Singularity (I) (2017)
User ReviewsReview this title
So, 97 years after the bots take over you're telling me that the windows on the shops are crystal clean? You're telling me that despite no new clothes being manufactured the human characters look like they've just got a whole new wardrobe from GAP? That nearly 100 years of neglect has seen no collapsed roofs, no weeds growing from gutters, and fields that look like they've been fallow for a couple of years? That street signs, railings, window shutters, metal roll shutters have absolutely no signs of rust? That despite the bot driven apocalypse, the main female lead still has time to obviously dye her hair? In the scenes running through forests, they follow well worn and undergrowth free paths.... worn and maintained by whom exactly? Bots? In one of the opening scenes, a shop is engulfed in ivy inside yet in one of the later scenes, a house described as 'really old' has perfectly white whitewashed walls, and inside looks pristine - photographs aren't faded, glass cabinets haven't a speck of dust on them... in fact there is no dust, not even a cob web! And given that the house hasn't been heated for 97 years, it's amazing that there is no damp whatsoever. 97 year old Polaroid film works and, it must be energizer, because the batteries are still fresh. Despite being out in the wilds for days on end the male lead is always perfectly cleanly shaven. Even when he is woken from sleep he has been mysteriously shaved - then again he is a robot - a fact that the writers are at pains to have us aware of from the outset with the laboured 'no food for me' scene - funny then that when the girl falls asleep on his chest she doesn't notice that he doesn't need to breathe (we presume) And then, when they meet some nasty humans, they are all covered in stubble, dirt and worn clothes - oh my, so original.
The male lead gets tied up in a brand spanking new rope. I mean, this thing clearly was just bought from a shop on the day... and the rope magically moves from one scene to the next... did they take lunch in the middle of shooting the 'tied up in brand new rope' scenes? Maybe they should have...
The male lead is only capable of two expressions - eyes normal and eyes bursting out of his head. There is nothing in between and the rest of his face is entirely pointless. Lucky for him that the dialogue doesn't require much else. Actually, I'm not giving him credit... he can do a variation on these two expressions above including with mouth open and with mouth shut.
The female lead should take urgent note that crying involves water coming from the eyes. You can't snivel and gasp for air, and then expect to look authentic with a perfectly dry face.
Special effects are dire - in the opening scenes burning buildings look like someone went mad with the Photoshop clone tool. Explosions don't cast any light on objects that are close by and clouds of dense smoke don't cast any shadows and dissipate in moments leaving no trace. Enormous bots appear to defy the laws of physics and move through dense forestry without causing a single tree to move.
'Whats in your chest' scene - great work on the 97 year old straw bales that look to have been made in the last week... and the plentiful fresh straw on the ground in the barn... just lazy...
Lighting.... I mean really.... what is happening with the lighting? In a dark and dingy forest, and it looks like two blazing follow spots behind the cameras.... just cheap and nasty.
The characters are so poorly developed that their behaviour is schizophrenic at best.
Continuity is a joke - in the opening scenes we see buildings burnt to to the ground, yet in later scenes, and I mean 97 years later scenes, they are visible in the background, with lights on inside. Really, 97 years after the rise of the bots, they are still using lights? Who is changing the bulbs? Bot janitor? Who even makes the bulbs?
The bots themselves. If you're looking for humans, perhaps IR might be better than visible light to detect them? I think it's utterly lazy that the main feature of the film, that drives the whole storyline, the bots, are so poor.
After leaving the 'facility' (you just know that's what they call it), they walk through a field of corn ready to be harvested. I'm feeling like a stuck record here...
John Cusack must have been desperate for the cash.
If you open the detailed score, you can immediately see why. Today (11-5-17, day 3 after release) the score is still 7,3 and it is falling down. There are 40 to 100 votes in each level, except for 9 stars level. So far the movie received 9 stars 1300 times. With no explanation, no written review, there are just these 9-star ratings accumulated within 2 days out of nowhere.
Nobody with clear mind can give Singularity 9 stars. At least nobody who saw movies like Hunger Games, Terminator or Blade Runner. Maybe it deserves 3, maybe 5. I am giving 1 for this intentional deception with false ratings. As another reviewer already pointed out, the situation is similar at RottenTomatoes.
IMDb staff: please check the voters' accounts! Are all the 9-star votes from accounts created 2 days ago by some cheating software?
One personal note: The scenes in an empty village with desolated church were shot in my country and that was the only time the movie got my attention (because I tried to figure out which village it may be)...
Special FX were presumably done on a phone using an app. The story, dialog and acting are cringeworthy.
ps. ignore the fake reviews on here, watch the trailer and you will get an instant feel for just how bad it is.
Who thought this would work? Why did you produce this?
I don't know if it is the work of the studio to game the rating or if it is the Russians trying to make the world dumber by making horrible movies look good.
OK acting by some...Bad for some others and of course 1 good actor.
The issue I have with the movie is that it is pointless, slow and predictable. I won't discuss bad graphics sfx as certainly the budget wasn't big.
The story could've had so much more to it. It just sad they decided to dumb-out the script and make it so plain. It is a very slow pace movie and not in a good way as I got bored 1/3 of the way and not sure how I got through the rest- I was really expecting it to pick up and it never did. The idea behind the movie is nice,but it was never developed at all.
