This super low-budget science-fiction thriller (apparently one of the ten cheapest films to ever be shown on Netflix), essentially, proves that it's not about the cash, it's about the execution. Sure, 'Infinity Chamber (2017)' looks relatively low-fi when it's at its most ambitious, but this doesn't detriment any aspect of the piece - in fact, I'd argue that it forms a crucial part of its aesthetic - and it certainly doesn't look half bad considering that the central set was built by the director himself out of rubbish he found behind a shop. Really, a film like this relies on the strength of its writing. Thankfully, the writing here is on-point. The story itself is sort of an amalgamation of a few distinct inspirations - which include, but aren't limited to, '2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)', 'Source Code (2011)' and 'Moon (2009)' - but it still feels fresh and keeps you on your toes throughout. There are also a number of genuinely intriguing twists and turns to keep things feeling fresh, some of which work better than others. The piece plays with some really interesting ideas, weaving its grander themes and world-building into its smaller, more claustrophobic narrative remarkably well. It hints towards its various meanings and upcoming reveals using clever set-design and an engaging non-linear structure. It also concludes with just a hint of ambiguity (and I do only mean a hint). Pretty much everything is revealed naturally, drip-fed at the perfect rate, and this makes for a very compelling watch. The performances are good, too, which all help sell the somewhat heightened conceit. The lead, in particular, is a surprisingly nuanced and evolving screen-presence - especially considering that, for the most part, he's both the sole person we see and is acting opposite, essentially, an empty room. Overall, this is an entertaining and engaging film that makes excellent use of its micro budget to bring its high concept to life. 7/10.
Add a Review
-
j_alimena11 January 2021One of the better unexpected movies I've seen during COVID and I've been watching a crappy load of movies as I'm sure everyone else has. It had a small cast and lower budget but carried it off! Ending was satisfying !
-
Vivekmaru4514 October 2017If you have seen Cube(1997) and its subsequent sequels, then you will really enjoy this film. The film is based on an original idea and screenplay. Travis Milloy writes and directs this film with a very professional touch. I am sure he will become a top director after some years.
But the person I am most impressed with is Jacob Yoffee who directs the music. The background music enhances this film with a true sci-fi feel, reminiscent of Tangerine Dream the German music group that had a lot of success during the eighties. The cinematography is also superbly handled by Jason Nolte.
Plot of the film: Frank Lerner awakes to find himself trapped in an automated prison cell with an artificial intelligence monitoring him in order to keep him alive. Later on, Frank starts to get flashbacks of his last movements before he was captured. He forms a bond with the artificial intelligence, which is a rotating camera attached to the ceiling of his cell. Sooner or later Frank realizes that a lot of people have met their end in his cell and he must rely on his wits in order to escape.
Verdict: Superb sci-fi 7/10. Christopher Soren Kelly who plays the lead reminds me of the excellent actor Sam Rockwell who played Wild Bill Wharton in The Green Mile 1999.
More Sci-fi movies: Escape from New York(1981), The Running Man(1987), Fortress(1992). -
Kast0929 September 2017I know your movies have a low budget, both this and Pandorum needed a bigger budgets but your imagination and the scifi worlds you create both with this movie and Pandorum fascinate me. Both movies for some reason completely immersed me into that dark scifi reality, the feeling reminds me of a Dark Mirror episode.
The movie keeps you hooked up from start to finish, fun fact I watched superhero movie #343456 called Spiderman Homecoming today and I had to pause and do something more interesting at least 5 times. With this one I didn't even blink.
The movie has a couple of small mistakes (----SPOILER---- The escape route is the same both in the "dream" state and in reality, which doesn't make sense but could be due to budget issues and thankfully the outside environment changed ----END OF SPOILER----) but damn that was one tightly written script. The actors did a pretty great job too with their characters although dubbing was kind of weird sometimes.
Thank you for this movie, I'll be stalking you from now on for any new movies, you deserve bigger budgets. Please keep on making scifi films. Greetings from Greece. -
johnjohnson6851026 May 2021This is a very likable piece of Science Fiction. I watch tons of Science Fiction and read tons of it too. The writer/director borrowed some good ideas and turned them into something unique. A bit of Hal from 2001, a bit of Groundhog Day, and a nice Philip K. Dick tone of "what's real?" If you know a lot about the genre, you'll know that a ton of ideas are cross pollinated. The Matrix took a lot of standard tropes. James Cameron probably has a reference book on SF tropes. So I'm not saying anything is wrong with the film besides the slow start. The lead actor carried the film well. This movie is a good watch.
