Atomica (2017) User Reviews

Acceptable bangs for bucks.

[Mikelikesnotlikes · 5/10 · 22 March 2017]

This film was obviously made to a tight budget, BUT the money was used pretty wisely. I give points purely for that factor as a canny director and producer will know where to pour on the dollars, and where to save a few cents.

The plot was a bit vague and it frustrates me that story lines aren't thought through properly. I thought the tension was good throughout and had me guessing wrong a few times. Was a bit slow in places.

The writer should have toned down the importance of the plant to make the actions of the characters more believable (a facility that feeds the entire worlds power grid is manned by 2 people?). I would have found it to be more believable that 2 men might run a nuclear waste disposal facility. No one would want to be anywhere near that. And the antiquated equipment would have looked more at home in my scenario.

All up I enjoyed the film, and I recommend it as a dull, rainy day time waster.

With bigger Budget could have been better

[drronaldchacko · 4/10 · 21 March 2018]

The movie is about a technical engineer, who is sent to a nuclear power plant to repair a communication failure and the unexpected scenarios that follow.

This movie has a very good storyline that could have been much more but the low budget made it not reach its potential. It makes me sad that stories with potential like this gets destroyed due to bad actors and low budget.

It is a one time watch movie.

Unconvincing

[Top_Dawg_Critic · 4/10 · 6 September 2017]

This film missed the mark as it was unconvincing. The acting and the writing/plot where really bad, however, the cinematography and directing was on point. The other fail in this was wardrobe... how is basically a motorcycle helmet part of a modern era space suit? Too bad the negative elements where so apparent, this film had potential. Sadly, it's only a 4/10 from me.

Honestly, there's no reason to watch this

[al-mcdowall · 3/10 · 2 October 2017]

I so rarely write reviews, despite watching an awful lot of movies. This one was poor enough that I was motivated to pop down a warning for any who might think 'Ah, I'll give it a go'

I don't mind a low budget approach to SciFi, I can look past less than perfect FX and CGI, I don't even consider bad science a deal-breaker.

Bad writing, bad acting, insanely obvious 'twist' and lack of satisfying dismount, however - that's enough to get me to put finger to keyboard and declare this a real dud. The actress playing Abby was awful, bless her. Though, to be fair, the script was pretty sub-par so she didn't have a lot to work with. Dominic did his best but the shot choices, off-pace editing and, again, poor source material meant his efforts simply came across as hammy. With better direction on all areas, he at least could have salvaged some dignity. Tom Sizemore was barely in it and had little to do.

The premise of the film is not the worst, and in more capable hands could have been at least an entertaining diversion. However, the actual final result looks like a rushed, b-grade (at best) made for TV gap filler for when the decent shows are on hiatus. SyFy has shown what they are capable of with The Expanse (among others). This was simply not a good movie on any level.

The same low budget rehash , waste of our money.

[Jscooter414 · 4/10 · 6 April 2017]

The people that agree with vicstevinson saying the film was sexist was low, the main problem with anything being made is lack of creativity and spending the time in coming up with something original as well as making it look better than this - in the opening part of the film, you can see a gap on the helmet of Abby (Sarah Habel), give me a break, that is just lazy, she is wearing this helmet for what reason, should be for oxygen - I thought, what other reason would there be ? I remember in working on Mr. Belvedere, on how lazy the writer's were, they would just copy other people's ideas for the show, that is what Hollywood always does, besides not being more detailed in having the surroundings looking convincing, these films are made by lazy people who unfortunately make way too much money for what they do, more like lack of what they should do, be very detailed and care more about making quality film's and television programs, earn your money, instead of cheating and being lazy, sorry but watching these film's is just frustrating, just like Ghost in the Shell, another great example of lazy - way over paid people. They seem to sit around a table and talk about how much money they can get for empty stuff, one dimensional garbage. The independent film's at least try and are not Hollywood crap driven, for the most part I believe.

Obviously written by men

[wingedheartart · 1/10 · 10 August 2020]

It's set in the future, but misogyny and condescension are still in full swing. Great. Technology progresses but men don't. Nothing against the actress, but a model thin actress, with an unsure, hesitant voice and speech pattern, is supposed to be a highly trained tech. Really? This is really annoying. If misogyny is this prevalent in her time and field, she'd be more confident, and aggressive, not more passive. And, she'd probably be pissed off or fed up with the condescending attitude of the men around her. Not to mention way more leery of characters that seem to be completely out of wack with reality.

