2099: The Soldier Protocol (2019) User Reviews

Had potential but falls short

[mognam · 3/10 · 24 October 2019]

It appears that David Arquette is now a B-movie actor. I got the feeling he didn't even want to be on set for this film. It is the worst acting I've seen him ever do.

The story, set in the not to distant future, is about the use/miss-use of nanotechnology to create super humans. There little more to the story which seemed purely a vehicle for the fight scenes.

The only person who seemed to be putting in any effort was the lead actor Jackson Gallagher. I think he has real potential and could be a future martial arts star given the right opportunities. The fight scenes where the only saving grace.

If you're bored, got nothing better to do and like some well done martial arts action then watch. If you're after a decent story and reasonable acting give this a wide birth.

Nano like its twenty ninety-nine

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 5 July 2020]

Matthew Allen Mills is a cripple and a prisoner with a select DNA make-up. He agrees to have nanoparticles injected in him for an experiment in hopes of walking again. Of course, the scientists want to see how good they are doing by attacking Mills and breaking various parts of his body. Mills is not fond of the aspect of the experiment and reacts.

With the snowy aspect on the cover, I expected something Laurence Fishburne (The Colony) to show up. The film takes place almost entirely in one building on two sets. Characters were not well developed.

Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.

Interesting plot, terrible screen writing

[akaraduman · 5/10 · 24 December 2019]

A lot of people have mentioned bad acting in the reviews, but I think the main problem with this movie is the terrible dialogues. After all, an actor can do just as much as hes given. Lead actor shows a lot of promise, David Arquette shows the worst performance, but to his defense he's been handled the most ridiculous lines. I think this can be worth to give a shot if you are into dystopian movies.

Why did I do it?

[DrTeeth007 · 1/10 · 24 October 2019]

The trouble is with being such a sci-fi fan, is that I can watch any cross until the end to see if it has any redeaming features. This offering did not. Bad acting, massive plot holes and illogical story arcs makes this one of the worst films I have ever seen. Save 85 minutes of your life by painting a wall and watching the paint dry. It will be much more satisfying than this cross.

Aight movie on a lazy day

[weinabena · 5/10 · 29 July 2020]

Interesting storyline, bad acting. The screenwriting needed a little help too. It wasn't indept, action ok, CGI decent and the movie moved along at a steady pace. I was able to continue watching the movie because of the interesting storyline. I wasn't disappointed.

Had potential but went nowhere. Lead actress atrocious.. BORING.

[Jester222 · 2/10 · 24 October 2019]

Arquette must be hard up for money if he takes roles in this massive waste of a film. The premise is ok at start but then it treads water and the budget starts to show. It actually becomes kinda boring and I found myself looking at phone and had it on in background. The lead actress was absolutely awful. Her acting was so wooden, so bad. I actually thought she was a robot or something. The fight scenes were average at best. Tedious even. The song at the end also sucked. Ha ha

The experiment is if you can watch the entire movie

[leendertsjeroen · 2/10 · 24 October 2019]

I failed the experiment whereas I could watch the entire movie. The positive thing is I really became one with the character whereas I felt tortured by watching this bad movie...

Terrible

[luvmycats17 · 1/10 · 23 October 2019]

Don't waste your time. I'm surprised that David Arquette could be so awful in a movie that's even more awful. Don't waste a minute on this.

Not the best, not the worst!

[pompeyjoanne · 5/10 · 4 February 2021]

Look, sci-fi is in the eye of the beholder and we all expect different things, but this film isn't as terrible as some people have reviewed! The acting reminds me of the cheese of Flash Gordon! The martial arts was good. I don't often leave reviews, felt I had to after seeing so much hate for this film!

