Such a disappointment. I am a fan of sci-fi movies, and here I was "wow, human vs machine apocalypse!". Boy, was I wrong. Plot has so many holes it's hard to describe, and sometimes you wonder if perhaps the editing moved scenes around (so ending scenes are in the middle of the movie etc). Lines are cliché ("you have to let me go" and such). Acting is sub-par (main character only uses two facial expressions - normal face and bulging eyes face). It steals ideas/images from other movies (octopus-like machines from Matrix; girl with a bow from Mockingjay series - yes, there are even birds here; the whole Terminator premise; bits of Mad Max wildlings). Also, as other mentioned, 97 years after the annihilation you still see crop fields, used rail tracks, clean paths through parks. And this student-project B-or-lower movie gets 8 out of 10 here? Don't waste your time on this one.
363 Reviews
A hot mess of a movie.
gazzbc20 November 2017
Was John Cusack on quaaludes when he read the script for this movie? Or did the producers have blackmail tapes of him with a Thai lady-boy? Perhaps both? Why, oh why, did he lend his talents to this steaming pile of a film?
It has been well covered by other reviews - elements shamelessly ripped off from other films, corny dialogue, unbelievable characters, things that just never seemed to make sense. The FX were good, and there was a good plot twist at the end - but the filmmakers managed to ruin even that.
The young female lead was okay - hopefully she survives this debacle to go on to better things. The young male lead I can only describe as punchable. For his part, I think it became clear to Cusack that he was First Mate on the Hindenburg and appears to be having a mild stroke while delivering his lines.
It has been well covered by other reviews - elements shamelessly ripped off from other films, corny dialogue, unbelievable characters, things that just never seemed to make sense. The FX were good, and there was a good plot twist at the end - but the filmmakers managed to ruin even that.
The young female lead was okay - hopefully she survives this debacle to go on to better things. The young male lead I can only describe as punchable. For his part, I think it became clear to Cusack that he was First Mate on the Hindenburg and appears to be having a mild stroke while delivering his lines.
Not A or B but C
Tweetienator4 November 2017
If you got the two lead characters with neat clothes, well-done hair-job, white teeth and even some make-up in a post-apocalyptic setting (almost 100 years after the massive killing of most humans on this planet through an AI and the survivors and their offspring still hunted down and killed by the machines) you just know, this can't be too good.
Well, like the above description indicates, I guess, this movie aims at a young audience, so maybe if you like such stuff like The Shannara Chronicles (which is a lot of personal drama and romance interrupted by the occasional fight and killing) etc. you may like this movie or at least you won't be killed by boredom and brain damage.
All in all, Singularity got some okay technicals, but the story (generic, a little bit Terminator here, a little bit Hunger Games here etc. pp.) and acting are so-so. If you like the post- apocalyptic genre but you need one for a mature audience (e.g. The Road, Mad Max, City of the Blind, Soylent Green etc.) skip this one, if you are a youngster around 12 or something like that, well, you may try it.
Why John Cusack took a role in this flick is a mystery to me. Thanks to some semi-pro or almost pro looking technicals like effects and camera (tv-scale), I rate a 4, but this is imo no B-movie but a C- movie.
Redundant.
Well, like the above description indicates, I guess, this movie aims at a young audience, so maybe if you like such stuff like The Shannara Chronicles (which is a lot of personal drama and romance interrupted by the occasional fight and killing) etc. you may like this movie or at least you won't be killed by boredom and brain damage.
All in all, Singularity got some okay technicals, but the story (generic, a little bit Terminator here, a little bit Hunger Games here etc. pp.) and acting are so-so. If you like the post- apocalyptic genre but you need one for a mature audience (e.g. The Road, Mad Max, City of the Blind, Soylent Green etc.) skip this one, if you are a youngster around 12 or something like that, well, you may try it.
Why John Cusack took a role in this flick is a mystery to me. Thanks to some semi-pro or almost pro looking technicals like effects and camera (tv-scale), I rate a 4, but this is imo no B-movie but a C- movie.
Redundant.
Just awful...
rosslittle-278-6572803 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This film is so bad I can't even be bothered stringing how much I hate this film into cogent sentences.