Do NOT believe the high rating (currently 8) as those are fake ratings. There are many sites that sell Anyone giving this more than 5 or 6 did not watch the movie at all. I'd say any reviews of 2-5 can be considered real.
The rest was godawful .. how awful ? i had to write this review to warn people.
i'm sure having chosen to watch this movie i'm responsible but still i'm sure there was a crime committed in producing this movie. Some sort of human rights thing that would make the world court delete the movie from the planet.
The acting is so terrible its .. undescribable. The main actors are a pair of narcissistic self indulgent millennials so busy with themselves they get in the way of perfectly nice backgrounds that i would have watched in complete silence and been happy. If this is what hollyweinstein intends on producing in the future.. shut it down now.
and btw hollyweird enough of the movies with hyperPMS teen females leads there are normal teens out there ... please stop foisting your own failed parenting on us.
Well, like the above description indicates, I guess, this movie aims at a young audience, so maybe if you like such stuff like The Shannara Chronicles (which is a lot of personal drama and romance interrupted by the occasional fight and killing) etc. you may like this movie or at least you won't be killed by boredom and brain damage.
All in all, Singularity got some okay technicals, but the story (generic, a little bit Terminator here, a little bit Hunger Games here etc. pp.) and acting are so-so. If you like the post- apocalyptic genre but you need one for a mature audience (e.g. The Road, Mad Max, City of the Blind, Soylent Green etc.) skip this one, if you are a youngster around 12 or something like that, well, you may try it.
Why John Cusack took a role in this flick is a mystery to me. Thanks to some semi-pro or almost pro looking technicals like effects and camera (tv-scale), I rate a 4, but this is imo no B-movie but a C- movie.
But yeah about the film, its trash don't even waste your time.
And this tech Calia has. When did this EMP get developed? And when built? And how was it produced in a post-apocalyptic environment? And why did that EMP not knock out 'Andrew-bot'? So must be a plot-element right?
The lack of attention to a potential mortal wound. That could wait until the next day. Only to reveal a metal chest where she snuggled against without noticing?
And who was so bright to bury a spaceship to get to Aurora and in 92 years these 'kids' are the first and yet there is a completely colonized planet that somehow has escaped the attention of this super AI. How did they get there? And how was that a secret?
Not to mention all the clean clothes. Clean streets, obviously used train tracks, brand new 92 year old camera, a battery that keeps going and going.. to name but a few. And the best she has is a crossbow?
I seriously expected this all to be glitches in the matrix..... It would have been nice but turns out the writer and production designer just phoned it in.
We enjoyed bitching at this movie. That made it worth the watch and three stars...... but frankly? It would not get a passing grade for a first year movie academy project.
Honestly, Amazon should take a stance that if you buy fake ratings for your movie, all future projects attached to your name get an automatic 1/10 public rating or even better, all your movies are barred permanently from IMDb.
First, the beginning is cheap, bad cgi of buildings blowing up and steel / concrete buildings collapsing like they are made out of wood and paper.
The idea is totally rehashed from the Terminator series and doesn't feel original at all.
Then, 97 years after the world was blown up, 2 people in brand new clothes meet up and don't find it suspicious that they have brand new clothes and look like they just got out of a shower and had their hair professionally done.
This suffers from all the same issues that the walking dead suffers from... magical medicines that don't expire, magical gasoline that doesn't separate into base elements over time, magical clothing that moths don't eat etc.
I'm really tired of "science fiction" movies written by people who have zero understanding of science, physics, chemistry etc.
I think a grade 5 elementary school student could have written a script with more critical thinking than this.
I cannot believe that in this century we cannot produce better stories and better movies. There is no message on this movie. How come there still are humans alive, what about the "so-called-super robots-that-do-everything", they cannot find these humans? Really?
Not even on a rainy day, free watch, I would watch this movie.
It has been well covered by other reviews - elements shamelessly ripped off from other films, corny dialogue, unbelievable characters, things that just never seemed to make sense. The FX were good, and there was a good plot twist at the end - but the filmmakers managed to ruin even that.
The young female lead was okay - hopefully she survives this debacle to go on to better things. The young male lead I can only describe as punchable. For his part, I think it became clear to Cusack that he was First Mate on the Hindenburg and appears to be having a mild stroke while delivering his lines.
It is low budget. Every aspect of the movie reflects this except occasionally the special effects rise up to a little better than average.
To me it appears every scene was shot once and only once. If it didn't take well they kept it anyway. The editing left a lot to be desired.
If you don't mind B movies it might be worth a viewing. Otherwise stay away from it.
There are some nicely done shots in this movie, obviously the camera crew are professionals. VisualFX, SoundFX and music are on par with with large studio productions. Film editing have been done to get a slower tempo than most current movies, but is also professionally done.
So what's the problem?
I think it's the script and the director. In one scene our young heroes seem stiff and cold, in the next one they are massively overplaying emotions. Then they are stiff and cold again. Repeat. Although the main story line is OK, there are plenty of stupid lines, some of them repeated several times.
I would recommend this movie for a rainy evening when you feel like watching a slow-tempo B-movie where everything except the script is actually a first class production.