IMDb > Artifacts (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Artefacts
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Artifacts More at IMDbPro »Artefacts (original title)

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 13 reviews in total 

10 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

It could've been good, if they had a real ending for it

3/10
Author: FieCrier from Upstate New York
12 September 2008

The movie's only an hour and fifteen minutes long, and a portion of that's taken up by the end credits, so it's very short. The end credits mention something about a Belgian Tax Shelter, which may explain this movie's existence.

The DVD cover, incidentally, has nothing to do with the film.

It did actually hold my interest up to the "ending." People are being killed by their doppelgangers, who appear accompanied by odd static. The police find metal "artifacts" in their bodies. There's an amusing web search at one point where the heroine searches for "artefact in bodies" or something like that. That would bring up a lot more results than she gets, and she actually finds more or less what she was looking for.

But anyway, in the end the artefacts and the doppelgangers are not explained. Nor is the non-explanation satisfactory in any way. I might have given the movie a 6/10 or 7/10 if it sustained the interest with the ending, but the failure to have a resolution really damaged it for me.

The special feature indicates this was shot in 12 days for $100,000 with a cast of 10 and 20 locations. It sounded like they originally wanted the actors to work off the synopsis rather than use a script. For a movie on a limited budget with a limited shooting schedule, that's a real mistake. The dialogue and acting in the film is actually fine, it's the plot where the film falls flat at the end, with no wrapup. I'm not really sure where the $100,000 went. Maybe just towards paying the cast and crew? They do blow up a car....

The special feature does offer a very little additional information about two of the characters that one could not possibly get from the film. However, the director either really did not have an explanation, or plays coy. Supposedly, budgetary restrictions kept them from offering a real ending. They're open to the possibility of a sequel or a remake. I'm doubtful whether they'll get that opportunity.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Fascinating, tight little thriller ... why are so many viewers confused by this film?

9/10
Author: hippiedj from Palm Desert, California
24 July 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There are so many people confused by Artefacts ... frankly, I'm confused why everyone is so confused! If you just pay attention, and give the attention this film requires, you'll understand plenty. Just because it has an open ending, that doesn't mean answers weren't given.

Kate is a career gal that seems to have things going for her, except for a failed relationship. All of a sudden her employee and friends start turning up dead, killed by doppelgangers. Even the news reports mention a strange metallic artifact (spelled artefact in the film, due to its Belgian production I assume) that has been found inside each victim. Kate finds that her own doppelganger is hunting her down, and the implant is possibly a tracking device for the doppelgangers to find each victim. The arrival of each doppelganger is preceded by a clicking, ticking sound as well. Through investigation on the internet she finds a big clue to what is going on around the world, and she is just another pawn in the whole thing.

She then meets up with a man named Carl Francken who reveals just enough for us to know some of the "why" of the situation but only just a tidbit to keep us in the dark and still trying to figure things out. In a way this would have made a great X-Files episode, much of the atmosphere and story fit that well. I'm also very much reminded of the wonderful 2008 feature "The Broken" with Lena Headey (which equally baffled many U.S. viewers but, if paid close attention to, gave more answers to its mystery than Artefacts does). There is also an "experiment/game" element that reminded me of the 2005 film "Experiment." However, Artefacts is a story and film of its own, and I feel holds up well.

These days, particularly in U.S. audiences, people want easy answers and wrapped up solutions in their movies. If they have to think while watching a film or try to think some more after the credits roll, they get angry. I've read some very severely hateful things in comments online about Artefacts, The Broken, Session 9, and a good example -- the 2001 film The Wind, where people just didn't get it. They were upset that they had to think, figure things out, and put the puzzle together. They weren't easily handed blood and boobs on a platter; just angry that they had to do a little work as well as sit back and watch.

Artefacts, to me as well as some open-minded friends, turned out to be a tense well-made, well-acted thriller, and smartly made on a low budget (only $100,000) with an intriguing premise and execution. I love to view it with friends as a double-feature with The Broken, as each has its own strange world to absorb and mess with your head. Some folks may say it's a European thing, but I sure welcome a viewing challenge and for me it paid off quite well. Oh, it's just plain creepy too...

