seriouscritic-42569 Reviews

Unhuman Nature (2020)

Pretty Scenery, Pretty Awful Movie

[2/10 · 20 October 2020]

When you have a movie that is little more than an hour long, involves mysterious disappearances, multiple law enforcement agencies, secrets hidden in the past, supernatural killings, and hunting a monster in the woods, it takes a specific lack of skill to make that a struggle to sit through, and, ultimately, not worth the limited effort. That it was made for an uber-low budget (one would hope they didn't spend much money on this) can be a real challenge for the ambitious but it is not a guarantee of failure. That has to be brought to the equation and in this case the fault lies with the writer/director. Watching the actors struggle valiantly to be believable, and natural, only to fail dismally was a perfect example of how the director failed them. First, by using a vapid, mess of a screenplay. One can see the moments where they thought there were bits of clever happening - and I appreciated the efforts even as each and every instance fell resoundingly flat. But no one had any real life or seemed grounded in their situations. Actors repeatedly walked in the frame and said their lines. They did not act as if they were engaged in any other action, even sitting around a dining table or hunters out hunting in the woods. They felt divorced from their surroundings as if the director thought the only important thing was saying the lines - not believing them. And the numerous ridiculous or questionable choices made in telling this story; setting up a dramatic Q&A with a person we have been led to believe might be crazy, and then literally have everyone just standing there (not even necessarily looking at each other) while the character rambles dramatically - and then not use the dialogue; instead having the most cardboard actor TELL US what the man is saying in a voiceover! And later the FBI will return to this man and let him take over the investigation, telling them what they should be doing and even what guns to use. And why the heck is the FBI involved in a local missing persons case in the first place? What is the jurisdictional issue involved here? I came away suspecting he was an FBI agent because the director had access to an FBI jacket and that is not a cool enough prop to build your weak screenplay around. And when you have to stick earplugs in everyone's ears to justify that they can't hear killings be done right behind them... you are straining. And the plot points mentioning mysterious music which we never hear? There is no consistency in how deadly the Creature is, or how it behaves, or any of the supernatural elements - pretty sure they were just being made up as they went along.

I have spent time writing this up because I suspect the filmmakers didn't realize all the ways they were wasting a perfectly decent opportunity to make a good film. It has some lovely scenery even if nothing is photographed in an involving or interesting fashion; most shots are static, as characters walk into frame and say their lines and then we cut. A good test for wannabe filmmakers would be to watch this movie and if you can't see why it's not working, then you shouldn't try and make films.

Pretty scenery though. Nice beach shot. But don't expect anything more than that.

Luz (II) (2018)

Near Perfect Film for the Right Audience

[9/10 · 2 April 2020]

I see how this film could be a near perfect little film, or a complete bore, depending on the viewer, so to qualify my comments let me make two observations right up front: this is a film about the supernatural - not the ghostly or the horrifying or the bloody, but the mystery and menace of something that is beyond the natural as we know it. That moment when you realize you might be part of something you never thought was "real" as opposed to being chased by monsters (although there is some blood, and some violence to be fair). And if you are not a viewer who is attuned to the sense of disquiet, or who can find suspense in seeing something not quite right and wondering why or where it may lead, then this movie will not resonate. Do not bother. You'll get impatient or be bored. But if you find yourself intrigued and captivated when, say, someone's behavior in a bar seems weirdly unnatural, then drop everything and gives this film a chance! It is like the best of the early David Lynch before he become a terrible parody of himself; when he could imbue a doorway or a radiator with menace by the intensity of his gaze and the music and sound that accompanies it. In this film, more often then not, it is in the eyes of the characters and how long they stare before they speak. If you are attuned to such nuance this movie will creep you out from the very first shot.

A comment by another reviewer perfectly sums up the difference between potential viewers: they said that one scene was a man "pointlessly" setting up chairs; however if you are the kind of viewer who would immediately notice he is arranging the chairs like a taxi cab for some sort of re-enactment, and start wondering how any role-playing is going to tie in and where will it lead, then this is definitely your kind of movie.

I loved every minute of it and I was greatly impressed by the increasingly clever manner in which a simple set-up was being developed. I don't want to spoil any surprises by even hinting at what I mean by that statement; for the right audience the best way to experience this film is in complete ignorance of where it is going and how its going to get there. I had heard only that it was frightening, but it is more of the disturbing uneasy variety as opposed to the jump-scare traditional fashion and I, for one, found it legitimately suspenseful throughout (and that even includes the lengthy single take set-up at the very beginning). Excellent performances, assured direction, effective use of limited locations - this film has everything going for it in addition to a familiar concept developed in a completely original and stimulating fashion.

For the right audience, that is.

Witch-Hunt (2017)

Clever Premise and a Valiant Effort

[6/10 · 15 February 2020]

I love seeing filmmakers faced with extremely low budgets figure out stories that can work within their limited resources, and Witch-Hunt is just such a movie. Wisely staying away from excessive, and expensive gore (if you want it to look right) and focusing on character and a twisting story in a confined setting, the film tries hard to succeed with severe restrictions. Although flawed with uneven performances and a script that suffers from not being developed enough considering the depth of the issues it addresses within the thriller framework - still, the filmmakers have attempted something that has more going for it than the average micro-budget zombie or slasher-fest. The story is clever and involving enough to have piqued my interest and to have kept me watching. It had me curious as to what would happen next and how it would all tie together and it's unfortunate that it doesn't necessarily accomplish that thoroughly or neatly (and the intercut sections with two ladies seemingly in possession of all the info we are waiting for are the most clumsy and clunky scenes in the film - although to be fair they are tied into the denouement, but that doesn't make them work any better). The actresses can go from believable to overacting within a scene which could be the result of less experienced actors only allowed a limited number of takes, or the less trained eye of the director to recognize when a performance is off. And it's a shame their characters aren't always believable in their interactions with each other - especially when things start getting strange - but that's a fault of the screenplay, not the performance. All-in-all a commendable but far-less-than perfect offering. It would be worth it if - as another reviewer suggested - the film was remade with a properly fleshed out and realized script and stronger talent behind the camera. But even as it is, it possesses a certain charm and the willingness to try and make it more than just "a little thriller" deserves credit in my book.

