M85ALIVE Reviews

The Shift (II) (2023)

Good, visually, but a messy, confusing story.

[3/10 · 7 May 2024]

Visually, I can't complain, well shot, well lit, lots of production design, streets had to be closed off, extras hired, costumes, locations, art design, and so much more to bring this to the screen. Well done, it is not easy. I made a short film not so long ago and I know a little about how difficult that can be, my hat is off to all involved, great work. I also loved the scene where Kevin and his future wife met at the bar, that felt natural and fun.

I honestly couldn't get into the film, get invested in the main character. I have no issue with christianity being involved, if it's well written and involves christian values, I'm in. I'm a christian of faith...but I need a coherent, compelling, interesting film. This had elements of that, but it didn't quite get there...

The main character isn't someone I really bought or got invested in...

In the setup, Kevin gets hit by a car, by Satan, he is told that he has been transported to another dimension, away from his wife, Kevin tries to call his wife but satan says there's no point and Kevin just believes him...he just got punched in the face by him and then told "im here to help you" clearly he isn't to be trusted. If that were me Id call my wife and if it didn't work Id find a way home, not go for dinner with this guy, why on Earth does he just willingly go for dinner with him...because the plot needs him to. Plus, Kevin is Christian at this point and he asks Satan to transport some innocent woman to another world...that's not very Christian like...maybe just give him the benefit of the doubt for now and not ruin someone's life, I couldn't believe that.

Kevin rids satan from the world through prayer, that's it? It feels so unearned, it makes satan seem like a weak antagonist, it'd be a nice twist if he went away by his choice that fed into his overall plan for some reason, that'd be something. The other thing is, because Kevin doesn't try to go home and see his wife and find out she isn't there in a sense, we don't viscerally experience his loss and the payoff of that, we just cut to him 5 years later, it's just not as compelling as it could of been, we just have to assume it was bad, in our minds, this is a visual story medium, show it, let me experience how bad it is for him in order to really care.

Then we learn about satan and his plans to transport people through different dimensions, switching alternate versions of people for the sake of chaos. Now, in the bible, if I'm not mistaken, satan does act with that sort of motivation, but for the sake of story, it's not very interesting, just to cause chaos. There never really is more to him than that. I saw in an interview with the director that he used the book of Job as a sort of jumping off point and brought in his own story, this needed a more fleshed out antagonist. Plus, we don't see that chaos that he implements take effect. There is the post apocalyptic world Kevin is in and I guess that was his doing, it's just not that interesting, how many times have we seen a world like this?

The other main thing is, nothing matters really strongly to Kevin. This is because in the second act, he isn't relentless in his goal, he isn't pro active, he splits his time to writing the word of God by memory, helping the homeless and looking at his wife on the screen, go to the supermarket for food.

Kevin isn't very smart, he's in the cinema chair looking for his wife, sees her but goes out of the boundary and is told not to in order to lose the signal. He does the exact same thing when, miraculously, he finds her again...again I ask, does he really want to find her? Movie...you're not selling it to me on the main character.

A great character will relentlessly pursue a goal to get what matters most in spite of death, they'd rather die than lose what matters most. Kevin doesn't do that at all, so I wasn't invested in him at all. In fact, his friend is more savvy, he gets one of those wrist devices, he dies and Kevin just picks it up and transports himself to get to his wife.... REALLY? This is the main character. I never bought he really wanted to get back to his wife because of the characters actions...actions speak louder than words. That's the other thing, the ending isn't satisfying. Great endings are like job promotions...you have to earn them. I never felt Kevin really went through all that much to feel satisfied when he got a family in the end, what did he have to overcome, really endure to get his family back. We heard him feel defeated but I didn't viscerally experience that raw endurance. Remember In The Shawshank redemption when Andy escaped. He went through hell in that prison and you could experience it and feel the satisfaction when he got out.

The other thing is, when Kevin speaks about Job, he spoils the ending of the film, he goes through extreme testing but gets his family back in the end and more...just like this film, saw that coming. Great.

I will give the film this, I did like that they brought back the waitress and that Kevin had to choose her life back of he be with his wife...put compelling things on that level in the second act. I felt like he cared more about her than his wife, you know why, because I experienced him not being able to get his real wife back. You can feel the sacrifice.

Why is he transcribing the bible and giving it to his friend to bring to the south of the city? It doesn't do anything, it's not paid off, set up well and it detracts from making Kevin compelling as a character, why isn't he out there trying to get the wrist device at any cost and get back to his wife????

Who cares about pages of the bible? Mr writer of this film, you told me, what matters most to this guy is getting back to his wife, why is he writing out the bible and wasting his time not looking for his wife, I'm saying this from a story perspective: setup, build, payoff. You setup that his wife matters most, the second act just gets messy when Kevin is doing many things in the plot..as Ridley Scott once said, "If your film is about more than one thing, it's about nothing at all" I don't know what this is about, overcoming evil for the sake of faith? Love for your partner knows no bounds? What? It just comes off as messy. I can't get invested. I don't know what to REALLY care about.

Good writers come up with interesting scenes, which there are some here. ....Great writers figure out their objectives, they find scenes to serve those objectives so that it's simple, specific, clear, compelling and memorable. I wanted this in this movie but it was just jumbled, trying to go in different directions.

A House Divided (II) (2020)

98% political arguing, 2% film. 0% interesting/compelling.

[23 April 2024]

This reminds me of of an angsty teenager who is a right winger and is fed up with the left's take on them and wants to prove them wrong. Now, don't get me wrong, I've nothing against either sides. They both have good ideas at times. I'm NOT criticising this film on a political level...but, are these the best left wing characters to be against, the most educated, politically? I'm willing to bet there are people much more educated to take on the main characters, and I mean that in a nice way. If you're going for a 1hr 30min argument, I'd bet there are liberals who know much more and can challenge the arguments being made here, it'd make it much more interesting, because here, every single time, the left are ignorant and here come the right to set the record straight. It gets old real fast, no tension, nothing interesting, just a lesson in politics by the right..which is fine, but the same thing over and over, correction after correction after correction,

So, the main characters, the couple, they spend their time at the dinner party correcting the left wing guests on their take on certain events and opinions....who cares? So what? What does that do for them...there are literally millions of people like that. Why is it so meaningful for these characters to spend all the time in this film correcting them? They don't seem like real close friends and they have to change their opinions because if not some major important event will effect their meaningful relationship -- -- no! It's not. This whole thing is just an excuse for the filmmakers to get on their soap box and set their story straight. Why should I care about this, as a viewer? There are no stakes if they don't. They're just doing it because it came up in conversation and goes on and on and on and on.

Visually, it's just shot, reverse shot, the only reason I stuck around was: "Something has to happen that's compelling, right? They can't do this the whole time, can they?" I thought to myself.

There have to be legitimate left wing points, there has to be, that can challenge right wing ideologies? All the left here come off as ignorant and it feels one sided. I'm not siding with either, I just want to see a fair argument, if that's all there is to this "film" but now, they all come off as "you right wingers are this, you think and do this" and then they're proven wrong. It's kind of embarrassing as a movie. It doesn't seem fair.

I think the intention could have been good here, but it just devolved into the right is ....well, right and the left are deluded, and that is just not interesting, compelling or meaningful. It could be in the right context, but it's just so on the nose here, no storytelling, no interesting characters, just voices for one side or the other. Pity. It doesn't feel earned, splurge out a load of facts and there you have it.

What would of made this somewhat compelling is, the main characters and their left wing friends are great friends despite their politics, show their bond with each other, a life long one, one that means the world to all of them. They're like family despite their beliefs, then, show how the politics, for some reason, are about to destroy their relationship, now I might care about this story. But no. The film ends with a convenient payoff, the right wing gets what they want, his liberal friend is convinced. It just feels forced, un-earned, and not meaningful.