Shallow depiction of near-future misuse of technology

[Dusan_Indjic-Luigi · 4/10 · 23 October 2019]

The movie itself doesn't meet many film-making standards nor hasn't in-depth story, generally based on the important subject of technology/science misuse which is rapidly getting more present in everyday life. Some of implied global catastrophic scenarios are making a climate change old, weary and not immediate; unlike bio-technology, polymer pollution, techno-totalitarism, etc. The story basically does a shallow dive into some of latter disaster scenarios. Combining misuse of bio and nano technology with corporate dystopian surveillance. That's what actually drove me through the movie, beside (some of) esthetics. With the great significance of those catastrophic scenarios, it really could do a better job, leaving us (after medium action) with very unfinished ending, "unchecked" science, unanswered questions and very thin characters and story. Not to mention other film-making goals that are not met. They really should have done a better job with obviously enough budget (judged by casting, effects, etc.) because those catastrophic subjects are of global great importance to us all.

A 10 Because U & I Know This IS Deep State Stuff⚡

[rothleland · 10/10 · 1 April 2022]

So with ALL crimes of US CORPORATION being daily exposed since 2019 when this movie first came out - we officially now know minimumally over 300 USA biolabs alone in this🌏were in operation as March of 2022.

So why would the credibility of 2099 Supersoldier be even a remote impossibility?

Of course this is EXACTLY what deep state does & far, far worst.... Fortunately a spiritual aspect of this interesting survival movie came thru as well...See it to see if u agree😉

Low budget, liked the ending...

[bairjohn · 6/10 · 25 October 2019]

If they make a sequel needs to be a lot better. I could go threw all the not good in this film but is easier to say the end was good, and you have to watch a fair piece of it to get the end.

I don't see why others are saying David Arquette didn't belong in this film, common David Arquette has done almost anything to stay relevant. I won't say he sucked because the film was not exactly a show case for any of the actors.

I gave it a six just for the ending, I would not watch it again.

Fake sci-fi is always a waste of time, and this one is no exception

[carlos-pires · 1/10 · 1 November 2019]

So, we have a research facility in a secluded place where this evil corporation is performing tests with human subjects. They recruit a doctor who was expelled because she did something nasty to resus monkeys in her own experiments. They put her monitoring a subject who is a former (american) football player and a convicted man who became paraplegic after an "accident" in prison. This guy has an unusual genetic makeup, so they want him for testing their evil nanoparticle-thingamabob designed to create super-soldier. So there you have it: the plot can only account for 10 minutes of film, so they had to dill the other 70 minutes with idiotic BS and lame fight scenes. Only thing good in this movie is the production design. Great job, probably with near-zero budget. Everything else is really shoddy, with the exception of the lead who turns out to be a casting error because he is the only one who actually delivers: everyone else is a dud. Bottom line: skip this and find something more interesting to do for 80 minutes, like watching the grass grow.

Why, Why, WHY?

[fleck05IMDB · 2/10 · 16 November 2020]

People who love sci-fi tend to be bright, while a lot of sci-fi movie makers (at least writers) appear to be less than bright. As a teen I remember going to see a new, low-budget independent movie called The Terminator, and excitedly realized the unlimited potential in sci-fi storytelling. I left the theater with a new amazement for the genre! But good Lord, some of the garbage I find myself wading through in search of that occasional great sci-fi movie can be truly mind-numbing. I suspect David Arquette might agree with me as he came off as a hostage stuck someplace he did not want to be. I can't comment about the end of the movie since I only lasted 20 minutes - I can assure you the first 20 minutes are a train wreck. The younger actors appeared to be giving it their best effort, but they're working with a sad-looking set and cringe-worthy dialogue. The younger people did what they could, Arquette looked like he wanted to strangle an agent or was questioning the direction of his life or something. Not as subtext for his character, either.... for his real life. Arquette used to do pretty good movies - his career has hit a rough patch.

Waste of time

[klen-966-876584 · 1/10 · 23 October 2019]

Nothing to see... plot unoriginal, acting poor, complete waste of time!

