Even given a couple instances of jarring imagery, plot development is agonizingly slow. One-third of the way through the runtime, very little has happened at all, and the story has gone almost nowhere. The story does very gradually advance from there on, but the problems persist and are amplified. The screenplay is direly thin: characters have little to no depth or personality, and dialogue is at best perfunctory. Scene writing is sluggish and hollow, and the overall narrative is questionable and unconvincing. 'Shadowzone' is mostly just boring.
I'm unsure how actors of such immense caliber as Louise Fletcher an James Hong became involved in this production, but their skills were absolutely wasted, as Dr. Erhardt and Dr. Van Fleet are as flat and dull in their characterizations as anyone could be. One gets the impression that after signing on, Fletcher and Hong were quickly so bored with the tawdry film-making and storytelling on display that they proceeded to phone in their performances. Protagonist Hickock is limited to only two modes, "exploding with anger" or "angrily brooding," and it's impossible to tell from his part if David Beecroft is an excellent actor leaning into the role, or a poor actor bereft of range or nuance. It's actually the supporting cast that give the best demonstrations of acting here. Whether on account of having little renown (Miguel A. Núñez Jr.), few other credits (Shawn Weatherly, Frederick Flynn), or generally being relegated to bit parts (Lu Leonard), these players make the most of their small roles here, and give a demonstration of their capabilities that their lack of recognition would otherwise deny.
Effects look okay. The music is alright. Lighting and set design is well done, I suppose. But it's hard to particularly care about such aspects when the movie at large is such a chore to sit through. There are a few good ideas here, but they are scattershot amidst writing that is broadly almost beyond saving. Whatever it was that drew your attention to 'Shadowzone' - even if you're a big fan of someone in the cast, there's just entirely too little value here to recommend it.
Yawn.
Let's be honest, Maureen Flaherty had the best role of anyone involved. I hope she was well compensated.
I'm unsure how actors of such immense caliber as Louise Fletcher an James Hong became involved in this production, but their skills were absolutely wasted, as Dr. Erhardt and Dr. Van Fleet are as flat and dull in their characterizations as anyone could be. One gets the impression that after signing on, Fletcher and Hong were quickly so bored with the tawdry film-making and storytelling on display that they proceeded to phone in their performances. Protagonist Hickock is limited to only two modes, "exploding with anger" or "angrily brooding," and it's impossible to tell from his part if David Beecroft is an excellent actor leaning into the role, or a poor actor bereft of range or nuance. It's actually the supporting cast that give the best demonstrations of acting here. Whether on account of having little renown (Miguel A. Núñez Jr.), few other credits (Shawn Weatherly, Frederick Flynn), or generally being relegated to bit parts (Lu Leonard), these players make the most of their small roles here, and give a demonstration of their capabilities that their lack of recognition would otherwise deny.
Effects look okay. The music is alright. Lighting and set design is well done, I suppose. But it's hard to particularly care about such aspects when the movie at large is such a chore to sit through. There are a few good ideas here, but they are scattershot amidst writing that is broadly almost beyond saving. Whatever it was that drew your attention to 'Shadowzone' - even if you're a big fan of someone in the cast, there's just entirely too little value here to recommend it.
Yawn.
Let's be honest, Maureen Flaherty had the best role of anyone involved. I hope she was well compensated.