So, 97 years after the bots take over you're telling me that the windows on the shops are crystal clean? You're telling me that despite no new clothes being manufactured the human characters look like they've just got a whole new wardrobe from GAP? That nearly 100 years of neglect has seen no collapsed roofs, no weeds growing from gutters, and fields that look like they've been fallow for a couple of years? That street signs, railings, window shutters, metal roll shutters have absolutely no signs of rust? That despite the bot driven apocalypse, the main female lead still has time to obviously dye her hair? In the scenes running through forests, they follow well worn and undergrowth free paths.... worn and maintained by whom exactly? Bots? In one of the opening scenes, a shop is engulfed in ivy inside yet in one of the later scenes, a house described as 'really old' has perfectly white whitewashed walls, and inside looks pristine - photographs aren't faded, glass cabinets haven't a speck of dust on them... in fact there is no dust, not even a cob web! And given that the house hasn't been heated for 97 years, it's amazing that there is no damp whatsoever. 97 year old Polaroid film works and, it must be energizer, because the batteries are still fresh. Despite being out in the wilds for days on end the male lead is always perfectly cleanly shaven. Even when he is woken from sleep he has been mysteriously shaved - then again he is a robot - a fact that the writers are at pains to have us aware of from the outset with the laboured 'no food for me' scene - funny then that when the girl falls asleep on his chest she doesn't notice that he doesn't need to breathe (we presume) And then, when they meet some nasty humans, they are all covered in stubble, dirt and worn clothes - oh my, so original.
The male lead gets tied up in a brand spanking new rope. I mean, this thing clearly was just bought from a shop on the day... and the rope magically moves from one scene to the next... did they take lunch in the middle of shooting the 'tied up in brand new rope' scenes? Maybe they should have...
The male lead is only capable of two expressions - eyes normal and eyes bursting out of his head. There is nothing in between and the rest of his face is entirely pointless. Lucky for him that the dialogue doesn't require much else. Actually, I'm not giving him credit... he can do a variation on these two expressions above including with mouth open and with mouth shut.
The female lead should take urgent note that crying involves water coming from the eyes. You can't snivel and gasp for air, and then expect to look authentic with a perfectly dry face.
Special effects are dire - in the opening scenes burning buildings look like someone went mad with the Photoshop clone tool. Explosions don't cast any light on objects that are close by and clouds of dense smoke don't cast any shadows and dissipate in moments leaving no trace. Enormous bots appear to defy the laws of physics and move through dense forestry without causing a single tree to move.
'Whats in your chest' scene - great work on the 97 year old straw bales that look to have been made in the last week... and the plentiful fresh straw on the ground in the barn... just lazy...
Lighting.... I mean really.... what is happening with the lighting? In a dark and dingy forest, and it looks like two blazing follow spots behind the cameras.... just cheap and nasty.
The characters are so poorly developed that their behaviour is schizophrenic at best.
Continuity is a joke - in the opening scenes we see buildings burnt to to the ground, yet in later scenes, and I mean 97 years later scenes, they are visible in the background, with lights on inside. Really, 97 years after the rise of the bots, they are still using lights? Who is changing the bulbs? Bot janitor? Who even makes the bulbs?
The bots themselves. If you're looking for humans, perhaps IR might be better than visible light to detect them? I think it's utterly lazy that the main feature of the film, that drives the whole storyline, the bots, are so poor.
After leaving the 'facility' (you just know that's what they call it), they walk through a field of corn ready to be harvested. I'm feeling like a stuck record here...
John Cusack must have been desperate for the cash.
So, 97 years after the bots take over you're telling me that the windows on the shops are crystal clean? You're telling me that despite no new clothes being manufactured the human characters look like they've just got a whole new wardrobe from GAP? That nearly 100 years of neglect has seen no collapsed roofs, no weeds growing from gutters, and fields that look like they've been fallow for a couple of years? That street signs, railings, window shutters, metal roll shutters have absolutely no signs of rust? That despite the bot driven apocalypse, the main female lead still has time to obviously dye her hair? In the scenes running through forests, they follow well worn and undergrowth free paths.... worn and maintained by whom exactly? Bots? In one of the opening scenes, a shop is engulfed in ivy inside yet in one of the later scenes, a house described as 'really old' has perfectly white whitewashed walls, and inside looks pristine - photographs aren't faded, glass cabinets haven't a speck of dust on them... in fact there is no dust, not even a cob web! And given that the house hasn't been heated for 97 years, it's amazing that there is no damp whatsoever. 97 year old Polaroid film works and, it must be energizer, because the batteries are still fresh. Despite being out in the wilds for days on end the male lead is always perfectly cleanly shaven. Even when he is woken from sleep he has been mysteriously shaved - then again he is a robot - a fact that the writers are at pains to have us aware of from the outset with the laboured 'no food for me' scene - funny then that when the girl falls asleep on his chest she doesn't notice that he doesn't need to breathe (we presume) And then, when they meet some nasty humans, they are all covered in stubble, dirt and worn clothes - oh my, so original.
