The Reconstruction of William Zero

If you don't believe the NFL is scripted, you may believe that they tried to clone Tom Brady. What they got was a near-middle aged quarterback, who is past his prime. That's right, two Tom Brady's. Well, the clone Tom Brady is the bad Tom Brady. He threw a lot of interceptions, when the script called for a touchdown. Tre'davious White threw down the interception, like had had caught a poisonous snake. Then he fell down like he broke his leg. That man is a team player! But the bad Tom Brady wasn't done being bad. He cloned himself! This clone was a GOOD Tom Brady. But now there are THREE Tom Bradys! To me, one Tom Brady is more than enough. Seen on Tubi, the free streaming site, which has many free movies; and now, live TV.

to hard core sci-fi fans, this may not be your type.

but if you love movies like eternal sunshine of a spotless mind, you are gonna enjoy this one.

acting is great, not much action (sorry action fans), plot is a good one and the music helps in most case to express the movie more. i haven't watched any other movie from the director, but it seems like i am gonna look out for one in the future. lead actor did a great job. i could really bet there were two different characters in the same scene.

the movie keeps the suspense wherever it is needed. overall worth a watch, 7/10. i would really recommend it.

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.

I didn't make it through to the end of this film, I have to be honest. Why? ...Because dear gawd it was dragged out far too much to death. It was a genuine sheer effort from the very start just to keep going in watching it. There was decent actors in it - and they tried they best - but my gawd, did it drag on and on! It was painful.

The hope of a good story was there in the films description. There was glimpses of possible promise things was about to get better - but it never materialised. Such a shame. After over half way through I gave up the fight to find something to keep me interested while it dragged on. It was actually depressing watching it. Its atmosphere of the film in parts didn't help as it dragged on. If you are thinking of buying this on DVD or HD to watch it, don't!

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.