I recently saw this film at the Washington, D.C. independent film festival in early March of 2008. It was featured in the Senior Moments session. It was by far the longest of the short films screened that day, by at least a third; it is around 37 minutes long, and if it lost about 12 or 13 minutes, it would be just as effective, if not more.
There's no question that "Beautiful Hills of Brooklyn" is a well made film - gorgeously shot, and exceptionally acted by its lead (and only cast member) actress. However, the film has major pacing problems, as it turns into a series of long shots and scenes, where one woman frequently faces the camera and tells the audience how she feels. A little too much direct information, I thought; "show more, and tell less" would've perhaps been more effective.
It's very difficult for a "short" film that is longer than 30 minutes to sustain good pacing and to keep the audience interested; with some serious editing, a shorter version of this film would've been much more compact and interesting. As it is, it's longer than it needs to be, and at times very boring.
There's no question that "Beautiful Hills of Brooklyn" is a well made film - gorgeously shot, and exceptionally acted by its lead (and only cast member) actress. However, the film has major pacing problems, as it turns into a series of long shots and scenes, where one woman frequently faces the camera and tells the audience how she feels. A little too much direct information, I thought; "show more, and tell less" would've perhaps been more effective.
It's very difficult for a "short" film that is longer than 30 minutes to sustain good pacing and to keep the audience interested; with some serious editing, a shorter version of this film would've been much more compact and interesting. As it is, it's longer than it needs to be, and at times very boring.