Surveillance touted itself as a mystery about two FBI agents hunting for a serial killer in a rural region of the country. The concept seemed intriguing enough to give the film a try. Although the film has been thoroughly panned by some viewers, it is not entirely bad. I doubt anyone is going to consider this movie exceptional in any aspect. It was about as mediocre as mind-numbing entertainment can get.
Surveillance is entirely borrowed from other sources. Director Jennifer Chambers Lynch co-wrote the script with Kent Harper. It felt like the two had a movie-watching marathon and then pieced together something with a little bit taken from each of the other films they watched. The characters were one-dimensional (but quirky and sometimes interesting), the plot was contrived and the setting was generic. Why do films like this always have to be set in places like Fargo or the desolate Southwest? The dialogue was carefully crafted to create misdirection, but hackneyed at times. There wasn't even a decent shibboleth or tag line to pull from the dialogue. In a nutshell, the writing could have benefited from substantial changes. Originality might have been a good starting point.
I like a decent plot, sub-plots that don't stray from the main theme and good plot twists. This film didn't really have any of that. Okay, one decent but predictable twist that was the basis for the entire film. Aside from that one plot device, the film would be an easy non-recommendation. Instead of strong plot characteristics we get manufactured misdirection intended to keep you guessing. The misdirection in this case is created by throwing together the most cliche bunch of quirky characters you could think of. The characters are so one-dimensional and over-the-top that the film loses any opportunity for credibility. The characters are then manipulated to create enough diversion or confusion to muddy the water enough for the plot twist to evolve.
Because of the flat characters, the audience is cheated out of an opportunity to bond with the cast. The scenes play out without ever reaching out and pulling the audience in. When you don't involve the audience then they really don't care whether the characters live or die and the plot devices become inconsequential. Or at least that is how I feel about films with characters that don't reach me. The blatant stereotypical roles were overdone making the characters meaningless. The actors weren't bad, but the parts were...giving them very little room to impress.
The special effects in Surveillance were a bright spot. The film had some well choreographed violence that was accentuated with strong special effects (for a movie on an apparently limited budget). I thought that some of the tension created by the cinematography and direction was actually decent. However, it was wasted on a story that failed to connect and missed the mark for credibility. Along with some sexuality and strong language, the violence earned this film an R rating. I wouldn't recommend this film for anyone, so definitely don't torture minors with it. Run time is one hour, 37 minutes.
I struggled with whether or not to recommend Surveillance, ultimately settling on a non-recommendation. I don't want to be blamed for anyone losing 97 minutes of their lives on this film when there are so many good ones available in this genre. The film wasn't entirely bad, but it wasn't good, either. A few bright spots were not enough to win me over. Find something else. 5/10.
Trailer and images subject to copyright.