The male lead gets tied up in a brand spanking new rope. I mean, this thing clearly was just bought from a shop on the day... and the rope magically moves from one scene to the next... did they take lunch in the middle of shooting the 'tied up in brand new rope' scenes? Maybe they should have...
The male lead is only capable of two expressions - eyes normal and eyes bursting out of his head. There is nothing in between and the rest of his face is entirely pointless. Lucky for him that the dialogue doesn't require much else. Actually, I'm not giving him credit... he can do a variation on these two expressions above including with mouth open and with mouth shut.
The female lead should take urgent note that crying involves water coming from the eyes. You can't snivel and gasp for air, and then expect to look authentic with a perfectly dry face.
Special effects are dire - in the opening scenes burning buildings look like someone went mad with the Photoshop clone tool. Explosions don't cast any light on objects that are close by and clouds of dense smoke don't cast any shadows and dissipate in moments leaving no trace. Enormous bots appear to defy the laws of physics and move through dense forestry without causing a single tree to move.
'Whats in your chest' scene - great work on the 97 year old straw bales that look to have been made in the last week... and the plentiful fresh straw on the ground in the barn... just lazy...
Lighting.... I mean really.... what is happening with the lighting? In a dark and dingy forest, and it looks like two blazing follow spots behind the cameras.... just cheap and nasty.
The characters are so poorly developed that their behaviour is schizophrenic at best.
Continuity is a joke - in the opening scenes we see buildings burnt to to the ground, yet in later scenes, and I mean 97 years later scenes, they are visible in the background, with lights on inside. Really, 97 years after the rise of the bots, they are still using lights? Who is changing the bulbs? Bot janitor? Who even makes the bulbs?
The bots themselves. If you're looking for humans, perhaps IR might be better than visible light to detect them? I think it's utterly lazy that the main feature of the film, that drives the whole storyline, the bots, are so poor.
After leaving the 'facility' (you just know that's what they call it), they walk through a field of corn ready to be harvested. I'm feeling like a stuck record here...
John Cusack must have been desperate for the cash.
Hard to find words it's so bad
jan-jones4 November 2017
I can hardly believe John Cusack put his name to this.
Special FX were presumably done on a phone using an app. The story, dialog and acting are cringeworthy.
ps. ignore the fake reviews on here, watch the trailer and you will get an instant feel for just how bad it is.
Special FX were presumably done on a phone using an app. The story, dialog and acting are cringeworthy.
ps. ignore the fake reviews on here, watch the trailer and you will get an instant feel for just how bad it is.
The Death Of John Cusack
travis_hates_martin5 November 2017
i don't know what happened or at what point Cusack just said hey F it Im going to audition for roles in B-grade movies and ruin my career. I've been seeing him a lot lately in absolute garbage film and this one cakes the cake of washed up actors trying to make a buck.
But yeah about the film, its trash don't even waste your time.
But yeah about the film, its trash don't even waste your time.
~ 4/10 Beware of Fake Ratings!!
WatchAndSmile4 November 2017
I gave it a 2, but it's more of 4/10 movie...maybe. I lowered the rating because producers/owners of the movie are using one of many sites that give you free positive ratings, which is illegal. They should've spent that budget on making the movie better! Just google: buy IMDb ratings and many sites will pop-up offering this service. Real rating of this movie is more like 4/10 at the MOST!
OK acting by some...Bad for some others and of course 1 good actor.
The issue I have with the movie is that it is pointless, slow and predictable. I won't discuss bad graphics sfx as certainly the budget wasn't big.