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

I guess it's a Belgian thing...

8/10
Author: IlluSionS667 from Belgium
24 May 2009

Maybe it's because I'm Belgian, but I actually really liked this film.

So the film doesn't have a well-developed storyline, but those who really bother about that don't seem to get the point of this film. All this film attempts to do, is to create a totally paranoid atmosphere for an hour and fifteen minutes... It attempts to do so mostly by focusing on the emotions of pretty regular young people, creative camera angles and a creepy soundtrack. In my opinion they most definitely succeeded. It might have helped that I smoked a joint on forehand, but I really felt on the edge throughout the film.

After coming to the realisation that the film was shot on a very limited budget and in a very limited time frame, I was really impressed.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Not a bad film at all

7/10
Author: qbeing99 from United States
11 September 2008

I rented this from Blockbuster through the mail, since my local store does not carry it. I rented it despite the low ratings here on IMDb, mainly after seeing the trailer for the movie.

This was not a bad film at all! In fact, I rather liked it. The story was interesting. There was plenty of suspense, and just enough gore. Sure, they might not have ended it so abruptly, but all the questions this movie leaves me with gives me something to think about. There is a lot left to the viewer's interpretation.

I enjoyed it, and recommend the movie to you. It won't win any awards, perhaps, but it is worth watching.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

good up to the ending soured me off the film

4/10
Author: movieman_kev from United States
30 September 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Kate, a business woman in her mid-twenties, is having nightmares of her closest friends winding up dead that seem to become reality in this tense, slightly unnerving little film dealing with dopplegangers. Made on a shoe-string budget over a couple of mere months this sci-fi tinged thriller is pretty damn good (for the most part, the ending is atrocious and 'end's nothing). It was a breath of fresh air to see a film that doesn't automatically (and wrongly) equate mindless gore with big scares. Kudos to the film makers for not going that route. And at merely 75 minutes (including credit rolls), this film is lean in a good way & rarely drags. But, I must say again, the ending pretty much soured the movie for me.

My Grade: C-

DVD Extras: A 52 minute Making-of (that's almost as long as the film itself); a trailer for this film; and Trailers for "Bangkok Dangerous" (the US remake), "the Spirit", "Restraint", "Kitchen Privileges", "Raising Jeffrey Dahmer", & "Bram Stroker's Dracula's Guest"

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

More Like A Filmschool Project

5/10
Author: bacardicazz from Netherlands
15 November 2012

I bought this DVD out of the blue, I wanted to be surprised. The movie focuses on a young woman named Kate who finds out all of her friends and co-workers are murdered by their doubles. At no point this is a mystery for her because the doubles make no effort of concealing themselves for prying security cams. While the police seemingly makes no effort of solving the case (?) Kate runs for her life and tries to save as many friends as she can. The style of photography is guerilla at best, which gives the movie a documentary-like feeling, especially in the rare action scenes. Unfortunately, because of the underground touch, it never accomplishes to be scary or intensive. Also, the writers have forgotten to include any and all explanations as to where the doubles are coming from, who made/grew them, who are controlling them and why, what are the artefacts for, etc? I like my fair share of mystery and mysticism, but there is a difference between letting the viewer decide what to make of it him/herself, and just leaving everything open. I have to say that I am impressed with the time schedule, because the documentary points out that three guys did all the work in a little over a month for only 100,000 dollars. I also have to say that the acting felt a little staged. Kate appears to express total anxiety as her neutral emotional state and you basically care little whether she lives or dies. Overall, it feels more like you are watching a filmschool project rather than an actual movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Interesting Movie

8/10
Author: Brooks Land from United States
31 December 2008

I was very surprised with this movie, for I expected the worst out of a B horror flick. However, the acting was quite good (particularly Mary Stockley..the main character). It was also thrilling and deep. In addition, the soundtrack was not weak, as it usually is in these types of cheap movies. I would recommend seeing it; it is entertaining and existential. If nothing else, you may find the leading lady a sight for sore eyes. That's about all I am going to say without giving away anything. If you like to watch people get chased, then you'll more than likely dig this movie. I gave it an 8 out of 10 for its originality and depth.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

nice try, nothing more

3/10
Author: johannes2000-1 from Netherlands
12 March 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The premise of this movie was okay en kept me curious for like 10 minutes. After that the many shortcomings of this production took over until the end.

