jamie_powell
I tried to watch this but really struggled. The film isn't very interesting it's one of those "you need to watch because it's so rubbish" type films The is quite simply the worst of the worst I'm not even sure what the storyline is. Not gonna write an essay about it simply not worth it
maxm-78745
I sat down and starting watching this with my family. the acting was poor and forced, with no conviction. The special effects where so bad I thought I was watching a 70s film lol. Half way through we all looked at each other and said " are you enjoying this" we all said "no" had to turn it off. Very sad excuse for a film, the makers should be ashamed.
Charlie Wilson
At first glance one would think that this film may be a likable genre of Family adventure. You start out thinking the backdrop mirrors the setting of some small-town podunk secluded in our Northwest. Meaning that to escape union tradesmen fees and taxing whereas to reduce production costs, efficiency-minded Producers take to British Columbia's Vancouver; which is sufficient for the referenced setting.Then comes the blatant, poor direction which leads to poor performances of such young actors. While youth could be attributed to their performance, it was the dialect coach who is to be blamed here. Whoever the person was, did not seem to be well versed in understanding how our youth express themselves and how they enunciate in word their emotions. Basically, an enforced acting all- the-while desperate in mimicking our American-English youth and dialect, and their emotion. FAIL!When the Army rears it's literal ugly-head by way of Col. Roderick, I knew we weren't in Kansas anymore, neither in Vancouver! We're led to believe Roderick is an Officer with the rank of Colonel, right? Yeah, a Col. Sergeant First Class E-7... WAIT, WHAT? The chevrons of a Sgt. 1st Class are clearly seen buttoned to his outdated cammo fatigue collars. The AK's as mentioned here in post. The CGI inferred muzzle blasts as scripted recoil shrugs. The Jeep. The stolen Bio-hazard panel wagon, rightward steer, that is playwright to be "foreign"!? FAIL!Why the American setting? The film would have worked much better as purely Aussie! Do they hate us so much to the point in riffing our lifestyle, our way of life? Hey, even our Policemen are misrepresented in this flick: they have no sidearms, nor two pairs of cuffs, a taser, pepper spray, magazine pouch, etc. While some Deputies and Sheriffs wear light clothing, most police wear the 'intimidating' line of wear - all black, jack-booted, crew-cut, Oakley sunglasses and the accouterments I identified as missing.There is one scene when our misrepresented ARMY is seemingly shooting the pet dinosaur and is where, I believe, a commenter here sites 'no muzzle blast seen while pretending to mimic recoil'? This is the scene where the US Army tranquilizes the creature in subduing for analysis. So, no muzzle blast but, they should have CGI in a puff of vapor in signifying the difference. Also, we're discussing a nation that literally sold-out their right to bear-arms. So, what we see here are most likely display models made from original parts but cannot be 'legally' converted or, soft- air models with the red muzzle indicator removed. Legal Movie Armorers do exist in almost all countries where in business to supply weapons of all varieties to production companies. Of course, all these must have stringent Quality Assurance and Safety measures and key personnel to insure that no 'live ammo' is present, only blanks. My son was (is) so talented with CGI back in his teens; over a decade now. We have two Mausers in our vast collection of semi and full- auto weapons (they are all legally owned): one we shoot one we don't because it is considered Unfired NIB (new-in-box). On his My Space Page, he uploaded a video of him in the foyer where he explains in intricate detail the Mauser rifle (NIB), it's historicity and most of all, it's function. He then seemingly chambers a round, pulls to shoulder and squeezes off a round. Then by way of PC Programming, he edits in the report, muzzle blast and some residual powder-burn smoke. The response comments were unbelievable in where the majority thought he had actually fired the weapon indoors: What were you shooting at to stop the bullet? I see that you did not use hearing protection nor worried of pressures within a somewhat confined space. How did you overcome that? On and on about how stupid gun-wielding Americans were/are and their lack of restraint and ignoring safety and law. He answered them all as if he actually shot the weapon and kept them going for at least a month whereby answering intelligibly and defending himself honorably. Then he dropped the bomb shell - the before and after videos and the comments went silent. So, who is the more foolish? The fool or the fool that follow the fool? In this case the FOLLOWERS!