The story could've had so much more to it. It just sad they decided to dumb-out the script and make it so plain. It is a very slow pace movie and not in a good way as I got bored 1/3 of the way and not sure how I got through the rest- I was really expecting it to pick up and it never did. The idea behind the movie is nice,but it was never developed at all.
Do NOT believe the high rating (currently 8) as those are fake ratings. There are many sites that sell Anyone giving this more than 5 or 6 did not watch the movie at all. I'd say any reviews of 2-5 can be considered real.
OK acting by some...Bad for some others and of course 1 good actor.
The issue I have with the movie is that it is pointless, slow and predictable. I won't discuss bad graphics sfx as certainly the budget wasn't big.
The story could've had so much more to it. It just sad they decided to dumb-out the script and make it so plain. It is a very slow pace movie and not in a good way as I got bored 1/3 of the way and not sure how I got through the rest- I was really expecting it to pick up and it never did. The idea behind the movie is nice,but it was never developed at all.
Do NOT believe the high rating (currently 8) as those are fake ratings. There are many sites that sell Anyone giving this more than 5 or 6 did not watch the movie at all. I'd say any reviews of 2-5 can be considered real.
A child with camera phone could have made a better movie
bkunder4 November 2017
An extreme low for scifi fans. The little amount effort put into this flick is astonishing. No energy. No real fear or feeling ever throughout. Just bad.
Who thought this would work? Why did you produce this?
Poorly executed.
Who thought this would work? Why did you produce this?
Poorly executed.
Pretty bad ---- I'm amazed at the high rating.
gsh9995 November 2017
Sort of sci-fi channel, TV-movie quality where it looks like they made the movie in a hurry, with a low budget and no attention to detail. It's supposed to be 100 years after the destruction of civilization, and everyone, including a band of woods-dwelling ruffians, have perfectly coiffed hair and beards. How does a grizzled mountain man trim his beard so perfectly without electricity? I'm surprised to see the high rating of 7.1, but that seems to be the norm on this site anymore. Like another reviewer posted, this one is for kids.
Waste of time. Do not be fooled by the rating.
nevyn00-980-3411814 November 2017
Again, do not believe the rating. The vote distribution is so obviously fake that now, it is on IMDb to do something about it. The story is unoriginal and nonsensical. The ending was a lazy attempt to set up a sequel that required a deus ex machina device created out of giant plot holes.
I don't know if it is the work of the studio to game the rating or if it is the Russians trying to make the world dumber by making horrible movies look good.
I don't know if it is the work of the studio to game the rating or if it is the Russians trying to make the world dumber by making horrible movies look good.
somehow the word awful just doesn't do it justice
marcisinphoenix4 November 2017
To merit the 1 i would say that the graphics at the beginning were quite nice
The rest was godawful .. how awful ? i had to write this review to warn people.
i'm sure having chosen to watch this movie i'm responsible but still i'm sure there was a crime committed in producing this movie. Some sort of human rights thing that would make the world court delete the movie from the planet.
The acting is so terrible its .. undescribable. The main actors are a pair of narcissistic self indulgent millennials so busy with themselves they get in the way of perfectly nice backgrounds that i would have watched in complete silence and been happy. If this is what hollyweinstein intends on producing in the future.. shut it down now.
and btw hollyweird enough of the movies with hyperPMS teen females leads there are normal teens out there ... please stop foisting your own failed parenting on us.
The rest was godawful .. how awful ? i had to write this review to warn people.
i'm sure having chosen to watch this movie i'm responsible but still i'm sure there was a crime committed in producing this movie. Some sort of human rights thing that would make the world court delete the movie from the planet.
The acting is so terrible its .. undescribable. The main actors are a pair of narcissistic self indulgent millennials so busy with themselves they get in the way of perfectly nice backgrounds that i would have watched in complete silence and been happy. If this is what hollyweinstein intends on producing in the future.. shut it down now.
and btw hollyweird enough of the movies with hyperPMS teen females leads there are normal teens out there ... please stop foisting your own failed parenting on us.
I liked it
szabotomika28 January 2018
As I see here are pretty much of professional movie critics. Yes it has its weak points. What does make a movie good?
