User reviews

This movie opens with the camera stationary on the female leads face while she repeats the same two lines of dialogue over and over. I should have realised from this patience testing opening that I wasn't going to enjoy this film.

This movie is painfully slow. It looks nice and stylish and the acting is pretty solid but the story isn't really saying anything. I kept telling myself something interesting was surely going to happen but it never did. It does't even have a point, I thought it might be trying to say something about love or soulmates or how you have to make the most of the hand your dealt but no. It's meaningless style over substance and boredom fully lording it up over that style.

Maybe I missed the point but to be honest I don't care I won't be watching this again.

In the near future, a couple have a romantic evening destroyed when a swat team visit them in the night and forcibly abduct the woman. The man is left alone but discovers that one of the attackers inexplicably has his girlfriend's face. This leads him to a high-tech company called Brand New-U.

This psychological sci-fi film deals with ideas of identity. It's not in all honesty always easy keeping track of what is going on as doppelgangers interact with each other and things get a little confusing, so it is a film that could potentially improve on a second viewing. The first impression, however, is a film that looks very beautiful at times but which is on the whole rather cold and unengaging. The central relationship is very important to the film as it underpins everything, yet we never get very involved with the characters meaning it is difficult caring much about their plights. The somewhat deliberate slow-pacing doesn't necessarily help very much either, with some scenes playing out far too long. But as I said, it is visually very beautiful at times with some great use of colour. So it has this on its side, while there does seem to be some interesting elements working their way in the background. But it was all a little too ponderously told for my personal liking.

At best this is a 3/10. IMDb is not reliable when it comes to the user ratings for the first couple of months or more as most people know, to see 1000's of people giving this movie a 9,10/10 rating is sickening! Do the film makers pay people for the score or is it the whole cast and crew giving the 10/10 lol. Please stop! it makes you look even worse.

Avoid this movie and save your time for something more worthwhile, like a walk to the shops or some gardening.

There are no redeeming qualities about this movie. I thought that the premise sounded intriguing but I found it confusing. and boring. I kept waiting for something good to catch my interest which never happened. The characters are hard to follow and have no depth. I couldn't figure out their motivation. The roles are confusing and I am not sure I even understood the plot as it was so poorly defined. I couldn't figure out if the characters were trapped in some sort of alternate world or if it was based on a very strange world in general. I'm not sure I even understood the ending. It was by far the worst movie I've seen this year.

I try and give low-budget sci-fi films more leeway to see without costly special effects if some nuggets of cleverness or originality can be found. Unfortunately, what I saw here came across as way too murky, obtuse, and nonsensical, for my tastes.

Told in a slow-paced and surrealistic manner, the story, from what I could garner, revolves around a nefarious and mysterious company, called Brand New-U, that apparently abducts or beats people into submission, to take them to their headquarters. Once there, they are transformed into a new version of themselves (or identical) via a type of hypnosis, brainwashing, and surgery. For what exact purpose this is done never really became clear to me, but there is a mention of rich benefactors of the corporation who believe a better human being can emerge. Huh?

The two stars of the movie have good screen presence but their talents, in my opinion, can't be realized within this dense plot. Simon Pummell handles the writing and direction, and just what he had in mind escapes me, I'm sorry to say.

All in all, this sci-fi flick didn't work for me at any level, and I would recommend not to waste your time here with this one.

I could only stomach 10 min of the pointless, seemingly randomly generated sequence of unrelated images that this nonsensical movie is. This movie is so terrible that a negative rating should be created just for it, exclusively. There is absolutely no logical reason why someone in their right mind, not under the effects of hallucinogenic substances, should give a rating over 1. Avoid at all costs.

Rarely can I not figure out what a movie is at least attempting to say, and I don't have a problem with "art" films, either. For example, I really enjoyed Under the Skin--a little hard to figure out, but enough there to create meaning. On the other hand, Identicals was a blissful acid trip, often shifting unexpectedly, long drawn out shots doing little other than spinning wheels, and repetition and overlap that did nothing but confuse. And confuse it did.

People appear out of nowhere with little explanation, threats are made to the main characters with little cause, and then there's an organization that appears to want to control some element of society, but we never know exactly who they are or their motivation. And then the end comes and .....

