User reviews

It's an ambitious task producing a science fiction movie on an obviously low budget, especially if the content focuses on condition rather than plot.

The movie's cinematography is well worth watching, also editing is well made, but without a straight plot, scripting has to carry a heavy load because every scene has to stand for itself. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold up to the task. Though the dialogues seek philosophical depth, they lack refinement, constantly throwing me out of the suspension of disbelief.

Acting is just fine, including that of Ryan Kwanten who plays the lead role of Jack. However, his sloppy diction is hard to take. Eager to be as authentic as possible, he sacrifices his control over speech which makes him simply hard to understand.

Also, there are too many references to "Blade Runner": A lonesome killer seeking love, voiceover narration, androids, the lifespan issue, an Asian future city, even the soundtrack that sounds like Vangelis at times - there are just too many parallels.

Great Hong Kong footage, good editing, but overall an overambitious undertaking.

I rarely write review for films but, as an Australian filmmaker, I had to. Someone has to be honest and call it out when one of our Australian films, for a lack of better word, sucks.

In summary, it was bad. It gave nothing for the audience to hang onto, maybe except for some mediocre low budget VFX visuals. So with the slow pace and nothing to go for, it was excruciating to sit through the film keeping an open mind that it might get better, which it didn't. I was cringing as they whisper talked to each-other through the whole film, as if that would give their dialogue more depth. But there was not depth in the content of the dialogue.

While in Australia it is celebrated as another great work of Ivan Sen (actually he is a very good filmmaker), there are many flaws that should have been seen even in the screenplay, especially by those who gave the funding and support to the film. The biggest flaw was; why would the audience care for Jack? He is loser, not relatable, and he kills random people for a living, and he's not very good at it either. I could care less if he died from his condition (whatever his condition was).

I could go on and on, but I want to wrap it up with one question; 'Why does this movie need to exist?'. And the answer is it doesn't.

With all that negative, I know the director is fund of sci-fi genre, so I hope this was a great practice so his next sci-fi film will not suffer the same flaws.

The pacing is excruciatingly slow. The movie has very little dialog, plot or action. Kwanten talks in a half whisper both in his voice-over and dialog. It's really quite a boring movie. It shares a lot of characteristics with Lost in Translation.

My verdict - pass

If you decide to watch it and you happen to play it on VLC video player on Windows then run it at 108% speed.

I was looking forward to this film as I very much enjoyed Mystery Road and Goldstone. (It seems it has been released as Expired rather than the current 'Loveland' title here on imdb.)

As a sci-fi film it is clearly somewhat hamstrung by a lack of budget. You get a couple of distant shots of a futuristic city but then all the filming of the cast are just on the street, 'today'. Nobody dresses any different, the cars and streets are all unchanged, its slighlty jarring. There are a lot of people walking around with umbrellas up, even though its not raining. I can only guess the plan was to cgi some of these sequences but maybe the money ran out.

That aside when it starts it is really difficult to hear the lead actor. He speaks so quietly and is way down in the mix so that you can't hear what he is saying about half of the time. Most of the (long) opening narration is inaudible and throughout the film it's often a struggle to make out his dialogue. Its somewhat ironic all the Chinese cast, who speak clearly, are subtitled where it is the lead who really needs it.

Its a very slow film and there really isn't much in the way of story. There is no chemistry at all between the two leads either so it was ultimately not very interesting. I made it to the end hoping there would be something more but then it ended.

It seems to want to be a kind of mash-up between Paris, Texas and Blade Runner but its like thats as far as the idea went.

Started watching this tonight, I've been playing with my phone for the last forty mins. The films nearly finished. Not really got a clue what its about. Don't really care!

Immensely annoying start, the lead characters voice over is barely audible. They should have used subtitles. This film really wants to be blade runner, shame they couldn't afford the constant rain (they should have shot it in England).

I've given it three stars cause the lady was attractive.. if the lead guy could have spoke properly i might have gone to four.

Really though, this film is a waste of time. Mine anyway.

Talk about slow, drawn out and extremely boring. It took 1hr 17mins for me to understand what the hell this movie was even about. My interest in watching was because of Hugo Weaving and he barely had any camera time. If you need something to put you to sleep with a decent score, then watch Expire. Your eyes will "expire" in no time.....sheesh louise.

This movie is not really worth spending time to review but I will in a few brief words anyway. The pace is terrible. The plot and scenes are completely disjointed. You are left trying to figure out what the hell is happening for close to 3/4 of the movie. Half the movie has voice-over from the characters that means nothing because you don't know what's going on to begin with. The story itself what actually interesting and could have been something with different direction and editing.

Honestly I didn't mind watching this film, but with the talent he had and the clearly substantial budget, it was unfortunate in many ways. Aside from the almost painfully unoriginal nature of the story, I just kept thinking one thought over and over. A middle-aged man, a young beautiful woman and an older man. How many times have I seen this same scenario? Too many.

