Ejecta

I have to agree with the reviewer Gavin; I think he summed it up pretty well, except in my lowly and wretched opinion, I think he was just a BIT too generous. I ALMOST wanted to give this a '5' because, as Gavin mentioned, the 'Pedigree' of the film. Also, there were some truly effective moments, especially in the last 10 minutes or so. But, in all objective fairness as a whole, I had to give it a '4'.

I also LOVED 'PONTYPOOL'; and I feel it is indeed one of the best Horror films to come out of Canada and certainly is a perfect example of how to make a VERY effective Horror film with very little. I think that in this case, if they wouldn't have tried to go so much with the 'Found Footage' type delivery (although I can understand why, maybe, because of the obvious, severe budgetary restraints) and instead spent some more time developing substantial dialog for the interview between the blogger and the main guy (for example 'THE INTERVIEW' - in that case, almost ALL of the film is the questioning of a guy by two cops. But, it is VERY effective - I think they should have used that approach instead of all the wasteful running around in the forest, etc.)

Also, maybe I am in the minority here, but I absolutely could NOT stand the woman who played the military interrogator. Seriously Gawd-frigg'n-Awful. I absolutely HATED her little cutesy approach; it was horribly clichéd and painfully corny, especially for one SUPPOSED to be in a high-level military position. If she had just played it VERY straight and disciplined, as a military individual WOULD have, then that part of it at least would have gone better. Also, perhaps if they had just cast a coldly beautiful woman in that role, again playing it STRAIGHT without all the nauseating cutesy stuff, I really do think that would have gone a LONG way to improving the film. Now, I'm NOT talking about some Barbie Bimbo with large breasts (not that there is ANYTHING wrong with that :) But, just a good-looking, but steely cold woman, and with MUCH more incisive dialog, THEN I can see that part of the film being a LOT stronger. Think about it... Imagine her coming across as stone-cold and calculatingly efficient, and with MUCH better written dialog. If done properly, I think the sharp contrast between her beauty and amoral coldness could have been quite chilling and effective, raising the hair on the back of our necks instead her inane dialog causing our eyes permanently to roll infinitely far back in our heads...

So, unfortunately since the very two things I mention are pretty much the entire film, I do feel that if they had approached both of those parts in different ways, but still kept all the other story elements and style in place, that REALLY would have boosted the quality of this film and made it FAR more entertaining.

In my opinion, the film makers just took what could have been a decent, entertaining idea, and ruined it with a lazy and stupid approach.

Sad, but I think unfortunately true...

I'm all for low budget film with an original, well thought-out idea behind it. What I'm not for is a lod budget flick that tries to play in a big league by adopting every possible cliche punchline to drag out the below expectations reveal in the end. As previously pointed out, the interrogation scenes are fillers and a waste of time.

Overall, solid acting (I'm genuinely interested in seeing the lead actor in a good movie) and sub-par, cliche-riddled plot/mystery and dialogues, making the movie a waste of time for anyone already neck deep into the sci-fi genre.

The story of one night on earth that changed everything we know about the universe.

Right off the bat, you have to admire the great casting of Julian Richings ("Wrong Turn") as the sleepless, wiry man with a deep connection to extraterrestrials. His very presence is unnerving, and that is before he opens his mouth. Dee Wallace, a woman who needs no introduction, also appears uncredited and might draw in a few viewers.

There is a loose connection between "Ejecta" and "Pontypool", one of Canada's finest horror films, through the casting of Tony Burgess and Lisa Houle, who both appeared in that film. In fact, Burgess had written the original novel "Pontypool Changes Everything". Even Ari Millen has a strong genre background, appearing in the cheesy (but fun) "Monster Brawl" and the widely popular sci-fi series "Orphan Black".

No surprise, Burgess also wrote this script. Dread Central points out that "Burgess, never one to spoon feed you answers, slides in the subtext in an almost inconspicuous manner, compelling the viewer to truly think about what they just watched." This is true of both this film and "Pontypool", which makes Burgess among the better horror writers working today. He prefers the intelligent scare over the cheap jump, something that will keep his films remembered for years to come.

And also like "Pontypool", the scares are largely auditory and less visual. We know the story involves aliens, but we are left in the dark about how they appear. In "Pontypool", we had zombies, but they were always outside of the radio station and never in front of the camera. Does this trick work twice? Yes, it does.

The downside to this movie, however, is the low budget. Sometimes that can be helped, or worked around. The lack of aliens was a wise decision not just for storytelling but also to keep the budget down. But a few too many scenes look barren, or just lacking something, and this is where it does not quite hit the mark. Faulting a film for its budget may be unfair, but sadly that was the loose link.

This is still worth checking out if you enjoyed "Pontypool". And, by the way, if you have not seen "Pontypool", go out of your way to track down a copy now. One of the best horror films of the last decade in any country, hands down.

Come on! If it doesn't have a budget of hundreds of million of dollars it's a bad movie? The IMDb rating is way too low for this film.

It is not perfect, that I admit, but it is far from bad. I think the worst part of it was the interrogation room. They used some weird tech and they made a great effort to explain that no one knows how it works, only what it does. It had absolutely nothing to do with the story. Also the psychopathic doctor cliché went a little bit too far and for no good reason.

It basically played out like an over extended Outer Limits episode sans the budget. Lots of annoying clichés were used like the evil shadowy government organization, the humanoid alien that makes cameras fizzle right when it enters the shot, the found footage bit, the black eyes, etc. However it stops right at the edge of being too much and overall it kind of works.

Bottom line: the ridiculous low budget shows in the special effects, the sets and, unfortunately, the acting quality. The story, though, is interesting enough to keep someone watching and always trying to understand what is going on. I wouldn't recommend it, but I can't tell people off, either. A bit too long for the content, though.

I wasn't completely disappointed with this film. There were a couple of things that really were clever. I wished they would have capitalized on those nuances that were unique and steered clear of the "found footage" filming style. Haven't we had enough found footage films to last a life time? What worked well is the use of real complaints that some of the abductees report; missing memory, showing up in strange places with no way of knowing how they got there, and the sleepless dull pain shrouded in unadulterated fear. That was creepy storytelling. It was a twist to consider the idea something is also controlling some of the visitors just like humans are controlled. Assuming all alien contact is only part of a bigger conspiracy of highly intelligent entities controlling the rest was a bright spot. Dire film with simple special effects made for a solid picture to catalog along with others that make the grade! Quick moving fun!