The Empty Acre (2007)

At Least They Attempted Something

[5/10 · 11 November 2019]

When watching no budget, or extremely low budget, genre films one should expect to see a film that's rough around the edges, that is severely limited in what it can accomplish visually, and that must rely on actors who are not as experienced or as talented as they are simply enthusiastic and willing. One must overlook these flaws - to some degree - and instead focus on what the filmmakers attempt DESPITE the limitations. Most filmmakers seemingly never even try, or don't care, or perhaps just lack the talent to achieve anything other than "getting it done". The Empty Acre falls squarely in that rare category of a film that struggles to be a serious contender. There is thought and intent and a certain level of creativity behind the choices and the decisions the writer/director made (I absolutely loved the use of simple elongated shadow effects) and I have to applaud those while at the same time acknowledging that the film stumbles and fails on many levels regardless. If you are willing to cut it some slack and give it a chance the film rewards with an interesting premise, some effective visuals, and actors who are valiantly giving their best. Sadly the premise is never developed effectively. The screenplay is structured in such a fashion that huge parts of it seem to be missing (like the entire introduction to the "empty acre"). Characters don't always communicate like believable human beings in the situations they find themselves in. Even in scenes that are meant to establish the more mundane or unexceptional nature of the characters lives, they should still be interesting and insightful; unfortunately it feels like once the writer knew he wanted such a scene (which is brave enough in a genre film) he had no idea how to add the interest or insight. The scene just exists. Too much of the film just "sits there" in the execution. And there is an over reliance on editing tricks which might have been necessitated by problems during shooting or with the quality of finished scenes, but ultimately becomes simply distracting and pushes the audience away from the film instead of bringing them in to it. Yes, it can be wonderful all the tools available to the digital editor, but that doesn't mean you have to use them all at the same time. And despite all the editing, editing, editing going on the films pace is poor from the outset and endlessly cutting to overused footage of cracked earth doesn't help in the least. Once or twice is eerie but by the three thousandth time it's simply boring and feels like visual padding. Although it never fulfilled on it's promise, and on several occasions was a struggle to get through, I still think it's worthwhile watching the product of filmmakers who are at least trying to create something original regardless of their limitations. With a better developed script (and a less "everything-but-the-kitchen-sink" approach to editing) I wouldn't mind seeing what the filmmaker could accomplish in the future.

A Sweet and Vicious Beauty (2012)

Falls Apart Almost Immediately

[1/10 · 23 September 2019]

It is difficult to give even the most well-meaning film a prolonged chance when from the opening seconds it piles up one weak, inconsistent, illogical, or just plain awful moment after another. I understand the limitations of a tiny budget, and try to be tolerant about the probable unavailability of talented cast and crew, but it is an indication of the writer/director's skill (or lack thereof) if they maximize what they have and minimize every liability, or simply stumble blindly about as if they don't know good from bad . With this film we are immediately assaulted by a sub-par musical score, flat digital photography, and conspicuously clean and neatly arranged settings and costumes which in no way helps us slip into a believably period, mid-19th century setting. From there we suffer through choppily edited scenes that randomly cut from one close up to another, one angle to the next, as if anything filmed had to be included; and dialogue that struggles occasionally to sound "period" but is immediately contradicted by anachronistic phrases and attitudes completely inappropriate to the time and place (although in all fairness, I have seen this flaw repeatedly in many high budget mainstream pictures - that doesn't make it any less intolerable). Obviously ambition outstrips ability or even directorial focus in A Sweet and Vicious Beauty. Within the first few scenes a big deal is made about how a character is told a road is too narrow for a carriage so he must ride a horse (which he is unaccustomed to) only to have the following scene show him told to find an "escort", who then takes him in a carriage, and they travel down a road that is almost two lanes wide and practically paved. He is then dropped off by his escort and no mention is even made about how he is to return to the town now that he has been abandoned without a horse which he was originally told was necessary. When he first arrives in town the same character is splashed by muddy water from the ONLY puddle on the street, which clearly dirties his coat (which is buttoned up over an additional vest) and yet in a following scene he is sent to a tailors where he says he only requires a shirt and is sold one. Does the writer/director not realize that there is a connection between what we hear from characters (i.e. what was on the page in the script) and what we see on the screen (i.e. the action as directed on the day)? When a character with only a muddy coat says he only needs a clean shirt are we to assume that the director is blind? Or not paying attention? Or just doesn't know better? It reeks of amateurish disregard and ignorance. Other early highlights include a woman who is "ill" represented by heavy white make-up (only on her face) with large black circles around her eyes like a cheaply interpreted kabuki mask; a "haunting moment" as a door creeps open and the doctor slowly bends over to put his face right next to the doorknob so he's in a perfect position when a hand reaches around to grab it. Who bends over and puts their face inches from a doorknob when they think someone might be creeping into their room? What world does this writer/director come from? I suffered through an additional twenty minutes of weak dialogue expressed poorly by struggling actors before I had to bail about a third of the way through. Once the nightmares and hauntings started, the film only slid further downhill and life is too short to torture myself for no good reason. I give the film two stars for its premise, and subtract one because of how quickly and consistently that premise was betrayed by easily corrected directorial missteps.

One and Two (2015)

Kids Go Poof - Movie Goes Nowhere

[4/10 · 4 July 2019]

Weird little film. Starts off promising and remains promising throughout, it just never does anything with that promise. Smart enough to come up with believable constraints on children who can teleport themselves (and yet are confined; i.e. there has to be line of sight to where they are going to poof to next, so put a bag over their head and their powers are gone), and equally clever enough to figure out ways around that.

But it moves at a pace that is, at first, leisurely, and later as the "action" ramps up (or more accurately as there are changes in the situation) the film slips even further into sleepwalking. It sets up interesting developments but then deliberately doesn't really do anything with them. The filmmakers seem averse to exploring any of the multiple concepts that are sprinkled throughout. Perhaps it's as simple as they were not as clever and smart as their own premise.

It's frustrating that so much could have been addressed but the filmmakers act just like the film's characters; dour and non-communicative to an extreme. Simple visual effects are believably handled; performances are strong; there is even a whole scene here or there that is everything you might want it to be, but then the film meanders away as if it has no clear idea where it wants to go or why it wants to get there. Or why we should stick around for the ride.

Cold Blooded (2012)

A Perfect, Gritty, Small Scale Thriller

[9/10 · 15 June 2019]

This is an example of a perfect low budget film. Faced with budget limitations talented filmmakers will find a way to embrace and capitalize on their limited means, either utilize the constraints imposed upon them or to work around them in such a way that they are not glaringly thrust into the limelight. In this way great films can be created regardless of the limitations imposed upon the production. Would it be a better film if more resources were available to the same cast and crew? Of course. But as it stands it's far more than good enough.

This is cleverly written with believable, interesting characters. They might surprise us with their actions, but they never behave in uncharacteristic ways - which is especially rewarding as it's easy to see where many high budget Hollywood films would have betrayed their own characters in the interest of "that's how we always do it", or "it's what the audience expects".

By showing clever restraint the film has minimal but effectively staged (and gruesome) violence, which is perfectly in keeping with this gritty thriller. When I say gritty, this movie is tough! It's not called Cold Blooded for nothing and I don't want to say anything about the shocking moments because I don't want to spoil the punch to the gut they deliver!

