User reviews

In an undefined society, the computer analyst Simon J. (Jeremy Sisto) has a paranoid behavior, compulsively buying milk and receiving mysterious empty packages in his apartment. Although having surveillance everywhere inside the building, there are some dwellers mysteriously dying. His next-door neighbors are Trish (Deborah Kara Unger), a nurse in a cancer hospital that practices kinky sex to feel alive; Derrick (Udo Kier), an inventor living alone with the company of an eerie robot head; and a producer of SM videos and games (Bruce Payne). The janitor of the building, Howard (Lance Henriksen) seems to be a friend of Simon. There is also the administrator of the building and Nile (Eugene Byrd), who brings deliveries with his motorcycle to his clients. Simon tries to figure out what is happening with him.

In a heavy and uncomfortable atmosphere and with bizarre characters, this Kafkaesque film is a weird and intriguing story with potential of cult-movie. Very open to many interpretations, without being conclusive, it is a movie that makes the viewer think about how far the huge corporations might go in their relationship with consumers to achieve their targets. The distance between people living physically so close without knowing each other; the lack of privacy; the exaggeration in the consume; all of these situations are pictured and highlighted in this very interesting film, which deserves to be watched more than once. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Um Ponto Zero" ("One Point Zero")

In the near future a young software engineer is the victim of scheme for his mind. Paranoia and fear take over in a quest for survival. The horrible end seems inevitable. For he will be less and less able to make the difference between real and unreal, who to trust and who not.

The viewer is in the same position here, so you also have to make up your mind and try to figure out what is happening here. The clock is ticking.

Nice obscure characters and reliable acting by most of them. Although the dialogues could have been a little bit more acute.

If you like movies which leave you search for answers and will not give you all of them, go see this one. A little bit like Cronenberg.

It is easy to draw parallels between this movie and contemporary science fiction like The Matrix or less astute films like the Thirteenth Floor.

However, there is another level of storytelling in this film, something very akin to the way science fiction was told in the late 50's. Reminiscent of classical Twilight Zone or the more modern Cronenberg tradition of weird but very compelling scifi, One Point O makes a point that very few contemporary science fiction films does: it's not about effects or flashy stunts, convoluted terms or flashy names for characters. It's about the actor, director and the film crew telling a story.

The film is strange, no doubt, and maybe somewhat inaccessible to many viewers. But it delivers everything it promises in the outset, and in my opinion succeeds where so many others fail; Minority Report to name but one.

On the contrary to what many seem to think, I found the film quite clear. I had no trouble following the story and wasn't surprised at the end - but in my opinion there is no attempt made to surprise you.

One Point O is a film I will see many times again, as there are so many little details to be found - in the sets, the dialog and the characters.

Certainly it is NOT a film for the impatient.

Well it's finally been seen in the UK! Others reviewers have gone into vast detail so I'll leave that but stay away from matrix comparisons in terms of overall movie feel. Yes there's a computer programme affecting the lives of human inhabitants or at least so the main character believes but it's gritty and more cerebral. Think 1984 meets dark city on the budget of Pi! (Well OK a bit more cash than that, but not much!) I loved Lance Henrikson and Udo Kier in cameo roles, they introduce some lighter moments in the film and do so to good effect. Overall its not one for the masses but sci-fi and genre fans will appreciate it. Overall I enjoyed it and it was worth braving bank holiday crowds in central London. Finally the comments in regard to frederik Pohl mentioned in another's review are right on the money

I think this is quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I kept watching waiting for a plot, my husband and I both missed a possible plot. So many things are left unanswered!! I feel like I just woke up from a bad dream and now I'll spend the rest of my evening confused and trying to figure it out. I don't even know if I can tell you what the movie was about I'm so confused but I'll tell you what I know. This guy is in this apartment building where no one acts normal at all. The neighbors are strange, and even the guy at the grocery store is strange. He pays high prices for small items at the grocery store....which is odd, who pays 90 bucks for a gallon of milk? He is trying to figure out what is going on around him and then comes this pretty lame explanation and a very strange ending to the movie. As you are still waiting for them to answer so many questions that have been brought up by the attempt at a plot.....the movie ends...we actually had to check the chapters left on the DVD to see if that was REALLY the end!!!

I wouldn't waste my time with this film unless you like "fill in the blank" movies!