They should have chosen an actress that looks and sounds like she could actually survive the work or job she's been assigned.

Intelligence, education, and training increases confidence in one's ability and that should show in female characters. Male characters usually have plenty of arrogance and confidence, often without the education, intelligence, or ability to back it up. Just being male seems to be enough in some movies, and in real life. It may sell, but in the end, it underestimates men as well. Makes them seem very one dimensional, and shallow, which they aren't.

This film had potential, but frittered it away. Wasted two good actors, by trapping them in typical male roles. (Sizemore and Monaghan)

Maybe the writers could actually talk with women who work in STEM, before writing their next screenplay. If they did confer with strong women before writing this.... maybe next time they could listen.

No, it doesn't work

[the_nephilim71 · 3/10 · 16 April 2019]

I'm pretty generous when it comes to being low budget and not having the money for big special effects. I found the CGI actually quite good for the budget but what I cannot forgive is the heavily cliched story and bad acting. The story was too predictable and nonsensical. And that ending...Ugh.

I like a good post apocalyptic story.

[garethcrook · 4/10 · 18 May 2018]

This is full on sci-if, but I like a good post apocalyptic story. It's a bit straight to DVD though, the acting is too forced, very wooden, generally a bit OTT and annoying. The CGI is heavy handed in places too. All that aside, fair play to the production for having a go and getting this out there, the story isn't too bad. I suspect the budget wasn't huge and aside the bloke from Lost (that was also a Hobbit or something), there's not any notable names. It's a bit crap if I'm honest, but I kinda liked it, a little bit.

Basic budget sci fi that works.....

[s3276169 · 6/10 · 21 March 2017]

Atomica is a basic budget sci fi, that works.....

The styling and design of this film, is what really stands out. Its futuristic elements are well rendered and stylish for a film that does not have a big dollar value associated with it.

The story line is alright too if not exceptional. Its a somewhat slow moving but it has enough going on, to keep your interest for the most part.

Lastly, the actors do hand in reasonable performances, that keep your interested enough to keep watching and try to unravel the mystery that's presented.

Not great but by no means awful either. Six out of ten from me.

Great potential |Terrible Flop

[tteenministries · 2/10 · 28 March 2017]

I enjoy a good sci-fi movie and had some time to spare so I gave this movie a try. It started out great and had tremendous potential, but it turned out to be a terrible flop. The graphics are decent and sci-fi tech is good, but the plot is lacking and the acting is sub-par. The end, well, I'll leave you to figure that out. Be sure to watch through the credits a bit.

This... is a 4.1/10??

[syniurge · 9/10 · 2 October 2017]

I had to create an account for Atomica. What we have here is an amazing 9/10 sci-fi movie rated 4.1 by users and 3.3 out of 10 by critics. At least I started watching this with low expectations, and they got completely blown away.

The plot is original and believable, the technology bits well exposed, the tension and mystery well built.

I feel terrible for the team, writer, director, actors who all did an awesome job. This is the most unfairly received movie I've ever had the chance to discover.

Low Ratings not due to quality of film but rather viewing preferences

[tdwillis-26273 · 6/10 · 29 April 2017]

No spoilers here. I added another point to my rating because I whole heartily disagree with the low reviews. Although those looking for high tech fancy sci-fi special affects, and action packed fight scenes, (this story is not about that),they will be disappointed. What it DOES have, is some very believable acting. And although a modest setting as most of the movie is shown in a debilitated run down power facility in the future, it is believable. Most of the movie has a lot of dialogue between two characters. That in itself may turn some viewers off. But the story/pace gives little bits at a time, to build suspense, yet gives enough that the characters aren't flat/one dimensional... It is a slow burn thriller, and for a lower budget film, I thought this was excellently done. The lower ratings are not fair. I believe it IS NOT due to the QUALITY of this movie, but rather, the viewing preferences, of the viewer.

Smoking history or something

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 17 July 2017]

The film takes place about a century in the future. A company (Oxzilla?) has created a tri-fission reactor (whatever that is) that works on converting radioactive waste into atomic energy to power the world (nuclear physics says not possible, you really need a neutron source, but I just went with it). The opening talks about a site where they had three atomic accidents, however there were tri-fisson reactors around the world on waste sites. So I am guessing this was the accident site.

