The Directive

Wow, where to start.....

This is undoubtedly the worst movie I've ever seen. Having said that, I kept laughing throughout the entire film.

First off, the scenery depicted in the still for this movie is 100% misleading to how intrigued you believe the setting for this movie will be. There are two major locations for this film. The first being a scant trailer park in which the main character piddles around for half the movie. Then our "hero" journeys to an abondoned shack with some tents thrown up around it because a half of a poorly made robot convinced him to. Superbly lackluster.

The second thing I would like to bring up is the camera work. It may have you laughing at some of the director's choices. Albeit the overly long shots of the main character eating or sleeping, which can go on so long you feel like your awkwardly watching a live voyeur feed, or the shaky "a camera stand wasn't in the budget" shots. At one point it almost seems like the cameraman tripped while filming. Pretty good stuff.

Lastly I want to bring up the acting, or rather the lack thereof. They could not have picked a better person who intentionally seems like they've never even heard the word acting. $20 says it was the directors best friend. Every other character in the movie had exponentially better acting chops than this guy. Every time he ate something he had to nod in acceptance while he chewed, as if to say, "mmm, this is pretty good," and he ate a lot. My personal favorite scene is the minute plus he spent stumbling around pretending to be sick.

I will definitely be watching the sequel.

I don't know if the producer of this film will read this review, but I signed up on IMDb just to do this so, listen up. This is your target demographic speaking here....

The first rule of a film is to get your audience to enjoy "the suspension of disbelief" so we can get caught up in your film. I found that absolutely impossible to do. A good film/ story creates the suspension of disbelief effortlessly. Meaning, it happens automatically and we easily look past anything unbelievable or past any poor production values or plot points. BUT This film was sooooo bad that I had to TRY WAY TOO HARD, to get past so many things, just to get through to the end. But since I like a good try by a film maker, I pushed past the home depot robot with a billion dollar artificial intelligence and the $50 body. - I pushed past the same hand writing style and the 2 paint colors used on all the graffiti and missing persons board. ( I guess you only had one guy and 2 cans of spray paint) - I pushed on even through the 1/3 full, taped shut,red cross boxes.

I get it! money is hard to come by for productions, and corners must be cut in order to get a film completed. In fact, I labored very hard to ignore anything that I felt was due to lack of money for production. I mean Geez, with just the cost of the one camera, audio recording and editing, music score recording and all the amount of time invested, I'm sure the money was hard to come by. So I waive ALL reasons for this film sucking that have to do with money, OK?

In fact, personally, I wouldn't judge this film poorly just because it seemed that this film was made utilizing a 1980s Sony hand-cam with a broken built in mic! Because you had a decent Idea.... Man against AI in a post apocalyptic world. OK Ill give it a try. You got me!

So Budget aside, where does that leave me (us)? It leaves us with -the writing, -acting, -editing and -directing. to tell a story that entertains. Well, the only entertainment I received, and am receiving now, is reviewing this waste of your effort!

-THE WRITING: Was there any? Yes. There must have been, because I can see the attempt to follow some kind of story arc. " Young, killer-virus survivor, lonely, and pretty stupid, acquires half a robot, and is tricked into falling into a trap devised by the evil Dr. Amherst, who plans (for some reason) to reduce the world population to 2 million. (Why not everybody?). But most of the dialog seemed like it was just poorly improvised.

-THE DIRECTING: Sooo weak. the attempt to draw us into the mind of this moron with music and sound effects and slow motion was so intentional, and distracting that it had the opposite effect on me. I was repelled. And had to force myself to continue,to see if there was anything I was missing that might be redeeming. There wasn't.

-THE EDITING: This one is a little harder. Because I'm not sure if the overly loooong boring shots of ..........walking, opening spray painted boxes, beard trimming, or the stealing from "I am Legend" in the talking to a mannequin scene (here, a cardboard woman named "Boo?"), AND, let's not forget 20 minutes of walking bent over to look sick....... was chosen by the editor or the director. Whoever made those choices committed the worst crime against an audience. you wasted our time.

-THE ACTING: YAY IM HERE! The pinnacle of my review! All of the acting by all of the actors except one, was acceptable... Who know maybe even great! I'm not sure because this was such a mess, I was disoriented. So all but ONE actor get a passing grade, (as if my opinion means anything). AND WHO WOULD THAT ACTOR BE???....... Oh. ONLY the LEAD ACTOR!!! Holy SH#t, did he SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When he was supposed to be funny. he was LAME. When he was supposed to be serious, he was the worst kind of mediocre! What a FULL toolbox of acting tools he has... Shrugging,,,looking like he was trying to look frustrated... The heart-breaking scene where he thought the robot was his friend!, I could actually FEEL the inner turmoil he was going thru while trying to dredge up any acting skills whatsoever, during that scene!

I am currently talking to lawyers to see if it is legal to SUE the film makers to get back my wasted time!

I gave the film EVERY CHANCE. I forgave EVERY mistake. Waived every possible excuse aside, that may have just been beyond your budget. And in the end, is there anything left that gives us any type of memorable feeling or reward for all our generosity in watching this abortion? I mean like anything? For instance, did you, AT LEAST, end on a predictable cliche that works, so we could have ANY type of reward??? For example... At the very end,did one of the guys in the INTEL suits, pull off his gas mask, to reveal that it actually was his father who was saving him??? NO!!! not even a tiny little payoff, for us laboring thru this steaming pile of digital dung!

This is not a future low budget cult film, its not even a good, bad film.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THIS WAS MADE BY A 13 YEAR OLD KID DURING SUMMER VACA. I apologize. Good job, Timmy.

Q: Did I enjoy ANY of it? A: NO

Q: Would I recommend watching it? A: Cmon! YOU know!

Q: So to sum up, I give this film 5 stars and suggest you enter it in the Caans Film Festival. I personally offer 100 million to fund it.

A: NO

Junior High School Weekend Project (maybe lower, Elementary School).

Post Apocalypse

Generation Y or Generation Z absolutely no brains, no survival skills.

No more Mommy and Daddy to live with to provide food, nor pay the Rent and Utilities.

No more Internet, Smartphones to "Just Google It" or watch a youtube DIY video.

Is there anyway to rate this negative stars?

How do I get a refund of an hour and fifty minutes of my life back?

I got more then 1600$ saved up, i can go to a junkyard, put a toy on my back and pretend its a post apocalyptic movie...

This is how insane 2019 has become, anyone can put a movie out there no matter how bad it is.

And this one a part the cover art that seems good, is a real piece of junk.

Seriously, the movie maker intentionally waste 1.5 hour of millions of people's time.