This is a good example of how hard it is to do a faux documentary. The actors are OK but they fall flat under bad dialouge and fake set ups. The idea is that a group of internet users are being filmed for a documentary but they don't know the film maker knows them from their sex sites instead of the university they all attend. They find out they are being duped as the film goes on and then we get to see who they really are. The problem with this is that it all seems fake and self righteous and pretentious. None of the people in the film seem real. They seem like cookie cut outs of who you would assume would be on a sex site. It all comes down to this kinda "everyone should love themselves and not lie to others and can't we all just get along kids" message and it does not work at all.
5 Reviews
An Obvious Mockumentary
groggo31 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
As someone has already mentioned on this board, it's very difficult to make a fake documentary. It requires tremendous skill, pacing, patience, directorial 'distance,' a plausible premise, a narrative 'flow,' and REALLY believable acting (aka GREAT acting).
Such is not the case with 'Love Machine'. It starts to show its faux hand about the 20-minute mark (with 60 minutes left to watch), and the viewer starts to realize that he or she is being taken in. It's downhill from there.
Director Gordon Eriksen simply peaked too soon. But to be fair to Eriksen, his problems started early: as he explains in the extras, he began wanting to do a REAL doc, couldn't get funding, and settled for a cheaper way of making his film.
The premise -- people who have secret lives by posting themselves on a porn website -- was perhaps more interesting in 1997-98, when the film was made. Eriksen does a lot of tricky stuff -- a pushy 'host,' hand-held cameras, zooms, grainy blacks and whites -- all, I guess, to elicit a sense of authenticity, but it just doesn't work. The film is confusing and forced, but what ultimately brings it down is the believability of the actors and the pretty awful dialogue.
Such is not the case with 'Love Machine'. It starts to show its faux hand about the 20-minute mark (with 60 minutes left to watch), and the viewer starts to realize that he or she is being taken in. It's downhill from there.
Director Gordon Eriksen simply peaked too soon. But to be fair to Eriksen, his problems started early: as he explains in the extras, he began wanting to do a REAL doc, couldn't get funding, and settled for a cheaper way of making his film.
The premise -- people who have secret lives by posting themselves on a porn website -- was perhaps more interesting in 1997-98, when the film was made. Eriksen does a lot of tricky stuff -- a pushy 'host,' hand-held cameras, zooms, grainy blacks and whites -- all, I guess, to elicit a sense of authenticity, but it just doesn't work. The film is confusing and forced, but what ultimately brings it down is the believability of the actors and the pretty awful dialogue.
Cool little gimmick film
bjs2834 February 2002
I just happened to catch this little film on IFC tonight. My roommate and I were pretty impressed with it. You can read the plot summary if you care to, I'll just say that this movie had me fooled. Very well done and I'm surprised it hasn't received more attention. Very interesting subject matter. Definitely worth a viewing if you can get your hands on it.
Riveting documentary....or was it?
helpless_dancer17 June 2002
This was one of the most interesting films I've come across in a long time. It is so well done that it will have the viewer wondering whether or not it is genuine. I particularly enjoyed Julio and his hypocritical tirades after being 'found out'. Also, the waffling of Beverly on 'did she or didn't she' had me rolling in the floor. All of the characters were fascinating and Shino's difficulties concerning his sexuality was one of the high points. 5 stars.
Wow! Ya fooled me!
augustdawn4 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
HIGHLY RECOMMEND
**SPOILER BELOW***
Caught this on IFC tonight. They had me going for an hour or so. The lousy footage and the outdated web knowledge made me think it was a ten yr old documentary. It was actually a very well orchestrated moch. Kudos to the makers of this film for the excellent attention to detail. The actors played their parts very well, especially the "Beverly" character. I actually scoughed at the plot when I thought it was real, but what kitch it must take from a director to appropriatly dumb down certain aspects of the dialog, etc..to really attain a realistic moch. To you, the force behind this film, I say, keep going, you have a grasp that should be extended, and good job.
Ya got me! ...for a bit :)
**SPOILER BELOW***
Caught this on IFC tonight. They had me going for an hour or so. The lousy footage and the outdated web knowledge made me think it was a ten yr old documentary. It was actually a very well orchestrated moch. Kudos to the makers of this film for the excellent attention to detail. The actors played their parts very well, especially the "Beverly" character. I actually scoughed at the plot when I thought it was real, but what kitch it must take from a director to appropriatly dumb down certain aspects of the dialog, etc..to really attain a realistic moch. To you, the force behind this film, I say, keep going, you have a grasp that should be extended, and good job.
Ya got me! ...for a bit :)
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