Abbey Dixon (Sarah Habel) a young engineer without much field experience gets the short straw when a remote location loses contact and has to go out there wearing a form fitting personal "radiation" suit. Suits are for contamination and not radiation, but I let that one go as Hollywood and the general public don't know the difference and interchange the words, liking "radiation" to describe everything radioactive. When she arrives she is greeted by a half-wit with a bad cough named Robinson (Dominic Monaghan). For the next hour or so we watch her run tests on the facility as Robinson watches her. She is attempting to locate Dr. Zek not knowing the type of character Tom Sizemore plays in films.

Eventually the drama plays out.

First off if an area gets contaminated, they pave over it and don't let it breath to the atmosphere. If you drive into the parking lot of a nuclear facility that has eight inches deep of paving, turn around. Another issue is that Abbey claimed the Becquerel level had increased. Becquerel is a unit for contamination. I doubt that is what she meant. It sounds scientific, but Gray or Sievert would have been the correct phrases. It she had said, "The Gray level has increased" that would not have worked. Sievert or milliSievert would have been the best. If you have radiation sickness, you don't walk around like you have a sore throat. If you are not hurling chunks or sitting on the bowl, you will have no energy to be active.

PLOT SPOILER CLUES: The film was shot In Washington State, downwind of Hanford. In 1949 Hanford did a "Green Run" experiment where they released a few dozen curies of I-131. They studied the plume and the animals within the plume. The public found out in the 1980's. The sites for government nuclear facilities and bomb test sites are located, according to government documents, where the down winders are a "limited use" (expendable) segment of the population. I am sure the anti-nuclear crowd had the Green Run in mind when they made this film which unfortunately demonstrated they knew nothing about reactors or radiation. But hey, it is the thought that counts.

Guide: No swearing or sex. Dominic Monaghan looks at Sarah Habel in the shower. We get to see all of him and the back of her head.

Laughable

[djhoschman · 1/10 · 13 July 2019]

I expected a good B to C Grade TV Movie, and i got.. Damn i dont find words for this piece of Junk. A Motorcycle Helmet as Protection from Radiation? Are you guys kidding me?

How high was the Budget for this Movie? 200 Bucks? Effects are on par with TV Effects from the 90s. Acting was strange, but not in a good Way.

The Story is ok, but nothing more.

No just NOOO.. Please dont make more of this. I´m begging you. PLEASE!

Sexy Mary Sue

[draftdubya · 3/10 · 9 April 2017]

She was a engineer, doctor, welder,communications specialist, radiation specialist, and make a mean pot pie out off road kill and hooch,MMA fighter, all while wearing a sexy radiation(motorcycle gear) suit. Somehow she was able to avoid radiation even with he huge gap under her biker's helmet. As one poster said that it was a bit sexist, I'll have to agree. She's in her sexy motorcycle gear walking around at a contamination site while Zek had a real contamination suit. She reminded me of Denise Richards in The World is Not Enough as a Nuclear Physicists.

Good Story Line

[dncorp · 5/10 · 17 April 2017]

Worth a one time watch.

(Spoiler) The idea of "Clean Energy" while getting rid of Radiation Contamination, as explained in the intro Commercial, is not new.

In reality, the idea of the Thorium Nuclear Reactor; and or Generation III Nuclear Power with Radioactive Waste Recycling.

(Spoiler) The idea of a Human Designed "Fan" NEVER Failing, No "Chief Engineer" (Abby) would ever believe that.

(Spoiler) Guess Abby never heard about "Duck and Cover" at the end. Which brings up the question; how did this even "Leak Out" since all those that would have Leaked the Information Out died, and the information was put into a box at the end.

Mediocre

[ruskaret · 5/10 · 23 June 2018]

This movie felt somewhat like a cross between a couple of movies I've seen, one being Moon (2009) and the other I can't remember. In all aspects - acting, scenery, story - I felt that Moon was a better movie. It does not make this a bad movie, but I never got the same feeling watching this one. Perhaps if I saw this one first, I'd rate it a 6 or 6.5. But I gave Moon an 8.

Another example of sci-fi sexism

[vicstevinson · 2/10 · 21 March 2017]

While some of the detail is beautifully achieved -- computers for one -- this film remains an homage to science fiction's "dude culture" of sexy women (not always convincingly capable) and male slobs like Sizemore.