Intelligent, suspenseful and full of neat twists that feel real as opposed to "written", the performances are all top notch, the direction tight, I honestly can't find a thing wrong with this for a change, and you don't know how much that pleases me. And, for the record, the only reason I am not scoring it a solid 10 is because I am saving that for films that are not only expertly crafted, but have the additional intention and ability to do more for their audience than merely entertain. This isn't an "important" movie, it just is one helluva good one!

Cruelty (2016)

Ultimately Disappointing, Still Somewhat Effective

[5/10 · 15 June 2019]

Immediately after watching this Icelandic mystery I am somewhat on the fence about it, but I fear my enthusiasms for it will be overshadowed in the coming days by it's many weaknesses. Typical of what's at issue; there are many strong directorial touches - effective visual compositions and involving scenes that leave you feeling like a peeping tom as the film makes us a mute witness into the troubled lives of the damaged souls who are the possible suspects, and the troubled life of the lead investigator, and the troubled life of the victims' mother. In lesser hands these might be nothing more than time-wasting scenes of needless red-herrings but the film seems to be making the case that everyone is damaged by something, and everyone can just as easily be a victim as a villain. But to praise the direction you have to ignore a scene rather pointlessly, and obviously, copying a similar scene from Fincher's Zodiac, except here it makes no sense. In Zodiac the frightened character was a cartoonist completely out of his depth, but here it's the lead investigator supposedly within their depth. In Zodiac the crimes showed that anyone could become a victim, but here it's only been two little girls murdered and they are investigating sexual offenders, not murderers anyway (which also makes no sense since neither child was molested, although seemingly everyone else in the movie has been at one time). There is also a clunky "return to the scene of the crime" sequence where the detective is attacked but it is so abrupt, while at the same time not being shocking in the least, that one wonders is it a directorial intention to keep us uninvolved or is it that they don't know how to stage such a scene? And the fact that it is never again addressed in the context of the film makes it feel like it was simply added after the fact. Considering the number of other plot holes that appear, it's probably guilty of simply being another one of those.

The performances are uniformly excellent from the actors, but key characters are poorly defined or given behavior that contradicts how we are expected to view them. The lead detective is supposed to be the typical "best they have" while at the same time she is completely, and almost criminally, ineffectual throughout. In fact ALL of the police are depicted as incompetent. And yet, that doesn't seem to be an intentional theme. Similarly the mother is shown to us as devastated by what has happened to her little girls and then, in private, she exhibits suspicious behavior that is never addressed or explained even though it serves to complicate the possible apprehension of her children's killer.

Sadly, even as I am writing this review I am noticing how quickly the better aspects of the film are fading and the problems with story and development are quickly overshadowing any other appreciation. A recommendation would then be hinged upon how much such issues bother the potential viewer.

Look Again (2015)

Almost Something Perfect

[8/10 · 18 May 2019]

The best two words to sum up this movie are "clever" and "sweet". Together, or independent of each other, they are not necessarily bad things to be; even here they are both still positives, however, in this particular case the one also works against the other and it is only because of that that this film does not become great.

The trailer tells you all you need to know about whether you might be interested in this type of film; it's a light, indie fantasy with likeable performances, romance, and a suggestion of serious themes and concepts. And it nails all of those aspects. It is clever, and witty and the performances are uniformly spot on. There are a couple of occasions where some purely visual sequences could have been tightened - the physical comedy skills of the actors are good, but not so good that we couldn't have left some scenes a minute earlier - and I am not a fan of the slightly wavering "indie camera" (usually a clue that they felt they didn't have the time to set up a tripod and are trying to do a static-shot hand held) but that's a personal technical preference, and not an outright detriment. The direction occasionally shines (as in the opening scene of the main character's attempted suicide) but, by and large it is visually unremarkable. Where director Daniel O'Connor's real strengths lie are in his writing and his handling of the performances.

But as positive as those things are, they also point up the films only serious weakness: it only HINTS at delving seriously into anything. It is so obviously sweet and good-natured, that you know instantaneously where the film is going and how it's going to end. That the main character would even risk possible harm to himself is simply a set-up to the clever premise of guardian angels showing up, and this side of his character is never dealt with again. That characters will skirt the deeper implications of what qualifies as good and bad - even as they are supposedly discussing them - either indicates a lack of depth in the writer (which I tend to doubt based on the cleverness of the dialogue etc) or an intentional unwillingness to probe anything too deeply. Even when job applicants are being chosen based on whether they are "good" or "bad" people, it is shocking that no one mentions that a good person could still be incompetent, or a "bad person" could be great at their job.

We follow our lead down a predictably darker path (although more a slightly shaded path than anything truly dark) but there is nothing plumbed there beside simple platitudes. And a happy ending is never in doubt. This would all be intolerable in a movie that wasn't so charming, but as much as I was enjoying myself watching it play out (I am a sucker for intelligently written dialogue) I felt cheated out of the Great Movie this little picture could have been with a tad more ambition (or, perhaps, courage?).

I unquestionably recommend it, provided you are not expecting something with any serious insight. It is clever and it is sweet, and it does both of those really, really well. The trailer hinted at additional depths, but unfortunately the film itself had no intention of going there.

The Scarlet Worm (2011)

Credit Where Credit Is Due

[4/10 · 7 February 2019]

This movie was quite a surprise. Here we have quite a few ingredients for a complete failure; very low budget, a period film, lots of physical violence and action and a medium sized cast of mostly inexperienced actors (and a few well-worn veterans). On top of that the screenplay wasn't content to be just some genre template; I think it really wanted to be about something. The fact that they pulled off anything with those obstacles is a plus. I have to applaud the filmmaker's ambition even if he effectively shot himself in the foot because of it. A western might seem to be a simple type of period piece to do but if you are attempting it with limited resources you need to either scale your film down to maximize them, or really stay on top of your game and be attentive to all the details. Mr. Fredianelli did neither. I wonder what he would have created if he had?

It is a bit of a tough slog to get through if one cares only for the quality (or lack of it) on display. The screenplay, although it rises above the vast majority of low budget screenplays - in what it attempts - is still repetitious and frequently awkward. No doubt it's heart was in the right place but you don't film your "intention", you polish your darn screenplay and make it acceptable! It tries to provide interesting character "bits" but because the exchanges seem unrehearsed (or like poor quality improv) they don't feel believable and the film stumbles to a stop again and again. Dialogue veers from a conscious attempt to sound "period" to almost casual modern profanity while dropping anachronistic phrases and attitudes left and right. Much of it's serious aspects seem neither developed nor even well thought out.

