I have never posted before, never seen the point as some one else tends to have said what I think already but after watching this film I felt compelled to say something.
The only positive comments seem to stem from the amount of time spent on the film and/or the small amount of money it cost so let me tackle this first.
Time spent on the film: If the film took this long then why did it look like it had been improvised the day before? The script was shocking. Why were the camera angles so bizarre and laboured? Where is the evidence of this?
Size of budget: I have not been able to find anything saying how big the budget was so cannot provide a definitive comparison. That said there are numerous examples of people taking small budgets and working them into something that the actors can say they have been in with pride. A small budget does not equal a poor film any more large budgets guarantee a good film. Money should not have made as much of an impact unless it meant that they obtained the services of a director, script writer, camera man etc really cheap because they were in a coma. I could have forgiven you a few small inaccuracies with kit due to a small budget but the deficiencies with the film far exceed anything to do with money.
I have seen excellent performances within theatre performed entirely by amateur dramatists that are on par with professional pieces. You have to take account the woeful script but big questions need to be asked of the person in charge of casting & the director. I'm not going to attack the actors here (though the performances were poor) because even the best performances possible would have been lost within the putrid mire of the rest of the production.
As said previously I would never tell someone not to watch a film but I would strongly recommend thinking again before watching this. Even 'Teeth' (normally my lowest marker) was better than this.
The only positive comments seem to stem from the amount of time spent on the film and/or the small amount of money it cost so let me tackle this first.
Time spent on the film: If the film took this long then why did it look like it had been improvised the day before? The script was shocking. Why were the camera angles so bizarre and laboured? Where is the evidence of this?
Size of budget: I have not been able to find anything saying how big the budget was so cannot provide a definitive comparison. That said there are numerous examples of people taking small budgets and working them into something that the actors can say they have been in with pride. A small budget does not equal a poor film any more large budgets guarantee a good film. Money should not have made as much of an impact unless it meant that they obtained the services of a director, script writer, camera man etc really cheap because they were in a coma. I could have forgiven you a few small inaccuracies with kit due to a small budget but the deficiencies with the film far exceed anything to do with money.
I have seen excellent performances within theatre performed entirely by amateur dramatists that are on par with professional pieces. You have to take account the woeful script but big questions need to be asked of the person in charge of casting & the director. I'm not going to attack the actors here (though the performances were poor) because even the best performances possible would have been lost within the putrid mire of the rest of the production.
As said previously I would never tell someone not to watch a film but I would strongly recommend thinking again before watching this. Even 'Teeth' (normally my lowest marker) was better than this.