Concrete Plans (2020)

Concrete plans, with no solid foundation.

[2/10 · 3 March 2024]

There is a good idea in here, I think, where money can drive you to act in ways that's not you, where it can take your humanity even when you're trying to just get what's yours and do what you thought was right. The problem is, the structure to this story is messy, the characters are inconsistent, some of them. The setup is bland and doesn't make me really care because a lot of the important context to try and make me care, isn't compelling.

Opening scene for owner, the dialogue is so expository, and doesn't feel natural, i felt like they were speaking in a way to tell me, the viewer context i needed to know, felt unmotivated. His financial assistant has presumably arrived way earlier to his house, and you're telling me they wait till they're sparring to talk business? No.

I don't really care about any of the characters. The Ukrainian guy, yeah, he is sending money back to his daughter, very kind and all that. We don't see his daughter, their relationship, what happens if she doesn't get the money? Is she living a poor life back home, how is life for her, what does the father - daughter relationship feel like, show me so I can care. Too much time is needlessly spent setting up characters with all this context about inheritance, warehouse robberies(no payoff there btw), a renovation to a barn...a renovation to a barn...who cares? I don't. Why would I care about the owner and his inheritance? The film is filled with too much needless backstory and not enough essential context. Who is the main character? What's their goal? What's at stake if they don't achiever their goal, and why, why do those stakes matter? Why, to this character, are those stakes so bad on an emotional level? Without that, I just don't care, because I'm not being shown why I should care. All these characters aren't going to get paid (side note,

Will, I don't know if you're reading this, but if you are, I watched a lecture you did in Ravensbourne Uni back in 2015 and you mentioned that you had difficulty with different types of feedback from the BBC on your scripts, from producers, directors, script editors. They were all experiencing a different script than you intended it to be, that's what it sounds like. I've heard about this so often, and I really don't know what this film is about nor who it's about, and that is mainly because you're not writing in compelling conflict, and it goes back to what I mentioned above, lack of essential context.

The great thing about compelling conflict is, it delivers essential context in an engaging, organic, and compelling way that can make me care, engage me and tell me who the main character is, what's at stake, what their goal is to overcome the stakes and why those stakes matter to the main character...and I just didn't care about anyone in this film.

Because this film lacks that, I never felt the film launched, who I was meant to care about, what's at stake, that is why it's confusing and different people may experience a different movie, just like you experienced from producers, directors etc. The home owner, the guy who is going to lose his inheritance, he has more compelling stakes than the builders, because he loses something, the builders' status quo really doesn't change, they got their money half way through.

That's why this film is so confusing, who is the main character? The one with the most essential context, and the home owner has more compelling stakes. This is why, Will, when people read your scripts, they all give you different notes, you essential context isn't specific to one character. I don't think you intended the home owner to be the main character and yet at points he feels like it. If the builders stop and do nothing, stop pursuing their goal, they don't get paid, and they don't get paid if they keep working, then there's a goal switch? To steal the money.

The other reason this film is very confusing is, at the 43min mark there is a goal change. The first goal launched early on, to renovate the barns, very un-compelling and if they don't come in on time they'll be fined, who cares? It's just not grabbing me on any level. It's also not a goal to overcome any steaks that are setup, it's implied that will not be payed, but again, who cares, and it does feel like the film has sort of launched because the owner makes a big deal about it being done and being done on time, he's very passionate about finishing it on time, understandably, so he seems more driven than anyone else, so he seems like the main character. Then, when the money isn't coming to them, they switch goals, to get the money, this isn't an escalation because when the builders escalate back by beating up the owner, the goal does not continue (to renovate the barns) and during the beating they steal his money, because they already got the money in the bag outside the owner's room, goal achieved, pretty much, for most of the characters (not Bob, so is he the main character? But then the Ukrainian need to help his daughter, maybe he's supposed to be? So confusing), they achieved their goal, story over...but the film continues, so now we're in a new story. It's now about covering up a death, then it's about killing each other, nothing to do with the money, but because the nephew tried to have his way with the woman, then it's a cat and mouse game with Jim and the Ukrainian and the woman, it's so meandering. What is this film about, there is no consistency in relation to the plot.

This is bad structure. Again, Will, this is why, by my understanding, other people, when they read your scripts, they all gave you different notes, your structure is confusing (multiple goals, some to prevent stakes and some not), confused at times as to who the main character is, and your characters don't feel real but are there to serve your plot, forced exposition etc.

The card thing, where the person with the worst cards takes the rap for the owner's death feels so forced that everyone will play along. This is where you're forcing your characters for the sake of the plot. I don't believe for a second they'd all do this, after watching Jim beat the man to death, or so they think at the time, that he's dead. These characters have become puppets to serve the plot and have stopped being real people, in my opinion.

They all help bury the owner alive.

2 scenes earlier, some were arguing that they should take him to A&E and now they're all helping to bury him? Nothing has changed to change their actions, choices like that. Again, plot forcing characters to do things they wouldn't do, they feel like puppets. Now we're back to the goal of covering up the murder, all these goal switches are what is confusing the viewer. This is multi story film, with different goals, reasons, stakes...and, as Ridley Scott once said, "if your film is about more than one thing, it's about nothing at all."

I really am not trying to sound mean or be mean at all. I just think that constructive, to the point feedback is needed in this case. I was in a writers group with professionals for over 3 years (I'm still an amateur) and I got this sort of feedback week in and week out on my short scripts. I know what it's like and i know how valuable it is.

Dublin Crust (2023)

fun idea, weak execution

[4/10 · 1 March 2024]

Dublin Crust definitely has a great idea somewhat, in the sense of a band that gets back together and finds new life in themselves, a sense of excitement. The big problem is it's not set up, launched or paid off well at all, and that's down to quite a few issues in the storytelling.

Firstly, in the setup we see the main character rob a shop, get arrested and go to jail for a few years, and it has pretty much no need to be there, nor does the drug issue, it really has no bearing on the plot. It is mentioned near the end of the film as a potential escalation to the band touring, but we don't experience any of that, so, again, no need to be there, wasted screen time.

When the film is in the second act, it fails to launch, in the sense it is missing some major context, there are no stakes driving the plot. If the band fail to start their band, play a gig and tour, they don't lose anything, nothing of any consequence comes to pass, they end up where they already were. The reason that isn't good is because the characters can essentially just keep trying at getting the band going to get what they want. It's not gonna hurt to try again and again, no price to pay for trying again, so there's no threat, no tension.

This story needed the main character really suffer in some way related to something that really was personal to their core and played a part in the plot, like if his passion is drumming and play in a punk band, what if he was outed by the Dublin scene and called a fake to Punk underground, gets in an accident, hits his head and can't keep rhythm no matter how much he practices, gets kicked out of his band.

His true calling in life has been destroyed, and it's been destroyed by something beyond his control, and things get worse and worse from there, something happens beyond his control and he cant pick up his sticks with his left hand, I'm just spitballing, but he is not going to stop and he is going to be in this band a tour the country/world as a brilliant drummer somehow...now I'm interested...see the difference? Things like that, where someones most core fear in life ever comes to pass and escalates, that is how you grab a viewer and make them care. The character being homeless and having cancer, they are awful things but they don't bear anything on the plot, the latter does feel awful and does stop their goal, it does have subtle hints to it with his coughing every now and again and that was nice, it could work, it just coming so late, it was hard to feel its impact, see it effect him physically and mentally, emotionally through the film and test his resolve to get what he wants.

The whole film felt like it had a plot, it ended and I didn't feel it was saying anything meaningful to really impact me, plot for the sake of a plot and not serving a meaningful story, which is a shame, because the punk movement grew out of so much feeling, rebelling against the system and things like that. After I watched this, I thought, what did all that plot serve? Make me experience? Playing in a band is fun? There's nothing meaningful that the plot is serving. Good writers outline, great writers figure out their objectives, what they want the viewer to meaningfully experience, then they explore the best events to serve that experience, so that the plot is impactful and memorable.