"Paranoia will destroy ya…" wrote the Kinks many years ago. The paranoia in this film…well, you'll have to watch the film yourself to see what happens. Step into a grim, surrealistic world (think Dada does Kafka) where strange, unexplained things are going on. A mysteriously empty box that keeps appearing on the doorstep of Simon (played by Jeremy Sisto, people dying under odd circumstances. Simon's world is dreary, dark, depressing and confusing. It is peopled by others who are as confused and zombie-like as he has become—Trish, the cancer ward nurse (played by Deborah Unger), who uses kinky sex to make herself feel alive after being around so much death, the inventor (played by Udo Keir) of a weird robot head, the peculiar custodian played by Lance Hendricksen. Their souls are being sucked dry by a culture that demands that they perform, conform, consume. The only character with energy in this soulless atmosphere is the Neighbor, a sleazy director of S&M porn games, played by Bruce Payne with his customary intensity and nuance.( Why is he left out of the DVD credits?! His is the most memorable character. I second Brittmatt2005's excellent comments on the message board.).

Though unrelentingly grim, it is worth seeing more than once. This Kafkaesque film is textured, with many levels of meaning woven into the surrealistic package. There are many messages to be extracted---the dangers of amoral corporations out to control and out of control, the deadening effects of a conformist society, questioning of the extreme measures people will go to to feel alive in a dreary world (TV "Reality" shows, anyone?). By the end of the film, the mystery of the box is revealed. It is a trick that is, as Max Headroom once said, only "20 minutes into the future," a science fiction about to turn into science fact. Is this all a metaphor for what is going on now in our culture? See for yourself. This film, unlike the majority of sorry excuses for entertainment out there, will make you think.

I'm generally a sucker for a film that lures you in by its atmosphere, without telling you too much, letting the story evolve slowly, leaving the viewer with somewhere to go, something to figure out while watching. One Point O is that film, in spades.

It's yer basic sci fi thriller, with nanotechnology, mind control, kinky sex and seriously warped (but interesting, very interesting) characters at every turn. Jeremy Sisto, as the central character, makes it compelling in a subtle way, in that I really wanted to know what the #@%! was going on with him: was the whole thing in his mind, or was it happening in reality, or what? While the film doesn't spell everything out - which is a good thing, a very good thing - there's enough info that, by the end, the conscientious viewer can get the gist of what's transpired. I do recommend a second viewing, though - get the DVD, as I plan to do, since this one's not shown on cable that often.

I see this film as having tremendous cult appeal, where audience members dress accordingly and hover in a suspiciously extra-dark and oddly damp screening room, late at night. Also a good thing.

I've seen all that's in this movie once before. Matrix-hitech, Sliver-watching, BladeRunner-lighteffects, Seven-atmosphere. But few effects and clearly 0.0 CGI included. Weird characters that don't interest or appeal to me. The why/who/when/where part stays unclear. It's an art-house kind of movie with a few familiar faces.

Not easy to follow, and no block-buster-kind of movie that everyone will (or can) enjoy. Was there a plot anyway, one should ask himself after watching. The box-plot sounds interesting, but never becomes interesting. Any suspense? Yeah, in the soundtrack. Keep your skip-button within reach. * out of *****

This is one absolutely fantastic movie - I had to watch it more than once to read the newspaper articles shown in the early part of the movie - the main character, a computer programmer, can't quite complete a program code that he is supposed to write, since he seems to be slowly losing his mind - he is pressed to find out why this is happening (i.e., "paranoia") - this movie is not only entertaining and suspenseful - but it also represents a well established fear of big biotechnology (and other) corporations' power and desire to control the minds of consumers, just to sell their products - this was quite impressive - I am expecting sequels and copy-cats to show up soon - the theme is right on point with today's market-driven economy - I noticed that there seemed to be an effort by the producer/director to block out any mention or hint of known consumer product brands of any kind, such as Intel/windows computers, etc. - it was difficult, if not impossible to decide when the storyline took place, e.g., in present-day, near present, or far into the future - this movie definitely merits further discussion

The film is often compared to Darren Aronofsky's "Pi" and it's actually similarly intelligent and visually creative, yet "Pi" is more consistent and logical. So what we have great about "1.0"? First and foremost is its message, which is very relevant for the consumer society of today; the very discovery of that message while watching the movie is a rather exciting thing, yet it's a common thing for intelligent movies; but that's not the point, the point is that "1.0" warns you about living to consume products, the corporations will never care much about you, they only want money, more and sooner. That's why they would never care much even about debugging the programs they put into their consumers. Of course, this movie is a sci-fi because I think it's virtually impossible to create a virus for the human brain, even with some kind of microscopic electronic "mites". But doesn't, say, propaganda sounds like someone's trying to put a mind virus into your brain, to make it possess your will and so to control it? Or weren't communism and fascism a real kind of mind plague striking billions of people? May be then even there are demons who possess people and make them do things they wouldn't like to, and they are actually mind viruses, thoughts that have an ability to transmit themselves using verbal channels? We should learn to watch attempts to control our will and to resist them, or we won't be human anymore just like those poor people in this amazing movie. 7 out of 10, because the pace of the story is yet too sluggish and the visuals are overly grotesque which I don't really like, here "Pi" did better.