Horrid acting

[teebear817 · 1/10 · 27 July 2020]

How do actors this bad get into the movies? How do casting directors know where to go to find these cut rate, incompetant "actors"? There has to be a rolodex on their desk with cheap, terrible, bottom of the barrel actors. This had a good hook. Sounded like a decent movie. In the beginning, sitting around the table where the paralyzed vet is being briefed, the actors around the table are so completely inept, it was brutal to watch. They were horribly miscast, couldnt deliver believable lines, looked wrong, the long haired guy was embarrassingly bad and miscast. It was like they called the Bad Actors Studio and said..."SEND ME OVER ANY 5 CRAPPY CHEAP ACTORS" ... no attempt to match an actor to a part. You could see they couldnt remember their lines. As bad of acting as ive ever seen and that includes shark movies. But how do such inept people get into movies? How do they get agents? How do they get into the screen actors guild? I liked the concept. A man is put in some secret facility. I thought he would try to outsmart them and escape, but instead, they had some guy go into his room every day breaking one of his bones and it was agonizing screams. Just awful. Amazingly, the special effect were excellent. Odd combinaton They spent 90% of the budget on effects and 10% on horrid actors. I would love to see what salaries these 5th rate actors got for this drivel.

room for improvement

[lifelinespublishing · 4/10 · 28 October 2019]

The story has potential, the executions were just really bad., hiring David Arquette (I am sorry for this) was a bad idea., +1 on Ms. Rae for her presence in this movie, -1 for the lead actor who can't act., they should have gotten a good B rated Hollywood actor, it would have been much much better.,

overall. the ending was a dissapointment as well., but seriously. It had potential., but sadly, that's all there's to it, POTENTIAL.

Better than some, but not super impessive

[warlord-08109 · 5/10 · 26 August 2021]

David Arquette is definitely not showing his chops in this one, but he likely just read the script and said I'll take the money but won't be happy.

-writing is average, nothing special -premise of movie is plausible in the future, think big pharm gone bad -really needed some other motive besides "redesigning the human race," maybe experiments are for another purpose possibly fighting aliens etc.

-the lead female scientist was worth watching here as she totally outshines David -the actual experimental subject has potential for action flicks

All in all, if you have nothing else to watch check out this B movie.

Why and how did this get made?

[RandomTard · 1/10 · 17 May 2021]

I don't even know what was that all about. I had to stop watching this mess before the end, it made no sense and bored me to death. I can't understand what were they trying to accomplish.

This is not a movie. This is a stupid fight scene extended to way over an hour without any story or reason.

For the love of all that is unholy, don't watch this broken piece of excrement.

Better Than Expected!

[spookyrat1 · 5/10 · 15 October 2021]

Understanding that The Wheel is a low - budget, Australian made variant on The Universal Soldier type theme, which kind of succeeds in spite of obvious production drawbacks, may assist potential viewers in deciding whether to watch it or not.

On the downside, it's one of those increasingly common films, that are just terribly lit from the somewhat irrelevant prologue, which doesn't involve the major characters, to the more interesting ending. The film is clearly designed to appeal to a martial arts type audience, but lead actor Jackson Gallagher, whose dramatic performance is quite competent, is no Van Damme fighting skills or charisma - wise. On top of this, many of the action scenes, leaving aside the murky lighting, are filmed in close - up, with choppy editing.

On the plus side Gallagher, does develop a certain chemistry with female lead Kendal Rae, in the second half of the film, where circumstances, see their characters, thrown together. I notice others in this forum have been quick to criticise Rae, but its her performance as disbarred medico, Dr Alison Turner, that really makes The Wheel for me. She is able to realistically transition from creepy experimental, out there scientist, early in the film, to a woman seemingly regaining large doses of humanity, in the third act, which also includes a couple of perhaps unexpected, storyline twists which enhanced the predictable super - soldier narrative for me.

David Arquette is "the regulation name Hollywood actor", in a supporting role, to purely try to attract North American audiences to this independent feature. But the acting heavy lifting is done (and achieved IMO), by the 2 younger leads.