For me, when I can enjoy it. I could. It was good. It was far better than described here. I don't know what you expect from a movie? Finally zero thinking? Or should it enjoy itself instead of you?
For me it was good. And this is not a fake critic. I hope you still read some books, then there is hope for you still. Live long and prosper.
IMDb reviews are a joke. Whether overly positive or extremely negative.
angiris6 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I'm so tired of seeing either. Whether its slamming a film for being low budget or writing fake 10 out of 10 stuff about how its the best stuff of all time.
I'm so sick of you people.
Here is an honest review from a guy who tried to give this movie a chance whilst being sceptical all the way through.
Its a nice movie. The plot reminded me of several movies. Terminator, Hunger Games, etc etc. Its a survival Sci Fi. Going in I expected something low budget. But I was surprised to see the films effects were actually handled quite well.
The sci fi is really well portrayed and and quite rad.
The story itself takes a turn when we exit the futuristic city theme that we begin with and enter a post apocalyptic world ( though serene) And that can be a bit of a turn off for some.
I stuck with it. And I got an engaging story, interesting plot, good characters and a couple that was made believable and likable.
It was a nice movie to watch. A mix of various films within the same genre. Bit of The Host, bit of the hunger games, bit of terminator etc etc. And although not a masterpiece ( Is this a requirement, self proclaimed IMDb expert critics) its still a good film you can relax to.
Its well above average. Slow phase, nice story, cool plot twist at the end that had me going " wow" which I wont spoil for you because I encourage you watching it.
Plus having John Cusack in the film which surprised me was quite a nice touch too because although his character doesn't have too many lines, he still played a vital part in the movie and gets good screen time that manages to heighten the tension all the way through.
Evil genius with a plan to rid the world of Humanity. Come to think of it. Its starting to remind me of the latest Deus Ex game. Mankind Divided. You got the same scenario.
But yes. It might be a little bit rough sometimes. I would have personally preffered a more futuristic world, more robots and such. But thats just my personal take. If I accept what the film decided to do instead ( which isn't bad) its still enjoyable and once again. The plot twist at the end explains a lot. There are no loopholes in this, which I applaud the script writers for.
All that matters is explained and rounded off in a satisfying fashion. Unless of course you're a IMDb super critic who feels he / she has to #### all over anything that isn't the latest Superman, Ironman or Transformers.
7 out of 10. A pretty good film. Satisfying visuals, nice calm story, good characters, good acting. Watch it with your girlfriend who enjoys sci fi, or give it a shot if you feel like something different and relaxed.
And to the people saying this is garbage, horrible, boring, etc. Its pretty clear you're the kinda people who judged this film the moment you began watching it.
Ah yes. The average expert super critic in an age where being overly critical is considered intelligent. Well, fellas. Here is a little reminder. The nr 1 rule when wanting to criticise a text, book, movie, song, is first and foremost to watch / listen to it closely, pay attention and try to understand. If you only view it from your own point of view and dismiss the rest... you're not an objective critic by any means and your review means nothing.
All of which isn't remotely intelligent. And on that note, I recommend anyone reading this to give it a chance. needn't pay to watch it. Check it out online.
It is worth your time if you're in the mood for something relaxing and can keep an open mind as with everything :)
I'm so sick of you people.
Here is an honest review from a guy who tried to give this movie a chance whilst being sceptical all the way through.
Its a nice movie. The plot reminded me of several movies. Terminator, Hunger Games, etc etc. Its a survival Sci Fi. Going in I expected something low budget. But I was surprised to see the films effects were actually handled quite well.
The sci fi is really well portrayed and and quite rad.
The story itself takes a turn when we exit the futuristic city theme that we begin with and enter a post apocalyptic world ( though serene) And that can be a bit of a turn off for some.
I stuck with it. And I got an engaging story, interesting plot, good characters and a couple that was made believable and likable.
It was a nice movie to watch. A mix of various films within the same genre. Bit of The Host, bit of the hunger games, bit of terminator etc etc. And although not a masterpiece ( Is this a requirement, self proclaimed IMDb expert critics) its still a good film you can relax to.
Its well above average. Slow phase, nice story, cool plot twist at the end that had me going " wow" which I wont spoil for you because I encourage you watching it.
