The Reconstruction of William Zero (2014) User Reviews

Not as good as it could have been...

[zmail-77704 · 5/10 · 20 April 2015]

The premise of this story is very promising - a thriller based on the concept of an apparent twin who turns out not to be all he, at first, thinks he is.

At the risk of not wanting to spoil the movie, I won't say more about how things turn round, but the focus is always on the lead actor, Conal Byrne, who has to play William and William Zero and another allied character with enough distinction between the three that you can keep up with exactly which one he is meant to be.

Thankfully Conal is up to the task and switches characters enough to be identifiably 'different' until the last chapter of the movie when the distinctions deliberately become blurred. As William Zero he has to appear practically clueless as to what is happening to him in the beginning and he almost pulls this off.

Unfortunately the script advances too quickly for us to get a real feeling for the dilemma in which he finds himself and the progression, from what seems to be amnesia to the dawning of understanding exactly what he is, happens abruptly and without enough reaction to be credible.

Similarly the reactions of the other characters in this story are also hurried and, therefore, appear unrealistic. Amy Seimetz, as the (ex) wife, does her best but isn't given enough dialog to carry through her predicament. In the end her conversion to the version of reality that she sees is too sudden and hardly seems in character.

Overall I felt the screenplay was generally too predictable at times, whilst leaving a lot of questions unanswered at others (presumably to try and engender a feeling of mystery). There are twists and turns in the plot which, with better direction or a superior screenplay, could have been more entertaining, even shocking.

The denouement is laughably simple (and requires another improbable leap of faith) and turns out to be what you might have been expecting all along. Of course there's no other outcome that could happen, but to give so many clues along the way, I felt, was unnecessary and leaves a limp ending.

I'm left wondering how many scenes were heavily cut and are left littering the cutting room floor? The progression of the story feels heavily edited and this is the sort of movie where a typical preview of a more twisted, mysterious version might have elicited comments of 'I didn't understand it', forcing a different direction before the launch.

This should have been a movie which throws up more questions, especially moral ones, than there are answers but, in that respect, it fails. On the thriller side it also doesn't score as highly as it could have done. At the end I was just left feeling that this could have been so much better.

Potentially clever plot under-exploited. Relational drama and issues around cloning might be used better. Two extreme William's, one good one bad, only understood afterwards

[JvH48 · 5/10 · 13 July 2015]

Saw this at the IMAGINE film festival 2015 in Amsterdam. There were a lot of things I did not understand during the screening, and became clear only when my company explained that we actually saw two William's, with very opposite intentions and attitudes (in hindsight: the synopsis had some clues in that direction, but I overlooked it at the time). Nevertheless, in spite of my lack of understanding of some moves of protagonist(s), I was not lost in the proceedings, and it was still entertaining throughout the running time.

SciFi: Making a clone of yourself is the only SF-element in the story. In the lab where he works, most experiments in that direction (on dogs) turn out to be failures, as all specimen developed some form of brain tumor or blindness. Our human clone seems not to be bothered much by the foresight of these defects, which may happen to him as well in the near future. That strikes me as odd. It should have received more attention in the screenplay, if only to make this movie more interesting while painting a possible future path in medical science.

Drama: The separation from his wife, after having lost their 4-year old son by careless driving, is believable. Adding that to his fixation on his work, which caused the accident in the first place as shown in the opening scene. The interaction between the respective versions of William is not that clear (see above) and needs more attention to get us involved in the dramatic possibilities offered by the plot. It seems that some plot potential is left unused.

Thriller: There are several plot lines offering thriller elements: the stolen clone material and the investigation around the theft, the constant killing by one of the William's to eliminate each and every exposure risk, and so on. It all seem independent building blocks at first sight. The overarching theme can only be put together afterwards, a pity that it was not made more apparent in an earlier stage.

All in all, above paragraphs touch a lot of missed opportunities. These are clearly offered by the plot yet not covered by the script, in spite of being anticipated when reading the synopsis beforehand. Though failing on expectations, the story was not boring overall, and the respective plot lines still made it an interesting watch. A pity that the end result was not more than that.

Interesting concept, but has its flaws . . .

[charles000 · 5/10 · 13 February 2016]

Briefly, the story evolves around the concept of clones, and a situation is conjured up as a sort of platform to deliver a plot theme centered on this arena of potential ethical questions.

It could have been a fantastically compelling film, but just didn't quite get there.

No spoilers here, so it's a bit difficult to focus on some of the key elements which are the demise of this effort.