Particularly deadly for a period film that wants to be seen as something other than neighborhood kids playing cowboys, there doesn't seem to be a clear grasp of the time and place while at the same time I got the impression the director knew there should be one: people are not as clean and neat as modern counterparts, however the effort to achieve this is comically bad - very specific smudges on cheeks and brows that seem only to have come from contact with a make-up artist. And how do you explain the town's barber who always wears chaps, unless they were part of a western costume he borrowed? And the town's hookers with their modern underwear and lingerie? The fabric of the shirts and the modern styled jeans? The lead character wears an anachronistic suit, but they knew he should have a different type of tie. Of course the fabric, fold and cut of the tie looks like it belongs to a last minute available resource, not the period, but at least there was the attempt.

The actors perform as if they are still in the process of learning their lines - nothing else could excuse the halting, labored way sentences slowly stumble out of actor's mouths. But, having said that, at least the performers were not encouraged (or allowed) to be unnaturally over-the-top; the sort of hammy theatrical style so common amongst wanna-be actors only experienced with the community or collegiate stage. So again, a big plus tempered by a big negative.

The director was wise enough to know he needed his frame filled with texture and dressing however this only translates into a wide disparity between the appropriateness of props and set dressing. A more experienced (or talented) visual eye could have also shown how to better compose shots so that the environments seemed real; as it is 90% of all interiors look as if they were shot in the same place, slightly - and unimaginatively - re-dressed. They are also shot in such a way that it looks like they could only dress one wall, and a corner, per "location" - I'm sure moving the camera would reveal things we shouldn't see. Because of this limitation more than half the film is visually flat and stagy.

Obviously the director aspires to be a Peckinpah or a Leone - and he is to be praised for aiming high - but the number of shootouts and violent confrontations require the ability to pull them off. In this he only achieves a fifty percent success rate, which is commendable; but if he'd had fewer of them he could have spent twice the time and effort to get them perfect. One can see him straining to recreate a Peckinpah blood-bath vibe, but when half your violence is rather embarrassingly staged and shot, you're not doing your film any favors.

Unfortunately it strikes me as the work of a film fanatic who is happy enough just to attempt something, and is far less concerned with whether he is doing it well. I'll give him respect for using blood squibs but why settle for such poor consistency blood? Or the over reliance on the terribly cheesy digital gun flash effect (when we'd be seeing much more smoke than flash from period firearms)? And if he wants his films to be good, as opposed to just ballsy, he should do some research (or recruit people with the appropriate skills and knowledge). The production reeks of enthusiasm over ability, and fosters the concern that he might not know the difference. And if there had only been more polish to the poorer parts, it wouldn't be so difficult to sit through.

I found myself curious, and mildly optimistic, to see what this filmmaker would do with future projects but a quick search reveals he's made another 29 of these little films in the past seven years so I'm wary the optimism, however slight, might be poorly placed.

Mary Jane: A Musical Potumentary (2016)

Might Be Tolerable If You're Stoned - But I Doubt It

[2/10 · 22 January 2019]

I'll try all sorts of low budget indies hoping for hidden gems and a friend stumbled onto this and forced me to watch it with them. They are no longer my friend. That should tell you a lot.

There's three ways to explain how this film turned out like it did. 1) No one making it had more than a modicum of talent; 2) they had talent but were too stoned; 3) they weren't stoned at the time but too much imbibing the demon weed has made them not care about the difference between good and bad: "its the doing it, man, that's the thing - we don't care about quality - we're not into that label game, man!" It's not so much a film as a mess. Maybe it was just an excuse to put people enjoying weed on camera (seems to be the only qualification for many working on the film). It jumps between part documentary, with talking heads and news footage (which just gets abandoned shortly after introducing the conceit), part tedious musical segments which play like boring videos of boring songs or poorly staged numbers from an amateur theatrical production; part faux awards event and lecture where "Mary Jane" (the films worst actress) lectures or interacts with other questionable performers (some scenes that start at one location finish up at this "event" as if they simply filmed part of the movie in a tent for budget reasons), and the remainder of the time is spent with "Mary Jane" and her friends acting like there's no cameras around (a dramatic - and in this context I use that phrase very loosely - recreation) before turning and talking directly to the camera as if trying to mimic House of Cards but it feels more like the filmmakers simply can't concentrate. Very few of the performers manage to behave naturally; some veer wildly between speaking like a real person and then mugging painfully (and don't get me started on the women who think they're starring in an embarrassingly bad high school production of West Side Story) but the woman playing Mary Jane takes the prize in the horrid performance department - she goes through eighteen facial expressions just silently choosing a pair of scissors. It doesn't help that all the dialogue is heavy handed; not speech so much as recitation. With the exception of one joke concerning Leviticus, the spot on spewing of facts and stoner attitude sounds more like a reading from a child's report as opposed to conversing.

But the film considers itself a musical yet, frankly, the songs are terrible. Some are musically tolerable, and some of the singers and musicians are talented enough in an amateur sort of way (still no excuse for adults dubbing children's singing though), but the lyrics are the worst kind of lame. Either shallow, simple rhyming or it's like a bad episode of Schoolhouse Rock. Let me correct that: the WORST episode of Schoolhouse Rock. But it not only flops about all over the place in terms of style, it has an equally undisciplined, scattershot way of addressing any issue or idea. It touches on a lot of things, fleetingly at best, such as alluding to the possible environmental harms local growers do (which you would think would matter to folks supposedly in touch with nature) but they don't examine or discuss, instead sliding quickly to the basic theme which seems to be "I just want to do whatever I want to do." The single thematically interesting musical number about culpability (if you're engaged in an illegal action, however silly that illegality might be) which suggests that everyone is part of the same system is immediately discounted by "Mary Jane" just saying, "No I'm not", and then they move on as if that settled the debate.

And out of respect for Ed Asner I won't go into detail about his ten seconds onscreen, or the single skit he's in, suffice it to say he must be one of the filmmaker's friend or, perhaps, did something horrible in his past and this is how he atones for it. In fact, calling the scenes "skits" might be the best description of what is happening. Different skits by different creators with no consistent thread or overview, all edited together and masquerading as a musical. Like a college theater class production where everybody has to contribute something - regardless of ability.

Worst of all for a film set in the beautiful Pacific Northwest, it makes nothing about the locals and the lifestyle look appealing. Is everyone so smug, self-righteous and condescending - or stoned? The older ex-hippies even mock the younger versions simply because they're not old school. It's like a reverse propaganda piece, and maybe that's the true purpose of the film. If you're not stoned while watching it, you certainly won't find any other justification for this meandering, tedious slice of backyard film-making.