Saw this at the wonderful Sun Theatre in Yarraville. The highlight was the movie being introduced by Ivan and Hugo. I really wanted to like it because they were both great but... I didn't.

I enjoyed the Hong Kong backdrop and most of the visuals and sound but really didn't dig the story (or lack of).

Ivan indicated that he did everything when he made this movie, maybe he should get some outside input in his next project.

I left the movie confused.

Yes, the plotting is slow but the mood nuanced. If you realize it's just a deeply personal take on evolution, who we are as human beings, and how every living creature needs love to survive....you can take a lot away from this movie. Enjoyed it.

Not suited for ones who seek just another easy to consume fast moving blockbuster production. This gem is targeted for the cinephiles who can appreciate the type of thought provoking story telling.

This film tries to be deep and meaningful with a distinct Blade Runner skyline interspersed with real, busy street scenes. It just fails to ignite, the story isn't clear, Weaving is under used and the male lead has to be the most scruffy, miserable SOB i've ever come across.

His mumbling frustrates as do the extended scenes where nothing happens, without even minimal (poor) dialogue to break it up.

The girl has the sort of face that'll get work and , no doubt she can act.

Hugo was doing his bit for Oz, that's fair enough, the other two leads need to dust themselves off and try again.

I would pretty much sum up everyone else's reviews, excruciatingly slow. Hugo Weaving was a key part of The Matrix, so can't understand what he's doing in this movie.

I believe it was well-intentioned. If you watch "The Making Of" the movie, the actors, explained why they believed in it, how good the script was and what they seemed to want to get on the screen. It was an Aussie production, low budget Queensland product it appears.

Visually it was acceptable possibly even good. You have to watch it with English subtitles. Shocking plot. I have no idea what the idea was that his character was shooting people, etc. It's pretty much impossible to draw any line of what the movie was about without watching "The Making of."

Somehow I watched the whole thing with a bit of fast forwarding going on. I can't recommend it. I took a shot on a library title.

Let's ignore for a second that this movie is just an hour and 30 minutes of literally nothing but moody scenes and city shots, and focus on the actual 10 minutes of plot we do get. Jack falls in love and starts to get sick so he finds a scientist, he finds him apparently by picking some kind of chip of the ground? Did the chip fall out when the Android was hit by the car? Does this make sense in any way? Definitely not, but again, ignore it. He finds the scientist and the guy helps him. Another hour of nothing and we find out that Jack was in an experiment while young, an experiment that stopped his body/brain from producing the chemicals associated with deep emotion. How this actually stops him from feeling emotion isn't explained because it's not actually stopping him from it. It appears that his life's circumstances have just created a series of events that have made him become cold and uncaring? Because he falls very deeply in love with a girl, even though the audience can't tell because having leads with chemistry wasn't an option, their in love because the movie tells you they are. And because of this Jack is dying, because his body isn't used to the very small amount of chemicals created by happy feelings? An amount that is so negligible, any body would get used to it over time without you even noticing and would in no way ever kill you. Plus, let's not forget that if Jack just stays healthy and avoids falling in love again, he can live forever. He can live forever! Because apparently the aging process just never happens if your body stops producing the tiny amounts of chemicals associated with emotion.

Of course Jack ignores this 'coz he's in love man. But the girl betrays him and leaves and that's it. If he doesn't see her he obviously can't love her, they need to be in the same room for love to occur. Anyway Jack survives and that's it...

I get the big idea/message behind this plot. Being willing to give up humanity for immortality etc. But literally no part of the actual plot we are given makes any kind of sense. Look it doesn't need to be completely accurate considering the idea here, what it does need is set up, we're just told near the end of the movie that without emotion Jack can live forever. But how did this shady corporation get to that point? It feels like the first thing they tried just happened to work. Sure the scientist mentions having done horrible things to have what Jack has but we're not given any indication what those things are.

And that's it, that's the whole movie. There's a few subplots that make no sense and are literally just Jack tries to find his dad but he's dead, and the scientist turns of the life support/cryo for some guy he cared deeply about. We don't even know who this guy was to him? Son/lover/friend? Your guess is as good as mine...

So yeah that's it.

"This gem is targeted for the cinephiles who can appreciate the type of thought provoking story telling." Laughing my ass off. There is nothing thought provoking in this movie. It's not a gem. It's glacial pace with no substance leaves nothing to the imagination. And it should or there is no payoff. It has a consistent mood of yawn, like it's trying to be Bladerunner in some way. Was it called Loveland or Expired. It makes more sense as Loveland. The constant asian babble is annoying. Again a nod to Bladerunner. It failed to develop it's own plot points, such as the tech implants, the reasons for the girl affecting the lead and the nature of the corporation behind the experiments. There was so much material that could have been added that was just ignored. It would have made for a far deeper and more meaningful movie. I think it tries hard but is basically a bad movie with a bit of style around the edges.

