A small-town mayor garners national attention as he decides to hold a "pageant" instead of an election to choose his successor.
This faux-documentary becomes a victim to the very same trap numerous other low budget features fall to. It has a few laughs, sure, but not nearly enough to necessitate a full 94 minute running time. The ending is plain-as-day obvious right away and few surprises pop up along the way.
The only message the film seems to convey is that politics is shallow and ultimately just a popularity contest (well, duh). So what does the film do? The flawless pretty-boy-nice-all-round-dude hero gets to run for mayor after plenty of plodding exposition where it's never really in any sort of doubt. And guess what? He wins! The film simultaneously tries to make some point about political corruption with an over the top weaselly character nearly stealing the election - but he eventually relinquishes as explained in a rather tacked-on and cheesy last five minutes. Add to that a truly annoying and preachy narration to mallet in what you just saw and you have one bland film.
I'm really not a fan of this all-practical-camera approach for film-making as it just feels much too gimmicky and pulls me right out of any narrative when it isn't done right (like in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT). Instead, this film fails in a way quite similar to Brian De Palma's recent film REDACTED with the attempts to come off as an authentic documentary falling flat on their face due to bad acting and uncreative cinematography. For instance - why would a "security camera" be just as clear and as well-framed as the 3CCD mini DV shots taken earlier by the professional crew?
I don't mean to come off as a troll as I know how hard it is to make a low-budget feature like this - and to their credit, most of the performances are above par, the lighting / directing is serviceable in many scenes, and some of the animated bits are quite amusing. Unfortunately the movie here is listed as having a half-million dollar budget. What! Honestly, I would have guessed it to be closer to $80,000 as, despite Jerry Springer's cameo as the MC, I don't see where the money went besides props and costumes for the 100-odd extras in the overlong finale. It looked to be shot on a PD-170 and a lot of the scenes were master-shot-only and not even lit. It's too bad - there's laughs to be had and it would have made a nice short but nobody watching this daft and clichéd exercise will leave having learned anything new.
This faux-documentary becomes a victim to the very same trap numerous other low budget features fall to. It has a few laughs, sure, but not nearly enough to necessitate a full 94 minute running time. The ending is plain-as-day obvious right away and few surprises pop up along the way.
The only message the film seems to convey is that politics is shallow and ultimately just a popularity contest (well, duh). So what does the film do? The flawless pretty-boy-nice-all-round-dude hero gets to run for mayor after plenty of plodding exposition where it's never really in any sort of doubt. And guess what? He wins! The film simultaneously tries to make some point about political corruption with an over the top weaselly character nearly stealing the election - but he eventually relinquishes as explained in a rather tacked-on and cheesy last five minutes. Add to that a truly annoying and preachy narration to mallet in what you just saw and you have one bland film.
I'm really not a fan of this all-practical-camera approach for film-making as it just feels much too gimmicky and pulls me right out of any narrative when it isn't done right (like in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT). Instead, this film fails in a way quite similar to Brian De Palma's recent film REDACTED with the attempts to come off as an authentic documentary falling flat on their face due to bad acting and uncreative cinematography. For instance - why would a "security camera" be just as clear and as well-framed as the 3CCD mini DV shots taken earlier by the professional crew?
I don't mean to come off as a troll as I know how hard it is to make a low-budget feature like this - and to their credit, most of the performances are above par, the lighting / directing is serviceable in many scenes, and some of the animated bits are quite amusing. Unfortunately the movie here is listed as having a half-million dollar budget. What! Honestly, I would have guessed it to be closer to $80,000 as, despite Jerry Springer's cameo as the MC, I don't see where the money went besides props and costumes for the 100-odd extras in the overlong finale. It looked to be shot on a PD-170 and a lot of the scenes were master-shot-only and not even lit. It's too bad - there's laughs to be had and it would have made a nice short but nobody watching this daft and clichéd exercise will leave having learned anything new.