Don't You Recognise Me? (2016)

Strong and Daring Low Budget Entry with One Glaring Weakness

[7/10 · 29 December 2018]

Artful success is not dependent on budget and the truly gifted filmmaker can rise above the restrictions they must labor under. I am always searching for those films that shine like a diamond amongst the dross of product cobbled together by lazy, unambitious, undisciplined, and - frequently - incompetent, wanna-be producers and directors; those who happily settle for the excuse "I didn't have any money" or "I had to work with all amateurs" and hope it covers their want of ability. In the hands of serious, competent filmmakers a low budget is not an excuse for a poor film. Consider Primer, Absentia, The Blair Witch Project, Coherence, Resolution, Man Bites Dog, Pi, Following (they're harder to find in the micro-budget realm but more rewarding as the creators are likely to significantly shine once larger budgets come their way). And with this, my first exposure to the work of Jason Figgis, I suspect I could be looking at another to join those filmmakers.

But this is a difficult film for me to assign a rating to. It is obviously the work of a talented filmmaker who found a way to maximize their limited resources while attempting something far more ambitious than the usual genre fare. I cannot speak highly enough of the naturalness and intensity of the performances (especially Darren Travers and Jason Sherlock), the commitment of the actors, the cleverness of the conceit, even how effectively Jason Figgis used the simple (but overused) faux documentary/found footage aspect. I am not a fan of poor camera handling - it can't be acceptable simply because it's low budget or "found footage" - but here it actually serves the film; it highlights the intensity of the scene, ratcheting up suspense, or putting us in the midst of the chaos, and disorientation, many of the characters are experiencing. All without calling attention to itself (outside of a few meta references). It seems organic to the movie, not just the film-making conceit. And just as the situation the characters find themselves in becomes unexpectedly twisted, so, too, does Figgis begin to twist the audience's sympathies. He bravely makes you understand, and dares to make you feel empathy for the characters engaging in despicable acts. Yet even as those acts escalate, Figgis never allows the "villians" to betray they're instinctive cruelty or callousness just to make them more palatable. That takes courage of the highest order and Figgis is to be commended highly for it. But sadly after an interesting set-up, and an even more interesting turn of events, the film eventually settles down to repetitious screaming and shouting of the same points and virtually the same half dozen lines of dialogue. It's as if everything was improvised (and it might have been) and the poor actors couldn't think of anything else to say. They stay committed to their characters throughout, and, yes, those characters are not necessarily the most literate individuals, but after a while the same lines shouted and screamed and growled just becomes numbing and tedious. And drifts perilously close to becoming dull, thus dissipating much of the power the film has built up in the first half. It doesn't help that a key character becomes virtually mute after a certain point when his arguments or defenses or justifications could serve to inflate the tension, and bewitch the viewer as to possible outcomes. The film obviously has more on it's mind than simply being effective; there are social issues and moral issues mentioned but, ultimately, none of this is really developed and expanded on. There are even some major issues (such as "why" key actions were taken) that are never really addressed, which isn't so much an added mystery as a simple defect. Or, maybe they were addressed more than I noticed but they were lost and buried in the repetitious screaming of the other, oft repeated lines. Maybe I zoned out because tonally the film had settled into a high-intensity rut - but a rut nevertheless. I could have done without yet another round of characters taking pictures of each other and spent that time learning something: about the people, about the situation or about what the filmmaker has to say about it all. I'll forgive the poorly executed violence (its really tough to do well on a super low budget) and the obviously digitally inserted gun flashes; those aspects of physical film-making (like set design) require a very particular set of skills that not every low budget production is privy to; but the script - the story - progression and development, in the end this is the spine of your feature. I literally shudder to think what this director and that cast could have done with a more illuminating screenplay. There is no question in my mind that, then, this would have rated ten stars from me, but as it is.... I'll give it a 7 for the sake of people who might just glance at the rating instead of reading the review - in actuality I'd make that a 6.5.

I will be seriously talking about this film, and I plan on re-watching it again soon (which is probably the highest compliment). I will seek out Figgis' other work to see if this was an amazing fluke or the beginning of an awesome arc. I'll have to be giving it a qualified recommendation as opposed to the unqualified one it came so close to achieving. But it came closer than most.

Best Friends Forever (I) (2013)

So Much To Recommend - I Wish I Could Grade It Higher

[6/10 · 26 December 2018]

This super low budget indie endeavor was created by two young women who produced and directed, co-wrote, and also played the leading roles. It is certainly a cut above the majority of similar ventures. It takes a refreshingly original approach to the "here comes the apocalypse" genre; it is basically a story of friendship under the strain of growing apart with nuclear bombs going off in the background. At least it's not simply trying to copy what other films have done. In most cases, imitation is not a sincere form of flattery, it's indicative of a lack of real abilities; genre tropes and cliché's take the place of imagination and talent. Such is not the case here. The creators pragmatically uses the road trip in the middle of nowhere to keep away from the need for big effects or set pieces, and the only crowd scenes are saved for parties (I'm sure it's a budget issue - "we can just use our friends" - that accounts for the fact that this world is noticeably populated entirely by young people, with only a few, brief, exceptions). Acting is serviceable to extremely good (including a very brief, but outstanding, appearance by a pregnant woman at a party). The weakest performance was the director's own - conceivably her attention was too divided to the detriment of her role - she is very good in some scenes and in others she seems distracted and forced. There are many refreshingly believable moments: the girls decide to be bad-asses and yet their attempts at it are awkward. They would be chewed up and spat out in a Mad Max realization of the world, but as their foes are equally unprepared (these aren't comic-book baddies) things could still play out in their favor. These touches go a long way to overcome a pacing that sometimes lags and dialogue that varies from cleverly real to less so. But that is not to say the film is without flaws and unfortunately, even considering the extensive good will I extended the project (or more accurately, the project "earned") the accumulation of these flaws seriously has dampened my enthusiasm for it. Although the two women are distinctly drawn as individuals, and comfortable enough around each other, I didn't always feel that they would have been as close as we have to accept them as being. There was something missing there that simply couldn't be excused away as "part of them growing apart" and this relationship is the core of the movie. Technically, there is distractingly wobbly, camera handling that continually pushed me out of the film; I should be thinking about what the characters are feeling, or what the filmmakers are saying, not why the DP didn't use a tripod for a simple stationary shot! I mention camera operation as distinct from the actual quality of the photography, which was acceptable; no, it was just the unnecessary quivering, which wasn't being done to provide a faux documentary realism or to add subtle dramatic tension to simple close-ups; it was just poor quality work. But, by far, my greatest complaint is with the inclusion of a wholly unbelievable, contrived and manufactured character conflict, which pushed everything after it into a by-the-numbers scenario in order to get to the climax. I don't want to get into spoiler territory (because I AM recommending the film and other viewers might not be so disappointed that the writers adopted such a tired, well-worn, approach) but suffice it to say everything after it is is telegraphed to all but the most clueless viewers, and it even degenerates into the unbelievable coincidence that two people (one of whom is a complete stranger to the locale) could run off, separately, into the streets of Austin at night but end up on either side of the same door when peril strikes. And this gross defying of logic seems performed simply to tie up the aforementioned manipulated plot conflict and provide a pay-off to the repetition of one character's mantra, "you're always exactly where you're supposed to be". I think that is a dubious thematic element in a film about the apocalypse unless you address the fact that the millions of burning dead were, likewise, meant to be burning to death, and what does that say in the grand scheme of things. Even the final bit of "action" is not only anti-climatically staged, it is unbelievable in the circumstances (of course the same flaw shows up, in a more epic fashion, at the climax to Ridley Scott's Prometheus - but that's not an excuse). It's a shame the last half of the film, which shouldn't be missed because it includes the most impressive acting by Vera Miao, is also weighted down by the films weakest developments. It strained my patience from the moment it was introduced earlier in the film but making it the focus simply insisted the film wasn't about anything more unique than a thousand other "friends growing up" or "rom-com" flicks. Which I found rather sad. What was shaping up to be that ever elusive sparkling diamond in the rough - marred by crappy camera work - instead ended up falling further away from jewel status. The filmmakers might not have wanted to attempt anything more - in which case they did really well with what they tried - but I wish they would have had more faith in themselves and accepted a greater challenge. Ambition is one of the things that defines Art. Even with their budget and constraints they might have come closer to making a classic if they had just tried.

