HOVER takes place in the near future, where environmental strain has caused food shortages around the world. Technology provides a narrow path forward, with agricultural drones maximizing the yield from what land remains. Two compassionate care providers, Claudia (Coleman) and her mentor John (Craig muMs Grant), work to assist sick farmland inhabitants in ending their lives. After John dies under mysterious circumstances, a group of locals helps Claudia to uncover a deadly connection between the health of her clients and the technology they are using.
Directed by: Matt Osterman
. Starring: Cleopatra Coleman
, Shane Coffey
, Craig muMs Grant
, Fabianne Therese
, Rhoda Griffis
, Leo Fitzpatrick
, Beth Grant
, Rhonda Johnson Dents
, Kasandra Bandfield
, Don Henderson Baker
, David Jensen
, Jim Gleason
, Cailey Fleming
. Music by: Wojciech Golczewski
The main problem is the script, because apparently Ms Coleman lacks the experience to write three-dimensional characters and embed them into a working story.
Spoilers: A duo (he is old, she is young) help old and sick farmers to die - because of overpopulation or something. Both talk a lot of expository text, then a drone catches the old man at his house and kills him. Shocked, the young woman (played by Ms Coleman) questions her work.
The movie never really makes it clear what it wants to be about. Are drones evil? Or the AI? Or the people behind it? And how can any tension arise when the audience sees in the first minute of the film that a drone toasts the head of a poor innocent farmer? That would only be possible if our heroine were to come to the conclusion relatively quickly that something was wrong here.
But here we are back to the horrible script: after twenty minutes of filming her partner dies, then our heroine needs an endless series of completely obvious clues. By the time she finally understands (finally!), we are already two thirds done with the film. So far we have learned, among other things, that she is expecting a child from her boss with whom she has no chemistry at all and who cries like a child over the death of her old colleague. This emotional outburst is particularly surprising, because the general performance follows the pattern of "looking concerned and whispering sadly". That was genuinely funny. The atmosphere of the movie should probably be reminiscent of Blade Runner, with its calmness, synth music (plus a probably stolen song from a well-known cracktro from the 1990s. What the...) and its countless, irony-free drone shots. There is just a difference between a protagonist standing in front of spectacular future architecture and thinking about the definition of existence and life itself or a protagonist standing in front of a crop field and thinking about the possibility of the use of drones for murder.
In the end, of course, it's a clear culprit: the evil, evil management. Because "the bad guys up there" is always a wise solution when you have to come up with antagonists, right? So the ending is a classic ending of a conventional B-movie. And Sci-Fi? There is no discussion of the actual science fiction topics. Here they are little more than buzzwords for the following non-action.
So: A film without tension or focus but with a lot of padding, a messed up script with a very limited imagination, flat characters, monotonous acting (except the cry surprise), unremarkable direction, laughable special effects. If at least everything would be proper terrible, it could get cult status, but that's just not the case. And what's not terrible is just okay. That's why I had to write down my thoughts about the movie quickly, because in 48 hours I'll have already forgotten it completely.
Review by Markus_Beer from the Internet Movie Database.