I watched a piece of the DVD's extra, where the makers of the movie told that they did it in 12 days for 100.000 dollar. They sounded sympathetic enough, but this is definitely not a Blairwich Project-kind of surprise, because as a supposed horror-flick it fails on the most crucial part: it's never ever in any way even a tiny bit scary! Maybe it's the low budget, maybe the lack of time, maybe the definitely bad script, but even under such conditions a decent (or promising) director should still be able to create some suspense or a creepy atmosphere or some solid scares, but this movie simply lacked all of that. It's mainly about a girl finding out that she, her (ex-) lover and a bunch of close friends all have implanted some metal artefact in their bodies, which all of a sudden attracts their exact Doppelgangers who are out to kill them. There's hardly an explanation, not even in the end, just some mystifying ramblings like: high people from "up there" are playing a game with you. The whole movie we see a lot of running around through ugly streets and houses, while the Doppelgangers conveniently announce themselves by way of a strange rattling sound. No graphic violence whatsoever, hardly any blood, and one car exploding (probably costing the most of the films budget). That's about it.

Then there were these annoying other things, like the strange accent of the actors (were they originally Begian?), the bad acting of the rather scruffy looking male main character (why did she ever want HIM back?!?), the uninspiring "musical" score (mostly some weird sounds) and the uninventive and amateurish "special effects". I always think it's a cheap trick to let aliens (or whatever supernatural influence is intended) take over the bodies of normal people, it saves the makers of the movie the trouble of creating a decent alien or monster. Here they even went to such juvenile tricks as: you touch the hostile Doppelganger and puff, (camera stops filming, actor takes off, camera starts running again): he disappears into thin air! The script rattled as much as the score. How and when were these metal artefacts implanted? Were they born with it? So how come nobody found that out earlier, for instance when crossing a metal detection gate at an airport or during some chance medical examination or X-ray. If it really had to do with some devilish game to see how the normal people would react to an evil twin, why did the Doppelgangers instantly went to kill the normal persons? And what were these evil twins supposed to do after the kills? Live the life of the dead person? Take over the world? And why this complex scheme of planting an artefact to attract the Doppelgangers - if these "people from up there" were so skillful as to plant a metal artefact in a body without the victim knowing of it and without a visible scar on the body, couldn't they just have sent the Doppelgangers to the normal people without the need of such a clumsy mechanical beacon?? All in all I was not impressed, I only have to admit that the female character (actress Mary Stockley) did a pretty good job acting under these poor circumstances.

I rate is 3 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Its a Slow Boiler

Author: Kelvin D Walker
2 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I do have to say that I am instantly intrigued by and endeared to movies whose endings get people angry. I don't know why. So when I hear of one I try to seek it out and see for myself. A great example is the zombie movie Automaton Transfusion, another very low rated film/movie/trash morsel on IMDb. (possible spoiler) The ending there was hilariously on a dime(End possible spoiler).

This movie I liked. The opening left me a bit dubious, low budget and all, but it has some fun ideas ripped of from higher budget movies. If I were an investor in this movie, and it broke even, I would definitely invest in their next project.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

My Review

4/10
Author: joemamaohio from United States
26 September 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Young entrepreneur Kate (Mary Stockley) is experiencing the deaths of all her friends in very odd circumstances. Soon she discovers that they're being killed by their dopplegangers, and it all has something to do with an artifact that was implanted in each of them.

"Artifacts" had the power of being something better than what it was. With a total running time of 1 hr and 14 minutes (including the opening and closing credits), it seemed that the directors didn't really care about making a great story. The artifacts aren't explained, nor is anything else really, and the ending was so abrupt that it didn't warrant any closure. It could've been great, but instead it was crappy.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Ratings Awards External reviews
Official site Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history