Don't waste your money with this piece of "work". Boring, underdirected, overplayed, overdramatized, inconsistent -- these are just a few words that come to mind when watching this garbage. The movie promises to keep you in suspense until the very end, however, half way through you realize that you are no longer interested in finding out what's going on. The dialogue is so bleak and uninteresting, you will find yourself nodding off after about 40 minutes. The producers have tried to combine suspense, horror, intrigue, sci-fi, gore, and romance, and they failed miserably. The actors' plays leave you wishing for Pauly Shore's return. To summarize: if you want to see a bad, yet somewhat entertaining movie, watch Biodome. Don't waste your hard-earned money with this garbage.

Paranoia 1.0 portrayed a not-so-distant future of isolation and corruption. Our protagonist - Simon J - suffers from the very beginning and his deteriorating state grows exponentially by the end. There is a clever gimmick behind his "sickness" which I can agree to be plausible.

This cinematic adventure's strengths are not in the casting, but in a grim atmosphere that entices the viewer with a special peek into the world of a paranoid being. This is done exceedingly well and I give much respect to the set designers.

Overall, 1.0 is a look into what corporate power may one day be able to exact upon the masses, in ever evolving, technologically proficient world.

Matrix meets Kafka meets Eyes Wide Shut. On a budget. Without the cool. This is a painful film to watch, which unfortunately, I think was the intent. Take away the fact that the film has a very interesting Philip Dick type of premise and some very clever directing (the sound practically carries the movie!) and you are left with cryptic dialogue, shallow (but spooky) characters, kinky sex and an occasional beheading. Good enough for Sundance. But who wants to see this, really?

What begins as a paranoid gloss on David Lynch's "Eraserhead" (the central character is an antisocial loner in a fittingly creepy apartment complex) eventually unravels and stalls due to its own hyper-allegoric art-house pretensions. But for a while, it's an engrossing, unconventionally entertaining tale of a computer programmer (Jeremy Sisto) who receives empty packages inside his apartment...even after he changes the locks. While it's clearly a work of science fiction, the conceptualization of "the future" is presented in a minimalist manner–save for some complex-looking computer screens and virtual-reality scenes–that envelops the cerebral thriller elements quite nicely. In addition to "Eraserhead", it also bears some resemblance to David Cronenberg's more playful "eXistenZ," with a similar emphasis on the blurred line between hallucination and reality (metaphors abound), but the double- and triple-crosses the plot lays out eventually become tiresome.

You didn't hear of this movie for years? Well, good, but sadly somehow you got here, which means you might want to check this movie out.

But luckily you ended up reading this review. I won't go into detail, but just give you one tip: It is Bulls*

The other reviewers must be crazy. Seeing a riddle behind every camera angle. This movie is crap. It is atmospheric but in a way that made me nervous, I wanted to tear the seat and theater apart. The movie leads nowhere. There isn't a message about anything you are left with. I am a software engineer, and I don't get anything here. I suppose you have to be very ignorant about everything, to see the master plan here. Having some kind of knowledge totally breaks this movie.

It is up to you if you want to waste your day. I am still angry writing these lines.

I saw this film at Sundance, and think it is by far the best looking film I have seen there. The greatest thing about it is that you can really see the amazing artistic/creative ability of the filmmakers. Each shot is like a beautiful photograph, carefully chosen but not pretentious. The look of the film enables the viewer to have an "experience" of a future that is bleak. (And I loved the choice of using retro looking phones/appliances, etc.--Rather than a bright future, I was certain this one was grim.) Generally speaking, I am not a fan of sci-fi, but I did not feel like I needed to be for this film--I would not classify this film as sci-fi...but that's just my opinion.

Although not everyone seems to agree that the story was worth telling...I disagree. I completely bought into it, and enjoyed it each step of the way.

My only question is, why is this a straight to video release? It should be viewed in the theatre where one can really appreciate it's beauty.

