Pretty Good

Powerful

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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

I got to this movie by chance, just looking at sci-fi titles. Its actually quite a well made film. The story is engaging, the characters are intriguing and the acting is good. Its very difficult to find good sci-fi in the last few years. In this JJ Abrams era every sci-fi is the same, the story is the same, the actors all look alike, the characters are full of clichés and boring stereotypes that only teenagers may find interesting. Thats why Im happy to ignore a few flaws in movie Listening, which offers something outside of the cookie cutter scene. Cool movie.

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!

"You're trying to read the contents of an entire library by walking through the aisles. You gotta open the books to know what's really going on inside." What if someone else could read your mind? Does that thought scare you off ? Or can you see some perspectives and opportunities in this technology? And how long would it take before a government would order their secret service to focus on it and obtain the required technology ? Before you know it, you're in the middle of a "Big Brother" situation. You're not only monitored visually, but also your personal thoughts are intercepted. Or worse, a certain dictatorial mindset is being penetrated into your consciousness. Every power-hungry nutcase starts drooling after seeing this method. That's the basic idea of "Listening". A technological innovation with far-reaching effects mixed with a personal crisis.Ultimately, my general feeling about "Listening" is of a disappointed nature. The film had so much potential and opportunities, but because of some faint situations and a fairly implausible denouement, it's reduced to a laudable attempt. Let there be no doubt, the original idea is far from bad. A revolutionary development in the neurological sector, realistically portrayed with an abundance of technical equipment and commented upon in a complicated jargon. Although the latter tends to sound like outright gibberish sometimes. Could this technology be achieved in reality, this clearly would lead to the bankruptcy of the mobile telephony industry.Most of the scenes take place in a messy garage. However, these are the most compelling fragments in this film. Also they used a remarkable wide range of colors. The various chapters are filmed in a different flashy color. This requires some adjustment and it started me worrying about the color scheme of my television. Every time a blue, red or yellow fragment appeared, I checked my settings. But in the end this gave the film its own personal touch. The disadvantage of a low-budget film is of course the low budget (how surprising) what leads to a limited use of stunning visual effects. This becomes abundantly clear with the stereoscopic images during a telepathic connection.The only things remaining are the characters and the philosophy behind the story. The core idea behind the story is crucial in order to make a low-budget movie successful. If it doesn't look impressive, the story must be intriguing enough to make it interesting. As I said earlier, the idea was interesting enough and had plenty of material to provoke discussions. I can imagine that this will be debated widely.Unfortunately, the whole is a bit weakened by the poor worked-out personal problems that David (Thomas Stroppel) and Ryan (Artie Ahr) are facing. There are also a few illogical things and there are some unfortunate developments. I thought it was a bit cheap that the first used telepathic thoughts were of an erotic nature. An attempt to substantiate the theory that a man is thinking about that, most of the time ? And the fact that an ancient Buddhist meditation method is able to withstand this high-tech magic, was a bit too easy. And safety precautions during the grand finale were a joke. But besides these tiny flaws, this was a not so unkind cyberpunk movie.More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT