FPS: First Person Shooter

... or at least seen in parts.

Movies shot in first person need more than a hand holding a gun and lots of bad animated blood. They need some more action than a protagonist sneaking through a location and having "fights" with some cheap looking monsters.

Don't get me wrong: cheap must not equal bad. But this time it does.

For me the movie lacked some speed, some action (blood and gore is not action), and a bit more of a "plot" would not have hurt. I got so bored watching this piece of wasted time, I fast forwarded through only to find out that it goes on and on and on like it started until the end. Impossible to spoil it.

This is the first movie I could not finish, and usually I watch movies from start to end, no matter how bad they were.

If you watch this as an experiment, as a first time feature, as something the filmmaker tries to learn from, then you will be able to "enjoy" it. Just watching someone else play a game can be fun I reckon (SharePlay and a lot of YouTube channels would suggest so), but it can get boring and annoying too.

There's a lot of gaming references and it is old school with things (if you pick something up, there is no animation of your character picking it up, but it disappears for a second to reappear in your hand/s), which is sort of funny and stays so during the course of the movie. The effects aren't amazing and the acting is on low level too (that voice can be disturbing in a bad way). A short movie would have been sufficient, but I guess someone had to one of these ...

I had no idea what to expect from a movie called First Person Shooter, so I went in with no expectation, simply waiting to see a cheap movie and nothing more.

Was it cheap? Yep. Was it bad? Well, define bad. The camera work was quite good for what it meant to be, the lines, most of them, borrowed from other movies, but used properly. Had a gag there. The story? Typical zombie flick. The intro of the movie, laughed out loud, the rest, exactly like an old school horror game that maybe, moves too slowly sometimes.

Many good references to other movies and games, will put a smile on your face for sure, of course, not as a horror movie but as a indie little project that worked alright in the end. It really did act like a game, considering this is what it aimed for, I think it managed to hit the mark.

Thus, First Person Shooter is simply a project, a beginning for someone's career and from this alone, my opinion is that we could expect great things.

Cheers!

I never thought I could keep watching this movie. But after 10 minutes I wanted to see what will happen at the end. It reminded me many scenes from the old indie FPS games specially Blood (1997). Blood was my favorite game along with Quake 1 and 2 and Doom series and that amazing Wolfenstein 3D (1992). It was a cheap movie but worth to watch. The filming location was creepy as hell and the ending was unpredictable at-least to me. The guy's voice also was also very similar to the Blood's one. If you like to be reminded about the old good times you were playing these games it is a good movie to watch. I am expecting to see more from the creator. He definitely showed some talents making this movie.

The concept is simple but sounded fun, but theres a lot that went wrong and a only a few things that went right. The script is terribly paced, the games this is inspired by came from the 90s didnt even have cutscenes or anything much of a story, but they were more interesting, because they changed things up and they were faster, the levels took about 10minutes, 10min in this movie is a timespan where you move maybe 4 rooms foward and find one meaningless item. I have a high tolerance to trash if its either intentionally well done trash (although thats very hard), or sincere attempts that really tried doing something right, but failed due to a lack of money or the necessary knowledge on how to make a film. This movie has a lot of things that could be polished and some could have easily been better with a little more effort, they didnt even have to hire anyone for some of those things. It comes of extremely lazy. An example is that our protagonist finds a pc and as easter egg it has the game-influences (doom, blood, quake) on the desktop, but they are just icons of EMPTY folders. They could have easily gotten the original icons, either install these games that now cost as much as a coffee, or just download the icons and set them as desktop shortcut. Thats something that takes maybe 10mins. The voice of our player seems unfitting as well, it sounds like a 60 year old smoker, not some young badass. Every computer graphic looks out of place, why would a corpse turn into pixels? The opening doesnt look like an old game, it looks like a terrible indie game, trying to be old, but old games had great limitations on the veriety and gradients of colors, just put your graphics in a lower bit-rate and you got it, simple. The style also is ugly and doesnt fit the games they take as influences, none of them were side-scrolers, how can you mess this up? Then it has a HUD like a remastered game, but "autosave" and "loading", etc. is very pixelated, it just doesnt make sense, why not keep the movie entirely in this "realistic" version and keep the pixel stuff away? Because the realistic stuff is what works, the camera-movement, how the weapons/hands swipe across the screen and all those things, they are the things that work. The other thing that works well is the sound-design, its actually pretty good and very fitting. Turn a few knobs and i think this could actually be a fun experience, but like this its a bit pitiful, still worth a watch, if only to see what can go wrong with this simple premisse.