Moments of Darkness (2020)

Laced focus in terms of the story, nothing compelling.

[1/10 · 9 February 2024]

I had to give up on the film half way through. Unfortunately the film had no real direction, just the main character wandering around, getting a job, trying to be a boxer, catching up with his sister. Scenes like these can work in a film if the deliver a consistent experience and come together in a manner where you collectively feel something unified, but it's just simply scene after scene in such a mundane manner with no real point, meaning, direction, and I had to give up at the half way mark, sorry. It desperately needed a stronger point to what this all meant to make it meaningful. There was no conflict either to hold my interest and make me wonder what is going to happen next. Overall, it had potential but lacks any strong storytelling elements.

Rising Free (2019)

1 star for the view

[1/10 · 28 November 2023]

My hat is off for the location scout on this film, wow. The landscapes in this film would fit in any big budget Drama, seriously impressive. My hat is not off to everything else, unfortunately. Mediocre plot with nothing interesting or unique, awful acting, lofty dialogue that is pretentious.

One thing among many that bothers me. When the father and brothers grab their guns in the 3rd act to get blonde guys lover, why did they shoot with their shotgun from miles away instead of surrounding them and ambushing the men? So dumb. I just would of wished a great story with great actors were put in these lovely locations. Shame.

God's Creatures (2022)

Baffling script: multiple set ups, things happening out of nowhere, no payoff in the end

[3/10 · 22 August 2023]

There are two stories to be told in God's creatures. The first is where Brian, with the help of his mother, Eileen, are trying to re launch their family oyster farm. Great, love it. Brian comes home and wants to make something for himself. They both takes risks to achieve their goal, stealing oyster bags and poaching salmon late at night. Then you have the escalation that the oysters are infected with a fungus, comes out of nowhere so not the best event, why not have a drunk guy on a speed boat randomly crash into the farm?

The fact that Brian is violent and would assault and r- word a woman comes out of nowhere. It's never clear that he could have the potential to do this.

Remember in the film, Drive. Remember when he bashes that gangster's face in in the elevator? That was set up, he threatened to kick a guy's teeth in if he didn't leave him alone near the beginning, in the diner. This film needed something like that.

Then about the hour mark, a file of assault and rape is made against Brian and Eileen has to cover for him and lie in court. This is all great, but we're now in a second story, totally unrelated to everything that has been set up.

Writers, you told me, based on the setup what the story was going to be about, you've lied to me, it's now about something else, an hour in you switch gears to a completely new goal. Why? Which is it? Why has the oyster farm gone out the window? What was the point of that? To pad the run time?

We experience that Brian means a lot to Eileen based on their bonding and the fact that she lied for him multiple times. I like that the lies escalate when it goes from the questioning room to the court, on oath...but again, this is a second film.

"If your film is about more than one thing, it's about nothing at all." - Ridley Scott.

So, out of nowhere he loses the plot on his father after Paddy's funeral. We are now in the second story about a legal case against Brain and the goal to cover it up by Eileen.

...and then Brian drowns, so now, any potential stakes are completely gone. What the hell is happening? I really am baffled no one stepped in and said anything in pre production. No one from A24, a producer? No one? My gosh. Such a shame. This was shot in Killybegs, near where I live, my dad used to work there. I was SOO excited for this. It had potential, great acting by Emma Watson and Paul Mescal, shot pretty well, just not structured tightly at all.

Older Gods (2023)

Had potential, but was unfortunately vague and lack lustre.

[4/10 · 1 August 2023]

I do like the effort this small crew and cast put into this, my hat if off to their efforts, with all the photos, evidence/CSI type stuff, newspaper stuff, not easy at all.

It does have its moments, visually, not bad, not amazing but still nice enough. The special effects with the scars and what not were very impressive and realistic, and so was the CGI effects.

My main issues is the script. Chris' goal: to find evidence the cult was real.

I get that it's for Chris to shed his guilt and be square with Billy, but it's forgettable because it's explained late in the film in a throwaway line and we don't experience the bond Chris had with Billy and the subsequent falling away of their relationship to feel the motivation.

He has to prove the cult is real, to who? Billy mentions the disbelievers, who, that's important context, and it never goes anywhere. He's dead and already believes in it. Why wasn't it for Billy's mother, to put her mind at ease and also Billy's, that would of made some sense. Billy was seen as mad, so why didn't he try to clear Billy's name, something impactful.

In the end, Chris meets Billy in a dream like cottage scenario, that's fine, but the problem is, it's not impactful or memorable, because that ending wasn't earn, great endings need to be earned. The whole film had very tame moments against Chris, no specific escalations against what he wanted to make the ending feel earned.

Billy says that Chris doesn't have to feel guilty about anything but if he proves his research as legitimate (to who?) then they're square with each other....which is it? Is he in Billy's good books or not?

It took till nearly the last 10 mins for anything impactful to the main character to happen, you need to put that at the beginning of the second act. You might be saying: "Where can you go from there?". Well, that's why writing is so tricky. I remember hearing in an interview with the Coen brothers about their writing process, when they come up with escalations for the main character, if they can find a way for them to get out of an escalation in less than 2 weeks, they they throw that out and try again. That's one of many reasons their films are so impactful and memorable.

The fact that his friend went all the way to Bosnia makes him the more compelling character than the actual main character, who just is in a cottage putting photos on a wall, it's so lack lustre. And what is "real" in terms of a cults existence? What specifically does he need to find, there is evidence of it all around him, it's not a compelling struggle. This makes the whole film vague, real to one person might not be real to someone else. Is it that the cult had an official leader? A registered manifesto somewhere that he needs to find? The cult has paranormal evidence behind it? And is it proof for Chris himself? For his doubters? Billy's mother? It's all so vague. It needs to be a specific thing.

He's basically doing the goal of Billy, fact checking the believers, nihilistic people and giving it to the people who thought Billy was mad. But that goal would be more fitting if it was Billy as the main character.

With Chris, he doesn't have as much to overcome, it's not him who is labelled as mad and wants to clear his name and be recognised as someone who studied something tangible and real as billy puts it. We don't experience Billy's reputation ruined or his mother being hounded by people for her "mad son", if that had of been the case, I'd of felt the motivation of Chris to verify this cult.

Had Billy's mother of called up Chris, desperate, she's a broken woman because her son died of mysterious circumstances in the middle of nowhere. Chris is confused and angry and guilty about not being there and us having experienced how good friends they were, and now wants answers to proof he died for something meaningful.

Chris needed to be way more pro active in his goal, it really isn't his goal, he's been asked to do it on someone else's behalf instead of Chris taking it upon himself to try and earn his friends forgiveness, it's just not compelling as it could of been.

The most powerful thing was the director's real experience of wanting to see his sick friend for the last time and not being able to and them dying without him being able to see them, that was more compelling than the whole film, why, WHY didn't he make a film directly about that, you can see in the film he had access to a hospital bed, WHY?????

With Chris, I don't experience the guilt and weight of how he feels to get on board and want to see him relentlessly try to achieve his goal. I would have, had I experienced how much Billy meant to him and experience Chris not being there when he died. Then I'd be on board. It just needed a few scenes. Shame.

It would of been cheaper, probably, easier and WAY more compelling than this film.

Had the film been about Chris trying to save his friend from dying (which leans into the cults ideology about meaninglessness and going to meet the God they serve) in the cult would of brought immediate stakes, escalations where the cult would stop Chris from saving his friend....it was begging for that.

We don't experience the bond he had with Billy, to feel his motivation to pursue his goal, all it needed was a couple of scenes. You had the actors together in a scene near the end, why didn't you show us their bond and then have it fall away and FEEL THE GUILT Chris felt. It's hard to get invested with this film, and with a goal that seems to have no reward, no focus, meander, no escalations against it, the man who wants the goal achieved is dead and he gives no reason as to why he wants it achieved, it's all very confusing.