Imagine Blade Runner, but with none of Harrison Ford's charm, mediocre cinematography, cheap digital effects, dull atmosphere, and a relationship you couldn't care less about. Also, instead of Ford's voice-over in the theatrical release, you get this sweaty guy mumbling nonsense.

Hugo Weaving was pretty good, though.

Slow, boring, not understandable. A great movie to send you off to sleep if you are having difficulty sleeping. Can someone, anyone explain to me what that was really about?? What a waste of time!

Near to what I had expected after seeing the trailer. I almost passed due to the bad review, the only review that I saw. Glad I gave it a shot. Reminded me a lot of the movie Enter the Void, except with more narrative, and perhaps, less visual substance if my memory serves me correctly. Probably not everybody's cup of tea, but you should enjoy it to some degree if the trailer piqued your interest.

The feel of the film is great and the acting appropriate. At its core it examines what we are losing when we're clinging to life and trying to optimize it. The protagonist is someone who can live forever as long as he doesn't love anything, or he dies. The world is heavily inspired by Blade Runner: it looks and feels the same, it has pointless robots and cheap humans, everything is grand, luminous and depressing. The big problem with this film is that it is very slow and it tells a very simple idea in a complicated and roundabout way. If you're in it for the action and the thrills, this is not for you, but if you're looking for artistic expression without actually going towards something, you will probably love it.

Bottom line: brilliant beginning, then slowly fizzling out. Ryan Kwanten was great, Jillian Nguyen cute and Hugo Weaving old. He had just a few minutes in the film, though, so it felt a little like bait and switch.

Despite its decent cinematography, clean set design and lighting, and excellent score, this film is severely undercooked.

The core idea is interesting but not sufficient to sustain a film on its own. It desperately needed a meaningful support scaffold. Instead, the screenplay seems to have devolved into a trellis of loosely-coupled branches of pseudo-poignant dialogue. Given so little to work with and in an attempt to grant the script a modicum of gravitas, the actors whisper their lines.

As I said, the core idea of the film is dyed-in-the-wool solid high-concept speculative sci-fi. The rest of what passes for story in the film is very much a paint-by-numbers mish-mash of sci-fi tropes.

Films like this frustrate me. It is so hard for original sci-fi films to get made - especially in Australia - that delivering something that so profoundly falls flat due to fundamental flaws feels like a real kick in the gut.

As a fan of both Ivan Sen the filmmaker and quality Australian cinema in general, it deeply pains me to admit that Sen's latest and arguably most ambitious outing yet is a dead on arrival failure that deserves the tepid response it has received across the globe, locally as Loveland and in other markets Expired.

His first feature film since 2016's Mystery Road sequel Goldstone, Sen heads into Blade Runner-lite territory with his Hong Kong and Queensland shot sci-fi, an effort that has him re-teaming with his Mystery Road actor Ryan Kwanten but an effort that at days end fails to justify why we should care as a slow and uninvolving narrative that has more mumbling voice overs and random scenes than it does coherent or engaging elements takes hold.

Getting stuck straight into the thick of things as we are introduced to Kwanten's charisma free assassin Jack, who roams the neon clad streets of an unspecified futuristic Hong Kong only to find his isolated life turned upside down when he comes across Jillian Nguyen's nightclub singer April, Loveland takes forever to get going and even when it does it's barely moving out of first gear as we spend a majority of the films runtime unable to grasp where Sen is taking us or if it in fact will be worth all the mediocrity we have to wade through to get there.

A multi-talented filmmaker who often not only writes and directs his own films but edits and scores them too for good measure, Sen has proven multiple times that his one of the most fascinating Australian voices in the local industry with efforts such as Beneath Clouds, the criminally underrated Toomelah and the one two double hit of Mystery Road and Goldstone showcasing someone that is above average in their chosen field, which makes Loveland's complete failure to connect or stick its landing even more baffling, especially when it perhaps provided Sen a chance to broaden his locally made products too a much wider market.

With so much of the film failing to work in an aesthetic or narrative sense, the last hope Loveland had of pulling off a miracle recovery from its failings was in its cast members work but due to Kwanten's boorish lead turn (a continuing of his struggles since his True Blood breakthrough), Nguyen's thankless role and the support of beloved Australian acting icon Hugh Weaving in a generically structured role as a mysterious life extension scientist, Sen's cast can't save a film that was perhaps never going to succeed no matter what anyone did due to its core failings as a story that no amount of polish or luck was going to produce into anything worth a note.

Final Say -

A hugely disappointing outing from everyone involved, particularly Ivan Sen, Loveland marks an unfortunate career low point for one of Australia's brightest all-round directional talents who needs to bounce back in a big way following this colossal misfire.

1 1/2 butterfly tattoos out of 5

For more reviews check out Jordan and Eddie (The Movie Guys)

I couldn't last five minutes. The copied blade runner vibe tells you things will never get better. The lead is why I stopped. The actor is an ugly, shuffling, mumbling moron, while the character is a possibly morally ambiguous hit man. No thanks. I'm desperate for some watchable sci-fi, but not desperate enough to watch this.