Black Hollow Cage (2017)

Can Only Watch Paint Dry For So Long

[2/10 · 4 September 2018]

If you have enough interesting ideas for a watchable seven minute short film but decide to stretch it out to feature length by simply directing your performers to "walk down the hallway slower...No, even slower than that." you would probably end up with this film. Other directorial notes must have included "Stare longer"; "Wait longer before you speak"; and "Cross the room as slowly as you can - don't worry we're not cutting away!" For the record I am a fan of the long lingering take; of strange original visions; of movies that want to play with complex themes and concepts. And here they might have been going for all of that, and just stumbling badly in the process. Watching patiently is one thing- suffering pointlessly is another. Full disclosure; I finally shut it off after an hour eighteen but unless there was an epic scene with flying penguins, exploding elephants, and a chorus of dancing robots after that I can think of no reason to have subjected myself to further boredom.

Feed the Devil (2015)

Does the Good Outweigh the Bad?

[5/10 · 1 September 2018]

If you can get past the clumsy, clichéd opening scene (and I almost didn't) you will discover both an atmospheric, serious, technically well-made, frequently interesting film and, at the same time, a film with major weaknesses that is also frequently tedious and confounding. Do the good points outweigh the bad? It would depend on what is most important to the individual. The stupid, reckless behavior of the characters (necessary to drive the film forward) is justified by the fact that they are depicted as stupid, reckless people. However since they are also neither interesting nor sympathetic (which are more important to me than that horrible Hollywood phrase "likable") it is impossible to care or be concerned for them. They are presented believably (sadly, I've met similar types) - and believably performed by the actors - but that's never going to allow for the necessary third act switch to hero mode and even as victims I found myself on the side of "whatever is in the woods" more than once. Yet overall the mood is always strong, and the mystery grows unnervingly, but then it is diluted by too much repetitive action (caught, survived, escapes, caught, rinse and repeat) and the inexplicable occurrence of sustaining injuries that never seem to last more than a few minutes - or until, another round of survived-escapes-and caught again. Disagreeable, and boring, characters, lapses in logic, and even very confused and inconsistent geography and staging do nothing to help the film, but I return again to the impressively ominous and creepy tone; much of the photography and editing is excellent and there are some very nice and original developments (a mute woman wandering by the side of the road who attaches herself to the characters as if entitled, and who may be viewed as a victim or a threat, is by far the best) that makes it difficult to simply disregard the film or suggest everyone bypass it. With the exception of that opening scene (which feels like it was tacked on from another movie) there is enough violent threat, scares (not the easy-cheesy jump-scare type) and creepy scenes to appease even a discerning watcher of genre films, but the question remains; do the good points outweigh the bad? And I'll admit that I felt one way immediately after the movie ended, and another way by the time this review was written.

Caught (I) (2017)

A Premise is Not a Story

[3/10 · 16 August 2018]

Two creepy strangers show up for tea: that is a premise, and depending on what you do with it, not a particularly bad one. However it is not a story. Occasionally having something creepier inexplicably happen is adding incident; it is still not a story. This film, sadly, has a premise and enough incident to make for a mysterious half hour but then it would be nice if it went somewhere from there. And it doesn't. A lot is hinted at but nothing elaborated on or explained. The actors are all rather good but they are only given fifteen minutes worth of screenplay and forced to stretch and repeat until the film ends. Almost literally. When characters finally learn a little of what has been so confusingly hinted at, it doesn't change anything for the situation, and the audience is never even let in on it, because to resolve a story and reveal mysteries you would need a story and at least some ideas to begin with. And all they had was a premise. The whole exercise becomes ultimately pointless. It might have been a successful and well-made short film, but as a feature it is a frustrating trial.

Diverge (2016)

Low Key, Low Budget, 12 Monkeys Has Pluses and Minuses

[7/10 · 10 August 2018]

At first glance this film is a pleasant little discovery. The problem is it's neither as fully realized nor as polished as it should be to qualify as that one-in-a-million-diamond-in-the-rough indie film discerning viewers search for. For my money it is not as bad, nor as great as other reviewers have suggested. But if you are tired of the usual one-dimensional mindless drivel flooding many streaming services you could do a lot worse than Diverge. I would just temper your expectations a bit. It is a low-key, intimate variation of Twelve Monkeys (or any project where someone travels back in time to avert a pandemic) although it provides some original variations of its own. It is fairly intelligent - if not as intelligent as it, or it's characters, should be. Some of the scenes feel underdeveloped as scientists and pharmaceutical big-wigs talk about the points pertinent to the plot, but do not seem to be well-versed in the science or even high level corporate manipulations. It is competently made on all levels, with believable performances all around - although Ivan Sandomire is weakest any time he has to stray from introspection. The director is to be applauded for creating some visually interesting images, managing a low budget effectively, and being brave enough to embrace a certain visual poetry. Yet at the same time the film lacks energy and momentum. It's a little too quiet for it's own good and I can forgive a leisurely pace (I am a fan of Tarkovsky's Stalker, and that is almost literally three hours in which nothing happens). It might stem from Sandomire's reserve. It might be the filmmaker's choice. I mention it as a fact, not necessarily as a criticism. I reserve my criticism for the ending, where in the interest of being "clever", the film takes the all-too common misstep for Time Travel films and stumbles into violating it's own shaky logic and ends up nonsense. With all the effort and good intentions expended by the writer/director up to this point I am disappointed he didn't recognize this (and a few other moments) for the flaws they imposed on his work. But if you are the type of viewer who can accept a twist or surprise for it's own sake then I doubt it will distract you as it did me. There's a lovely little poetry to it - I'll grant you that. It just makes no sense. Overall I wish the film could have done more with all it's potential, but it's a film I will say kind things about to my friends, and they all know how critical I can be.