The actor playing Chris, his American accent comes in and out, very inconsistent and barely American, some points he sounds like he's from England, then sort of American, it's odd and distracting. He's wasn't great with his performance, shame because he really seemed enthusiastic in his interview on the production YouTube channel.

The cinematography where Chris calls friends mum was very nice. I did like that. It felt very genuine and heartfelt. To me, it was the best scene in the film. Great job there.

But then he goes to the forest and listens to Billy about the cult and that it would perform killings and that their God would feed off of this suffering. How is any of this provable? You essentially have a goal, for Chris, that isn't provable, his goal isn't achievable. So what is the point of all this? How can you prove a God exists? All the subjects of the cult are mentally not well. How is the viewer supposed to get on board with a character who has a goal that is impossible to achieve? Proving God and verifying claims from mentally ill people? How? But, on the flip side, if it's simply about proving the cult simply existed, there's already loads of proof, so there is no need for any goal? ....I'm so confused.

When Chris' wife calls him. It has no bearing on the plot, she tells him things he already would know, so it's inorganic and just for the viewer.

Billy says that people from the cult, 1000's of miles away all quote scripture written about the same imaginary being? Maybe because of the internet....go back further, the bible allowed that to happen and that existed 1000's of years ago.

If Billy says the god is "imaginary" then how can all this be verifiable. Again, this goal is not achievable, this story will not work under the context provided.

The escalation where someone from the cult broke in and took things, stalked him, just wasn't compelling enough, steal all his research papers, that would be impactful. It really was pulling it's punches, you need to start big and go bigger from there, very tame. The "mysterious person standing by the house, breaks in" is such a cliche that it had no impact for me, i didn't lean in and go "what is Chris going to do now?"

Halfway through and there really hasn't been any conflict, any escalation against the main character, too much telling and exposition from characters, on and on and on, it really drags. The main reason for conflict is to deliver essential context to the viewer, and thus, without that, no wonder it becomes a muddled film at this point. Why is Chris here? What does he stand to gain? I do not see how getting embroiled in a cult will help him ease his guilt over his dead friend. It's just so muddled at this point.

In fact, after the halfway point, the cult and the man in black encourage him to practice the cults actions, opening up people, it's getting easier for him to see that it's a real cult, easier for him to achieve his goal, it should be the other way around. It's quite bizarre, I don't think I've ever seen a film where it gets easier for the protagonist to achieve their goal. The leader invites him to be blessed or his wife will take his place, it's not an escalation specific to the goal that was set up, it should be harder for him to verify it's a cult, again as I said, not easier.

Billy's experience going home from Bosnia sounds way more compelling than Chris'. Why wasn't the film about that? He was a way better actor as well, full of energy and charisma. He can emote in such a convincing way.

What about the God, wasn't it about to wake? Where's the payoff to that? That could of been compelling.

Honestly, the most compelling thing about his film was the voice of Jonathan Keeble, his voice has such an ominous presence, you get so sucked into what he is saying.

I was excited for this film, cult in the middle of nowhere had such potential. If the script got as much attention as everything else it might of been good.

I feel like David watched 'The Empty Man' and made this off of that. If so, great. If not, David, go watch that film, it is a GREAT film about a man investigating a cult because of a missing person he cares about and he REALLY goes down a rabbit hole and discovers something impactful. It's only on iTunes.

Notes from Melanie (2019)

Un-compelling nature to it.

[2/10 · 7 June 2023]

I love Chris and his passion and charisma. He is truly a genuine guy who loves to talk about and make movies. But this short just didn't hit the mark at all.

The entire short hinges on the producer giving notes, right? And the writer's goal is to pitch an idea that is good enough to....what? What's the payoff? Getting someone to agree to something that doesn't hold the key to the payoff is a big mistake because we'll never see the final payoff, good or bad, to that goal.

From someone not in the exec position doesn't guarantee any success, it's a false win in the end, how do we actually know he has a script that is a success? Just because she, a low level producer says so? No? It's a false stepping stone achievement, there is no satisfying payoff, maybe that is why it's so underwhelming.

There are sort of status quo stakes for him as well, as in, if he fails his goal he doesn't really lose anything.

The reason they're uncompelling, I think is, the character can just essentially keep trying because there's nothing to lose, no price to pay, thus there is no real tension to any of it, unfortunately.

It is so un-compelling, especially someone where we cant see the payoff of his story idea, and it's stepping stone to something more compelling, actually making the film they want to launch their career as a writer.

It would of been great to see him be ridiculed by critics etc. And now have him take on the head of the studio instead to make something great and meaningful. Have her in the story for like a minute as a reminder to him how successful she is and an inspiration to him in his goal to pitch his idea to the exec's.

So, the more compelling thing was this guy rising out of the ashes of his hackneyed and borrowed ideas and making something great, the goal here is so boring and initial, beginning steps to that end goal.

It's like watching a film where John Mc laine goes through some obstacles to get to the limo that will take him to the Nagasaki building and then the film ends....no, show us him do the thing, take down the terrorists.

Show this guy actually take his great script and convince the executive producers to green light something great all the while knowing he is a hack, and have the stakes of he will be black listed if they don't like it. There's no stakes in this short. This goal of his is so beginning step in the long line of movie making and un-compelling, it just drags like hell.

If the interview of hers "threw me for a loop" show that, him in his office watching it and that be the start of the film. Montage of him writing a great script, his agent get him a meeting in a big studio, call Melanie and then she shows up as he's on his way to pitch to a legit studio. Then the main bit be him pitch a story to exacs who know how bad he is and if they don't hear something amazing, he's blacklisted, never work again in Hollywood.

Salt and Fire (2016)

What?

[2/10 · 24 May 2023]

Bizarre nonsensical plot, no experience of the events depicted from the plot synopsis. All exposition.

I can say that Michael Shannon is a damn professional, , I love that man, he's trying, but my God, MY GOD, the dialogue is the most bizarre, lofty, confusing, unintentionally funny at times. Who talks like this??? WHO?

It's like if a 16 year old did a philosophy crash course and a crash course on screenwriting and was really into the environment and man's impact on it, this is what they would make. Honestly, this is embarrassing. Can you imagine being at TIFF and seeing this, looking over at the person you're with and having that awkward look on your face and thinking "How did this get in?"

Doors (I) (2021)

One good idea in here, no compelling payoff.

[2/10 · 1 April 2023]

Stakes are quite late to be established, not done in the set up.

The opening sequence isn't necessary and the same context is delivered later. Why did she go in as a knocker if she's pregnant? Seems stupid if her bf went in as well. Why did they not get out when warned, weren't there precautions to stop the entities getting out?

Really suffers from pacing issues when they get stuck in the door (and we don't actually experience the stakes of them being stuck and seeing them try to overcome this) then it cuts to some man in the forest slowly going outside to turn on his analysis machine of one of the doors. What happened to the Knockers? Why aren't we still on them?

It's way too late in the story to learn what it wants, what the stakes are, that the door can kill, that it intends to archive humanity, which is terribly underwhelming. Why should we care that they want to document us? How is that interesting? Lack of proper set up, pacing issues where it leaves the characters we were following, and it's only at the end we learn the boring intentions so that it has no chance to go anywhere potentially interesting, if that was anyway possible...maybe that's why the writers put it at the end, terrible writing.

Though I think I know what might of happened, was this a failed pilot and episode 2 that was squashed together to make a """"feature script"""? That's structurally what it felt like. In fact, it also felt like the first third of a film, by the end we get all the essential context (who, why, what, stakes etc.) so as to start the build of the story (Act 2). The whole film feels like act 1, so disappointing.

