User reviews

Great idea for a movie but one hour plus of listening to a self pitying manic depressive is very hard to stick to. Very slow at times and hard to stick with it without losing interest, or without getting fed up with the constant whining and misery.

The film is pretty to look at, but the pace is slow. The build up is far too long, and by the time something happens it is already too late to recapture the viewers' interest.

Dystopian yawn fest. No new ideas. Predictable story. James D'Arcy, to be fair to him, is pretty good in it. Some will say that the lack of real life contact that the characters have, causes the unbelievable and unconvincing interactions between the characters, within this storyline, but in all honesty, was just a poor script with poor actors. I probably thought more times about switching it off, before the end, than I have done for a film for a while, but I kept at it because I considered there might be a good twist or something, but no.

The acting is somewhat decent however the plot should have never made it past an after party conversation filled with over priced low quality drugs. It is just that bad

What is the name of that thing actors send to be hired for a role? An actor's Headshot?? This is what this movie feels like. If it was written by James D'Arcy, I would have understood!! Except it wasn't, so I don't get it. There are a lot of ideas, sure.. but, maybe too many. Still, it lacks charm, and even feels over-acted at times. The lines and references feel old and repeated (Shakespeare, really?)

It's a "cheap story" in the end, and there isn't anything memorable or creative about it.

This movie was slow and difficult to connect with mainly because I disliked every character. I just didn't care about their lives and found them to be mildly repugnant.

Very psychological, over emotional in a depressing way. Had some intriguing moments, but the ending was atrocious. Slow film, not much reward, unless your studying psychology.

My wife and I normally rate the movies we watch seperately and 90% of the time we rate it the same. Not for this one though, as I apparently enjoyed it much more than her, I gave it an eight and she gave it a six, which is a big gap for us. That said I write the reviews so it's going to be a positive one. Considering the budget it's a well made sci-fi, nothing too fancy in CGI's but the ones that were present gave us a good futuristic look. As well did the story, which was most entertaining to follow. Maybe a bit slow but certainly not boring. The concept of the story makes you think about the future and everything doesn't even look that far fetched when you see the new technology we get every year. Guy Moshe did a good job writing and directing this movie. As for the acting, James D'Arcy plays the main character and because of his good acting it's one of those performances that keeps you interested in the story. Once again I'm happy I didn't pay too much attention to the low ratings it got on IMDb, as most of the time I enjoy low rated movies with some positive well argumented reviews, and that even if there are a lot of extremely negative reviews from people that are just never satisfied. To me this movie is a good sci-fi, much better than some high budget sci-fi movies.

This movie is an example of where technogical culture is taking relationships. The dialog was smart, realistic and the cinematography was on point. A pretty good flick.

Haha 7.6? C'mon. Move over Neil Breen! So bad, it's good.

It's kinda a bit like an episode of tales of the unexpected as there is a twist and then another twist at the end, trouble is, it's quite boring, I was playing hill climb racing 2 whilst the film was playing cos it's so boring but the end was kinda ok. Not much in the way of scifi either.

I hoped for so much more but it was a boring mess. No true character development No one to root for. Just boring.

So much potential unrealized.

I need 150 characters so I will keep typing until they let me post this boring movie review.

This dystopian future draws off the existential fears of our current zeitgeist without being too sensational about it. However, it plays off too many ideas to have a strong narrative, but the ending pays off in my opinion.

Our protagonist is normally the only one on screen, and this lends to the idea that maybe he's just going crazy. Or maybe he's the only sane person in a crazy world. Either way, the actor does a great job.

Where it is about things that we already know, what many already played over and over again. The great thing about this movie is really the technology element and I think also with the unexpected thing it is nice. Also what I do like the some humor and how smooth the special effects are done. The main character are played oke well but pity it is about all things but not good. Pity pity pity

I wasn't expecting much with a 4.8/10 rating on IMDb but this movie is excellent in every way. Very nicely written and scripted, nicely filmed for a low-budget movie (quality of the production looks much higher), good acting, good soundtrack and good incidental music that actually blends with the dialog so much you don't even notice it. This is a great futuristic sci-fi movie that makes you think. It's along the same lines as the Bruce Willis sci-fi film Surrogates. Too bad it hasn't been seen much (currently only 149 ratings as compared to popular movies with ratings in the multi-thousands.) I give this a 9/10 and that rating might be a bit conservative.

Too many plots .... "kitchen sinky" ... but well acted and has an attractive quirkiness to it. It's a slice of life in a dystopian future ... A good rainy afternoon low budget scifi project ..

Originally I was hovering over the remote at near 30 minutes in. I was already bored with the movie, it's dystopian plot was boring and not very fleshed out at all, the main character was boring and it really felt like a quarantine movie where 90% of the time the main character (who gives a solid performance to be fair) is sitting by himself with a VR headset on talking to himself in an empty room where we barely ever see what he sees.

At exactly the 30 minute mark though, a new character is introduced with a bit of a twist. It was a bit more interesting so I tried giving it more time but within 10 minutes it started going downhill again. The movie relies so heavily on flashbacks. It sets up very little at the start and terms are just thrown at you, then 40 minutes later will explain what the terms mean. It's not an interesting way to tell a story since you find yourself wondering about points and then when you finally are told about them, they're entirely uninteresting.

I got to about the hour mark and then just gave up. There is no reason for this movie to be near two hours long. If it was maybe 80 minutes long I'd have struggled through but another 50 after wanting to give up twice was impossible.

Too many flashbacks, too many scenes with the wife who I'm sure the movie wants to be unlikeable but she wasn't an enjoyable type of unlikeable. Too many scenes of him sitting alone shouting at a VR headset about uninteresting business deals. The social commentary is what your dad would say at the dinner table even in the early 2000s that kids spend too much time on their phones.

Title of this review sums it up neatly. If you want to make a film (not "flick" which this is) which consists primarily of people sitting around talking, use "Mr Dinner with Andre" as your road map; that was at least interesting. If you need background noise (which some students and even dedicated readers do to force them to concentrate on a text, turn the sound on this down to a mumble and go for it...or better yet, turn this mind-number off and put on some light classical music.