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.
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.