I caught this film at the 2010 Sarasota film festival. While watching, I definitely got the sense that I was looking at an unfinished film, performed by terrible actors, and based on the first draft of a script that tries so hard to jam in all the clichés of the genre that it leaves no room for anything else.
To start off with, the film LOOKS bad. We were told that the film was shot on an expensive digital video camera designed to give it a more film-like look. That may be, but the end result was something that looked nothing at all like a Hollywood movie... heck I've seen student films that look more like a movie than this. Maybe it was the bad lighting, maybe it was the frame-rate, but something made it look like the film was shot on an expensive home video camera. This immediately gave the sense that we were watching actors, not characters.
The acting certainly didn't help with that feeling. It was like watching kids reciting lines. I say with no hyperbole that there isn't a single performance in the film that even approached good acting. Right from the beginning we're treated to one actor that is so bad that you cringe at his every line. You welcome the fact that he dies so early in the film, but regret that everybody else sticks around for the next 90 minutes. I say this not too pick on them. It could very well be the fault of the director, or more likely the writer.
Half of bad acting is bad writing, and this script stands in a category of its own. It's clear that no thought whatsoever was put into characters. Early on, the main character explains that she was an English major... which goes a long way toward explaining why she's a... photographer. The real reason she was a photographer is so that they could visit all the "cool" places in Sarasota in long scenes that did little to develop the characters or advance the plot. Why were these scenes in there? Because Sarasota is cool I guess. Don't you want to see Sarasota?
The dialogue is also cringe-worthy, clunky, and forced. This may be in part due to the bad acting, but it's difficult to picture even Tom Hanks delivering some of these lines convincingly. Later in the film, the protagonist meets a middle-aged white guy that speaks perfect English, but we're told that he's actually an Arab terrorist that had reconstructive surgery... uh huh. There's suspension of disbelief, there's checking your brains at the door, and then there's this movie.
A bad movie can still be watchable if it's quickly paced, but this film just plods. We spend most of the film waiting for action and suspense that never really fully come, and when they do, our interests have long since disappeared. The fight and action sequences are so poorly directed that they wouldn't be any fun to watch anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.
This could have all been salvageable if they were going for a high camp factor, but it just took itself too seriously. In festivals, the audience usually tries to be polite about laughing at a bad film because the filmmakers are present, but by the end of my screening the audience couldn't hold it in any more. The first thing the director said in the Q and A was that he didn't know the film was a comedy, and mistakenly thought that the audience was laughing for good reasons. In many ways the film is reminiscent of Tommy Wiseau's cult hit The Room, but the pacing is too slow to excel to such levels of of accidental comedy. All the factors are in place however, and if they lose about 40 minutes off the run time, and spread the word-of- mouth, it might just be the next "The Room." As it stands however, the film is going to have no appeal whatsoever outside of Sarasota.
The reason I felt the need to write this review is that I felt swindled into seeing it. In the film guide, it had a pretty interesting description, and the trailer does a great job of making it look watchable. In fact, there were four screenings which sold out! (although I doubt that would have happened if half the audience didn't work on or know somebody that worked on the film) I'm pretty open to films of all kinds, even amateur ones, but this one clearly had a budget that exceeded what you would expect from amateurs. Watching this was like watching money being fed to cows, and being processed into crap. Why didn't they hire a director with some experience? Pay someone to revamp the script? Or find actors that could give a convincing performance? I guess then they wouldn't be able to afford the fancy camera and superfluous helicopter shot. I write this review in hopes that I might prevent one person from making the same mistake I did... spending good money to waste 2 hours of their lives.
To start off with, the film LOOKS bad. We were told that the film was shot on an expensive digital video camera designed to give it a more film-like look. That may be, but the end result was something that looked nothing at all like a Hollywood movie... heck I've seen student films that look more like a movie than this. Maybe it was the bad lighting, maybe it was the frame-rate, but something made it look like the film was shot on an expensive home video camera. This immediately gave the sense that we were watching actors, not characters.
The acting certainly didn't help with that feeling. It was like watching kids reciting lines. I say with no hyperbole that there isn't a single performance in the film that even approached good acting. Right from the beginning we're treated to one actor that is so bad that you cringe at his every line. You welcome the fact that he dies so early in the film, but regret that everybody else sticks around for the next 90 minutes. I say this not too pick on them. It could very well be the fault of the director, or more likely the writer.
Half of bad acting is bad writing, and this script stands in a category of its own. It's clear that no thought whatsoever was put into characters. Early on, the main character explains that she was an English major... which goes a long way toward explaining why she's a... photographer. The real reason she was a photographer is so that they could visit all the "cool" places in Sarasota in long scenes that did little to develop the characters or advance the plot. Why were these scenes in there? Because Sarasota is cool I guess. Don't you want to see Sarasota?
The dialogue is also cringe-worthy, clunky, and forced. This may be in part due to the bad acting, but it's difficult to picture even Tom Hanks delivering some of these lines convincingly. Later in the film, the protagonist meets a middle-aged white guy that speaks perfect English, but we're told that he's actually an Arab terrorist that had reconstructive surgery... uh huh. There's suspension of disbelief, there's checking your brains at the door, and then there's this movie.
A bad movie can still be watchable if it's quickly paced, but this film just plods. We spend most of the film waiting for action and suspense that never really fully come, and when they do, our interests have long since disappeared. The fight and action sequences are so poorly directed that they wouldn't be any fun to watch anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.
This could have all been salvageable if they were going for a high camp factor, but it just took itself too seriously. In festivals, the audience usually tries to be polite about laughing at a bad film because the filmmakers are present, but by the end of my screening the audience couldn't hold it in any more. The first thing the director said in the Q and A was that he didn't know the film was a comedy, and mistakenly thought that the audience was laughing for good reasons. In many ways the film is reminiscent of Tommy Wiseau's cult hit The Room, but the pacing is too slow to excel to such levels of of accidental comedy. All the factors are in place however, and if they lose about 40 minutes off the run time, and spread the word-of- mouth, it might just be the next "The Room." As it stands however, the film is going to have no appeal whatsoever outside of Sarasota.
The reason I felt the need to write this review is that I felt swindled into seeing it. In the film guide, it had a pretty interesting description, and the trailer does a great job of making it look watchable. In fact, there were four screenings which sold out! (although I doubt that would have happened if half the audience didn't work on or know somebody that worked on the film) I'm pretty open to films of all kinds, even amateur ones, but this one clearly had a budget that exceeded what you would expect from amateurs. Watching this was like watching money being fed to cows, and being processed into crap. Why didn't they hire a director with some experience? Pay someone to revamp the script? Or find actors that could give a convincing performance? I guess then they wouldn't be able to afford the fancy camera and superfluous helicopter shot. I write this review in hopes that I might prevent one person from making the same mistake I did... spending good money to waste 2 hours of their lives.
