The-Ambassador Yes this film was a great idea. Someone somewhere came up with a cool idea for a movie. Other than that it's all downhill. What it appears like is that a bunch of stoner friends got together with some cheap cameras, had no access to a budget or good equipment, no access to producers or directors or studios or a cast of actors... So they shot it themselves over a weekend. The acting is beyond bad. It's gruelingly uncomfortable watching these homies attempt to clumsily "act" through this dreadful dialog. It's so annoying at times that you literally have to fast forward through it. The main actors are just so so bad. What's worse is that one worries that it is them who actually trying to direct it too. I would have loved this movie to be good. Unfortunately it's just dreadful.

gerisullivan I was impressed be the " real people " feel to the characters. I could really relate to them. Maybe it was the director's use of new talent, with a few tried and truly talented familiar actors in the mix, but it really worked. The genetic theory was very believable. I think I even heard on the radio somewhere a doctor is very close or already has found a gene along these lines. It seemed a little slow at 1st, but caught my attention quick, and kept it all the way to the end. I would like to see more from Joe McClean. Even if you sort of guessed what was coming, it was really a "wow" feel to it. I will tell my friends about this one. I would also say watch it for yourself, well worth it.

Nothing25 What I liked most about this movie was the fact that the director actually covered his bases with the whole "found footage" concept, which in my opinion has been done to death at this point. But here, there's an actual reason for it, and the quality gets better as the film progresses. Not going to give spoilers out as to how it was done, but I think it's done in a smart way and offers some originality to the "found footage" concept. It always bothered me in other movies like, "Paranormal 23489" or whatever number they're on now, as to "why the hell are these people holding cameras?? They would never do it in real life!" In Life Tracker they attempt to fix this which I appreciated. The movie is a little slow at first, but it didn't bother me. A little extra character development felt nice. I know all big budget movies use quick cuts and 30 second scenes to bypass solid story telling, but I like slower cuts. Besides, the movie gets more interesting in the second half so investing in the first half is worth it. It's not for short attention spans so I see why a big studio probably passed on it, but the concept is cool and and dealt with very scientifically. Again, the writer and directors covered their bases here which I appreciated. If your looking for "Face/Off," look elsewhere, but this movie offers some solid Sci/Fi concepts and good plot.

M34 I am generally quite tolerant of independent .I don't mind lack of effects and other limits from small budgets.But this film is an insult to the viewer in every respect.The writing is utterly unforgivable. Not only is the dialog a childish string of inane clichés, overall story is so full of massive plot holes, that suspension of disbelief is impossible for anyone with an IQ above that of a hamster.And really what is with these "actors"? Seriously, unknowns are fine, but abjectly untalented isn't necessary. There are plenty of unknowns with lots of training and talent that can be had for free. There was no reason to use people who could not act their way out of a paper bag.And to the director: have your actors do something other than shouting and mumbling. OK? Yeah, you got no budget, so "documentary style" eg hand-held because you can't rent equipment or locations is OK. But you don't need to jutter the viewers, zoom and pan like someone who has never used a camera to emphasize that! Skip this film.