Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

ApolloBoy109 Stumbled across this recently on netflix. In a nutshell, a "Walt Disney" like creator is revived from cold storage via complex cloning to assume control of the company he created over a hundred years ago. The idea alone intrigued me but it was the execution of the tale that floored me. From the acting (flawless) to the script (a tidy tale of "be careful what you wish for you just may get it.")loaded with twists and turns to the outstanding CGI backgrounds that give the film a rich science fiction flavor.This is a must see for intelligent film fans of science fiction. Add a dash of Citizen Kane, an amusing parody on Disney and the ethical question, is a clone a real person or the property of those who created it.Abel Edwards will make you believe. And you better believe ten years from now this will achieve cult status.

J. Neil Schulman I think it would be the rare independent filmmaker these days who hasn't fantasized about how it would be possible to bypass the necessity of building sets, going on location, and long shooting schedules -- in other words, all the things that aren't a problem for a high-budget studio film but are for shoestring indie productions -- by the expedient of shooting the actors entirely on a green screen stage and compositing everything else digitally.Able Edwards did it, and you know what? For the most part it really works.Yes, some of the seams show -- but so what? You can look at classic movies like Casablanca and North by Northwest and see where the old process shots weren't entirely convincing. As long as there's a good story being conveyed by good acting and directing, an audience is willing to play along and suspend their disbelief. If they didn't, nobody today would have a clue who Aristophanes or Shakespeare was.The character of Able Edwards is part Walt Disney, part Howard Hughes, part Orson Welles's and Herman J. Mankiewicz's fictitious Charles Foster Kane--who in turn was based on the real-life William Randolph Hearst. Able Edwards story plays with the mythology of Walt Disney being frozen by having Edwards' frozen remains cloned, then -- in an homage to Ira Levin's The Boys from Brazil -- groomed to restore the legacy of the original.The comic irony of Able Edwards is the juxtaposition of its method --which is the creation of a virtual reality -- with its theme -- that in a world in which all entertainment is virtual, the public will crave a return to entertainment based on the infinite nuances of reality.Both Able Edwards and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow were made in 2004 using the total green-screen virtual technique. But Able Edwards was made for $30 thousand and Sky Captain for $40 million. The thing is, Sky Captain cost a thousand times as much as Able Edwards but only looks about twice as good -- and I found both movies not all that far apart in entertainment value. Digital media and production is to making movies what Colt firearms were to the Old West--the great equalizer.Full disclosure requires me to reveal that I heard about this movie because its title actor, Scott Kelly Galbreath, also played in a movie I directed. Scott is a fine actor in both this movie and mine, and, the fates willing, I predict a big career ahead of him.I hope this movie ends up on TV --either premium cable or network. It deserves to be much better known. Meanwhile, I bought my DVD from Amazon.com, which means you can, too -- and I recommend that you do.

Chris Mackey (guestar57) ABLE EDWARDSwww.myspace.com/ableedwards This film is amazing and peeked my interest when I heard clone and Disneyesque in a blurb .As a young boy I had heard Walt Disney died,I knew his Imagineers would not let the old man go that way.I figured he was frozen next to L.Ron Hubbard and Howard Hughes,Please tell me you had'nt thought of this after hearing about Ted Williams. The digital/green screen process is quite a suspension of belief, But you are glad when you see some of AE park attractions. The sci-fi part is almost a stepping off to remake Citizen Kane,But that would cheapen what has been accomplished with this great film…Yes, FILM-No matter what medium .The cast would be of no OOh-Ah, But If its good enough for Steven Soderbergh to produce,Hell Im in ! You will enjoy this movie, Its much more successful at the COMPLETE green screen effort than anything from Hollywood, And a great story to boot.

eugedavis If you watch the movie....and let the technical limitations slide (which are few and far between...and I'm guessing here, but some of them seemedintentional..like the obvious walking in place shots) you can really enjoy this movie. Honestly, I didn't expect to. (A friend dragged me to a screening in Los Angeles.) It's dark and sad but not depressing. There is a mild underscore of humor throughout the piece that is hard to describe...it's almost sinister, definitely self-reflexive and can easily be overlooked. I mean, it's a greenscreen movie, all the backgrounds are fake, everything is simulated ...and there is Able Edwards, the main character, inside this virtual bubble on an ultimately tragic quest to find things that are real. Sometimes you wonder if the filmmaker was trapped inside that same bubble. It's awesome. I am so impressed. It looks spectacular and it's a great story with great acting.I would buy this film