Bardlerx Strictly average movie

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Allen Selner Sr Drops the ball in several areas. The first was the obviously "canned music". Some of the cast came off no better than that of a high school play. Well choreographed and cinematography, it moved along nicely in spite of what must have been a small budget. That, I believe was the downfall. I'll take a science fiction "B" movie over a romantic comedy any day.The best I can say is that in spite of shortcomings, I watched it to the end. Given more time, better casting, and an original sound track and it would have had my vote of 8.5 rather than 6. This movie had to have been well written as a short novel. As a film, it's subject the those shortcomings mentioned. Worth watching? Yes, in a pinch.

zombie-32 May contain spoilers The overall idea had merit the script jumped around abysmally. Continuity or what passed for it was a complete joke.You have an squad of elite "Erasers" who start off able to shoot a feather off a flying finch at 2km but by the halfway mark none could shoot the broadside of a barn even if they had been shackled to the wall. I was amazed that none of the Erasers managed to shoot themselves in their own face they had become that incompetent.If they were the elite then they would have gunned down the resistance/terrorists/bible bashers at range before they would have known that they were under attack.Why were the only long range drones used to attack cities but could not be used to hunt down the resistance? The acting was so wooden it was a major fire hazard.I want my life back that I spent watching this failure

Michael Garcia This movie is laughable at best. Everything about it is atrocious. From the "elite soldiers" who can't properly aim a gun and shoot, to the awful flashing bullets and the "blood" which resembles red powder being thrown at them.All the actors in this movie seem to lack any basic human instinct as they do not react when there is someone emptying a magazine in their general vicinity as the bullets rarely hit. It is comedic when in the middle of a gun fight, a person runs up to the soldier, stabs him in the throat and doesn't get shot immediately by the soldier right behind him. A group of high school kids could make a better movie than this. Now if you want a movie for pure entertainment and comedy because of the train wreck this movie is, I'd rate it a solid 8

in1984 8.1 of 10. The film's summary doesn't really do it justice or capture the film adequately. Part of the reason is that it's clearly lacking the big production and marketing money. That's noticed in the video FX to some extent, but not the cheap stuff you get off a TV quickie. It still very much deserves to be in theaters.In addition to focusing more on the combat and people doing the combat more than the technology versus District 9 (2009), it's also a modern-day, this-could-be-happening-now war film. There's virtually nothing in this that doesn't already exist and the world is essentially as-is except for being at war. The similarities are sometimes scary in the closeness and the deliberate, unambiguous way they are pointed out in the film.What's missing is, as mentioned, some more realistic video FX and also some of the subtlety and plot setup done in films with more writers and development time. There are also a few unnecessary clichés, like ridiculous gun fights involving soldiers with automatic, armor piercing weapons and normal people where no one is getting hit and bullets are all but infinite. Despite the budget, the cast is well selected and comes through with solid acting.