I've seen some of this director's other films, and suffice it to say, this film was not put together by an amateur. The director has a lot of technical skill under his belt; the problem is he tends to bite off more than he can chew. His scripts tend to be unconventional in that they often deal with a lot of extraneous elements, e.g. non essential characters and plot devices, which most directors wouldn't have the confidence to attempt, and not surprisingly, sometimes it pays off whereas sometimes it doesn't.
To start off, this is an experimental film, the only question is WHY? In my opinion, the script, and the basic premise are very strong, and this could have been a very solid little indie film were it handled better. It's not a character or dialogue driven film, but it doesn't have to be. It's a plot/action driven film, and yes there are some decent action scenes (I had no idea Danielle Chucran could do all that). It was clearly produced with a shoestring budget, but for the mostpart, the director put his funds to good use with some convincing special effects where needed, so I guess the question now is, what went wrong?
First of all, the director made the very bad decision of opting for a "found footage" style film, where all the material we see comprises security camera footage, and footage supposedly from ocular implants. This ends up ruining things in two ways (1) it makes the film seem much much more amateurish than would have been intended, and (2) it's done in a way that makes you feel detached and uninvested in what you're seeing.
An even worse decision however: the director clearly wanted to put across the impression of being watched and being under surveillance, not being in control of your mind or body, and having people see through your very eyes and people controlling you and your actions. So how does he accomplish this? The entire film is sarcastically narrated by a teenage girl ALL the way through. It's cute for about 10 minutes, then it really starts to grate on you. Ultimately, the narration really never manages to synchronize well with the film.
It ends up being a little bit like watching a movie with your annoying younger sister. What this does, why it was a disaster move, is because it removes you even FURTHER from the material itself. Remember, it's an action/plot driven film. If you're taken out of the action at EVERY single moment, you just can't get into the film. Interestingly enough, the girl narrating the movie often literally makes fun of the camera angles, the bad acting, the plot devices, and half the time you tend to think "Hmm yeah, good point, that was a rather shoddy decision wasn't it..." The director: WHAT was he thinking?!
A standout criticism in particular is when she makes fun of the really bad French accents, a perfect example of the director biting off more than he can chew. Danielle Chucran has some acting talent, but her aside, you're hiring the majority of these people mainly for their skill in martial arts and stunts, not for their acting ability. For the love of God, WHY are you making them put on foreign accents? It's the most consistent way to cheapen a film's quality.
In a word, disappointing. So many bad decisions came together to ruin what could have been a decent film. If Danielle Chucran saw the final cut, assuming she's not a complete bimbo, I imagine she would be very annoyed with the final product as well. The narration was like a smudge on virtually all of her scenes. In all honestly, if the director going forward, has trouble getting producers to fund his projects, it serves him right. What a mess.
Show more 
