Michael Ledo David Thorogood (Thomas Stoppel) and Ryan Cates (Artie Ahr) are performing unauthorized computer mind reading experiments with "borrowed" equipment from the university they attend. They are both dirt poor. Ryan cares for his invalid grandmother (Erma Sullins) while David is behind on his rent. His wife (Christine Haeberman) and child (Mykayla Sohn) are being neglected. Ryan meets Jordan (Amber Marie Bollinger) and brings her into the group.The government, of which we get glimpses, gets involved and things change.I liked this "low budget" sci-fi indy. It had characters I could relate to. Like good sci-fi it asks questions. In this one it is about government surveillance and control. Where does free will lie? If the government could read and control thoughts, would they? This film is built upon our current government surveillance and Edward Snowden...traitor or patriot? And who was Earle M. Jorgensen?I didn't know that neurons snap and crackle like electricity and lightning.Guide: A couple of F-bombs. No sex. Nipple slip ( Christine Haeberman) PG-13 stuff

theaterseatdriver Terrifyingly bad that is. The premise of the movie has potential, but the "science" portrayed is a little silly and illogical, even so within the logic of the movie. But hey, I was trained by a Buddhist monk to muster massive amounts of suspense of disbelief, even if the movie doesn't make sense according to it's own rules.But no amount of meditation is going to cover up the huge problems with the script and editing. It's all over the place. Scenes are disjointed, and dialogue is as well. Sometimes dialogue is completely nonsensical, as are are some cuts and scenes. (The dialogue is so weird at times that two sentences uttered one after another did not have any coherence whatsoever)Some scenes don't need to be there, and some scenes that aren't there should be there to make things flow better, or show a better development of motives and story. In other words; the movie takes too long showing us things that don't matter, and happily jumps over major plot developments, which are explained in a singe, short sentence or can be easily deduced, but it would have been much better to actually see those scenes instead of the ones that do nothing.At other times scenes just seem to make sudden, weird turns. Characters switch motivation or emotions for seemingly little or no reason at all.There are also massive plot holes. There is a glaring one that makes the entire movie pointless, but there are many. It starts out OK-ish, but gets worse as the movie progresses.I had a couple of laugh out loud moments because the movie is unintentionally hilarious at times, especially in the second half of the movie.The camera work is decent at times. They throw in some annoying lens flare effect in some scenes, as well as use different color filters for every scene. I tried to figure out if the lens flare and use of colors had any significance, but much like the editing and dialogue I couldn't make sense of it.The sound is OK, music is generic, and so are the effects.I had to force myself to finish this one. Two things kept me going; more potential unintentional hilarity, and the far fetched hope that the movie might ultimately make an interesting moral or philosophical point. Despite what some reviewers claim, it doesn't, it's just a jumbled mess.

greginess7878-1 I didn't think it was possible. Until I saw this film...I'd foolishly thought that I figured out a way to vet the fake reviews from IMDb. If you see a suspiciously high rating on an unknown film with unknown actors on a meagre budget, then the first thing I'd do is see the number of reviewers. If it was 300 or less, chances are that the reviews were artificially inflated by the actors' families, cast, crew, etc.... Well lo and behold......this may not have had a 9 rating, but high enough to pique my interest, and had more than 1,000 reviews. So I figured it was one of those "diamond in the rough" indie films which somehow slipped underneath my radar. How wrong I was! You know how sometimes you can just tell a film is going to be horrible after just watching the first few minutes of it? Well this was no exception. Wooden acting, stilted dialogue, meandering plot... "but," I said to myself "the IMDb rating is decent, so I have to give it a try!". Famous last words. Watching more of this drivel did nothing more but to increase my irritation and headache.... honestly, what was the purpose of those color-filters anyhow...I felt that whilst watching some scenes, I was taking a colour-blindness test. It's the whole cinematographic affectation bit where the filmmakers randomly add filters in order to add a veneer of sophistication over what amounts to (at the end of the day) footage that is no grander than that taken by your nan during a holiday in Barcelona! Full disclosure: I couldn't force myself to watch all of this film... once they started on the whole derivative x-files "the government is now chasing us" part of the plot, I had to give up. Perhaps I may have had more stamina if the acting was on par and the story a bit more interesting and cogent. But alas... t'was not to be. So back to my original point...No way in Hades did this film legitimately get a 5.6 review out of almost 2,000 alleged voters. Just look at the evidence: there are only a handful of actual reviews on this post (and if you strip away the obvious shill reviews, I think there are only three or four genuine ones).So I guess that this is what it's come to now.....some ingenious computer whizzes now have the ability to create inflated scores which are derived from supposedly 2000 voters when it's quite clear that not that many people have probably even seen the film! That really irks me........as I hate nothing more than people who waste my time. That is why, despite me being a member here for many years, this is probably my first or second review that I've posted. This is how strongly I feel about it, and just want to warn others who are looking for a genuine review!

siderite The movie is written and directed by the same guy. That usually means that if it's going to be bad, it's going to be really bad. Good news: it's not bad. But it's not that great either.The story follows two students researching brain communication. Of course the bad guys are interested in this and they are already in trouble as they have been using stolen lab equipment from their university. More than that, there are marital problems as well. This could have been a good idea if not for the paint-by-numbers story, which is obviously written by somebody who went to writing class, but didn't have the time to develop their own style.The good part about the film is that the actors play well, the direction is reasonable - although I don't know why every damn frame has to have lens flares (another reason to hate J.J., probably) and the story is captivating. The only major problem is the lackluster script. Everything gets revealed way too soon and in the moments where tension was needed, story gets resolved by impossible means.Bottom line: nothing in this film is great, but it had something, a potential that somehow failed to get realized. Good start, interesting second act, confusing third and a really really bad ending.