Then you had this overacting, wacky cop who shows up with a fake moustache, what was all that about? Lol. He shoots the woman's bf and she has no reaction to it, what is happening? My gosh!!!

All in all, weak set up, no real build and no payoff, just cuts to random new characters and an exposition dump at the end in a talking heads fashion with some cringy acting going on, so lazy and lack lustre by the end. Shame, had some interesting moments, with the knockers going in the door and it preying on their issues. They should of kept the whole film with those 3 and escalated their mental issues.

Two Days, One Night (2014)

Great performance from Marion, hits the ground running, but...

[6/10 · 23 January 2023]

It does get a little repetitive with the plot. Before I get to that, I love the fact that in the first few minutes of the film we get a sense of why losing her job is so bad...she is going to fully realise she does not exist, she is a nobody, something we can all relate to at some times. That is something we can all relate to and honestly, it's something that isn't set up early

enough in films..like, you have films where the character pursues their goal and for the most part of the film you're like "great, but why are you going this far, to these lengths, why does it mean this much to you?" but in this film we get that her job is something that makes her feel like a somebody, if only we got a scene to experience viscerally how that felt, that would of really elevated this film IMO.

The film is driven on an ongoing conflict where she had to sway the vote on choosing a bonus or keeping her as an employee in the business, which on paper seems really compelling and lots of potential for great conflict, especially given the fact someone in the firm spread lies that she needs to voted out. Right now I forget the exact detail. But that detail had such potential for many escalations in the ongoing conflict that drove the film.

Here's my problem, it gets repetitive, she goes to all the worker with the same spiel and their either agree or disagree for their own personal reasons and then she leaves, honestly, it gets boring. Had we of had the guy spreading lies about her getting involved in her pursuit....yes, I know, by the end we learn it was a lie, but at the time we, the viewer thought it was real, basically, the films suffers from a lack of escalations with the ongoing conflict, it all treads water and wasn't as compelling as it could be. I like that she had her moment of choice and pride at the end given the fact she was a victim for so long in the film.

Aftersun (II) (2022)

Authentic and heartfelt, but left wanting just a little more

[8/10 · 22 January 2023]

I loved a lot of what this film had to offer. From the amazing acting, the authentic dialogue, the realistic bond of father and daughter. I did love moments where we hang out and feel and experience exactly what it's like to be on holiday with a single parent, having experienced it myself personally.

I really felt the darker sense of the fathers issue start to bubble to the surface and I really wanted it to go further and effect things overall, but, that might effect the overall tone of the film, taking it in another direction, but I think that would of made it even more interesting.

At its heart, this is a hang out film. I was on board for most of it, but it got to a point where I wanted some conceptual elements to come in a lay out the stakes and drive a more meaningful, life altering plot for them both. It's like being given high quality wine and not having a proper wine glass in which to drink it. The film needed that "wine glass" to encapsulate and structure a compelling, driving element for these great characters to take it to another level, still pretty great though.

Papadopoulos & Sons (2012)

Had potential but pulled its punches in the predictable plot and really lacked any compelling elements and wasn't believable.

[4/10 · 16 January 2023]

My hat is surely off to Marcus for securing the actors he did and the overall look, locations and production design on such a minimal budget. He clearly has a mind for making big things happen from small beginnings.

The acting is not bad in parts, it has a charm to it, some nice cinematography, the camera isn't static, it moves when it needs in order to focus on what needs to be called attention.

My main issue that lets this down is the writing. The main problems with said writing are the stakes and the overall goal. The stakes never really feel threatening in way that really effects the main character. He is rich and seems from almost the get go, knows how to pretty easily overcome them. Those plans to overcome them never feel threatened, it never feels at any point in the film that it's going to be really hard to accomplish his goal, so I sat back and got a bit bored by the plot. Sorry Marcus, but you really pulled your punches and never put the character in the absolute worst situation at all to make this a compelling story. Maybe by now you realise this after nearly ten years but I thought I'd give my thoughts anyway as they stuck out like a sore thumb, unfortunately.

The ending is predictable, I thought of it about half way through. It doesn't explore anything interesting. You don't actually experience the setup plot to make the fish and chip business profitable. It has fair bit of padding and arbitrary scenes along with some cliched and cheesy ones too.

The arc of the main character feels forced when he comes around to wanting to own and run the shop despite never really experiencing him run the shop and try to make it work. The ending where he does the Greek dance and gives up the kebab doesn't feel real or believable at all, it all feels fake. I was imagining while this was going on a realistic version of how things would actually happen, such a shame given how passionate the writer/director was.

In terms of the stakes as I mentioned, while the part where the bank comes along and takes account of their belongings, that;s the extent of the visceral experience of the stakes, the rest is telling me how bad things are and cinema is a visual medium and after the home scene I never felt anything threatening so it really isn't a compelling film because of that.

Blackbird (II) (2022)

Michael "Flatline"

[2/10 · 17 December 2022]

I was pretty hyped to see this having heard it held the title of "so bad it's good" well, parts of it are laughable, like when one of the henchmen snaps the guys neck on the boat. When a scene is devoted to one of Michaels sidekicks giving him the appropriate hat for the upcoming scene.

One thing (among 100's) that really bothered me was, wherever there was a scene at night in the bar, you could hear this high pitched sound, like a house alarm. Perhaps it was an indigenous bird, or an actual faulty alarm in the premises and no one could locate it...who knows.

The elephant in the room is Michael's character. Now I believe he shopped his script around some studios to get funding to have it made. How did no one there, or no one in pre production mention the glaring problem with his character...he has no compelling goal, no goal at all for 90 percent of the film..come on.! How do you miss that? He literally says he's not going to get involved.

The plot is heavily contrived and spoken about how bad the stakes are and never the ominous feeling that those stakes could occur because it's a sort of stepping stone like event where they'd have to get the ring back, then alter the formula then release the formula to reek havoc, so convoluted and instead of feeling the weight of it your mind gets entangled in that mess of what I just said. Flatley, although he looks well for his age is not able to be an action star, which is why there is literally once scene where he fights and one where he """"fights""" in which he hides behind a boat and the make up department put blood on his face, and on his lovely Tom Ford white tuxedo jacket....that bothered me! Lol

Not laugh out loud it's bad, pretty boring, some chuckles, looks okay, awful acting. Eric Roberts isn't too bad in some scenes, looks like he's having fun, so good for him.

Some nice landscape shots.

Winifred Meeks (2021)

It's like the Shining.

[1/10 · 24 September 2022]

This film is like the Shining. I went completely mad watching this and really wanted to grab and axe and chop the living hell out of it. I couild only last thirty minutes of this and in that time there is literally no horror elements to it at all, even some terrible Horror movies I've seen can pull that off, establish the genre within the first ten minutes, this is so bland, i began to wander off in my mind and wonder what circumstances led to this lead actress agreeing to audition for this and accept to commit to the shooting. I felt sorry for her and I zoned out of the second phone call of her and her father whilst stock footage played.

The Lumber Baron (2019)

Interesting idea, but failed in the execution.

[3/10 · 20 September 2022]

Looks of the time in regards to the production design and the costumes. The acting is not terrible for the most part but not great either.

What let me down was the stakes and the goal for the main character. The stakes that are set up are that the family lumbar business is going to fail now that the man of the house has passed away...and there's this really weird scene in the beginning where the protagonist goes to his then alive father for help? Or something, he says he needs an extra year, and then, unprovoked, the father mentions how bad his son's suggestions are to the family business, really shoe-horned in to set up the fact he will have to try and manage the business. It's a confusing scene to say the least, as to what it's actually about.