Therapy (II) (2016)

Lack of Realism Spoils Decent Premise

[3/10 · 8 August 2018]

I respect found footage films when they attempt to cleverly use the medium - especially if in service of budget restraints - but I also expect any film, genre or otherwise, to take some care in the development of their film. If you're happy accepting "it doesn't matter, it's just supposed to be creepy" as a valid excuse for inconsistent (or total lack of) logic, or character development or realism than this film will probably sit just fine with you. I, however, appreciate when writers are concerned with logic and character, and when directors are concerned with realistic behavior and actions. Police detectives that don't behave as if they've ever been to a crime scene or found a body before; characters that run, and then stop to let the guy in the mask get closer, so they can run again, and stop - again; adults who will ignore investigating distant screams in the daytime so they can do so in the middle of the night - and drag their niece and young friends along with them: people in a pitch black abandoned asylum who can hide from a stalker with the light from their cameras spilling over everything; frightened people searching a vacant building who, when they see they are not alone aren't inclined to mention it to the others; characters who are presented as so "on edge" as to appear that they, too, are crazy - but then that behavior is never explained or justified (even though it actually makes no sense in the situation other than as a possible red- herring that's never explored); heavy objects that can be manipulated in silence right behind folks by the killer but not by the people themselves - if none of this bothers you, give this movie a try. You might even think it has a surprising twist ending as opposed to what I consider a sloppy, predictable and illogical one. To me, all of the previous examples are excessively lazy filmmaking and it makes for a disappointing waste of an otherwise passable premise for a found footage film. Too bad the filmmakers didn't feel the necessity of making their movie any better than what the least discerning fans of this genre would need.

Let Me Make You a Martyr (2016)

Intelligent film about Damaged Souls

[8/10 · 27 July 2018]

Intelligent, thoughtful film about people who are depraved or damaged; disturbed or lost; and even some who are innocent. And the various shades their souls are colored in is very much at the core of this film.

That a film grounded in gritty reality is also willing to embrace the surreal is, in these capable hands, neither jarring nor disconcerting. It hints at supernatural elements as any serious film concerned with individuals questioning life and what comes after could be expected to do. Great credit goes to the directors for their reserved and concise visual direction and their securing consistently natural and believable performances from actors playing a range of characters that easily could have slipped into the grotesque or clichéd . There is real intelligence in the writing; the rich dialogue defies the stereotypical expectations of how such rural characters speak and behave, and does so by being so specific in relation to the character's worldviews - and the fact that such lowlifes HAVE worldviews is all too often ignored by screenwriters who only know of life what they have seen in other lesser movies.

That it is refreshing, and engaging, is not to say that it is completely without flaws. Unfortunately it too often feels more a collection of intriguing scenes than a cohesive whole, and in the "clever" cutting between time frames, and character's points of view, we lose a bit of what would allow our emotional connection to such worried and wasted souls to grow beyond mere empathy for their weaknesses and struggles. I also had some technical issues; some photography was way too dark (not moody dark but muddy dark) and there are several sequences where the sound is excessively muted, and even if these are intentional effects they seem so unmotivated, or inconsistently so, that they feel more like mistakes. But these are caveats that keep it from being a great film as opposed to an extremely good one. Most films made these days would be damn lucky to be as solidly crafted

It is also not a movie for everyone; if you only want to focus half your attention on the film it's going to seem dull, boring and confusing. If you are not interested in hearing characters worldviews and think any dialogue that doesn't advance the plot is "too wordy" then you're not going to like it. But for those of us who thrive on intelligent, original and unique films as opposed to recycled, regurgitated mediocrity, films like this are a great relief.

Observance (I) (2015)

Well Made Incoherent Mess.

[4/10 · 27 July 2018]

There is the skeleton of a story draped around the film, enough to make you think it might be going someplace or mean something, but it will all be abandoned, or ignored in favor of obtuse, confusing, unconnected occurrences strung together for no reason whatsoever. There are some good creepy moments, one particularly effective scare, and even reasonably strong performances, but basically it's a 20-minute student film made by a potentially talented filmmaker, whose sole dictate was to create a mysterious and creepy ambiance - stretched to 86 minutes without the least idea (or perhaps intention) of providing anything more. There is enough of a plot to leave you frustrated when it veers away into disjointed nonsense whose dots will never connect, padded out with a man hearing strange noises, the source of which doesn't matter and is never explained, or hearing strange voices on recordings which may or may not be ghostly voices, and photographing images that may or may not be some time-displacement issue, seeing a bottle filling up with inky liquid for no discernible reason and certainly not connecting to anything else in the film, or showing shots of blood drops run backwards. And then there are the extreme close-ups of rocks, and suddenly spitting out tar. You know, anything permissible under the rubric of "it's surreal", or "it's art" but far more likely "it's kinda like something David Lynch would do." Which might be justification for crafting a 20-minute student film, but not enough to try and pass it off as a feature film. I personally love complex films that make you work intellectually; but that's a far cry from incoherent, lazy film-making where nothing logically fits together however technically accomplished it might be in places. Considering its minuscule budget it is extremely well-done and uses its limitations wisely. Too bad there wasn't a thought-out screenplay that all of this could have been in service of.

I Kill Giants (2017)

A Warning for Discerning Viewers

[6/10 · 26 June 2018]

This review is only for the most discerning of viewers and the reason is simple; this is a very well-intentioned film, competently made with some extremely fine performances, and if that's enough to please a person they will likely enjoy this sincere little effort. But it also aspires to deal with deep issues in an inventive fashion and while I'd not say a discerning viewer should NOT see the film, I am saying a little forewarning might help temper your disappointment.

It's the kind of film which, after you settle into it (and if you've conscientiously watched a lot of other movies) you realize it holds no surprises. You can predict the moment a character is introduced (the "bully" or the "new friend" etc) exactly how that's going to play out, almost beat-to-beat. You know the ending before you're anywhere close. There were absolutely no surprises in this film for me because it's very earnestness tipped its hand that it also wasn't going to risk telling me anything surprising or unpleasant. This is a movie that introduces anger into its characters but doesn't really want to deal with pain. That treats a damaged psyche and serious mental illness like something that can be "fixed" with a little sleep and a change of wardrobe. Oh, and hearing the right bit of wisdom at the right time.