Plus having John Cusack in the film which surprised me was quite a nice touch too because although his character doesn't have too many lines, he still played a vital part in the movie and gets good screen time that manages to heighten the tension all the way through.
Evil genius with a plan to rid the world of Humanity. Come to think of it. Its starting to remind me of the latest Deus Ex game. Mankind Divided. You got the same scenario.
But yes. It might be a little bit rough sometimes. I would have personally preffered a more futuristic world, more robots and such. But thats just my personal take. If I accept what the film decided to do instead ( which isn't bad) its still enjoyable and once again. The plot twist at the end explains a lot. There are no loopholes in this, which I applaud the script writers for.
All that matters is explained and rounded off in a satisfying fashion. Unless of course you're a IMDb super critic who feels he / she has to #### all over anything that isn't the latest Superman, Ironman or Transformers.
7 out of 10. A pretty good film. Satisfying visuals, nice calm story, good characters, good acting. Watch it with your girlfriend who enjoys sci fi, or give it a shot if you feel like something different and relaxed.
And to the people saying this is garbage, horrible, boring, etc. Its pretty clear you're the kinda people who judged this film the moment you began watching it.
Ah yes. The average expert super critic in an age where being overly critical is considered intelligent. Well, fellas. Here is a little reminder. The nr 1 rule when wanting to criticise a text, book, movie, song, is first and foremost to watch / listen to it closely, pay attention and try to understand. If you only view it from your own point of view and dismiss the rest... you're not an objective critic by any means and your review means nothing.
All of which isn't remotely intelligent. And on that note, I recommend anyone reading this to give it a chance. needn't pay to watch it. Check it out online.
It is worth your time if you're in the mood for something relaxing and can keep an open mind as with everything :)
Where is this Singularity
Meindert43374 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
From the title I'd expected more focus on how the AI is created and the 'spark' to Singularity, a bit like the TV-series Persons of interest. But, this is totally left in the background/past-tense. The justification that an AI is 'the way' to end all wars is missing The 'decision' to activate the AI is done in less then a sentence and then even faster carried out by an assistance handing over the tablet with probably the on/off switch. And the rest of the movie, two survivors are running from the ¿boogieman? or something, again missing the AI activities. Instead you see two figures following these two running survivors with impossible camera-views. It's left-out how these two figures where kind-of assimilated to be enslaved working for the AI. Unrealistic, to many gaps, bad acting. And therefore not understanding this movie gets a 7.4 (done by 417 IMDb-users), with an average of 72.9% (304 IMDb-users) voting a 9!
Singularly..... daft.
puppyzwolle4 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Where to begin? The whole production is so clean I suspected it to be a hint that is was all in the mind of one of the protagonists. The two antagonists where watching from the same camera angles as we were. If they were looking for something and they already had this amazing surveillance.... it *had* to be a plot element.....right?
And this tech Calia has. When did this EMP get developed? And when built? And how was it produced in a post-apocalyptic environment? And why did that EMP not knock out 'Andrew-bot'? So must be a plot-element right?
The lack of attention to a potential mortal wound. That could wait until the next day. Only to reveal a metal chest where she snuggled against without noticing?
And who was so bright to bury a spaceship to get to Aurora and in 92 years these 'kids' are the first and yet there is a completely colonized planet that somehow has escaped the attention of this super AI. How did they get there? And how was that a secret?
Not to mention all the clean clothes. Clean streets, obviously used train tracks, brand new 92 year old camera, a battery that keeps going and going.. to name but a few. And the best she has is a crossbow?
I seriously expected this all to be glitches in the matrix..... It would have been nice but turns out the writer and production designer just phoned it in.
We enjoyed bitching at this movie. That made it worth the watch and three stars...... but frankly? It would not get a passing grade for a first year movie academy project.
And this tech Calia has. When did this EMP get developed? And when built? And how was it produced in a post-apocalyptic environment? And why did that EMP not knock out 'Andrew-bot'? So must be a plot-element right?
The lack of attention to a potential mortal wound. That could wait until the next day. Only to reveal a metal chest where she snuggled against without noticing?
And who was so bright to bury a spaceship to get to Aurora and in 92 years these 'kids' are the first and yet there is a completely colonized planet that somehow has escaped the attention of this super AI. How did they get there? And how was that a secret?
