Sadly Over-hyped

Am I Missing Something?

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

I decided to watch this film, on a wet and windy day. Much as i tried it was very difficult to hear the dialogue, and this common problem persists with many films, on offer on film packages ( sky movies etc ). What makes this problem so frustrating, is that numbers of films are allowed to be made with this handicap. I gave up after 20 minutes, as it looked interesting. H B O or Home Box Office create wonderful drama programmes, and unfortunate mugs like me, suffer from great expectations, all because we believe that being able to hear the spoken word.should be possible Rating ....4

I struggled from the beginning.Even if you can cope with, Legalised all drugs idiocy, (we would self destruct within a year if all drugs were legalized. There is a reason why no one in any form or authority should be on drugs, whether that is someone driving, to the leader of a country....all drugs legal... really?), but yes getting pass this premise. Its like all common sense left the scientific adviser.Car number plates with bar codes? Oh my. You can see it now, local law enforcement, "Excuse me ma'am, can you tell me the car number plate from the robbery."...."Sure, it was a thick line, with small space, followed by a thicker line, no...that's not right, it was a thinner line." Again, no common sense.Oh and his cool visor that sees temperature of the corpse....he moves around to see it from different angles, then cuts back to him having not moved at all.Sad to say, i couldn't get through this film......

SPOILER ALERT! Eh? How in hell would you spoil this film? It's doing fine on it's own. It would be like taking a pooh on a pooh. (not bear on bear action there, just trying to sideswipe the no swearing rule)SO: Last weekend me and a few friends listened to:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAmQ7RsNAE423 times in a row, laughing our tits off, and wondering "why?"My guess is this film is a low rent version of that record, and without it's wit or humourSomebody somewhere had a love of science fiction, a lot of bad drugs, too much money, and decided to build this folly. Unlike Ringo the result wasn't pleasurable in any way (i'm being over dramatic for effect - the camera is occasionally lovely, that's why this review isn't merely a complaint about why IMDb doesn't offer a drop down 0 out of 10) but still the same question remains; "why?"Did you see my last sentence? Did you see how it didn't quite work? Maybe it was because the brackets were too long, maybe it was irrelevant, maybe it was a smelling error, maybe it was just time travel or i've been a terrible father messing things up for no reason, maybe it was that I'M NOT A WRITERThat's this film. It doesn't work on any level at all. it's a bit like someone with too much money and drugs just went "i've got this bag of half-erst science fiction thriller memes, let's just place them artfully in this vase", but the vase was made of Ketamine so when they opened the bag the memes just went EVERYWHERE at random, and the money would have been better spent on a flower arranging course.WHY? You can work the equipment, but as my friend Gregory always said "musicians should make music, plumbers should do plumbing" Whoever made this: Film- making is not your skill. Well done for trying, but maybe take that flower arranging course.

Justin Trefgarne has his first cinematic debut with the crowdfunded Narcopolis; a sci-fi drama about a future where drugs have been not only legalized, but are being pushed by corporate backers as being a safe alternative to street narcotics.There were several things I really liked about this film, despite being what most people would consider a low budget type of film. First, as a science fiction, it brings a very unique idea to the audience. Although the majority of the film is in the detective style of neo-noir films, the concept is a solid one. Imagine a future, where the majority of citizens are not only using, but encouraged to do so though advertising and product guarantees. Narcotics are available in every society I can think of, but very few of them have been privatized outside of the prescription drug market. There is some decent acting, and I was particularly impressed by Eliot Cowan's portrayal as the protagonist Frank Grieves; who portrayed a massive and daunting man, battling his own demons, while progressing through a series of bizarre events.The things that most people will notice are the poorly written plot twists, and dialogue. Some of the twists that are meant to shock the audience fall quite flat during this film, or are revealed at the wrong times. Perhaps due to poor direction or writing execution, it's hard to say, but there are several scenes that make little to no sense in the overall plot. A few of the actors are new, and you can tell in the way they exchange dialogue. Yet if you can look past these scene errors and look at the overall film, I think you'll be quite pleased at the end result. I encourage more films from Justin Trefgarn and hope he keeps to the same genre. I especially enjoyed the opening of the film, which set quite a pace that I wished that the rest of the movie kept up to.Needless to say, it's a very sound Sci-Fiction / Drama, but most viewers will hold it to perhaps too high a standard. An excellent first entry along the lines of 'Equilibrium' (2002).5/10