Yes this film was a great idea. Someone somewhere came up with a cool idea for a movie. Other than that it's all downhill. What it appears like is that a bunch of stoner friends got together with some cheap cameras, had no access to a budget or good equipment, no access to producers or directors or studios or a cast of actors... So they shot it themselves over a weekend. The acting is beyond bad. It's gruelingly uncomfortable watching these homies attempt to clumsily "act" through this dreadful dialog. It's so annoying at times that you literally have to fast forward through it. The main actors are just so so bad. What's worse is that one worries that it is them who actually trying to direct it too. I would have loved this movie to be good. Unfortunately it's just dreadful.

Spoiler Alert. . . Enjoy the movie by watching first if you don't want to learn about scenes and events of the movie.Cinema Verite style has been used to give bad movies an edge but this movie is a modest success. The budget must have been minuscule and there are some continuity problems but for a modest budget POV kind of movie. This sort of works. The Belfast clock and the World clock were confusing at the beginning especially since the whole movie was shot in LA. But it holds together in a strange kind of way as the movie unfolds. The Uriel Patterson actor overacted the creepiness factor and I think he would have been better served by playing the role straight. I have a feeling his "narrative" role was added as an afterthought. The "cowboy" leader of Lifetracker was a costume knockoff of LRH and there are some initial games being played with character/real life people but it's a minor inconvenience and probably one that is unavoidable given the nature of the subject matter.Movie-making like this should be encouraged. The comparisons to Scientology methods and the nature of personal prediction tied disparate elements together nicely. The twist that Belfast didn't disintegrate on DDay and the subsequent world day destruction was a nice surprise and really unexpected. The writer/director shows that you can make a thoughtful movie full of ideas and social situations without CGI, big named actors and a huge budget. In fact, it seems that the larger the budget, the less intellectual the movie and that is sad. I would like to see this director get a bigger budget and see if he can stretch his legs a little. Overall the acting was TV quality but that's not the director's problem. It is ours. By elevating reality TV "stars" to the same level as legitimate actors, we have lessened what we expect from the craft of acting. It's too bad but a sign of the times I guess.

This was a fantastic movie! It played like an honest-to-goodness homemade documentary. Virtually every scene was viewed from the eye of the hand held camera. The characters were so believable and so natural that you really don't think of them as "acting". The plot was a little less believable, but I don't think this film was meant to imply that this technology would ever become a reality to that extent. Although some of the technology does exist at the present time, Joe McClean takes it to a whole new level. The film had me from the beginning. Some people say that you have to push through the first part of the movie to get to the "good part", but I found it interesting and engaging from the first minute. (although I really thought there was something wrong with my player during the first few minutes because of the poor quality of the video! Which just added to the realism.) I strongly recommend this film. It's a departure from anything else you have seen before and that alone makes it worth watching. 10 Stars & 5 Thumbs Up for this one!

I am generally quite tolerant of independent .I don't mind lack of effects and other limits from small budgets.But this film is an insult to the viewer in every respect.The writing is utterly unforgivable. Not only is the dialog a childish string of inane clichés, overall story is so full of massive plot holes, that suspension of disbelief is impossible for anyone with an IQ above that of a hamster.And really what is with these "actors"? Seriously, unknowns are fine, but abjectly untalented isn't necessary. There are plenty of unknowns with lots of training and talent that can be had for free. There was no reason to use people who could not act their way out of a paper bag.And to the director: have your actors do something other than shouting and mumbling. OK? Yeah, you got no budget, so "documentary style" eg hand-held because you can't rent equipment or locations is OK. But you don't need to jutter the viewers, zoom and pan like someone who has never used a camera to emphasize that! Skip this film.