Not to mention all the clean clothes. Clean streets, obviously used train tracks, brand new 92 year old camera, a battery that keeps going and going.. to name but a few. And the best she has is a crossbow?
I seriously expected this all to be glitches in the matrix..... It would have been nice but turns out the writer and production designer just phoned it in.
We enjoyed bitching at this movie. That made it worth the watch and three stars...... but frankly? It would not get a passing grade for a first year movie academy project.
Cusak should be ashamed
laurakgrimmer4 November 2017
I think the only reason this movie is rated PG-13 is because the acting can be very scary. In fact, if rating for those reasons, it should have been a strong R! Parts are unintentionally funny. I saw this on Pay TV and wish I could get my money back! Slow moving, bad acting, silly premise and poor special affects. Don't waste your time!
Pathetic
FLAPS204 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Not even my gran-nephew, a 8 yo boy, could swallow the story... Bad story, bad acting, waste of my money, waste of my time.
I cannot believe that in this century we cannot produce better stories and better movies. There is no message on this movie. How come there still are humans alive, what about the "so-called-super robots-that-do-everything", they cannot find these humans? Really?
Not even on a rainy day, free watch, I would watch this movie.
I cannot believe that in this century we cannot produce better stories and better movies. There is no message on this movie. How come there still are humans alive, what about the "so-called-super robots-that-do-everything", they cannot find these humans? Really?
Not even on a rainy day, free watch, I would watch this movie.
Awful
kakulena4 November 2017
No logic, no sense, no feelings, no action. The sounds are surprisingly bad, conversations are full of cliché. Neither director nor actors should be proud of this work. I'm sure it could be done much better with minor changes to scenario and at least some effort! While I was watching this, I was stunned by the stupidity of lead characters and absence of logic in most of the scenes. Seems like this work was made for a certain kind of people. To hurt them.
I'm not sure what to make of this movie
Green_Wolf3 November 2017
The two older actors are veterans in the business and the young main actors are quite good looking and show some talent.
There are some nicely done shots in this movie, obviously the camera crew are professionals. VisualFX, SoundFX and music are on par with with large studio productions. Film editing have been done to get a slower tempo than most current movies, but is also professionally done.
So what's the problem?
I think it's the script and the director. In one scene our young heroes seem stiff and cold, in the next one they are massively overplaying emotions. Then they are stiff and cold again. Repeat. Although the main story line is OK, there are plenty of stupid lines, some of them repeated several times.
I would recommend this movie for a rainy evening when you feel like watching a slow-tempo B-movie where everything except the script is actually a first class production.
There are some nicely done shots in this movie, obviously the camera crew are professionals. VisualFX, SoundFX and music are on par with with large studio productions. Film editing have been done to get a slower tempo than most current movies, but is also professionally done.
So what's the problem?
I think it's the script and the director. In one scene our young heroes seem stiff and cold, in the next one they are massively overplaying emotions. Then they are stiff and cold again. Repeat. Although the main story line is OK, there are plenty of stupid lines, some of them repeated several times.
I would recommend this movie for a rainy evening when you feel like watching a slow-tempo B-movie where everything except the script is actually a first class production.
Worst movie ever...
cajadomatic3 November 2017
Its simply horrible, the acting, the scenery, the plot, the figurine, the light, the edition, even John Cusack get to be bad in this movie. It seems to be just a film test or some school project. So many people involved in this total incoherent movie makes me think on how people trow money away...
So bad
kaibeau4 November 2017
Watched this as it rated so well, but oh gees.... We turned it off. Rubbish acting by the two younsters, holes in the story. Just doesn't make any sense. Don't waste your valuable time on this title... So disappointed in John Cusack. Must have needed the cash really bad! Hope they won't waste money on a sequel.
Warning : Fake Ratings on This Movie
mday0085 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I really wish Amazon would clean up the fake ratings issue. Any time I see a completely terrible movie that is this bad and has a rating of more than 6 you know the completely dishonest producers bought ratings.
Honestly, Amazon should take a stance that if you buy fake ratings for your movie, all future projects attached to your name get an automatic 1/10 public rating or even better, all your movies are barred permanently from IMDb.
First, the beginning is cheap, bad cgi of buildings blowing up and steel / concrete buildings collapsing like they are made out of wood and paper.
