Picked this up in a two movie DVD set for a buck or so. Didn't really look promising and as I started to watch the movie I was just glad it didn't cost me more! Low budget may be an excuse, but it's not a very good one. The worst thing about this movie is the writing. I can handle slow paced movies, but this isn't slow paced. Most of the time nothing really happens. Movies never makes me sleep, but this one came pretty close. While the idea in it self might be OK, the writing just doesn't cut it. There are not enough development of characters or plots to make this a good feature film. They just make time pass by all these pictures of the characters doing some walking some chit chat and stuff that don't add anything to the movie. With that said this movie might make a good short film.As for special effects, really there's nothing special about them. They're bad. To be honest, they could have and should have cut the storm thing part from the script. As said before, it don't give the movie anything, it offers no challenge to the characters it's just there to look good. And it don't.Cinematography, however is one of the best things about this movie. It's all over good, with some enjoyable shots. However, the lightning could've been better, especially at night. It looks cheep.Production design, sets, locations and costumes also need some credit. It's not that bad. Rather nice actually compared other things.The acting is OK. For a low budget movie they got OK actors. They say their lines loud and clear, but thats about it. Then again with lack of characters and action what else is there for them to do. Never the less a little more acting wouldn't hurt.All in all this is not the movie you want to spend any kind of money or time on. This is a movie far down on you watch list.

Okay, seems like there's been a broad range of comments on this little indie. First, I caught the film (on DVD), while visiting a friend in London. As far as low, low, micro budget films go, Aurora wasn't bad. Granted, the film doesn't have ILM quality effects (not even close with this one), but it was nice to see a film with some heart and character.The direction was good, the novice cast, fair to really good. The cinematography and music, very nicely done! Now for those looking for a slop cut Armageddon kinda experience, Aurora is NOT FOR YOU! The film takes its time to develope. Its more in line with 2001: A Space Odyssey set in the desert. So, if you're looking for hyper speed and fast cuts, stay away, you'll be bored. For me, I really dug this movie and the people/characters in it. By the end, I was pretty thirsty

This is to the reviewer who mentioned that it was low budget and made on credits cards, so please give it its due. Sorry, that doesn't wash. I've seen other movies made on shoestring budgets that managed to be good despite their low budgets. And since most people won't know it was made on a shoestring budget, they only have the finished product to judge, and that seems to be lacking. Heck, Robt. Rodriguez made EL MARIACHI for $7000 (not including the soundtrack that now exists on the video; that was cleaned up by Columbia Pictures when they bought the rights, and spent $100,000 doing it) and look what he did; sometimes it's edited a bit too fast for me in one or two scenes)A movie lives or dies by what's on the screen, not the history behind the making of the movie.

I Can only assume that the people putting the film down have not realised that the film was made on a shoe string it was an independant film the director had occupied more roles than Simon Templar , location and story was easily more admirable and just as good as Val kilmers flop the red planet if not better in my opinion , we must not see independant films as crap films but as films to be developed as a budding filmaker my self it is quite inspiringTAKE NOTICE AND DONT MOCK WE ALL WILL HAVE START SOMEWHERE