The other thing that bothers me is, the main character's goal. In the second act, he spends about 35 mins playing the role of a regular lumber man when he is actually the owner, that's cool, lots of potential and really interesting. The problem is, we the viewer never get to see or experience what he learned, be used in his overall goal to save the business much, now, he does fire the foreman, but the main act that really brings the business into fruition is something the main character learned in his Grandfather's notebook, to bargain. So, it really felt like the whole second act was really wasted to pad the run time, because it's really the negotiating deals he learns from the notebook that get the company back in profit....so...the act of being a lumberman feel kind of pointless.

The overall stakes of the family business going bust never felt imminent. There is a lot of talk about how things are and never really the visceral experience to back it up to make it compelling. The details of getting the business back on track are not compelling either, some letters get sent and some discount given to buyers, handshakes are made and boom, stakes overcome. Just a let down.

It was really a let down with the plot of him being a lumberman, I feel like there was potential there to take the plot in an interesting direction, but oh well. Not here.

Sweet River (2020)

Poor setup, launch and payoff to what could have been a fairly compelling thriller/drama...but no, not a horror.

[4/10 · 19 May 2022]

Nice looking, well lit, acting for the most part was good, particularly the main character. She emoted pretty well.

What let it down was it lacked the experience of the bond between mother and son, and the experience of the police not doing their job, the event and stakes of not finding her son's body so we can get behind her and on board for her goal that doesn't happen till nearly an hour in and she goes to the location when the film opens.

We need all the essential context to understand and FEEL the need for her to find the body herself, it's hard to feel the need when all the context as to why she has to do this is told to us, how incompetent was the search for her child? What did that look like? How did she feel then? We need that experience to be on board with her. Because I don't, I was never with her.

There was a question as to why was it so concerning to harvest the field, it was launched early in the first act and then it's quite a while till it's payed off, too long, so long that I forgot the question existed, a small enough issue but significant enough.

The main character doesn't effect the plot much, just interviews people, gets stories, opinions, it's not a thrill ride i was hoping for, it's not terribly dramatic, we don't see any events that really move me, other than a quick flashback to the bus sinking, and to learn her neighbour was lying about the serial killer. I just feel like she didn't have to really work hard to get all the twists and info. She goes into a derelict house and finds the photo.

We don't experience just how bad her life is without her son's body to rest, it would have been awful and she would have been a nervous wreck. I feel like had we experienced the search for her son and him not being found and then saw how she felt and what she did in the aftermath I would have been more invested in her goal. She feels like the sister or cousin of the mother because of the lack of this.

She finds out that her temp neighbour's son is the serial killer who killed her son. In the flashback where the bearded man loses his son and he has a conflict with the protagonist about burning the field, that was pretty compelling enough.

That, that conflict, that context needed to be launched early in the second act and launch her goal to burn the field and come into escalating conflict over this throughout the second act. Instead the second act was mostly her wandering around and asking people stuff, so it really lacked the thrill and drama it needed to be, or could have been.

She burns the field, the policeman digs up the part where her son's shoelace was and he confirms her son's remains are there. Much like my issue with the set up, the payoff is not there, we don't get to see her bury her son and get the closure she needs, not that I yearned for the reward from the goal she has achieved anyway, such a pity. We don't even see the remains, see her have them taken away, what? This isn't an ending!! What a let down, ugh. I want to at least "swim in the waters" of her getting what she needed, her reward, closure, having her son buried, grieving and moving on, where did that go???

Also, this is supposed to be a horror? No, supernatural, maybe a little. Drama, sort of too, but in no way a horror.

The Bye Bye Man (2017)

All over the place.

[2/10 · 7 March 2022]

Watching this drivel, I thought of my experience and how it is like if you told a first year film student to make a film inspired by 'Nightmare on Elm Street'. This is so all over the place in terms of the rules, when the villain shows up and is it him doing it, are they just a bit paranoid and it's not really the BB man. There is no consistency and presence and compellingness to the villain . Its so bland and vague and messy in its design and most of the acting is pretty terrible. I cant count the amount of times I laughed, so that s a plus at least, I got that out of this film, but I was definitely not scared.

With Nightmare on Elm St. You can experience who Freddy is, what he does and how he terrorises these kids life in a consistent and visceral way that makes you scared for the characters to go to sleep, he has so many tricks up his sleeve to mess with the kids, we've all experienced messed up nighmares and felt the potential of being harmed, and that film does a great job of heightening that experience. Here, with this film, it's not set up well at all how this Bye Bye man works and you get no sense of what he does, sooooo inconsistent and just got bored and laughed at these hullucinations, they had zero impact on me. Sorry, Filmmakers, next time, think about strong setup and rules.

My Son (I) (2021)

Visuals and performances strong, failed in the payoff.

[4/10 · 22 February 2022]

I did like how they got the most out of the landscape in terms of how beautiful and bleak it was. I really like the uncut shot they had of the father as he crept up on the man's house. You can tell they really scouted so well for this film and took their time to put a stamp on how they wanted it to look.

All the performances were fine. The kid was okay.

The major major issue is the payoff. I did like how the dad's work could of come into play with his son's disappearance and had that of paid off it may of added extra weight to this man's guilt. There were a few red herrings which is okay, but the payoff is not only completely out of nowhere it also isn't done with very good clarity as to what specifically is happening to his son.

As absolutely awful as it alludes to, I didn't have a clear understanding as to where he was being taken and what specifically was going to happen to him, what's more I didn't experience what could happen, clarity and experience of stakes that could happen is paramount to writing and it's just not here.

This felt like a discount version of the brilliant thriller 'Prisoners'. In that the payoff can be seen in the setup on multiple viewings. Here, no. Shame, I was excited to see this.

Some Kind of Heaven (2020)

Surprising and touching.

[8/10 · 2 February 2022]

I'll be honest. At first I was not terribly excited about watching a "Disney Land for Pensioners". I had seen a favourable YouTube review of it from someone I respect, and to boot, it was 99c on the Apple store.

I am so glad I watched this. Honestly, it felt like the meshing of a documentary and a feature film, all the characters had very meaningful, interesting and moving issues going on for them even at this stage in their life and even in such an idyllic place to be as well. I think that's what took me by surprise, the fact these people were not just on a long R&R in their twilight years, that made the whole experience refreshing and moving, especially the lady with the husband and his drug charges, I really really felt for her as she was at her wits end with...lets be honest, a bit of a hippy child for a husband at times.

This really made me think about growing old, how it isn't all golf, dancing and margaritas by the pool. Life can still hit hard for you when the Winter years come a calling.

Electrician (2020)

This critically CONSTRUCTIVE review was deleted...please take it on the chin. I thought long and hard about it to show you where the film could of been better.

[2/10 · 6 July 2021]

I really think there is a moving story somewhere in here to tell, underneath the plot about a recluse man who lost his family and his health is under threat and how desperate that can make a person to see their loved ones at any cost. This I really would of liked. I did really feel for Mark and his slowly declining health issues and the fact he couldn't see his son and the fact that he was lied to about asbestos. I just think it could of been told a lot better and more impact-fully. Having said that I do think the downfall of Mark was moving at times, kudos there.

Had this of been a 25min short of a man who is lied to about a dodgy warehouse (asbestos signs hidden away) that is killing this man it would of been pretty good, but the whole film felt like a stretched version of a short film such as this. Whole acts go by with little to no conflict to get engaged in the story, lots of "showing me scenes of people doing stuff" which frankly got boring very quickly. There is so little conflict in the entire film that I don't have all the essential context to really understand this guy, what ultimately does he want? To see his son one time? To get some sort of arranged time every week to be with him? To move back in with his son and partner? Conflict is great because it motivates characters in them to reveal essential context, like what they want specifically, why they want it, what's really at stake and why it emotionally matters to them. This film is suffers from waaaaaayyyyy too little conflict I really know so little of what Mark wants.