The idea is totally rehashed from the Terminator series and doesn't feel original at all.
Then, 97 years after the world was blown up, 2 people in brand new clothes meet up and don't find it suspicious that they have brand new clothes and look like they just got out of a shower and had their hair professionally done.
This suffers from all the same issues that the walking dead suffers from... magical medicines that don't expire, magical gasoline that doesn't separate into base elements over time, magical clothing that moths don't eat etc.
I'm really tired of "science fiction" movies written by people who have zero understanding of science, physics, chemistry etc.
I think a grade 5 elementary school student could have written a script with more critical thinking than this.
Honestly, Amazon should take a stance that if you buy fake ratings for your movie, all future projects attached to your name get an automatic 1/10 public rating or even better, all your movies are barred permanently from IMDb.
First, the beginning is cheap, bad cgi of buildings blowing up and steel / concrete buildings collapsing like they are made out of wood and paper.
The idea is totally rehashed from the Terminator series and doesn't feel original at all.
Then, 97 years after the world was blown up, 2 people in brand new clothes meet up and don't find it suspicious that they have brand new clothes and look like they just got out of a shower and had their hair professionally done.
This suffers from all the same issues that the walking dead suffers from... magical medicines that don't expire, magical gasoline that doesn't separate into base elements over time, magical clothing that moths don't eat etc.
I'm really tired of "science fiction" movies written by people who have zero understanding of science, physics, chemistry etc.
I think a grade 5 elementary school student could have written a script with more critical thinking than this.
An Amazing Idea!
arslansajjad-2343811 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
What if after so much selfishness, haltered, lie & deceit, the A. I (Cronos) considered humans "plague" of the planet while doing so much for them, then what did they wrong, logically? Expecting second part of the movie! Yes, there are some lacks in acting but the writer & director did their part best!
Average dystopian film that is worth a watch if you're a Sci-fi fan.
Boristhemoggy5 November 2017
The film is slow in parts but clearly lacking a confident direction. Ridley Scott or James Cameron would have turned this into an acceptable box office release I think. As it is it's slow and boring in parts and lacking a consistent pace. Argenziano is pure B movie material, while Cusack puts in a mediocre performance trying to mimic a sadistic robot born from a megalomaniac human. He just appears bored and confused most of the time. Grubba's performance, although only lasting a few minutes, is by far the very best of the entire film, although Wacker is close behind her and the only person who worked hard throughout the run of the story. I'd expect big things from Wacker in the future. I don't even know what to say about Schaffner without chuckling. Dire? Bad? Uninspiring? Amateur? Hmmm...not really amateur, he's not as good as that. His constant 'wide eyed and droopy bottom lipped' expression reminded me of Taylor Swift and left me utterly cringing for him, and aghast that a director would let such a desultory performance be allowed past the cutting room floor. He almost ruins the film entirely although Wacker rescues it and turns it into an average film that's only ever worth watching once but for that once you don't feel as though you completely wasted your time.
The Room now has competition!
mdmeadow26 November 2017
Wow. Horrible, horrible movie but I had a great time watching it... just make sure you have a bottle of wine and someone to laugh with. Full admission, I love(d) mystery science theater 3000 and this movie would have been a perfect target for it- a worthy competitor to Santa Claus Conquers the Martians or Manos Hands of Fate. There were point in the movie where I found myself laughing hysterically at how many scenes/story lines/special effects had been lifted from other movies or video games. By my count there were at least a dozen - most notable being terminator (several of them), matrix, gladiator, hunger games, blade runner, mech warrior, battlestar galactica, transcendence, Independence Day.... I could go on for a while. Others have noted the plot holes and I agree with their assessment. With that said, this movie is the good type of bad. Don't watch it looking for a serious dystopian movie- seriously, the main character has bleached white teeth, a jersey shore tan and highlighted hair - his love interest has a cell phone (didn't society collapse 97 years ago?), perpetual lip gloss, and a bow and arrow (apparently to shoot robots)..and let's not mention the Cusakinator. Do watch if you are looking for something to make fun of for about 90 minutes. Positive points, no one disappeared after catching a football or being diagnosed with cancer! I also don't think this cost $6m to produce. If that makes no sense, please look up The Room.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