-
Bemmu1 October 2017One of those movies that overall wasn't that amazing as a whole, but is vindicated thanks to some satisfying moments. Experienced frisson twice, and at another point was so immersed I forgot to think about anything except this movie. These made it a worthwhile evening entertainment.
Has a memorable reoccurring visual that I probably won't be forgetting soon. -
iantrader24 December 2017There's half a good idea floating around here somewhere but it doesn't quite make it.
Writer/Director, alas. Not many people can get away with doing both. Milloy might well emerge as a great one of either - possibly both! - but this movie cries out for a third eye, someone to tighten-up and smooth-out the script and either make the middle more interesting or just cut the length in half.
That it's an indie done on a budget is highly creditable. The production values are excellent, the actors are good, and an especial mention to composer Jacob Yoffee whose score works incredibly well.
It's a half-hour stary spread out far too long. Watch it on video and fast forward or give it a miss altogether. But watch out for Milloy in the future. -
brandon_veracka9 February 2018There are movies, and there are movies which are good enough to be called films. This is one of the best independent films I've seen in my entire life. "Infinite Chamber" is the thinking person's science fiction film. It's not full of wild futuristic ideas or concepts, there are no flash-forwards and flashbacks in its simple plot, and there's no fancy C.G.I., but it's still likely to blow your mind and maybe warm your heart a little too.
Although this film's concept is not a new one, it's execution and conclusion is. What was pulled off with such a small budget, a handful of set pieces, and a just a few characters was simply amazing. Even putting it's indie budget aside, it stands tall against Hollywood sci-fi. So, you're looking for something different to watch tonight? Something that'll make you think (but not too hard), and something that'll leave a smirk on your face? Give this one a shot. I strongly doubt that you'll regret the decision.
NOTE: I watch a LOT of movies. I've literally seen hundreds of movies, and scores of films. "Infinite Chamber" is a film worth your time. Additionally, I very, very rarely rate anything above an 8 (especially recent film or television), and therefore giving this a 9 was refreshing but also a strange feeling. I didn't give it a 9 to even out its IMDB rating (I never do that), I gave it a 9 because it deserves a 9. -
Good, independent Sci-fi movie. I think it's a mix (or influenced by) of 2001, Cube, Matrix, and Moon - in it's own independent way. Thoughtful and interesting. Partly Captivating. I recommend!
-
the_real_smile17 December 20191h40m of the same 3 scenes in a round robin sounds boring, and in this case it is. The story is not original, very cheap production, my advise is skip it.
-
dobadforever24 January 2018Once every so often, the science-fiction genre sends us film which reminds us of why some of us keep watching. Infinity Chamber is one of those reasons. A strong lead actor, unpredictable and intriguing plot, impressive cinematography, and an understated loves story make this one worth viewing. It's not for everyone, but genre fans will see its' merit.
-
mick12035923 February 2018Not a bad film, kept me guessing right to the end as there are so many possible endings or plot twists that could have been used. well made with a good lead actor and well directed. the only bad thing about this sort of film is, once you know the ending it kind of spoils a second viewing as you know how it ends, but it is definitely worth a watch. just don't let anyone spoil it for you by telling you the ending :)
-
tlarraya22 October 2017I was really excited about this. I thought it was going to be a very clever science fiction movie. It turns out it's low budget, the acting is bad, the script is bad, the story is bad and nearly non-existent and the locations are bad. I would advise you to watch something else if you can.
-
deloudelouvain18 June 2019It isn't easy to entertain an audience with (almost) just one actor talking to a computer but in my case it worked. Not so much for my wife even though she didn't hate it either. The plot is a bit far fetched but it's science fiction so I didn't pay too much attention to that. As the leading actor Christopher Soren Kelly did a good job. He acts convincing enough to keep you interested in the rest of the movie and to find out what's really happening. All in all Infinity Chamber is worth a watch. Just don't expect a sci-fi masterpiece because it isn't.
-
sub780lime6 May 2021The movie does enough well to make it worth watching, while not necessarily excelling across the board. I enjoyed the protagonist and Howard was a highlight throughout. I am very glad I didn't the IMDB description before watching and went into blind instead.