The first act has pretty much no appropriate conflict to tell me why this guy is working relentlessly and doing nothing else with his life, the film goes a bit overboard with this, montage after montage of him at work, at work, at work. So it's trying to get across all this man does is work but it just hits the same beat over and over, had there have been some conflict getting in his way to do this it would force Mark to reveal why all he wants to do is work, if he doesn't keep working then "such and such" will happen to him, something he is trying to avoid and it will make him feel in a certain emotional state, then I'd of gotten some essential context, then I would understand why he works and nothing else, and wondered, "well if those stakes come to pass, what is he going to do? I want to keep watching."

Instead its just montage after montage of work over and over, and honestly it's just so boring, who wants to watch an electrician work over and over in the 1st act of a film, because there is a lot of it...it needs conflict and escalations to make it compelling, thats storytelling, this is someone recording a man at work on a site. There is no clear point to it, it isn't setting anything up and doesn't give me any new context the more it is shown to me. The first act just seems to tread water with the same beats.

Is it supposed to outline his life is going nowhere? How mundane it all is for him? What? If it is one of those we need stakes so I the viewer can experience the weight for this guy that he is going through, stakes make a difference because they are permanent and alter the plot and make me understand what will happen if he doesn't action. I see this sooooooo often in Indie films, shots, shots, shots of showing you things that don't amount to very much and lack strong essential context. It doesn't have a payoff, he just...works hard, that's not interesting, had there of been a compelling payoff to why he does this that would of been great...

The fact that he is surrounded by these fellow workmen planning cons isn't structured in a way to put Mark and them into conflict so it's not an engaging element even though its supposed to be a temptation, maybe? But we only realise he has a history of conning people near then end of the film that made him lose his family, set that up in the first act, then put Mark into conflict with the con life with the workers around him while in pursuit of overcoming it to be with his son, set it up early so you can escalate it and get us more engaged with increasing stakes in pursuit of his goal, then in conflict with his ex over seeing his son, why was this overlooked? I really am at a loss as to why.

But instead there is so little conflict to drive this film it really does not feel like a story for a long time, just a "day in the life" of an electrician, that isn't interesting, it's not a story. And the lack of conflict throughout the film makes Mark feel so passive and I don't get a sense for so much of the film he wants anything very badly, stuff just happens to him, it can work in the right type of story, but here he seems to want to be after something, his son, that needs strong pro active action. Again conflict delivers essential context like, what his goal is, what he wants, needs in his life, and it all comes very late, too late and not very well told. It was briefly mentioned that Mark grew up without a dad and he doesn't want his son growing up without one, great. Use that with his ex and make her understand, but that was just delivered in a conversation instead of a conflict so we could be behind Mark as he tries to actively get his son back.

A lot is set up way too late and had me confused, like the fact his partner doesn't speak to him, the fact he was involved in being a con man and lost his family, because in the first act I was thinking "why are all the workers always talking about conning people around Mark, there has to be a point to that" What was the point to it? It doesn't seem to be a great obstacle for him, he isn't battling with himself to try and avoid getting into it, they don't even ask him if he wants in, what was the point? Not told well at all, badly structured and felt like padding for the films run time.

The worst thing to happen to Mark in the film is he is we see his health deteriorate badly and that he lost his family due to his con-man ways in the past, it is awful and I felt for him, but we get all this way too late in the film. In the whole first act we don't even learn he has a family, come on.

Had we of got this context near the beginning and see him try to get to spend more time with his son, have conflict with his ex and understand deeper what kind of a man he was in the past, why seeing his son means so much to him, specifically, I could get on board with what this film wants me to feel, but it's all too little too late.

At the start of the second act Mark is hunting down numbers and trying to arrange a meet with some Jimmy person. So in the space of 2 minutes I'm asking questions not out of wanting to know what happens next but needing and wanting context set up so I can get behind Mark and want him to succeed in what he is doing. The first act is where the majority of the problems are, essential context is not set up so I know what is important to care about so it can build from there, it all treads water for the first hour, and it really is not compelling and engaging.

There is way too much of that cliched way of doing things I see all the time in Indie films. Quick shots of work, home life, eating, in the car, people arguing instead of people in conflict etc. The quick cuts don't help IMO, it takes me out of the film and I feel like the moments in them don't matter as much as the film wants me to.

The improvised dialogue doesn't help for the people in the film who's acting was a distraction, and have to come up with it on the spot, and you can tell, it's very awkward at times.

What about the asbestos thing in the warehouse? Why wasn't that paid off? That could of been compelling. Why was there a sequence of Jimmy showing a house to a couple and him drinking with his friends, it had absolutely nothing to do with the film and I think was just there to pad the run time. What about his test results??? What does he have? Come on, nothing is paid off in this film, really disappointing.

Mark says he feels hard done by, by Jimmy...but he talked to his sister, he did what was asked of him.

The knife to his wife at the end is completely out of nowhere and I don't get how that is going to help him get to see his son. Why didn't he explain he could be dying and I need to see my son???

There is no ending, it just stops, there is no actual payoff to what he wanted, we don't experience either the reward of seeing his son or the stakes of being permanently barred from seeing him, like a restraining order. Such a let down. It really needed a few more drafts to structure and set up everything earlier instead of wasting time in the bloated first act hitting the same beat and build on it to understand Mark more, make him and the story more engaging. He was pursuing the thing he seemed to care the most about in the 3rd act instead of the second, thus the sudden ending with no payoff. Great story idea, could of been told better, MUCH better.

Ezekiel's Landing (2015)

Spots of potential but lacks clarity and context to get invested.

[2/10 · 10 May 2021]

I think that overall there is potential in what the writer(s)/director is trying to say. There is a hint that the writer wanted to explore how when we lie about our past it can come to torment us the more we deny it and accepting and letting o of it can set us free.

Something along those lines and it is explored to some small degree with Joel, the most interesting of all the characters in the film. Honestly, I could of really done without the other characters, they weren't interesting. He seemed to have a journey of sorts on an emotional level, the other characters not so much, they are there really to just move the story forward.

Visually there were some nice enough looking shots and use of colour. The music wasn't too bad either. The big let down is the script. It lacks three main things: clarity, essential context and scenes where we the audience can experience what the characters went through to empathise the state they are in.

1. Clarity: All through the film (and by the way I watched this twice just to be sure) it wasn't clear to me why Joel, why Emma or Kass want what they want, why it means so much to them.

What is at stake if they don't achieve their goal? Which is something to do with getting to where the signal was? Maybe? Stopping the abductees? What do they stand to lose? In the end, the abductees go missing and Joel's father is abducted again...so...what does that mean for the characters? I don't know, because at the end prologue Kass goes her separate way, Emma and Joel stay in the town to uncover more, but it's like all that happened at the alien location didn't seem to have any weight to the characters.

For Emma, Kass and Joel I'm not really tracking on a goal, I know that she went to that facility to find the where abouts of the alien signal but...then what, what is she ultimately trying to achieve? To prove aliens exist? Joel seems like a very reactive character due to him denying his past, so overall its hard to stay invested.

I get that Joel was abducted and his parents let him be abducted, but what then is he trying to achieve by going to the abduction site. This is why compelling conflict in any movie is so helpful, it's an organic way to deliver essential context, one of them being what the characters goal is, why? Stakes etc. When they are up against opposition.... We are compelled to watch to see if their stakes come to pass if they fail their goal and at the same time we understand what they want and why and why it matters.

If there is any hope of the audience getting invested in the character(s) its vital its really clear what they want, why they want it and whats; at stake if they don't get it. Clarity means we can understand the motivations of the characters.

2. Essential context: if we can then experience why it means so much on an emotional level, then we can empathise with them and you have us on board in a big way. But not here as all this is missing. The problem with Joel is he sort of wanders around bumping into situation after situation, never facing opposition enough so as to understand what it is he is after. Now, I did notice there was one main conflict scene with Joel and the other abductees in an apartment. But even here there is so much missing essential context. What do they want from joel? I watched that scene 5times, it is in no way clear what specifically they need from Joel, why do they need him? For what? What's at stake if they don't get what they want. So as a result of all this essential context I have no understanding all through the film why all of this matters. It simply lacks any strong story structure.

3. Scenes where we the audience can experience what the characters went through to empathise the state they are in and the choices they make: Well that pretty much says it there, there isn't enough scenes of what the character went through to fully empathise and understand their situation. What I mean is we need select moments that led up to the moment these people made this choice to go find this signal in way where we can really empathise why it's so important to them. Delve into Emma's lies about her abductions and how that has really effected her emotionally and mentally to feel.... FEEL, not just intellectually understand why it means so much to her and that goes for the rest of the characters too, because honestly I have no idea why this means anything to any of them..because Kass found alien contact and the film needs to progress now. Had we of experienced the abandonment of Joel's parents so they could see the universe and was experimented on would of gone a long way, though the budget I know would not of been there, but it's essential for us to empathise with him and not just sympathise with him. Honestly I think a simpler plot that could provide and experience like this would of worked much better IMO.

The other way this film is a let down is a number of times the plot stops to have big exposition dumps. Now in some movies its tolerable because it quickly gets back to engaging scenes that deliver clear context that advances the plot, here its pretty much constantly people telling other people information, lack of conflict or an element of mystery to keep us hooked in that way, something unexpected.

All in all there is potential here but lacking a lot of essential context and understanding the importance of why all this matters.

And one final note, maybe don't put in the description of the film on YouTube that this is ".. a cult classic in the making, with a thrilling story, larger-than-life characters, and the most ambitious production values for a $3000 indie film since El Mariachi. " It comes off as arrogant, and you seem like a nice guy. If it becomes a cult classic, cool. Let the audience decide that, don't count your chickens before they hatch, man :) best.

The Long Con (2021)

The Long Con. Review.

[3/10 · 12 March 2021]

Positives: the music. Visually it is nice. The acting isn't that terrible, compared to other indie films on the platform. There are interesting elements to some of the characters. So, good job there

The first scene, it opens with the cult leader learning his partner didn't get pregnant and gives out to him. I thought this was the protagonist and that it would further develop this setup. Will he want to try and convince her to try again, this could set up interesting conflict. But then it hard switches to another person who IS the protagonist, and this scene and context never comes back so it felt out of place.

Again, that would be interesting if he was the protagonist, he didn't perhaps get to be a dad. I take it he wanted to be a dad and he sort of does that by being the "father" of the cult. This is all pretty interesting. I'll go so far and say he is the most interesting person in the film, why isn't this about him and his struggles alone trying to be a "father" in the cult??? plus his acting is probably the best in the whole cast, it's not great, but it's the best here. Show him conceive and set it up, try to father lost souls, maybe it's not the same as being a real father that he thought it would be. That's interesting...trying to grapple with that reality, because based on the first scene it easily could of gone that way.

But it then hard cuts to some guy on the phone to some other guy about a heist, very jarring. It isn't well set up, this scene. Who is this guy? Why is he doing this heist for this other person? What's at stake if he doesn't get the cash? there is a lot of missing context. It all feels out of place. He doesn't get the cash, ok, but we don't experience the stakes to understand why all this mattered. It felt so unsatisfying. If there are no stakes to it then what was the point? If you set up something, you need to pay it off...it's all about context.

I don't understand why he's sleeping on a beach when he has a gf who has a home. Couldn't he ask her to move in there?

Also, I wouldn't drink a beer some stranger gave me on a beach for no reason.

13:51 - He calls the guy?, the cult leader? why? He was so stand offish at the beach, I don't buy that he wants to meet up. Then a guy gets out of a car on an empty street and walks somewhere? What is happening? I can infer that they are getting the heist guy who is on a bench? I think. But again, all this context isn't set up, why is it going down this way. How do they know where he is? again, lack of context. If you withhold context it needs to be organic and justified, why is this context being withheld?

So they take him to their home and he is handcuffed to a bed and he is told they were worried that he would wander somewhere and disturb the other "patrons", how is heist guy not freaking the F out??? What is this place? Who are you people? these are questions he should be asking but he is cool as a cucumber? I am lost here with this film. It hasn't been set up what these people are, a house full of people who ...what? It all feels vague.

So heist guy wants to join the family. Again, I do not buy this at all. Yes there is a safe, and I am guessing that is what is luring him back, he is going there under false pretences of wanting to "join" the family so he can maybe access the safe, but,

How does he know it's not empty. They are all odd in this house, maybe it's their "furniture". Couldn't he not take another heist job from someone that has guaranteed cash that is set up to be in a safe somewhere?

All that was needed here was a line of dialogue or a shot where he sees lots of money being put in the safe, done. Ok then I get it, easy grab for this guy who cant help but steal. But it's not so I am not on board.

It's very dialogue heavy and I feel like I needed to experience more of what the cult is aiming toward, achieving something that we can experience that has compelling stakes for the character, what's at stake for our characters. A scene here, a scene there, talk some more, very unfocused.

The lead character is pretty dull and uninteresting, his acting isn't the best. A lot of the film he is just the leader's side kick, reacting, rather than what a protagonist should do, pro actively take action in pursuit of a goal, of which there doesn't seem to be for him over the course of the film. Because of that there is no, "what's the point" when the credits roll. If I am supposed to be rooted in this guy's (heist guy) perspective and he has no clear, feature length goal then I will likely not be given a coherent experience, if the plot wanders because of aforementioned lack of goal then I will likely take nothing clear from it. He is just so passive it's painful, he does nothing. Case in point, the blind girl gets poisoned, he drives her to his ex's house, knocks on her door, comes in and asks her to call 911....what!? He needs her to call 911? He can't do that himself, what an idiot! This guy is beyond embarrassing. Why is he here? in this film? Seriously!!!!!!

He professes to the leader's wife how much this cult means to him when he is left out of a new inductee, I do NOT BUY this for one second. The whole movie this guy sat back like some skeptic, no energy, gusto to want to be a part of what this cult is, come on, movie, did you really think I'd buy this? sorry guys, no....just no, this character sticks out like a sore thumb, unfortunately.

Honestly, I would of left him out and just had a film about the husband and wife and their struggles to have a child, there is some depth to the leader about him not having a legacy to pass on, he has all these ideals and he wants people to live to their fullest so he sets up a cult but at the same time he's a sociopath and a monster. There is potential there, his overarching goal would seem to be to pass on his legacy and the lengths a person will go to, that could be good. Such a shame.

..bUt like a lot of the attempted character development, as the old adage goes, "show, don't tell" there is too much of the telling what happened when to this person, and how bad that was. The trouble with that is, I don't feel anything if it's not shown to me and written in a way that is engaging. There is a scene where the main girl says how she was fed and sheltered by the cult leader and then it cuts to him chasing and threatening her, a sort of dramatic irony going on, but, I feel like I'm watching the payoff to a bigger scene that could be compelling if I had that and all the context that comes with it, it feels a little lazy, a little "Just cut to the bit where he goes crazy on her because that feels dramatic" but it's missing so much context for me to understand and experience why, how this is so bad for her. That's kind of the movie in general: "Missing so much context"

There is potential here in this film, it's dotted here and there and thus the whole film doesn't really culminate in a coherent, engaging experience, unfortunately.

Made in Belfast (2013)

Shauna Macdonald and Owen Mc Donnell are too good for this film

[2/10 · 10 July 2020]

I love the actors mentioned in the above title, they have been in films I really admire them for, this film doesn't deserve them, I'm sorry...I gave up after 30 minutes of people talking about what happened back in the day, his father died might of been a compelling shift to the constant talking but that seemed to matter none to the protagonist, nothing really happens despite my hopes, the first couple minutes seemed kind of witty and promising...oh well.