What stood out the most, perhaps, was the absurdly overdone emotional moments of the key clone character(s), which came off as just being syrupy, like emotional molasses oozing out of the screen.

I know, it was supposed to represent the emotional neediness and psychological challenges of the main character(s), but it just came off painfully slow and pedantic.

Just a wee bit too much on the self absorbed delusionary role playing . . . and a bit light on the actual functionality of the overall plot premise.

Perhaps this might be remade somewhere in the future, with a different treatment.

The concept is certainly interesting . . . but this version, well . . .

Not credible

[knoppfa · 1/10 · 13 May 2016]

So a father who accidentally killed his son makes a clone of himself. The whole film I was wondering why he just didn't make a clone of his son. He made the clone of himself so he could run away, which he could have done anyway. That clone then made a clone of himself because. the movie needed a twist. That is at least the only logical explanation I could find.

Also bad acting and directing. The main characters action was hard to understand. Especially the second William. And the twisted face of the second William was just weird.

All in all I lost interest after 30 minutes but I endured to the end.

not a typical sci-fi!!! its a drama!!

[dayandark · 7/10 · 12 April 2015]

to hard core sci-fi fans, this may not be your type.

but if you love movies like eternal sunshine of a spotless mind, you are gonna enjoy this one.

acting is great, not much action (sorry action fans), plot is a good one and the music helps in most case to express the movie more. i haven't watched any other movie from the director, but it seems like i am gonna look out for one in the future. lead actor did a great job. i could really bet there were two different characters in the same scene.

the movie keeps the suspense wherever it is needed. overall worth a watch, 7/10. i would really recommend it.

Somniferous

[view_and_review · 3/10 · 16 January 2016]

It took me three attempts to watch this movie. Five minutes into the first attempt I went to sleep. Of course that's not fair. No movie is that bad. OK, very few movies are that bad. On the second attempt I got to about 20 minutes in before falling asleep. On the third attempt, after being well rested, I completed the movie.

By now you're probably wondering why was I so committed to watching this movie. I don't know. So, the one word I have for this movie is: somniferous. That is to say sleep inducing.

"The Reconstruction of William Zero" was a movie about cloning, and not a good one. Dr. William Blakely (Conal Byrne) is the subject of the cloning and two wrongs don't make a right. In other words, if you take one lifeless character and clone him what do you have? Yes, that's two lifeless characters.

The story was thrown together. There was a little twist in there but that did nothing to save it. Somehow we were supposed to care about him and his wife whom we saw for all of five minutes. It was just one slow, drawn out drama detailing number 5,362 of why cloning is bad.

One half of a whole - all the substance, too little of the soul

[I_Ailurophile · 6/10 · 25 November 2022]

While it's probably deliberate, the plot development is decidedly stilted from the outset, and some of the acting comes across much the same. More noteworthy is that there's no mystery to be had, for the plot is also emphatically direct: we are told in short order what's going on, and we can guess it before that - a pairing of prediction and revelation that comes within the first twenty minutes, and then again well before one hour has elapsed. This is kind of like what Christopher Nolan's 'Memento' might be if we were told from the outset what the ending was, or could easily guess it. This isn't to say that the movie can't still be enjoyable on its own merits, but it's clearly not what we supposed it would be from the outset, and we can only hope there's greater substance to it that we'll uncover as it goes along. Thankfully there is; the title proves true in a different way. But this is just for starters. I do think 'The reconstruction of William Zero' is modestly enjoyable, but it also has problems that limit its value and audience.

We're greeted with notable themes of varying flavors, but I don't know that they're treated with the care they deserve. Dialogue and scene writing feels kind of half-baked; the substance is there, and in realization we get the basic form that's intended, but not the core, the heart. This rather goes for the narrative at large, coming off like a tableau playing out behind tinted, slightly cloudy glass that muffles the experience and impact, and dulls it. Dan Bush's direction is competent but unremarkable, in much the same way that the screenplay he penned with star Conal Byrne is functional, but somewhat hollow.

There are great ideas here, and I appreciate the work that went into this in all regards - including Bush's steadfast editing that enforces a disordered presentation, itself purely by design. The production design and art direction are well executed, and any effects, and the filming locations are choice. Sound design, cinematography, music, all swell. I think the cast is fine, with Byrne actually handling his role(s) quite well despite that uneven slant; others in supporting parts impress insofar as they truly make the most of what they have, including Amy Seimetz. All this is well and good. What 'The reconstruction of William Zero' lacks, however, is a spark of vitality to make the audience Feel It: it's earnest, but incomplete; present, but passive, as it presents. Or is this also deliberate, as though the construction of the picture is a meta reflection of its content?

