, as the (ex) wife, does her best but isn't given enough dialog to carry through her predicament. In the end her conversion to the version of reality that she sees is too sudden and hardly seems in character.

Overall I felt the screenplay was generally too predictable at times, whilst leaving a lot of questions unanswered at others (presumably to try and engender a feeling of mystery). There are twists and turns in the plot which, with better direction or a superior screenplay, could have been more entertaining, even shocking.

The denouement is laughably simple (and requires another improbable leap of faith) and turns out to be what you might have been expecting all along. Of course there's no other outcome that could happen, but to give so many clues along the way, I felt, was unnecessary and leaves a limp ending.

I'm left wondering how many scenes were heavily cut and are left littering the cutting room floor? The progression of the story feels heavily edited and this is the sort of movie where a typical preview of a more twisted, mysterious version might have elicited comments of 'I didn't understand it', forcing a different direction before the launch.

This should have been a movie which throws up more questions, especially moral ones, than there are answers but, in that respect, it fails. On the thriller side it also doesn't score as highly as it could have done. At the end I was just left feeling that this could have been so much better.

No, its not directed by spike jonze and it's certainly not written by Charlie Kaufman . But for a couple of hours of free-ish entertainment on VOD it's the kind of material those in love with fantasy/scifi settings will certainly enjoy regardless.

Acting is on point, plot is very solid, and photography is good. Don't expect to have your mind blown but perfect covid watching for the scifi buff who doesn't mind low-fi.

While it's probably deliberate, the plot development is decidedly stilted from the outset, and some of the acting comes across much the same. More noteworthy is that there's no mystery to be had, for the plot is also emphatically direct: we are told in short order what's going on, and we can guess it before that - a pairing of prediction and revelation that comes within the first twenty minutes, and then again well before one hour has elapsed. This is kind of like what Christopher Nolan's 'Memento' might be if we were told from the outset what the ending was, or could easily guess it. This isn't to say that the movie can't still be enjoyable on its own merits, but it's clearly not what we supposed it would be from the outset, and we can only hope there's greater substance to it that we'll uncover as it goes along. Thankfully there is; the title proves true in a different way. But this is just for starters. I do think 'The reconstruction of William Zero' is modestly enjoyable, but it also has problems that limit its value and audience.

We're greeted with notable themes of varying flavors, but I don't know that they're treated with the care they deserve. Dialogue and scene writing feels kind of half-baked; the substance is there, and in realization we get the basic form that's intended, but not the core, the heart. This rather goes for the narrative at large, coming off like a tableau playing out behind tinted, slightly cloudy glass that muffles the experience and impact, and dulls it. Dan Bush's direction is competent but unremarkable, in much the same way that the screenplay he penned with star Conal Byrne is functional, but somewhat hollow.

There are great ideas here, and I appreciate the work that went into this in all regards - including Bush's steadfast editing that enforces a disordered presentation, itself purely by design. The production design and art direction are well executed, and any effects, and the filming locations are choice. Sound design, cinematography, music, all swell. I think the cast is fine, with Byrne actually handling his role(s) quite well despite that uneven slant; others in supporting parts impress insofar as they truly make the most of what they have, including Amy Seimetz. All this is well and good. What 'The reconstruction of William Zero' lacks, however, is a spark of vitality to make the audience Feel It: it's earnest, but incomplete; present, but passive, as it presents. Or is this also deliberate, as though the construction of the picture is a meta reflection of its content?

On the balance I do believe this is pretty good, and worthwhile; I recognize the hard work and sincerity that everyone involved poured into it. It's just that these qualities aren't meaningfully communicated to the viewer, and as a result the experience of watching just isn't what it could or should be. I think 'The reconstruction of William Zero' is a solid sci-fi drama, by all means, a fair way to spend 98 minutes and a credit to the skills of all on hand. Only, better luck next time that the resulting picture is not just baseline satisfying, but also more readily absorbing and rewarding.