Ejecta

source: Ejecta

I'm all for low budget film with an original, well thought-out idea behind it. What I'm not for is a lod budget flick that tries to play in a big league by adopting every possible cliche punchline to drag out the below expectations reveal in the end. As previously pointed out, the interrogation scenes are fillers and a waste of time. Overall, solid acting (I'm genuinely interested in seeing the lead actor in a good movie) and sub-par, cliche-riddled plot/mystery and dialogues, making the movie a waste of time for anyone already neck deep into the sci-fi genre.

I can understand that this flick isn't loved by many but now that i have seen it I must say that i liked it, it isn't going to be an Oscar winner but it do offer some good moments sadly it also has a few points that will give you a seen that before feeling. The story is rather simple and towards the end it's easy to guess what will happen. It's a bit of a slow starter but when it starts it do deliver excellent moments if you are into mockumentaries or shaky cams. If you think you are going to see a flick full of effects, forget it, it flows on the simple thing, if you don't see it it will scare you even more and by adding creeping sounds some will be triggered towards the godfather, Blair Witch Project (1999). What didn't do any good to the flick is the night vision used. It's always the same you see, a gun. But as i said before, it do has a few good points and the red stuff is seen a few times, seen better but also ween worse. Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

Julian Richings is one of the few positive things about this flick, I literally kept falling asleep but tried to stay up hoping for some plot twist to make it more interesting . It's a low budget movie but instead of making up the lack of funds with creativity 2 things are particularly annoying, the soundtrack at times is so loud it's almost impossible to hear the dialog, the "blair witch" camera work is annoying , please directors all over the world take note, that crap is stupid please stop using it !!!! There are more negatives about this movie but not as annoying as the 2 above, the story is so predictable and save Julian Richings the acting is very very poor feels more like a high school students project than a real movie, maybe that's what it was in which case they did a great job . There is one interesting idea in this story and that is the aliens controlling the subjects.. anyway, again a movie that could have been easily made into a captivating with an interesting plot but the writers decided to stick with a "been there done that" story..

Ejecta (2014) Is a movie, Directed by Chad Archibald and Mat Wiele and it was written by Tony Burgess.It's a Canadian production. Spoiler Ahead. The movie's central focus is on William Cassidy played by Julian Richings, and his sadistic interrogator Dr Tobin, played by Lisa Houle. William had met an alien presence and the nasty Doctor wants to literally get into his head to learn what he would not disclose , Scenes are revisited as flashbacks, each return revealing a touch of new information to the plot. All in all I found the technique to become tiresome after a while, It seemed to be done to conceal a weak plot .Running in the dark with a night vision lens is a horror movie cliché that deserves to be shot. Amazing how much time was wasted on this repeated segment. Everything else in the movie was done to confuse the plot rather than clarify it. Having seen it once, i would still have a difficult time telling you what it really is about. If I may be honest, some of the dialogue went past me, Why the actors felt a need to whisper their lines when there was no reason in the story for them to do so, is beyond me. Did I miss anything important? If you mean did I miss anything that would make this story make sense, then yeah, I must have missed it.Six out of Ten "they tried" Stars. What do they want? go figure.

I don't do many reviews unless the movie deserve it, and this one really deserve it! This is a hybrid, no doubt of it. We have a mockumentary within a third person storytelling. I didn't expect much, specially from the rating in this site. I usually don't read the reviews and if I do I take my chances and watch under my own risk. We watch Julian Richings (an amazing performer) as William "Bill" Cassidy, who is interviewed by Joe Sullivan who is making a documentary of Cassidy because he is famous for his "alien history". At the same time we see that William is actually imprisoned by military forces leaded by Dr. Tobin, and they intend to torture William with alien devices to reach an answer about all what he knows. Everything take a twist when we realize that Dr. Tobin is watching the documentary that reveal more than William is willing to. And is more twisting when we found out why William can survive all alien torture devices... I confess it was not surprise at first to me, but then all went freaking unexpected: William is William... and is more than that. So, I do like this film a lot. The acting of Richings was great as usual, and the rest of the cast try to comply the level with all their acting abilities, not all of them can do it, but is a good work. The best: I like the opening a lot, the cinematography was good, the setting was pretty decent, the acting was good, the music was awesome, excellent script. The worst: some scenes are unnecessary and don't match the plot. Some acting is not good in supporting performers (fortunately they don't have much screen time) 8/10 I do recommend this one. Watch at your own risk ... We are all critics, but must see to give a critic.

I do believe this is possibly the absolute worst movie I've watched in my entire life. As a fan of the genre, I really hate to see this movie lumped in with sci-fi at all. Because it really gives sci-fi a bad rap. Yes, it's that bad. I think the best thing Lisa Houle could do is to try another career. Her 'performance' is the absolute worst acting I've seen from any human being... ever. For this reason alone I just could not recommend that anyone waste their time watching this piece of wasted cellulose. The plot has holes that just cannot be reconciled. The only saving grace in this video is that I didn't have to spend actual money on it. This is just bad all the way around. Don't waste your time.