Nada.

If not the worst movie I've ever seen, certainly a top five worst- ever candidate. Were there any positives? Actually, I think there is potential here for visually the film was captivating, and if there was more logic and sense tied into the plot (if you can call it that), there is a good foundation to work with. It's not a complete wash but close.

Apparently, some reviewers may seem to think this is some sort of techno futurist art statement film piece, probing an uncharted realm suggested by parallel existence pathways in an emergent world.

But wait . . .

Before heralding this latest film as probing new uncharted territory, not so fast.

Much of this same concept was remarkably well done (much better than via "Identicals" in various ways, at least in my opinion), in the Rock Hudson film "Seconds", circa 1966.

Identicals does deserve some credit for its stylistic motif, a uniquely strange mix of future and retro tech ambiance, and the lovely Nora-Jane No one is quite fun to watch as Nadia . . . but still, this film just doesn't quite fit all the pieces together well enough to deliver its entire message coherently.

I certainly don't mind the time spent to watch this, as visually and aesthetically it's an interesting bit of filmcraft, but this could have been so much more, like a seed planted promising a magnificent flower, but ever quite reaching full blossom.

This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Nothing happens in this film, and that nothing somehow manages to not make any sense.

There's no plot, no ending, no explanation of what is going on. They take short shots and DRAG them out for FOREVER with stupid pointless slow motion!

AVOID THIS FILM!

It's not even bad in a way that can possibly be enjoyed - it's just awful and boring and pointless!

Science fiction is supposed to play with an interesting idea. This film begins with what seems like an interesting premise, and then manages to throw away that premise and just become a confusing mess full of pointless slow motion. AVOID!

'IDENTICALS': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

Low-budget sci-fi thriller, written and directed by Simon Pummell. It's about a future corporation, that helps individuals find better lives; through 'upgrading' into the body of an 'identical' (a 'better-life' donor). It stars Lachlan Nieboer, Nora-Jane No one and Nick Blood. The film is a mess, it's way too convoluted and hard to follow, but it does have great atmosphere and visuals.

The story takes place in the near future, when the company 'Brand New-U' finds better lives for people; by finding them an 'Identical' donor. Slater (Nieboer) is perfectly happy with his ideal life, until his girlfriend, Nadia (Noone), is taken by 'Brand New-U'; and a dead body, that looks just like her, is left in her place. In order to get Nadia back, Slater realizes he must become a client of the mysterious corporation. It's either that, or face murder charges for the death of his girlfriend.

The movie starts out looking cool, and it's got a great 70s/80s sci- fi retro feel to it. The concept is interesting too, but after awhile I had absolutely no idea what was going on (especially by the end). Maybe I need to watch it again, but it's also pretty slow- paced; after the half-way point at least (but maybe that's because I didn't know what was going on). In the end, it seems like a movie that's almost all 'style over substance'; but that style is pretty cool.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/n2qWxeZ0Tck

How on earth can this crapfest be currently averaging 7.3/10?

Seriously, IMDb's reputation is damaged beyond repair if garbage like this achieves such a high score, causing those who still trust the site to waste their time and money sitting through such an inane and pointless excuse of a movie.

So the production team summoned all their friends and relatives, urging them to clog IMDb with their 10/10 ratings, betraying those of us who actually care about honest recommendations.

Gaming the system this way is only hurting the art of cinematography.

Pathetic.

I watched it to the end hoping for some plot to emerge and validate the movies 7.3 IMDb rating, nothing happened, so save yourself the pain.

The 'sound effects' begged me to turn it off within the first two minutes, various high pitch tones that continue throughout the film. No plot. I don't know what to say about the acting. The CGI and every part of the imagery is just nauseating.

I've never felt the need to write a review before this, the IMDb rating really effed me here though.

All trust in this rating system is lost.

DON'T WATCH, DO ANYTHING ELSE.

BORING! Lacked any sense of story and any clear definition of WTF actually went on for 100 minutes. I resent another reviewer comparing this POS to Phillip K Dick - Erm..... Don't think so, mate! Dick has written some sci-fi gems, fairly successful and with an actual budget. In terms of budget, you only need to look at such films as the original Evil Dead movies, done on a shoestring but still containing a significant POINT, STORY and SOMETHING OTHER THAN A PRETTY BACKGROUND THAT NO-ONE GRASPED WAS THE STORY ITSELF!!!!!!

