ChicRawIdol
A brilliant film that helped define a genre
Bergorks
If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.
Philippa
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
James Olson
When Dan Bush (Co-Writer, Director, Co-Screen Editor) and Conal Byrne (Co-Writer, Main Character Actor) sat down to put this project together, I'm sure they were enthusiastic and knew they had an interesting story to tell. They do.However, either because of run-time editing or they were negligent in the telling of the story, the viewer is given too much information too soon in some ways (first plot twist revealed at about 19 minutes in; second at about 31 minutes) and not enough information too late, if at all, in other ways.Meanwhile, one has to fight against the sleep inducing, hauntingly slow, lullaby-like synthesized keyboard and "rain-on-a-pond" two-fingered piano poking that carries throughout the entire film.The cinematography adds to the vertigo of sleep in that, at no point does it seem, the camera operator/director can make up his/their mind if something (other than Conal Byrne) should be or remain in focus. There are a few times when we are seeing things through another's failing eyesight. Fine. But that wouldn't justify all the other times.There is a cast of characters in this film but we don't get to know them or care about them except for Amy Seimetz's character, "Jules". Ms.Seimetz did an admirably fine job to establish her character and insert "Jules" into the viewers consciousness despite so little screen time.Conal Byrne performed very well with the different but somewhat similar personalities he had to keep distinct for the viewer. I'm not surprised, however, since he co-wrote the story and didn't have to create the character after landing the role since he wrote the role for himself. Nevertheless, he showed skill and talent in his portrayals.This film is categorized as "sci-fi"/"drama" in the same respect 'Flowers For Algernon' is. But this is no "Flowers For Algernon"... would have been nice if it were as 'William Zero' is only part way to achieving was was achieved in 'Algernon'."The Reconstruction of William Zero" shines as a story but this sleep-inducing version of it begs an awakening in a remake.
knoppfa
So a father who accidentally killed his son makes a clone of himself. The whole film I was wondering why he just didn't make a clone of his son. He made the clone of himself so he could run away, which he could have done anyway. That clone then made a clone of himself because. the movie needed a twist. That is at least the only logical explanation I could find. Also bad acting and directing. The main characters action was hard to understand. Especially the second William. And the twisted face of the second William was just weird. All in all I lost interest after 30 minutes but I endured to the end.
JvH48
Saw this at the IMAGINE film festival 2015 in Amsterdam. There were a lot of things I did not understand during the screening, and became clear only when my company explained that we actually saw two William's, with very opposite intentions and attitudes (in hindsight: the synopsis had some clues in that direction, but I overlooked it at the time). Nevertheless, in spite of my lack of understanding of some moves of protagonist(s), I was not lost in the proceedings, and it was still entertaining throughout the running time.SciFi: Making a clone of yourself is the only SF-element in the story. In the lab where he works, most experiments in that direction (on dogs) turn out to be failures, as all specimen developed some form of brain tumor or blindness. Our human clone seems not to be bothered much by the foresight of these defects, which may happen to him as well in the near future. That strikes me as odd. It should have received more attention in the screenplay, if only to make this movie more interesting while painting a possible future path in medical science.Drama: The separation from his wife, after having lost their 4-year old son by careless driving, is believable. Adding that to his fixation on his work, which caused the accident in the first place as shown in the opening scene. The interaction between the respective versions of William is not that clear (see above) and needs more attention to get us involved in the dramatic possibilities offered by the plot. It seems that some plot potential is left unused.Thriller: There are several plot lines offering thriller elements: the stolen clone material and the investigation around the theft, the constant killing by one of the William's to eliminate each and every exposure risk, and so on. It all seem independent building blocks at first sight. The overarching theme can only be put together afterwards, a pity that it was not made more apparent in an earlier stage.All in all, above paragraphs touch a lot of missed opportunities. These are clearly offered by the plot yet not covered by the script, in spite of being anticipated when reading the synopsis beforehand. Though failing on expectations, the story was not boring overall, and the respective plot lines still made it an interesting watch. A pity that the end result was not more than that.
dayandark
to hard core sci-fi fans, this may not be your type. but if you love movies like eternal sunshine of a spotless mind, you are gonna enjoy this one.acting is great, not much action (sorry action fans), plot is a good one and the music helps in most case to express the movie more. i haven't watched any other movie from the director, but it seems like i am gonna look out for one in the future. lead actor did a great job. i could really bet there were two different characters in the same scene.the movie keeps the suspense wherever it is needed. overall worth a watch, 7/10. i would really recommend it.