-
joe66292 October 2017Wow - what a pleasant surprise!: A movie based on an interesting and unique premise for a change (instead of another pimped-up Hollywood reboot Leftist propaganda-fest). "Infinity Chamber" is an excellent example of how a compelling story can make up for a smaller budget.
The acting is decent, the dialog isn't distracting, the cinematography is respectable, the sound design is balanced - which is to say nothing pops out as being sub-par - everything "fits" pretty well. The story can be a little confusing in places, but that's part of the appeal as you find yourself wanting to figure out what's going on - what's real, and what's fantasy/simulation.
Is "Infinity Chamber" filled with Michael Mann-splosions and crazy CG effects? Nope. Will you miss them? It depends on what you watch movies for: something that makes you think, or, something that requires zero mental involvement and that you flush the moment you walk out of the theater (this movie is the former). If you like movies like "Primer", "Cube" and "Moon" (somewhat cerebral movies taking place in limited environments), you will likely enjoy this one as well. -
fahmi-424237 January 2018The making was alright and so is the acting but the director messed it all up in covering the tracks. Its like modern art: a piece of sh*t people are saying great because they are confused. May be the director thought mixing up realities and convoluting the story would make it a great movie.
It is way too long for a movie that is extremely repetitive. Halfway through it, it will get hard to keep interest and when you hold on saying it must me building the plot and will be worth it at the end only to realize it doesn't. It will feel like a complete waste of time at the end of it. -
prabhunster30 September 2017To reboot a classic movie for a new generation is lazy and disgraceful.
To come up with a new conceptually outside-the-box movie with a cohesive plot is extremely rare and is a true gem. The most recent thing example I can think of is 'The Matrix', unprecedented concepts, albeit still lacking some cohesion.
'Infinity Chamber' falls into a third, middle-ground category: Borrowing new elements/concepts from other movies as a means to create a "original" movie.
IMO, any such movie would still fall into a sub-genre of the original movie it borrowed its defining elements from. The new movie can still be original (in its own right) if it uses the borrowed concept only as a launchpad to branch off into creative laterals.
The Good:
'Infinity Chamber' is largely a one-man show. Thankfully, the lead actor does a great job of keeping the viewer entertained. Interestingly, the dialogue between the man and the computer is what gave the movie its charm. The computer has all the qualifying intellectual attributes of a real person:, mannerisms, personality, relatability, voice etc. It's easy to forget that the dialogue isn't between two people, despite the computer's limitation to only give pre-programmed or abstract answers.
Whether friendly or hostile, I've always appreciated movies where man and machine can form any sort of progressing understanding towards the other.
The Bad:
This movie isn't without some obscurity and unanswered questions. While this may turn some viewers off entirely, I found them to be forgivable due to the entertaining themes and aspects of the movie as a whole.
If you like movies like "Moon" or "Ex Machina", I'd venture to say you'd find this movie interesting, if not entertaining.
8/10 stars for this low-budget sci-fi movie that brings forth an entertaining sub- original storyline in a world of countless and shameless Hollywood reboots. -
rsvp32130 September 2017The plot's been done several times, but there's enough uniqueness to give this movie a positive review.
Some points were predictable, but twists keep you off balance. Acting is unremarkable.
6.5 rounded up. -
I do appreciate when a writer, director, and actor undertake a film where there is virtually one set and one character. I found Christopher Soren Kelly to be engaging.
I disagree with those saying this is a HAL rip-off. I mean, yes, that is the most famous film with a similar AI companion. But in 1963 webcam-styled H. A. L. Was way ahead of its time but in 2016 it's a familiar sight everywhere we go.
I felt that by the end the film was not as ambiguous as many reviews suggest. There seems to be one main question for most of the audience: Did Howard trick Frank or did Frank trick Howard.
However, I thought the film expected to be transparent in those final shots -- Frank has not escaped.
He exits from the same stairwell yet is now in a completely different place. The film pans out to show us he is actually in the photo Gabby has on the wall. People happen by to rescue him and the news exclaiming his escape now in the midst of a new freedom are all too idealick to be real. Howard has succeeded in making Frank believe he's escaped.