Totally confused, illogical uncompleted storytelling, that movie does not make any sense. The visuals are kind of nice, but that's about it. No idea who gave this a good rating, for me it was a waste of time.

Same advice as the other reviews: save your time for something worthwile, this movie is just bad.

This pretentious attempt at a movie, as others have pointed out, has no redeeming qualities. The story such as it is would possibly have made for a passable short (10-15 minutes max), but instead there are now 100 minutes of my life that I regret spending on it.

Don't make the same mistake I did - heed the advice of the other reviewers. Don't watch this.

Okay, so my review does not contain ten lines of text yet. So let me repeat: don't waste your time on this movie. It's not worth it. Do something fun instead. Floss your cat, what do I know.

Still not long enough. Well, okay, the actress is cute. Apparently, her surname is No-one. A bit like "My name is nobody" :-)

I completely understand the frustration and the sense of feeling lost most people have experienced with this film. It is not going to be everybody's cup of tea and I would almost dare say this is a film made for a film student to analyze.

Identicals, not very aptly titled, is like a slow hand that keeps testing your borders as a viewer with its sensual cinematography and a very intense focused story-line that plays away from the usual action based plot lines, but rather becomes a cat and mouse of reactions. It sits very difficult from a psychological point of view since it uses very subtle nuances in film making to keep the viewer feeling uncomfortable and I think this discomfort has probably been experienced by many to be "boredom".

We are uncertain throughout who is the cat and who is the mouse while the story unfolds and the two main players keep pushing back and forth testing boundaries and trying to find each other's " you" factor.

It is The Nines (2007) meets Melancholia (2011) meets Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004).

Far from perfect, I felt that this was a story that could have either be told as a short film in 30 minutes or that left a lot of room for additional story creation, yet at the same time's it's slow pace and sad melancholy allows for the very deep complex and delicate themes to work its way down and make it a little bit easier to ease into it. Bottom-line is that here we have a C-story-line that is being told as an A-story-line with all the emotional subtleties and the quiet/slow timing that a C-story-line require.

Definitely an existential film that questions the process of reinvention of the self and the how much control you have given the influence of external factors (including your own addictions – aka addiction to another person) and co-dependency on a certain reality that you have come to depend upon as "real". The film's biggest flaw is that it was classified as a Science Fiction rather than Experimental or Surreal.

While watching I was reminded of the firs translation I ever read of Jules Verne's Journey to the Centre of the Earth, which has been seen as the first Science Fiction novel ever written. Also, similar to this film, it lacked a definitely story definition, but rather presented the "experience of" a certain journey.

I would, for myself, give this film an 9 star rating, but down this to 7, because I think that in presentation, it does not allow itself to reach as wide an audience as it could.

Writer/director!

Says it all. As you'll know if you've read any of my other reviews.

It's confusing and convoluted without even half-decent characterisation or story arc, and you can just see the writer patting himself on the back saying what a clever writer I am!

You can only hope the producers lost money. It might prevent them chucking more at writers who want to direct their own script. Very, very, very few can do it successfully. Simon Pummell can't.

It gets two stars for its cinematography and low-budget design. If only it had a plot and characters to go with it...

This is another movie that proves the IMDB rating are wrong. Check out the User Reviews. Currently standing at 6.0. No way Jose!

I read a review online that said this film "Out dicks Philip K Dick" so that made me curious! I saw this film in Utopiales Sci-Fi Festival in France and it blew me away. It explores how we adopt multiple identities - online, at work, at home and in our lives - and looks at what happens when we're confronted with ourselves. It looks amazing - set in a visually beautiful world with brilliant actors. And watch out for great cameos from Nick Blood (Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) and Tony Way (High Rise) It's a film for sci-fi fans but also for anyone interested in how we live today and relationships. Unlike anything I've seen in a while. If you're a fan of Seconds, Under the Skin or The Double, go see!

It sounded like an interesting idea.

Told in a very silly way.

Nothing seems very coherent.

At no time did I find it believable.