A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Blistering performances.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

I love near future science fiction, Philip K Dick and 'Do androids dream of electric sheep' subsequently turned into 'Blade Runner' both are up there with my favourite book and film. This film wants to have the same atmosphere as 'Blade Runner' the story revolves around in the near future all drugs are legal and a corporation is hovering up the profits with the police in its pocket. A detective known as a DREK is there to take out illegal drug seller. A body he discovers does not have an identifiable DNA. So why a 4, the dialogue is messy the plot confusing, several scenes simply add nothing to the story. This film really needed a firmer and tighter director as the result is disjointed and at times just confusing.

I struggled from the beginning.Even if you can cope with, Legalised all drugs idiocy, (we would self destruct within a year if all drugs were legalized. There is a reason why no one in any form or authority should be on drugs, whether that is someone driving, to the leader of a country....all drugs legal... really?), but yes getting pass this premise. Its like all common sense left the scientific adviser.Car number plates with bar codes? Oh my. You can see it now, local law enforcement, "Excuse me ma'am, can you tell me the car number plate from the robbery."...."Sure, it was a thick line, with small space, followed by a thicker line, no...that's not right, it was a thinner line." Again, no common sense.Oh and his cool visor that sees temperature of the corpse....he moves around to see it from different angles, then cuts back to him having not moved at all.Sad to say, i couldn't get through this film......

SPOILER ALERT! Eh? How in hell would you spoil this film? It's doing fine on it's own. It would be like taking a pooh on a pooh. (not bear on bear action there, just trying to sideswipe the no swearing rule)SO: Last weekend me and a few friends listened to:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAmQ7RsNAE423 times in a row, laughing our tits off, and wondering "why?"My guess is this film is a low rent version of that record, and without it's wit or humourSomebody somewhere had a love of science fiction, a lot of bad drugs, too much money, and decided to build this folly. Unlike Ringo the result wasn't pleasurable in any way (i'm being over dramatic for effect - the camera is occasionally lovely, that's why this review isn't merely a complaint about why IMDb doesn't offer a drop down 0 out of 10) but still the same question remains; "why?"Did you see my last sentence? Did you see how it didn't quite work? Maybe it was because the brackets were too long, maybe it was irrelevant, maybe it was a smelling error, maybe it was just time travel or i've been a terrible father messing things up for no reason, maybe it was that I'M NOT A WRITERThat's this film. It doesn't work on any level at all. it's a bit like someone with too much money and drugs just went "i've got this bag of half-erst science fiction thriller memes, let's just place them artfully in this vase", but the vase was made of Ketamine so when they opened the bag the memes just went EVERYWHERE at random, and the money would have been better spent on a flower arranging course.WHY? You can work the equipment, but as my friend Gregory always said "musicians should make music, plumbers should do plumbing" Whoever made this: Film- making is not your skill. Well done for trying, but maybe take that flower arranging course.

Justin Trefgarne has his first cinematic debut with the crowdfunded Narcopolis; a sci-fi drama about a future where drugs have been not only legalized, but are being pushed by corporate backers as being a safe alternative to street narcotics.There were several things I really liked about this film, despite being what most people would consider a low budget type of film. First, as a science fiction, it brings a very unique idea to the audience. Although the majority of the film is in the detective style of neo-noir films, the concept is a solid one. Imagine a future, where the majority of citizens are not only using, but encouraged to do so though advertising and product guarantees. Narcotics are available in every society I can think of, but very few of them have been privatized outside of the prescription drug market. There is some decent acting, and I was particularly impressed by Eliot Cowan's portrayal as the protagonist Frank Grieves; who portrayed a massive and daunting man, battling his own demons, while progressing through a series of bizarre events.The things that most people will notice are the poorly written plot twists, and dialogue. Some of the twists that are meant to shock the audience fall quite flat during this film, or are revealed at the wrong times. Perhaps due to poor direction or writing execution, it's hard to say, but there are several scenes that make little to no sense in the overall plot. A few of the actors are new, and you can tell in the way they exchange dialogue. Yet if you can look past these scene errors and look at the overall film, I think you'll be quite pleased at the end result. I encourage more films from Justin Trefgarn and hope he keeps to the same genre. I especially enjoyed the opening of the film, which set quite a pace that I wished that the rest of the movie kept up to.Needless to say, it's a very sound Sci-Fiction / Drama, but most viewers will hold it to perhaps too high a standard. An excellent first entry along the lines of 'Equilibrium' (2002).5/10