Seemingly set somewhere in a rather bleak near future, Simon keeps working on code for a program. He never quite gets it finished and after continued threats of termination is finally fired. This is the least of his worries.

Every so often he runs out to the store for milk and other items. He doesn't buy all that much, but the prices (in whatever undefined currency) keep on going up. "Twenty-one fifty two" "Thirty-two fifty-two" "Eighty-seven fifty-seven".

Simon seems to have a thing for milk - another resident is big on Kola 500 - and the building super is well-stocked on Farm Cut meat. Why these monomanias, which nobody seems to recognize as such? And what's with all these empty packages arriving anonymously at Simon's?

There seem to be little bits and pieces peeking out from other science fiction works throughout the film:

"You're in the game - do you want to lead, or do you want to follow?" sounds like eXistenZ;

"I can show you things" - shades of Roy Batty's comment to the ocular genetic engineer in Blade Runner -"If you could see what I've seen with your eyes";

the "vision box" seemed somewhat similar to the "Mercer box" in PKD's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?";

the premise of Frederick Pohl's "The Tunnel Under the World" (Alternating Currents) seems to feed into the food monomania(s).

There's a bit of the tension between "there's nothing new under the sun" by the writer of Ecclesiastes and Goethe's "everything has been thought of before; the trouble is to think of it again," throughout the film. I kept wondering if (and hoping that) the film would become more than the sum of its parts.

It had its moments of dry humor - "What happened to your couch? I thought it cleaned itself?"

"It's broken."

No matter how sophisticated technology gets there'll always be a need for repair - no doubt increasing with the complexity of the system.

Detectives stop by to see Simon - he tries to avoid them. He gets the phone call termination: "Simon J.? You're fired." Simon tries to explain the difficulties he's been dealing with - the reasons his work's been delayed. What's this project all about, anyway?

"We only work on a specific part - we don't know the big picture."

Perhaps a few more viewings will put more pieces together.

I can't believe more people haven't seen this film. I downloaded this film from the internet by chance last year before it came out (It was called "One Point O" then), and I told so many of my friends that they made the trek to the Montreal Film Festival to see it. I anticipated that it would also show in the Toronto Film Festival (where I live) but unfortunately it did not.

The cast is brilliant. Udo Kier as a creepy neighbor. Lance Henrickson (in something watchable for a change) as a basement dwelling bum, the deliciously sexy Deborah Kara Unger play the main character Jeremy Sisto's (Six Feet Under, Wrong Turn) love interest.

This film actually kept me guessing until the end. It's well paced, originally written, and beautifully shot. It's the exact style of science fiction that I love the most.

I just picked up the DVD, now called "Paranoia: 1.0" (I prefer the original title). It's a must have for any sci-fi fan.

25 August 2006. This darker Brazil (1985) movie with its creepy but very effective Dark Water (2005) photography and visuals is a colorfully subdued terrifying mystery with a solid and harsh ending. It has the cramped and odd Barton Fink (1991) nightmare going on. What this movie has going for it is a decent underlying technological premise that is contemporary for today and an climatic twist that is consistent with the build-up in the movie. However, the movie itself becomes so absorbed by its absurdity and it begins to wear the audience down while Brazil with its satirical black humor was able to maintain a sufficient balance to compel its audience's interest. Unlike Dark Water that was much more atmospheric and yet straightforward in its impact, One Point O requires its audience to become submerged within its psychic devastated world. Unlike the creative independent Blair Witch Project (1999) where the audience becomes a seemingly vicarious observer, we are asked in this movie to become part of the crazy paranoid world from within. Unlike the light and generally uplifting you are there inside one's mind of Brainstorm (1983), the audience in this movie almost needs to take anti-psychotic medication to enjoy and appreciate the movie. Perhaps the art has become too real for an audience. Seven out of Ten Stars.

I wanted to watch this movie, since I saw the categorization "Genre: Thriller / Mystery / Sci-Fi", and a decent 5.8 rating and thought it might be good. However that categorization and rating is very misleading it turned out.

I started to watch this movie, and sat through the first 48 minutes of it, hoping it would eventually get interesting. Sadly it never did, so I stopped right there.

The main flaw of the movie is that the pace is extremely slow, and the lack of any interesting plot. It definitely do not deserve to be in the "Thriller" category, there is nothing thrilling about it at all(the first 48 minutes anyway, doubt the second half gets any better..).

If I had to give this movie any sort of label, it would have to be "Genre: slow-paced wannabe pseudo-intellectual sci-fi", and would recommend you avoid it at all cost, unless you need something to doze off to.