On the balance I do believe this is pretty good, and worthwhile; I recognize the hard work and sincerity that everyone involved poured into it. It's just that these qualities aren't meaningfully communicated to the viewer, and as a result the experience of watching just isn't what it could or should be. I think 'The reconstruction of William Zero' is a solid sci-fi drama, by all means, a fair way to spend 98 minutes and a credit to the skills of all on hand. Only, better luck next time that the resulting picture is not just baseline satisfying, but also more readily absorbing and rewarding.

I could only suffer so much.

[jeffrudd31 · 2/10 · 14 June 2015]

I didn't make it through to the end of this film, I have to be honest. Why? ...Because dear gawd it was dragged out far too much to death. It was a genuine sheer effort from the very start just to keep going in watching it. There was decent actors in it - and they tried they best - but my gawd, did it drag on and on! It was painful.

The hope of a good story was there in the films description. There was glimpses of possible promise things was about to get better - but it never materialised. Such a shame. After over half way through I gave up the fight to find something to keep me interested while it dragged on. It was actually depressing watching it. Its atmosphere of the film in parts didn't help as it dragged on. If you are thinking of buying this on DVD or HD to watch it, don't!

Meh but very watchable!

[Stephan_fr · 6/10 · 5 May 2020]

No, its not directed by spike jonze and it's certainly not written by Charlie Kaufman . But for a couple of hours of free-ish entertainment on VOD it's the kind of material those in love with fantasy/scifi settings will certainly enjoy regardless.

Acting is on point, plot is very solid, and photography is good. Don't expect to have your mind blown but perfect covid watching for the scifi buff who doesn't mind low-fi.

An interesting story told in the most sleep-inducing way.

[rjamesolson · 2/10 · 24 May 2016]

When Dan Bush (Co-Writer, Director, Co-Screen Editor) and Conal Byrne (Co-Writer, Main Character Actor) sat down to put this project together, I'm sure they were enthusiastic and knew they had an interesting story to tell. They do.

However, either because of run-time editing or they were negligent in the telling of the story, the viewer is given too much information too soon in some ways (first plot twist revealed at about 19 minutes in; second at about 31 minutes) and not enough information too late, if at all, in other ways.

Meanwhile, one has to fight against the sleep inducing, hauntingly slow, lullaby-like synthesized keyboard and "rain-on-a-pond" two-fingered piano poking that carries throughout the entire film.

The cinematography adds to the vertigo of sleep in that, at no point does it seem, the camera operator/director can make up his/their mind if something (other than Conal Byrne) should be or remain in focus. There are a few times when we are seeing things through another's failing eyesight. Fine. But that wouldn't justify all the other times.

There is a cast of characters in this film but we don't get to know them or care about them except for Amy Seimetz's character, "Jules". Ms.Seimetz did an admirably fine job to establish her character and insert "Jules" into the viewers consciousness despite so little screen time.

Conal Byrne performed very well with the different but somewhat similar personalities he had to keep distinct for the viewer. I'm not surprised, however, since he co-wrote the story and didn't have to create the character after landing the role since he wrote the role for himself. Nevertheless, he showed skill and talent in his portrayals.

This film is categorized as "sci-fi"/"drama" in the same respect 'Flowers For Algernon' is. But this is no "Flowers For Algernon"... would have been nice if it were as 'William Zero' is only part way to achieving was was achieved in 'Algernon'.

"The Reconstruction of William Zero" shines as a story but this sleep-inducing version of it begs an awakening in a remake.

Honestly, a good film!

[khitchen · 8/10 · 19 May 2019]

Forget special effects because there aren't any! It's just a thought provoking film with a nice twist at the end. It does raise some moral dilemmas about cloning too. Would you for it to save a loved one?

They Tried to Clone Tom Brady

[bemyfriend-40184 · 3/10 · 8 February 2022]

If you don't believe the NFL is scripted, you may believe that they tried to clone Tom Brady. What they got was a near-middle aged quarterback, who is past his prime. That's right, two Tom Brady's. Well, the clone Tom Brady is the bad Tom Brady. He threw a lot of interceptions, when the script called for a touchdown. Tre'davious White threw down the interception, like had had caught a poisonous snake. Then he fell down like he broke his leg. That man is a team player! But the bad Tom Brady wasn't done being bad. He cloned himself! This clone was a GOOD Tom Brady. But now there are THREE Tom Bradys! To me, one Tom Brady is more than enough. Seen on Tubi, the free streaming site, which has many free movies; and now, live TV.