marktyoung's reviews

This has to be one of the most hilariously bad 'documentaries' out there! It fails under three categories.

One. The subtitles. They are wild! Words are missing. Some are hilariously wrong. But every sentence is wrong. Whoever came up with them obviously never knew when one sentence started and another began.

Two. The narration. It is a voice over 'documentary' with no actual host. The voice sounds like it's automated. On Amazon no one is listed as starring in the documentary, so I'd assume no one is actually reading. One fewer person to pay for the maker I'm assuming!

Three. The script. It sounds like it was written by ChatGPT. It makes no sense, and so much is factually wrong. Who ever made this seems to think that Antarctica has never moved position over hundreds of millions of years (they probably should read up on continental drift).

This so-called documentary is an automated narration over still images and short video files spliced together by someone who can't even be bothered to google basic scientific facts. There isn't really much more that needs to be said.

What can I add that other reviewers haven't? It is perhaps the worst shark monster movie I've ever seen. Primarily due to the terrible script and the shocking acting. The lead and the old guy with the beard... There isn't a single sentence they say that sounds genuine. It's quite the feat! It starts off laughably bad (that car ride at the beginning!) then just gets worse and worse until you can barely stand to listen to them. "It's the plastic people!". It's not even a film that's so bad it's good, it's just bad and annoying. Not even a film you can watch on a Sunday with a hangover! Those of us who've watched this film have suffered so you don't have to!

What can I say about Intersect? Well, let's start with the negatives then go on to the positives.

What is it with the white lab coats? Why are physicists and engineers wearing lab coats? I can only assume its a cliche to show the audience - 'look scientists'.

Then there are the health and safety issues with the machine... First off, no university would allow a walk-in high-energy facility to lack: 1) a manual internal release, and 2) an external ability to shut down the system. They'd fail their risk assessments! Even walk-in x-ray facilities require these, let alone a 'time portal' being powered by *mumble mumble science words* Yes, that annoys me a lot. But given that these basic failures in research lead to TWO major plot points, it just feels like sloppy writing. Consider, why would these problems happen a second time? Why didn't someone raise the obvious question, 'maybe we need to follow standard safety procedures'. Especially given its a very high profile invention, which has lead to protesters gathering outside the university...

It is a long film, one which a lot of reviewers on here find boring. I understand, and I think the problems are three-fold: 1) the main actors are wooden, and have absolutely terrible dialogue to work with. Seriously, the dialogue would make George Lucas blush.

2) the reverse time narrative. Because the leads aren't engaging, and you are constantly going backwards in the story, you don't really invested in them. Each time-span is relatively short, and annoyingly most of the time it's unclear when the break occurs (on first viewing). Which makes you feel increasingly frustrated rather than intrigued.

3) the pay-off for the narrative. There is one exposition scene, and the main 'pay-off' scene, both occur very close to one another. But they both happen at the end of the film. Which means an hour and a half of viewing is really building to two opposing scenes, that are almost at the very end.

The last point is what is annoying. When you think through the reverse time narrative, it's really a way to undermine the impact of the pay-off scene. Whereas, had the film had a linear narrative, they could have actually increased tension through the story. Ultimately, its a gimmick that links to the theme of the movie, but undercuts its emotional impact.

Other issues: I didn't like how their were being manipulated (it comes across really gimmicky). The CGI was poor, but then the filmmakers choose to put in that particular scene and have it in daylight. Had it been at night, then the scene could have been played more for scares (and the dark would have helped hide the CGI).

Positives, I like the touches to Lovecraft's work (Miskatonic University, cosmic horror, unknowable beings), the general premise of the story is interesting, and the acting gets much better at the childhood section of the film. It's these positives that make me give the film 4 stars rather than 1 or 2.

What can you say about this film?

Well, it's not a fictionalised documentary. It's entirely fictional. Using a real city to create a fake "documentary" and exploiting people for a sci-fi film is pretty low. But to be honest, it's hard to imagine anyone would be taken in by the conceit, as the plot doesn't make much sense.

It's too slow during the first hour, but worse it doesn't effectively build characters to care about. That means there is little emotional investment once things start 'going wrong'. It makes the final 30 minutes (when things start happening) feel oddly meaningless.

There are all the standard alien abduction cliches (you can literally check list them!). There isn't anything new or particularly inventive here, it's a very by the numbers film.

The acting is pretty hit-and-miss. Some good performances but also quite a few bad ones.

There are a lot better alien abduction films out there.

So porn studio makes a very softcore feature. Why is the obvious question. The acting by most is wooden, but a couple seem like they could actually act if given something to work with.

Weirdly, for a group of guys who know one another intimately there is a curious lack of chemistry between some of them. When coupled with the stilted dialogue and wooden acting by some, it makes for an off putting feature.

There's no plot, nothing of interest happens (except the guys hook-up with either each other or with strangers, and that odd finale). The hook-up scenes cuts away just before the 'action' starts. Again, why make this? It's not a short film and it's not porn, but something in between.

The narrator character is easily the best at acting, and has natural chemistry with others in scenes. His character is the only one you get any real sense of as an individual, and who gets a narrative arc.

The ending doesn't really make much sense, it could have done if more work was put into setting up a plot (and not setting up a series of softcore sex scenes). Avoid.

It's not as bad as 'Beach Bums'. I think that's the best I can say. There is at least a semblance of a plot here, and the acting isn't as bad.

Very good short! Sometimes these can be really poor, but this one is well acted, has natural dialogue, great chemistry between the two leads and a clear storyline holding it together. Only downside is that this would have made an excellent 20 minute short instead.

If you have nothing better to watch on a Sunday, why not watch this. That's the best I can really say. It's not terrible, but ultimately the film goes nowhere. Neither of the main leads have any real insight into themselves and the film largely just ends. Some of the side characters are rather annoying, and poorly acted. The three mains are ok, although arguably the wife is the best acted role. Which is perhaps unfortunate, as the main drive is the performative machismo of the two male leads. The chemistry between the two males leads is somewhat lacking too, which also doesn't help.

There is literally no storyline, this short is just a series of vaguely connected scenes. The storyline synopsis is actually more detailed than the plot, there is no "testing the limits of their relationships" as there is no character development. Both the dialogue and the acting is wooden. Even at 20 minutes it feels like it goes on too long.

This has to be one of the worst, and most bizarre, alien 'documentaries' out there. It is literally Nick Pope sitting there making random connections between pieces of information and making wild conspiracy theories linking them. Oh, and there are bizarre images on screen (like actors pretending to be at press conferences, video of planes flying, stock photos, etc) to try to distract viewers that they are literally never presented with any evidence.

It's bizarre as Nick Pope talks about TV interviews and NY Times pieces, but they are never shown on screen. There are no interviews with anyone. Even people like Tom Delong who would be very sympathetic.

And of course, it ends with rampant conspiracy theories and talking about the "Deep State" in a Trumpian way. It's the same boring and tired shtick.