Or has Frank succumbed to the fact that he can't outsmart Howard? That's the only issue I found to be uncertain. He at once reveals the hiding place and throws away the drive. That looks like defeat, to me; resignation.
There are some other clues in the film that I think could be debated, such as who imprisoned him and how were they able to manipulate his mind and reality?
In one shot, late in the film, Frank hands Gabby a foreign bill suggesting he is either a spy accustomed to being in a foreign country and that currency is in his memory, or that whoever has imprisoned him is a foreign government. This makes me think the film is an updated story about government manipulation and mind-control.
Eventually, they show Gabby in a cell revealing she is also a prisoner. How has she been in Frank's memories-turned-fantasy? Was Frank in the cell the whole time?
There are a lot of things to keep wondering about; a puzzle to solve. But not whether Frank has actually escaped. That final shot showing one of the AI modules is in no way vague.
There's a hint in the trivia section where we learn "the original title for the movie was "Somnio", which is Latin for dream; and in the movie, the device inside the prison that manipulates their memories, forcing them into a dream state was called Somnio, but the scenes were cut. The movie's distributor though the title was too abstract and they decided on Infinity Chamber instead."
This tells us that their dreams were being manipulated (which admittedly wasn't always that clear in the film), but also tells us they decided on a more appropriate title, which tells us Frank is kind of reliving each day over and over perhaps not even in an actual physical environment?
In many ways, this film reminds me of edgy state of the art authors like H. G. Wells, and maybe a big production of Outer Limits.
I'm left with a sense of concern that in our 2021 world we are not that far from becoming totally controlled by the aberrant minds that look at man as a commodity but now armed with the capability of virtual control. Definitely a mind-bending film that, yes, could have been better in the hands of Ridley Scott or Steven Spielberg, but which nonetheless gave a wonderful performance with a tiny budget and a big imagination. -
alex1734020 November 2017Poor acting, amateur actors. I don't know what to say more. I guess good reviews are from director's friends. Seems like it was funded on Kickstarter
My gf told me, can you please check if at the end he is still in that room talking to a webcam, yep, he was -
Infinity Chamber is an excellent Science-Fiction Thriller set in a futuristic dystopian world, yet all we see of it is a sparse automated prison cell and the simulation of quaint coffee shop in the main character's mind. The viewer is dropped into the story not knowing anything about the main character or the world, and the movie slowly doles out details piece meal. For most of the film all we really know is that Frank Lerner, played perfectly by Christopher Soren Kelly, is an intelligent man (perhaps a tech expert) that was kidnapped/arrested by an authoritarian regime. He may or may not be an innocent person arrested due to mistaken identity, a criminal, or an important member of the resistance. His only companion in the cell is the voice of Howard (Jesse D. Arrow) behind a camera, who's in charge of keeping Frank alive, and Gabby (played adequately by Cassandra Clarke) who is the owner of a cafe that exists in his mind.
Here is where the best and the worst parts of the movie come into play. On one side of the Infinity Chamber is a device that hypnotizes the prisoner, putting him into a simulation of the last day of his life before he was arrested, where the computer looks for something it thinks he is hiding. I really enjoyed the mind bending series of events that this device created, where throughout the film the viewer and the character begin to lose their grasp on reality. However, it's also where the film gets a little boring and repetitive, as Frank relives these moments over and over with only (for the most part) solitary prison scenes to break them up. There are many interesting moments within these scenes, but I can definitely see why some people might lose interest before the climax of the film. Still, I found myself absolutely enthralled with the movie, and I really enjoyed the crooked web the story weaved.
Now, I have one other thing I wanted to talk about before finishing this review, but I can't do that without spoiling the tricky ending. If you want to see my spoiler free video review, that's over here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYpgQ5dhLCg
------ SPOILERS ------
So obviously spoilers ahead, but here's how I took the ending of the film. I really liked the ending where he feels like he knows the girl in the cafe, but in reality he only knows her from all of the simulations, where part of his mind was portraying her. It's a cool ending, but then after he reveals the location of the flash drive with the virus behind the picture and throws it out, the camera pans out revealing what looks like the camera (Howard) from the cell on the ceiling of the cafe. I believe that the viewer is supposed to think from that is this was just another simulation, that he wasn't free, that this time he let his guard down and told the machine where he hid the virus. That's another interesting, although more depressing ending. However, that doesn't quite work because every other simulation only took place during one day, and the guy was always able to ascertain that it was a simulation. It's tough to tell, but it seems like it's at least been multiple days of completely new experiences that the Infinity Chamber and his mind would have had to create. Also, that might not be the same camera as the one in the chamber, it could just be a camera.
