There's really not that needs to be said about this movie, except perhaps that it is little more than an unbelievably average attempt by all parties involved, from scriptwriters to actors to the film crew Stanley Tucci within a tight timeframe, and this was the only project on the shelf. But how any producer could look at If there's one good thing I can draw from this movie is the increase in respect I offer towards the Cohen brothers; even in their weakest attempts, the characters themselves remain interesting and unique due to a successful blend of writing, acting and directing.
Why Evan Dunsky was handed this film to both write and direct is beyond me. One must imagine that the producers had to use Dunsky's record and see "My Demon Lover" as his career highlight is beyond me.
My guess is that Dunsky is stuck filiming commercials for the collect-calling companies, as his only use for David Arquette is to count the angles at which he can capture his smirks. Still, credit does go to Dunsky for making a feature length piece that is easier to watch than those 30-second commercials.
The rest of the cast is utterly forgetful; no surprise, as their characters are bland and without the ability to utter anything that might deamnd out attention.
The movie's strongest points lie in what starts out as the plot for the film -- residential alarm and theft-detection salesmen -- and the small tributary tales that grow from it. Unfortunately, many of these branches are severed quickly (most simply dry up and disappear) while the heart of the plot meanders onward.
As this film originated as a play, ultimate judgment must fall on Dunsky. His screenplay adaptation is as snappy as a train-of-thought piece written while on Riddelin, his direction little more than a poorly-lit theatre production taken outside and put on film.
in this case, with the Dunsky behind both the typewriter and camera, it's easy enough to point the blame. Still, this movie did not fall victim to the channel flip... perhaps it was because I was too busy counting the 20-odd members of the Arquette family involved.
Why Evan Dunsky was handed this film to both write and direct is beyond me. One must imagine that the producers had to use Dunsky's record and see "My Demon Lover" as his career highlight is beyond me.
My guess is that Dunsky is stuck filiming commercials for the collect-calling companies, as his only use for David Arquette is to count the angles at which he can capture his smirks. Still, credit does go to Dunsky for making a feature length piece that is easier to watch than those 30-second commercials.
The rest of the cast is utterly forgetful; no surprise, as their characters are bland and without the ability to utter anything that might deamnd out attention.
The movie's strongest points lie in what starts out as the plot for the film -- residential alarm and theft-detection salesmen -- and the small tributary tales that grow from it. Unfortunately, many of these branches are severed quickly (most simply dry up and disappear) while the heart of the plot meanders onward.
As this film originated as a play, ultimate judgment must fall on Dunsky. His screenplay adaptation is as snappy as a train-of-thought piece written while on Riddelin, his direction little more than a poorly-lit theatre production taken outside and put on film.
in this case, with the Dunsky behind both the typewriter and camera, it's easy enough to point the blame. Still, this movie did not fall victim to the channel flip... perhaps it was because I was too busy counting the 20-odd members of the Arquette family involved.