The Wheel is nothing spectacular, but I'm always interested in seeing how well these low budget sci - fi types succeed in creating their stories, derivative or not. In my view, The Wheel, which optimistically, sets up the ground for a sequel, that will likely never happen, gives itself a fair old nudge in the right direction.

Watchable throw back to 50's sci-fi

[vasili-08976 · 7/10 · 28 March 2020]

The film, which tackles some seriously big films, starts off promising, with Matt being the quinea pig in an experiment that just might kill him, and him trying to survive it at any cost, kicking the plot into gear. Jackson Gallagher as Mills does a fine job, displaying a lot of on-screen charisma that makes us empathise with him and his plight. The action and fight scenes are nicely done, and show off the skills of the stunt team. With "The Wheel" being a film with a story set in a really isolated environment, we have only two more characters to focus on - Dr. Emmett Snyder (David Arquette) and Dr. Allison Turner (Kendal Rae), who monitor all of Matt's struggles. Arquette, being the most famous cast member here deliberately plays a "doctor" character beyond empathy for others. Whilst some of his lines are rather cliche, his character was obviously a throw back to the crazed scientists of B grade 50's Sci-fi fodder. Kendal Rae has all the right looks to become a star, and I for one liked her almost robot-like performance, finding it a nice counter balance to the crazed Arquette. As for the film itself, quite a professional aesthetic and execution give it's obvious low budget and highly contained setting. I would have liked less of witnessing Mills struggling to escape and fail every time. and more twists of plot. The film is watchable, probably once at best.

What is this? lol

[RobinFlys · 3/10 · 19 August 2020]

So David Arquette was never an award winning actor, but come on! This movie is so stupid. The dialog is atrocious and the story line is ridiculous. I watched it until the end just to see if there were more stupid scenes coming up and I was well rewarded. Three stars because compared to these 2099 "doctors" (and the directors, writers, editors, etc.), I felt uber intelligent. What a stinker.

Settling for less than nothing

[rcmoore76137 · 2/10 · 19 November 2020]

This is one movie I was hoping to be better. I watch so many movies on SYfy that are cheesy but still watchable. This was barely enjoyable. The main character had a daughter that only gets barely mentioned. Such a waste of good talent.

Nice To Look At But LIttle Else

[tabuno · 4/10 · 3 July 2020]

For the most part, this movie offers absolutely nothing new and besides its great photography and set design, the story becomes pretty less than exciting with a disappointing use of the artificial enhancement sci fi genre. The characters are strangely flat and artificial, below par editing and scene placement, and the movie begins to drag along with some inexplicable storyline devices. This is one movie rises expectation only to disappoint and one to be avoided. From the odd title, "The Wheel," to creepy interviews, unnecessary sadistic encounters better left for Cube (1997). Much better offerings include Gattaca (1997), Ghost in the Shell (2017) based on the classic anima version regarding human brains in a synthetic body has a much more aesthetic flow of events as well as implied and more acceptable assumptions about characters' behavior, feelings, and performances, Hitman: Agent 47 (2015) also incorporates an enhanced human being but with more established assassin martial arts and sharp credible lethality movies that makes for an much more sustained, thrilling, enjoyable experience, and Lucy (2014) actually offered a much better way to address artificial augmentation and could have provided this movie with a much more compelling and acceptable storyline resolution.

Same old same old!

[microx96002 · 2/10 · 13 September 2020]

The trouble with all of these so-called sci-fi movies, streaming on demand (Netflix, Hulu, Prime etc) is they're all generic and boring. Same unknown non actors, same basic boring plot and washed out desaturated boring future or alien planet or spaceship. This one is no exception, and I'm only 30 minutes (1/3 of the way) thru. They cost little or nothing to make, green screen, little or no sets to build and, as previously stated unknown actors working for scale or less. (Good for them, the only good thing coming out of this, they are employed), the other factor is no actual film or videotape involved as it's all shot digitally. I'm sick and tired of this boring dreck, let's get to streaming movies made on a budget!!