This is where the comparison to the movie Inception could come in, as the movie ends without showing the viewer whether the top keeps spinning or falls down, and in Infinity Chamber the viewer isn't shown whether the camera has a red light and is the same as the one in the cell or if it's completely dead. So I'm not 100% sure how we're supposed to take it, but I think that it was on purpose, and there's more than one way to view the end. Personally for my Mind Canon I'm going to say that it was just a random camera installed by the authoritarian regime, and that Frank really is free, but I think that the creator of the film probably intended the opposite. Still I really enjoyed Infinity Chamber and would recommend it. -
ginocox-206-33696830 September 2017"The Infinity Chamber" is a Kafkaesque mashup that borrows heavily from "The Trial," "Groundhog Day," "Edge of Tomorrow" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" in a not entirely coherent tale set partially in a dystopian future and partially in a coffee shop from the 1970s, then abruptly changes its premise regarding the innocence of a main character and the nature of society and devolves into an sophomoric allegory to Gitmo, or possibly an existential phenomenological statement on the nature of reality.
Along the way, it explores two B-stories, one concerning a romantic interest, the other some sort of guilt over the death of a parent, neither of which seems particularly compelling or relevant, although the love story provides some sort of anchor to an ever-shifting external reality.
The production was obviously accomplished on a limited budget, although they managed to use their resources effectively. There are only three main characters, one of whom is only heard. But the acting is capable and the dialogue is clever. Cinematography and production design are more than adequate, with a refreshing lack of the distracting jiggly-cam shots seen in many films. The main character has a monochromatic B&W wardrobe, which reflects the white of his memories and the black of his cell, although it would take a greater measure of perspicacity than I possess to understand why he wears one color or the other or layers them. The 1970s décor of the coffee shop seems calculated to reinforce the notion that he is somehow travelling back in time, possibly within some sort of alternative reality, as if rebooting a computer. The proprietor is a rather ordinary earth-mother stereotype, seemingly chosen to reinforce the notion that she represents reality, as contrasted to the surreal chamber.
In some regards, there seems to be a lot of thought given to the symbolism and underlying theme, but it all seems to have been abandoned in the last act. After a somewhat ponderous and often repetitive first and second act, all pretense at a loftier cerebral message seems to have been discarded in a last-ditch effort to reach closure and pick up the pace. Despite a promising beginning, it ends seeming sophomoric and pretentious. As a student film school production, it would undoubtedly receive top marks. As a commercial production, it seems disappointing. -
Not trying to be too hard on Travis Milloy, I do have considerable respect for the effort given the limited resources to work with.
However, I'm guessing many of the 10 star ratings are coming from relatively younger viewers for whom this concept is something radically new, thought provoking, etc.?
Well, actually, this is something of a retread of a retread.
Of course, I get the concept of the insistent but strangely limited AI that has to be outsmarted by the human protagonist who is, at least for the vast majority of the film, at the mercy of his AI overseeer.
And that's the real problem of this film.
It's way, way . . . way too long, in the drawn out, at times absurdly obvious dialogue and overly pseudo-humanoid persona of the AI entity. As the tediously obvious dialogue dragged on, I found myself completing the sentences between our hapless human captive and "Howard" the AI before they were finished; not a good sign.
Yes, I get the somewhat clever attempted subplots woven later into this tapestry, but seriously, this would have been a great short, but not a full length feature film.
I can forgive the production being executed on a limited budget. There have been more than a few truly creative and iconic sci-fi productions created with equal or even less investment that have and will stand the test of time.
"Moon" comes to mind as an excellent example thereof.
Sorry, this is nowhere near that status of creative content.
If you really want to see a vastly better portrayal of the not too distant future AI vs. human scenario, with the roles somewhat reversed (no spoilers here), I would strongly recommend "Ex Machina".
That will get you thinking, and not a dull moment, anywhere. And I'm not talking about big CGI and big budget, but rather how the story evolves, the dialogue, the delicate complexity of interactions, etc.
As for this production, keep trying . . . 5 stars for effort.