It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

When Dan Bush (Co-Writer, Director, Co-Screen Editor) and Conal Byrne (Co-Writer, Main Character Actor) sat down to put this project together, I'm sure they were enthusiastic and knew they had an interesting story to tell. They do.However, either because of run-time editing or they were negligent in the telling of the story, the viewer is given too much information too soon in some ways (first plot twist revealed at about 19 minutes in; second at about 31 minutes) and not enough information too late, if at all, in other ways.Meanwhile, one has to fight against the sleep inducing, hauntingly slow, lullaby-like synthesized keyboard and "rain-on-a-pond" two-fingered piano poking that carries throughout the entire film.The cinematography adds to the vertigo of sleep in that, at no point does it seem, the camera operator/director can make up his/their mind if something (other than Conal Byrne) should be or remain in focus. There are a few times when we are seeing things through another's failing eyesight. Fine. But that wouldn't justify all the other times.There is a cast of characters in this film but we don't get to know them or care about them except for Amy Seimetz's character, "Jules". Ms.Seimetz did an admirably fine job to establish her character and insert "Jules" into the viewers consciousness despite so little screen time.Conal Byrne performed very well with the different but somewhat similar personalities he had to keep distinct for the viewer. I'm not surprised, however, since he co-wrote the story and didn't have to create the character after landing the role since he wrote the role for himself. Nevertheless, he showed skill and talent in his portrayals.This film is categorized as "sci-fi"/"drama" in the same respect 'Flowers For Algernon' is. But this is no "Flowers For Algernon"... would have been nice if it were as 'William Zero' is only part way to achieving was was achieved in 'Algernon'."The Reconstruction of William Zero" shines as a story but this sleep-inducing version of it begs an awakening in a remake.

So a father who accidentally killed his son makes a clone of himself. The whole film I was wondering why he just didn't make a clone of his son. He made the clone of himself so he could run away, which he could have done anyway. That clone then made a clone of himself because. the movie needed a twist. That is at least the only logical explanation I could find. Also bad acting and directing. The main characters action was hard to understand. Especially the second William. And the twisted face of the second William was just weird. All in all I lost interest after 30 minutes but I endured to the end.

Briefly, the story evolves around the concept of clones, and a situation is conjured up as a sort of platform to deliver a plot theme centered on this arena of potential ethical questions.It could have been a fantastically compelling film, but just didn't quite get there.No spoilers here, so it's a bit difficult to focus on some of the key elements which are the demise of this effort.What stood out the most, perhaps, was the absurdly overdone emotional moments of the key clone character(s), which came off as just being syrupy, like emotional molasses oozing out of the screen.I know, it was supposed to represent the emotional neediness and psychological challenges of the main character(s), but it just came off painfully slow and pedantic.Just a wee bit too much on the self absorbed delusionary role playing . . . and a bit light on the actual functionality of the overall plot premise.Perhaps this might be remade somewhere in the future, with a different treatment.The concept is certainly interesting . . . but this version, well . . .

The premise of this story is very promising - a thriller based on the concept of an apparent twin who turns out not to be all he, at first, thinks he is.At the risk of not wanting to spoil the movie, I won't say more about how things turn round, but the focus is always on the lead actor, Conal Byrne, who has to play William and William Zero and another allied character with enough distinction between the three that you can keep up with exactly which one he is meant to be.Thankfully Conal is up to the task and switches characters enough to be identifiably 'different' until the last chapter of the movie when the distinctions deliberately become blurred. As William Zero he has to appear practically clueless as to what is happening to him in the beginning and he almost pulls this off.Unfortunately the script advances too quickly for us to get a real feeling for the dilemma in which he finds himself and the progression, from what seems to be amnesia to the dawning of understanding exactly what he is, happens abruptly and without enough reaction to be credible.Similarly the reactions of the other characters in this story are also hurried and, therefore, appear unrealistic. Amy Seimetz, as the (ex) wife, does her best but isn't given enough dialog to carry through her predicament. In the end her conversion to the version of reality that she sees is too sudden and hardly seems in character.Overall I felt the screenplay was generally too predictable at times, whilst leaving a lot of questions unanswered at others (presumably to try and engender a feeling of mystery). There are twists and turns in the plot which, with better direction or a superior screenplay, could have been more entertaining, even shocking.The denouement is laughably simple (and requires another improbable leap of faith) and turns out to be what you might have been expecting all along. Of course there's no other outcome that could happen, but to give so many clues along the way, I felt, was unnecessary and leaves a limp ending.I'm left wondering how many scenes were heavily cut and are left littering the cutting room floor? The progression of the story feels heavily edited and this is the sort of movie where a typical preview of a more twisted, mysterious version might have elicited comments of 'I didn't understand it', forcing a different direction before the launch.This should have been a movie which throws up more questions, especially moral ones, than there are answers but, in that respect, it fails. On the thriller side it also doesn't score as highly as it could have done. At the end I was just left feeling that this could have been so much better.