Clonehunter

If you're a true Sci Fi fan, you've probably watched lower.

The acting is credible and the story worthwhile. I enjoyed this film for its bleak nature.

Interesting from start to the finish. The plot has depth and the acting is generally good. For a low budget flick the Blade Runner style atmosphere was well created, both in setting, and dialogue.

Embrace the low budget Sci Fi - you're always guaranteed no regurgitated Hollywood pap.

Clone Hunter is a very good science fiction thriller that holds up well. Simply put, a science fiction film made with more HEART than budget.

Worth watching.

Yes, super low budget. The effects were reminiscent of 2D comics! But I liked the story a great deal. Yes, some of the characters were over the top and nonsensical, but it was obvious that the actors had a good time making this film and the acting itself was decent. I can't fault the players. The dialogue wasn't special, but it wasn't bad either. Overall the film was entertaining and had good continuity, decent storytelling and held together. That is far more than you usually get with low-budget sci-fi like this. Worth watching on a lazy Friday night with a group of friends and a tub of popcorn. Oh and it's somewhat kid friendly depending on how you feel about non-sexual nudity. No graphic violence (ray guns, grappling fights), no sex and I honestly don't even recall any swearing. One gratuitous non-sexual full frontal nude scene by the female character (getting dressed). Lasts about 20 seconds.

I really wanted to like this as it was obviously made on the super cheap, but there's just too many strikes working against it. Repeated CG loops. Messy script Way too many tight shots to hide the lack of sets WAY too many lights pointed at the camera to hide the lack of sets. choppy editing and frame rate. They deserve all the credit in the world for the attempt, but the end products was just hard to take.

I had fond memories of the series of cheap, low-brow 80's-90's movies starring Tim Thomerson as future cop turned bounty hunter Jack Deth. The first film, Trancers from 1985, was genre defining to me as a young film fan, with Blade Runner at the top and Trancers at the bottom of the grime & crime sci-fi genre; reminiscent of the old black & white movie detective or private eye film noirs of the nineteen forties and fifties. Clonehunter's bounty hunter David Cain is no Jack Deth - no tricks, no one-liners, and not tough as old boots. Gumshoe Philip Marlowe would have wrapped this plot up in the first reel.

Upfront I should say that I still don't know WHY I watched this film to the end, unless to confirm my suspicions that Clonehunter was as bad as I believed. Yes, it was. I've seen better directed, scripted and acted B&W B-movies from the 1950's with better more realistic special effects than Clonehunter. The direction was passable, the editing made viewing feel very episodic in nature like a string of webisodes cut together, and the cinematography was a huge disappointment from start to finish.

In fact many of the serial webisodes that have been proliferating on the web in recent years, shot on shoestring budgets have managed to display almost Hollywood quality production values. Values that are sadly lacking in almost every respect, with regards to this film. It could have been filmed in a underground car park or a warehouse set using an old VHS consumer camcorder, edited in a teens bedroom at night under the bedclothes and still produced a better on-screen result. Straight to DVD bargain bin stamped all over it.

The problem with watching short sample files is sometimes the same as watching trailers, they lull you in believing the whole film will be as watchable. Trust me, avoid this film and watch something else. I gave it a 3 score as it was cheesy but not complete trash. I am going to find all the old Trancers movies and remember the good old days of my youth.

I must say I was pleasantly surprised at how easy & enjoyable this one was to watch. You can tell right away that it's relatively low-budget, but one thing that's also pretty clear to me at least is that the actors were clearly trying their best to do a good job. Even the actors who weren't all that great - they at least clearly took it seriously. I'd rather see a bad actor who is serious about at least trying to do a good job than a wonderful actor who couldn't give a fig -any- day. I was particularly impressed with the leading actress (the one with the robotic hand). She nuanced some parts of the script in such a way that if this is still a relatively "new" career for her, then I'd love to see her work in 20 years because with a bit of time & experience, I think she has "greatness" potential.

Visually speaking, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this was someone's "Bladerunner"-inspired attempt at making a live action "comic book" style movie. The sets, the lighting, the colors and even the character poses were all things that would actually look fairly decent in comic book ink. The "Plasticoat" billboard ad on the side of a building was very much an homage to Bladerunner - the actress even seemed to give the same smile.

The characters were fairly formulaic, and certain scenes were as well, but overall the creators of this flick did manage to make it interesting and actually seemed to have a few of those "original ideas" which so seem to elude movie writers these days.

My favorite part of the entire movie was Naomi, the holographic cat - she's not all that prominent in any given scene, but she is ever-present (even if only off to the side) and is ultimately much more critical than she's ever given credit for. She was a nifty idea and perhaps the most well-done special effect of the entire film. Her movements and interaction with the other characters were all very detailed - her sounds, her motions as a cat and her flickerings as a holograph as well as her color - all were nuanced to a degree you wouldn't expect for a film with such a low budget. Whoever made that special effect clearly has a talent for finessing the believable from the non-existent quantum- binary froth of the CGI realms. ;-)

Overall, I wouldn't recommend it for family night -or- to folks who take their science fiction seriously enough to make a distinction between "science fiction" and "sci-fi" - this film is definitely "sci-fi" for those who understand the difference. :-) But it is a pretty cute story and isn't difficult at all to sit through if you don't try to expect too much from it.