SparkMore
n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.
Peereddi
I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.
Janae Milner
Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.
ladybug2535
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.
Jorgescarlisle
If you, like I, turned to this movie expecting a tacky sci-fi story based solely on the title, you'll find yourself somewhat pleasantly disappointed. This film delivers a surprisingly good storyline, hampered largely by the low budget available for production. The low budget is particularly evident in the special effects, which demonstrate some creative problem solving to deliver the large number of effects required by the script.The script could have used a bit more editing. While it does have a couple of holes in it, none are so gaping as the obvious one in the award winning "The Kings Speech," and these holes are largely compensated for by the occasional good line and unexpected plot twists. The same holds true for both the cinematography and editing as well. While there is the occasional really interesting shot—such as the drunk/drugged shot, there are also a few really bad shots which should have been cut, or re-shot.It's difficult to critique the actors' performance, or even that of the director for these reasons. Just about every scene left me feeling like they ended each filming session when they ran out of film for retakes—or that they only had enough for one or two takes.But the storyline is a real saving grace for this film. I can't help but think that had they the resources available to the blockbuster films, that this film could have outperformed them at the box office. A little tacky, yes. A little campy, yes. Check it out anyway, it's an interesting watch.
dien
It's way too easy to bash films like these - horrible wooden acting, lack of any emotions, no budget, high school level special effects, silly plot, and so on and so on. But it would be unfair to compare a film by Andrew Bellware to a big budget Hollywood production. It is clear what he was going for - to tell a sci-fi story and have fun while doing so. Even though he must have known that only hard core sci-fi fans would find some enjoyment in it.But that is not my biggest complain. What bothers me the most is the fact that there has been no sign of improvement on Mr. Bellware's side. I mean, he's been making these films for several years now. I've only seen three of them, but they all look the same! Same lighting, camera work, I wouldn't be surprised if he even used the same set in all of them. A limited budget is one thing, but a lack of talent is something else. I have the impression Andrew Bellware has reached his artistic hight and all of his other movies will look the same. I'll watch his future work only to see if I was right.By the way, what is with that fetish concerning redhead women? Any explanation?
Beegeeay
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.
