Acid Rain (1998) Poster

(1998)

User Reviews

Review this title
5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Filming the movie
ppta-279343 December 2017
It was fun filming this movie in streets of New York. I'm well aware that my next comment is dated but someone previously said this was "shot in 2004" which was incorrect. Being one of the characters in the film I can say it was in fact shot in 1998. I was a "homeless abductee" close to the end of the movie. Clearly someone was misinformed. Nevertheless the production was low budget, the plot a bit confusing, but I'm sure we've seen a lot worse.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
another shot at redefining the Apocrypha
davidfranklyn8 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The crew that took on this baby had balls. The tag line/synopsis were brilliant but someone forgot to go to the bank and get some money to do the movie right. So you say you couldn't raise the $10 - $25 million that would have given this thing a chance. If you haven't got the required funds, sometimes its best to shelve it before you do your reputation irreparable damage. You can't present to your audience a movie depicting their ultimate doom and destruction on a $50.00 budget. The actors were tepid at best and since you didn't loop the entire movie the sound quality sucks. Lighting had its moments as did the DOP but on the overall you did what you could with nothing... God Bless ya!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Acid Rain..?
The_Movie_Cat21 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I got to hear about this film entirely by accident after seeing that Valerie Singleton played a homeless woman in it. After some research, it turns out it wasn't the Blue Peter presenter, wrongly attributed (and now corrected) but someone with the same, fairly unique, name.

But the questions didn't stop there. Even just simple ones like "why is this film called Acid Rain when acid rain is never mentioned at any point in the movie?" ring out.

It's hard, and unfair, to judge a no-budget film against the work of professionals. The sound in Acid Rain is often quite poor, with loud music drowning out some of the dialogue, and many of the absurdist elements of the plot are lampooned in a pretty amusing review on Something Awful.

Yet there's no denying the ambition of the director. Spanning over many areas of New York, he takes viewers through the underworld via forests, trains, clubs and alleyways, and with almost 100 credited performers.

Now, some of those performers are street artists, filling out the runtime, and many of the other actors give performances that can charitably be described as "amateurish". But despite all this, there's a certain kind of charming ineptitude to the whole thing, a dedication to its own often muddled story that doesn't so much end as peter out.

There's a nurse going around stealing organs for no real reason, and, due to the low budget, any street scenes see passersby look into the camera, but it's hard to fault the willingness of director-writer-producer-actor Albert Johnson in daring to TRY.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie makes me cry.
bblake0823 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I bought this thing at Lackland AFB right after completing basic training, just because it looked horrible. I like to buy movies that look crappy because they're usually unintentionally hilarious, and I can get a good laugh for about five bucks, share it with friends, and MST the thing.

Dear God. This is the only movie in my collection that was a waste of five bucks. And I own Manos.

This movie is about a homeless guy who has to save the world with the help of a little kid. He encounters vampires or something. This sounds cool and all, but the camera must have been operated by a retarded hedgehog or something. It looks like a home video, but without the cute kids running around and opening presents and playing on swings. It's just bad.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Film was actually shot in 2004
torrocrossley13 January 2008
To reply to the comment by the Erik P. guy, I met the people who eventually shot the film and it was not shot in 1998. Although they cast for it and there were listings in the trades about it, the budget fell through. It was not shot until 2004 at which time it was funded by the director himself for a shoe string budget. I personally agree with the other gentleman that it was a courageous effort and the plot/story line was brilliant. With that said, the production quality was very low, sound was bad and the lighting had its moments. I would love to see the film re-shot with a reasonable budget, I believe it would do very well.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed