Panopticon (II) (2016) User Reviews

Pretty good flick considering there obviously was about 5 bucks as a budget

[ertpecs · 7/10 · 2 January 2020]

I thought it was a great movie for what it was since it appears that it had a shoestring budget. But not having money to spend doesn't make this a don't watch. I think not having a budget makes the execution of this so much better

Not raising expectations but this is really good.

[thefishdontswim · 2 November 2019]

Watch this. Absorb this. The guy playing Bill does a great job in the role - seems underacted for a while but the plot reveals why, performances of the 3 main characters are all pretty good. It left me wondering. I love film that does that, with concepts that make you sit in silence for 20 minutes afterwards. Not that it's high concept, just that the evolving revelations (as opposed to evolving storyline) the cinematography, the sounds, the editing completely suits the telling of the story and engulfs you - something sometimes achieved when the writer directs and soundscapes a whole, solid piece. Jeff Thelen has done that here - never heard of him before but I'll be chasing everything he's done and will do. Dont know if we see a smile on Bill's face at the end, but I was smiling for him. Ponderable.

promising ideas drowned in poor editing

[imrational · 4/10 · 16 December 2019]

Acting was decent for a low budget flick. The movie had some great ideas, but they're not fully developed at all. Instead, we see the hint of some of those ideas repeatedly given over and over. Nauseatingly so. Editing is a severe problem in the movie. The vast majority of it could have been excised and it would have been a far better movie. As it stands, it is best watched on fast forward with some parts skipped entirely. I have this movie 4 stars because of the hints I mentioned above. I honestly don't understand why the director didn't develop any of those ideas. Some could have easily been done on the cheap. I would recommend this movie for people who are looking for science fiction ideas to develop; for those who love literal science fiction (and don't mind having to fast forward), and low budget directors looking too see how others have done it.

People wanting action sci-fi, big budget flicks, or cohesive/well scripted movies... give this one a pass

Literally the worst film I've ever seen

[lopezpatricia-06139 · 1/10 · 19 December 2020]

Bill (the lead character) has got to be the worst actor I've had the misfortune to watch. He just walks around as if he's spaced out. The lights are on but no one home. The lead woman is equally as bad. How they both get work is beyond me. There are so many unacceptable breaks in dialogue (dead air) if the actors were up to it maybe , but the fact it had little budget doesn't impress me as it's so bad it shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Has all the hallmarks of a classic...

[spicspic · 8/10 · 17 May 2019]

The only way to approach independent movies is with a healthy dose of forgiveness. But, maybe due to technology, the basic level of proficiency has made many super watchable. The picture wastes no time getting into the story, avoiding the weak beginning endemic to many self made projects. Richard and Bill are working on a technology that can record memories and allow them to be "re-experienced". Richard's wife Hadley is the guinea pig. Bill is established as an anti-social, anti-technology genius reluctant to share the code even with his business partner. Richard is an angry, controlling brute, establishing the conflict. We mostly follow Bill, who is confused, though not as much as his father who has dementia. A session with a therapist establishes Bill lost a wife and child in an accident he has trouble remembering. This plus his déjà vu and persecution complex might be what lead him to fear the memory technology, leading to an affair with Hadley and a confrontation with Richard. The performances are serviceable, though the story arcs are not involved - characters intensify rather than change. Still, no one does anything stupid or unbelievable to forward the plot. The main flaw is a lack of tight editing which most indies contend with. The scenes of Bill's confusion with reality could easily be cut in half. The ending meets the ideal of being both surprising yet inevitable. If Hitchcock had done science fiction, this is the kind of ending he would have adored. If this was truly done on $5,000, it's a brilliant job.

Wasn't sure, but really liked it.

[qwopasklzxm · 8/10 · 30 March 2019]

I'm not a big fan of indie movies, but this one brought me in and intrigued me. The production (especially on a no budget) was remarkable! The acting was excellent and the story kept giving us turns. Well done!

Very Solid No-Budget Scifi Drama.

[betchaareoffendedeasily · 10 April 2021]

I watch every half decent high, low, no budget scifi film I can find. I've reviewed many of them on IMDB, I believe that the no budget type films are well-suited for intellectual script-driven scifi such as Jeff Thelen's "Panopticon".

While at times exceeding it's grasps, Panopticon is exceptionally well-made and is extremely ambitious for it's $5,000 budget. Yes, the pace drags at times, but on the whole, it is a very well-mad movie, with very well-done sound, good cinematography, good lighting(which is usually not no-budget films strength's), decent acting, and a solid and well-developed idea. Maybe the script could have taken the ideas further, and could have done with a bit more editing, it is still well-done and well-executed by and large. It deserves between a 6 & a 7 for sure, but it is not for everyone with it's dream-like disjointed sequences and deliberately confusing narrative style and structure; this is a movie that is meant to disorient and confuse, it is clearly not intended to give solid answers by the end, and one is largely left wondering, what does it all mean?

I can't tell you why I like Panopticon, I believe it is because it strives to carve out it's own path, it doesn't succumb to cliches, although one might argue it is a little too convoluted for it's own good, but I am just not sure that's accurate, simply because the narrative structure is a direct result of the storyline, it isn't just a choice to confuse, the narrative structure and story are really one and the same. This is not to say I wish there were not a few things done differently, some of the dramatic parts drag on too long, with long drawn out conversations, so yes, some more editing to tighten the pace of the movie would have strengthened it for sure.

All in all though, I would love to see even more movies like this that dare to do their own thing, that try to make the most of their resources and turn out a pretty solid product. I think the acting is well-done, and I'm really not sure why some people say it is awful, it is nowhere close to awful, not even close. Stilted in a few spots? Sure, but awful? No.

If you have patience, and you enjoy thought-provoking sci-fi that isn't afraid to verge into the confusing and weird, give Panopticon a try, otherwise, I'd probably avoid this, you'll likely hate it.