17 August 2017. This review offers possibly the only real positive review of this movie. After watching hundreds of science fiction movies and plenty of horror ones too, this movie stands out for being a strikingly different and admirable addition to the science fiction genre. Thank you for a limited film budget. Makes for some daring and experimentally brilliant filmmaking. What perhaps most vital to even appreciate this movie is to summon up and keep in mind the possible historical dark secret about a Roswell conspiracy cover up and a sinister government discovery of aliens years ago which would lay a reasonable foundation upon which the movie plays out to make sense of what follows. This science fiction-horror fusion is one of the few successful transformational films. Unlike Event Horizon (1997) that started with a strong sense of science fiction fascination to only descend into a crazily skewed horror motif, Ejecta manages to intermingle and blend The Thing (1979) with creepy intelligence using the riveting found footage technique pioneered with The Blair Witch Project (1999) to offer a dirty version of the clean intensity of The Signal (2014) which Was released the same year as Ejecta. The low budget special effects fit well with the movie's overall cinematic photography, using electricity as well as different rougher textures and darker colors to provoke a strong unique visceral alien intensity. The difficult use of flashbacks captured the sense of chaotic, off-balanced twisting, emotive weirdness all the while maintaining a coherent, intelligent progression of the main storyline. The only significant weaknesses of this movie occur with the difficulty of managing the overuse of revealing alien presences without losing the scary shocking fear intensity and the almost two-dimensional reaction of one of the characters when faced with the alien unknown. The performances are outstanding with the odd and strikingly strange William Cassidy character who apparently is experiencing an otherworldly phenomenon who is being interviewed by Joe Sullivan who was mysteriously invited to meet with Cassidy. Julian Richings as William Cassidy offers an award- winning performance with his schizophrenic presentation, striking physical features, and a fascinating personality. Another story is also concurrently presented with a sinister female interrogator, one of the most potent, strong solid female antagonist who is seeking to discover and confirm alien life by any means possible. What occurs then is a back and forth reveal of the entire story while massive ejecta from the sun closes in on earth. While not as fascinating or tight in its scale or glamour as The Arrival (2016), it has a comparable emotional cinematic bite as Phantoms (1998). By the end of the movie there is a puzzling sense of haunting dark balanced satisfaction as the story nears its completion.

Directed by Chad Archibald, "Ejecta" stars Julian Richings as William Cassidy, a man who has experienced a series of extraterrestrial encounters. Cassidy is visited at his secluded home by a documentary filmmaker, Joe Sullivan (Adam Seybold), who hopes to learn more about Cassidy's encounters. "Ejecta's" reasonably creepy premise quickly degenerates into needless mayhem. A UFO crashes, soldiers bumble about in the dark and Cassidy is taken hostage by a woman who uses the opportunity to indulge in exploitative torture sessions. Whilst "Ejecta" does have several good scares – most of which find our heroes assaulted by aliens in a wooden house – and does capture several genuinely creepy nighttime images, this is ultimately a poorly written film which panders to low-budget horror conventions. Written by Tony Burgess. 5/10 – Worth one viewing. See "Fire in the Sky" and "Session 9".

I have to agree with the reviewer Gavin; I think he summed it up pretty well, except in my lowly and wretched opinion, I think he was just a BIT too generous. I ALMOST wanted to give this a '5' because, as Gavin mentioned, the 'Pedigree' of the film. Also, there were some truly effective moments, especially in the last 10 minutes or so. But, in all objective fairness as a whole, I had to give it a '4'. I also LOVED 'PONTYPOOL'; and I feel it is indeed one of the best Horror films to come out of Canada and certainly is a perfect example of how to make a VERY effective Horror film with very little. I think that in this case, if they wouldn't have tried to go so much with the 'Found Footage' type delivery (although I can understand why, maybe, because of the obvious, severe budgetary restraints) and instead spent some more time developing substantial dialog for the interview between the blogger and the main guy (for example 'THE INTERVIEW' - in that case, almost ALL of the film is the questioning of a guy by two cops. But, it is VERY effective - I think they should have used that approach instead of all the wasteful running around in the forest, etc.) Also, maybe I am in the minority here, but I absolutely could NOT stand the woman who played the military interrogator. Seriously Gawd-frigg'n-Awful. I absolutely HATED her little cutesy approach; it was horribly clichéd and painfully corny, especially for one SUPPOSED to be in a high-level military position. If she had just played it VERY straight and disciplined, as a military individual WOULD have, then that part of it at least would have gone better. Also, perhaps if they had just cast a coldly beautiful woman in that role, again playing it STRAIGHT without all the nauseating cutesy stuff, I really do think that would have gone a LONG way to improving the film. Now, I'm NOT talking about some Barbie Bimbo with large breasts (not that there is ANYTHING wrong with that :) But, just a good-looking, but steely cold woman, and with MUCH more incisive dialog, THEN I can see that part of the film being a LOT stronger. Think about it... Imagine her coming across as stone-cold and calculatingly efficient, and with MUCH better written dialog. If done properly, I think the sharp contrast between her beauty and amoral coldness could have been quite chilling and effective, raising the hair on the back of our necks instead her inane dialog causing our eyes permanently to roll infinitely far back in our heads... So, unfortunately since the very two things I mention are pretty much the entire film, I do feel that if they had approached both of those parts in different ways, but still kept all the other story elements and style in place, that REALLY would have boosted the quality of this film and made it FAR more entertaining. In my opinion, the film makers just took what could have been a decent, entertaining idea, and ruined it with a lazy and stupid approach. Sad, but I think unfortunately true...

Do NOT believe it's under-rated. It's just plain annoyingly bad. Clearly a middle school project with supremely ludicrous dialogue. Too many late nights and obvious sleep deprivation leads to ridiculous "plots" like in this film. No common sense, no intelligent or coherent story at all. It's like something written by a teenager overdosed on Red Bull, who has never watched anything but extremely short glimpses of ET, Alien and X-Files. Go spend some time watching seagulls squawking instead, which is much more entertaining and not so annoying as this silly "movie".