This is a sweet little film that doesn't want to face reality or consequences even though that's often where the real depth and truths lie. That doesn't make it a bad film - it is not - it just prevents it from being a great one.

A Sound of Thunder (2005)

Another Failed Time Travel Film

[2/10 · 22 June 2018]

I love time travel movies - although it's probably fairer to say I love the idea of time travel movies because I am usually frustrated at how they are so frequently poorly done. I don't expect the filmmakers to posit ground-breaking theorems that would realistically explain HOW time travel works, I just expect them to be logical and careful as they play in the arena. I was shocked I had missed this film - based as it is on the seminal Bradbury short story that explored (and coined) the butterfly effect of alterations in the past having repercussions in the future. But this film is a blandly soggy mess; seemingly the product of some serious over-development as a clever short story was forced into all the "hit film" boxes the producers could check off. Part Sci Fi, part Indiana Jones, part Jurassic Park; but what they left out of the equation were logic and intelligence. A little research turned up the production problems that resulted in the horrible digital effects (basically just pre-viz or old video game quality) so I won't trash them further (although in ANY world the actors painfully "fake-walking" in place while the green screen image scrolls behind them would be laughable) but the blatantly stupid way the whole butterfly effect is dealt with ("Time Waves will look cool!" someone must have said) and having first rate actors spew third rate dialogue does nothing but condemn the film to the heap of Time-Travel failures. I bet the director and actors wish they had a time machine so they could go back and reconsider their involvement with this.

Psychopaths (2017)

Visuals in Support of Nothing

[4/10 · 22 June 2018]

Sadly, another well made film by Mickey Keating that is ultimately disappointing (following Darling and Carnage Park and POD - but that was a super low budget first film so the positives outweighed the negatives in that case). Keating has an excellent visual eye, and this film is nothing if not a testament to the skills of it's editing, but it is all in the service of absolutely nothing. And even though I personally prefer films that are intelligent, offer new insights and observations within their genre, and approach their subjects with depth, I can still sit back and enjoy movies that seek only to entertain. And during the first half hour of this film I was willing to cut it a lot of slack, even though it announced its conspicuous lack of depth with the line "There ain't no why to evil" and a faceless narrator whose ramblings skirt perilously close to "crap happens". But regardless of the "hook" the film hangs it's narrative on there is no story to speak of and no characters of any depth or real interest even though many of them are given monologues that frequently serve no purpose except adding to the run-time. Keating is too influenced by other directors so there are extended sequences of figures dancing against black or performing old songs in the white light of a stage spotlight (thank you Mr. Lynch) or too-sleazy characters (a totally unbelievable police officer) who gets to have a lengthy, profanity laced monologue saying nothing worth listening to and punctuated by beating another character (an attempt at Tarantino?). Plot? Narrative? Follow-through? Anything??? He doesn't even develop the idea he started with as his hook. You watch the film without engagement, succumbing to frustration that you wasted your time and the director wasted an opportunity to make a good film. And at the end everything dribbles away and we're supposed to see that as clever because the unseen and omnipotent narrator apologizes if it was all "too ambiguous". Keating obviously needs to spend more time re-writing and polishing his screenplays (or find himself a co-writer who will push him toward creative AND coherent), but there is still no reason for the slew of improbabilities and impossibilities that litter the film even if the director's excuse would be "it's supposed to be stylized", such as a character doused in gasoline who wrestles with another man holding a lit cigarette, before taking out a lighter and using it to ignite even more gas - all without attracting a spark. And tossing the fingerprint-laden metal lighter into the fire. Those fingerprints would remain. Or the fact that the same record album contains stylistically divergent music by completely different artists, or an officer is going door to door at 4:30 in the morning and greets a woman with "I hope I didn't wake you". And that same officer's hair (especially if it's a period film as all the accouterments suggest), and the way characters react around a very public crime scene etc etc etc. This film is almost enough to make me give up on Mr. Keating eventually producing a successful film. But I have nothing, if not hope; which is why I turned this on in the first place.

Fate (VI) (2016)

I Tried...I Really Tried

[1/10 · 13 May 2018]

I understand the limitations of low budget filmmaking, and I search actively for those efforts that rise above their constrictions, so - though difficult - I tried to get past the flat digital photography (where half the time you can't tell if it's supposed to be day or night) and the poor sound, poor sound effects and even worse sound mixing; let alone an amateurish score that works way too hard - sometimes the cues are almost painful (did the composer think this was a parody?). But with the addition of one dimensional, villainous government agents who repeatedly espouse exposition among themselves while all but twirling their mustaches (as the music dramatically screams "BAD GUYS!"); the uninspired, mediocre acting and the clichéd, clunky or overtly obvious dialogue where things are said because they were written, not because a human would say them in that situation (case in point; after a breakthrough in the creation of time travel a character exclaims with little enthusiasm "that's amazing" and then they go about their business as if there are no real ramifications to creating time travel) but all these negatives made it impossible to continue subjecting myself to the film. I'm sure the filmmakers meant well but they started with a script that reeks of having been written based on a screenwriting course as opposed to an understanding of complex human beings in complex situations. Note: If you are depicting highly intelligent people you can't just have them spew random info copied from a textbook and then have them behave as if they have no idea of the import of their own actions or their situations. I tried, I really tried, but I expect at least believable characters behaving in a believable manner to compensate for the deficiencies in cinematography, sound, and the particularly horrid production design. Maybe there was a good plot waiting to eventually show up, but I honestly couldn't suffer through more than forty minutes, so I couldn't tell you. And I have no faith that, even if there was, these filmmakers could have depicted it in a fashion worth watching.

The Square (2017)

Welcome to the Jungle

[7/10 · 13 May 2018]

A clever, and insightful, but somewhat meandering, social satire that, in hindsight, feels more like a series of vignettes loosely connected by the films protagonist, a well-known museum curator. The satirical sections that focus on the Modern Art world are dead on, although with, perhaps too much restraint. For the most part they are so understated you might find yourself wondering if the filmmakers were intentionally being satiric; except for, obviously, the film's high-point "Welcome to the Jungle" - both its most humorous and chilling sequence - which literally has a punchline at the end. It could easily be argued the film is worth watching for this section alone. Primarily concerned with how individuals interact with society and the world around them, scenes often play out with the camera focused on one character's reaction as opposed to the action, or conversation, occurring off-screen. This can be a disorienting choice, and, at times, confusing, yet undoubtedly all that is intentional. But be warned, the film will make no attempt to tie up all its lose ends: some characters just drop out of sight, storylines are left dangling and the movie just comes to a stop as opposed to having a real climax. You can be left feeling poked and prodded by the film for having watched it, as opposed to rewarded. But, hey, it's Art.