AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

suite92 Aliens invade the SW USA. They make sounds like 1950s aliens, most specifically, the sounds in War of the Worlds, 1953.Characters named Brad Raybury and Joni Mitchell? Good grief.Soon enough, the story centers on survivors are Marissa, Anders, and Roger, with no resources to speak of, and no plans. They have long arguments about what food is common, and what is not. These folks are pointless. They care more about bickering than about surviving. Later they join up with Sera and Tiffany.This is a tough one. Should I root for the powerful, effective aliens or the feckless, lame moronic humans? -----Scores------ Cinematography: 2/10 Some of it is bad; much of the rest is really bad. The found footage parts were as atrocious as expected.Sound: 2/10 Terrible. Leveling was done by someone who hates audiences.Acting: 0/10 Terrible. All the performances. All the characters are unlikeable. There are too many absurd arguments about ridiculous non-issues. If one is going to have a mostly eastern European cast, why not film in eastern Europe to save money? Screenplay: 0/10 Very stupid dialog. Rips off War of the Worlds and Skyline rather openly. The depictions of ultimate stupidity (Woman asks for water. Man forces a cup of bleach down her throat. Man gets excited; does not know why the woman is suddenly in acute distress.) were fairly convincing. How are such lame, incompetent people to make any progress against the aliens? Cell phones work during this invasion? Not for long. The military hands out heavy weapons to civilians? Nope.SFX: 0/10 Incredibly bad. One of the worst jobs I have ever seen, beginning to end.

Big Cloits It's really impossible to overstate the awfulness on display here. This isn't just a "bad film" — it's incoherent. There's really nothing at all to even criticize. It's so disorganized and amateurish it's about as meaningful as watching watching static. Some actors shout some things. They seem alarmed and angry. There are bangs and flashes. Occasionally some very not-so-special effects appear on the screen. I could tell there was an alien invasion and there were Wars of the Worlds type tripody invaders, but that's about it.I couldn't watch past the first half hour. I didn't feel like I was stopping anything in particular. There was nothing going on to stop. It was just an incomprehensible stream of images and noises that I finally got tired of trying to make sense of.Even calling this a "student project" would be giving it too much credit: I've seen (much) better student film projects. It's a total mystery how something like this ends up with being distributed. Weird.

jet66 For every interpretation of H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds" — from the radio broadcast and the movies, to the TV series — one could safely rely on consistency: interesting, if not always likable protagonists bearing witness to the near extinction of humanity at the three-fingered hands of aliens motoring around in tripod war machines firing death rays with a distinctive "pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew" sound. In fact, no matter how each version changed with location, hero or narrative device, the ray guns and tripods have been mandatory (often, using the same sound effects Byron Haskin's created for the 1953 movie). And just as consistently, every movie and TV producer since has as least acknowledged H.G. Wells' in a story credit. That is, until Neil Johnston dropped this steaming pile of dark matter onto our planet. Perhaps that's just as well. Why besmirch a great legacy with this amateurish entry? In a jumble of styles — which simply HAS to include some found-footage video journalism — the writer/director lifts from a variety of other sources as well. Most obviously, Dawn of the Dead, and the 1984 version of Red Dawn. Perhaps the only redeeming quality is including the word "Dawn" in the title, so the viewer might mistake this as some kind of homage.You might think that despite the crushing familiarity of the material, you could find a morsel of entertainment. Perhaps you have a fondness for cheaply-rendered 3D and quickly executed After Effects. But if you love clumsy hack writing, this is the movie for you. Betraying even less skill with dialog than he does with with plagiarizing plot, the director creates a world of bickering, unlikeable morons you don't care anything about. And they're often sputtering ill-considered truisms from other films. For example, after one character theorizes that the invading aliens are changing our terrestrial environment to suit their biological needs, a key character solemnly - and unironically - declares, "It's called 'Terraforming.'" Indeed. And Alien Dawn isn't the product of film-making, but rather "movie-forming."

JaffaCakes Every bit of this movie is clichéd and brought nothing new to the genre or made for a gratifying evening in with pop-corn in-tow. The acting is terrible, granted the sfx not bad for a B-grade movie, and the most positive aspect of this movie. It's interesting they show news broadcasts and video feeds and intersperse it into the drama, but for me me this failed to drum up any suspense or emotion when I was watching this movie.I couldn't really relate to any of the characters and found myself becoming impatient as I watched on. It was a 1:20hr movie, but it felt like 3Hrs! I think what I'm trying to say is that there isn't much of a plot. Most of the idea's have been taken from War of the Worlds, Battle Los Angeles and many other movies. All of which executed the drama, suspense much better.Not the worst movie I've seen this year, but lacks drive.