It's tiring and boring to see women treated this way, and it's universal. Just watched a similar treatment for a TV pilot.

So disappointing and incredibly insulting to women astronauts and scientists.

An eco thriller with a barebone cast

[siderite · 6/10 · 24 September 2017]

People have tried to replicate the success of Moon with various other titles, like Air and Passengers, but they always seem to miss the point that a film with just a few characters needs something more, not less, than a movie with a lot of people in it.

Unfortunately, that is the case of Atomica/Deep Burial. There are three characters in total, with one of them secondary to the story. And before the big reveal, 20 minutes before the end, nothing much happens than two people talking to each other in a climate of rising suspicion.

The acting is good, the psychological aspect of the thriller is pretty good, but the story is completely empty, as is the message in the end. And the funny thing is that the science fiction part of the movie is completely superfluous. They could have easily done the same scenario in the real world, with more of an impact.

As such, with a future world that feels remote and with characters that have no backstory or much character development, the film is just slow and hard to endure, with no real payback in the end, since no one cared what happens in the first place.

Weak thriller.

[abovethelaw-95473 · 5/10 · 16 July 2021]

A safety inspector was sent to a nuclear reactor in the desert to check why communication had been lost. Once there the crew are maybe not who they are.

Character vs. Effects

[drhall-672-138129 · 8/10 · 24 March 2017]

Few sci-fi character actors outshine the effects and set, this effort stands head and shoulders above CGI due to the tight story line and Excellent acting from D. Monaghan and Sarah Habel. Tom Sizemore has pivotal role in the finale and good to see him living up to his potential. Wayyy better than the big budget busts starring big buck stars. The reason for eight versus 10 stars is the slow script which takes off after a very long buildup, the incredulous position of the protagonist, Abby/Sarah Habel, and the SPOILER ALERT potential to have more fully developed the background of the notorious company profit posturing vs. human sacrifice.

The industry has lagged since the inception of The Trilogy for lack of strong character roles and believable story lines, Atomica will live for a very long time as a prime example of an excellent story, film and acting on a very small budget! What The Shining did for horror, ATomica will be known for revitalizing good small budget sci-fi films.

Super cheap Sci-Fi at it's best.

[subxerogravity · 7/10 · 18 March 2017]

Or I could be wrong, cause I don't know how much it actually cost to turn a cyclist clothing and gear into a futuristic Hazmat suit. But I'm starting off giving the movie a bad rap. It's not the best story I have come across. The lead character, Abby has an important position as some head engineer whose more theory than practice, assigned to fix one of the big nuclear reactors that is supplying power to the whole world, but after meeting the two men who operate the station she finds the problem bigger than expected. What I really liked about the movie is the art direction. The cycle riding turned Hazmat suit was actually pretty cool, and it does not hurt that the lead actress was wearing it well. I really like the set that the film takes place on. I don't know if they made it or found a place but it looked like the greatest Sci-fi ever, and was a main character on it's own that made the movie worth looking at. It's one of those small movies with only three people that included Dominic Monaghan and Tom Sizemore who I must admit were not really worth mentioning in a story that's OK and done OK, that moves fast enough not to bore you and has a great set that almost makes up for a lot of it's short comings.

Another good movie ruined by the ending

[kidpokerfan · 2/10 · 18 January 2020]

I don't need a fancy sci-fi big budget movie but at least have an ending that is worth a crap. I'm so sick and tired of these movies running out of budget before they can film a decent ending. Unbelievable.

Good Sci-fi without a blockbuster budget

[tkaine3 · 6/10 · 20 May 2018]

This film was enjoyable Dominic Monaghan stole the show. The acting was above par and Tom Sizemore was in about 20% of it towards the end. It definitely could of been worse on this budget but the writing and storyline held up. Some of Ms.Habel's scenes were a little out of sorts at times I felt I was watching a soft porn flick... NOT THAT I'M COMPLAINING. But on a budget that was minimal this film held it's own and I can say it was a pretty good film.. Sci-fi fans who don't have sticks up their butt will enjoy.

Better than I expected

[hp-jel · 8/10 · 10 February 2019]

Wow. I'm surprised. I thought it was good despite the ratings. I passed up on it a few times while browsing for something to watch. The pace was a little slow at the beginning and maybe some dialogue could have been left out for more drama. The actors were great. I didn't prefer the way it had to end but I guess it needed closure instead of a sequel.