Just in case...****Possible Spoilers***
I respect independent filmmakers and the fact they continue to produce despite limited funds and little recognition. I also respect the amount of work that goes into such a production. I know everyone involved from top to bottom worked hard on this film. So the question lingering in my mind is this... Considering the time, effort and obstacles... why didn't they at least have a good script?
LUSTER is just another in a long line of films to emerge from the "new gay cinema" that started in the early '90's. And like all the rest - it sucks. Bad script, bad acting and low production values.
First the script. Coppola once commented about the dilemma of every filmmaker. He said all filmmakers aspire to something greater. But at the same time they don't want to be seen as pretentious. This script may aspire, but in the end it is pretentious. The film centers on a young man who knows nothing of love but falls in love every 10 minutes. And the biggest problem is that by the end of the film he still knows nothing of love. The character doesn't grow or learn so what we're left with is a series of events that culminates into nothing. Then there's the dialog. Does anyone over 16 actually use the term "buzz kill" anymore. While the writing tries to be authentic to the world it's trying to emulate, it fails to actually capture that world. Also, there's a scene in the beginning that is SO reminiscent of a similar scene in "High Fidelity" it's embarrassing to watch.
Then there's the acting. With so many starving actors in Hollywood, how hard is it to find decent actors? Apparently harder than we all thought. None of the performers seem prepared to act on film. Most of the time I felt like I was watching an acting exercise by students who were less than prepared. But blame for the poor performances can be spread around. It's the director's responsibility to pull good performances from his talent and here he drops the ball.
And finally the production standards. There's really no excuse no matter what the budget to have shots that are out of focus, yet that happens several times in this film. And there are the scenes in the office building that take place in almost complete darkness. Apparently they wanted to capture the cityscape outside the window but were either unable or incapable of lighting the interior to compensate for the color temperature. So what we get are several scenes in silhouette that are hard to watch.
Like I said in the beginning, I respect independent filmmakers but the hardships they face cannot be used to forgive bad scripts with lousy dialog, inadequate talent, poor directing and a failure to meet minimum production standards. Despite good intentions, LUSTER is just another bad independent film that fails to live up to the promise of the movement.
I respect independent filmmakers and the fact they continue to produce despite limited funds and little recognition. I also respect the amount of work that goes into such a production. I know everyone involved from top to bottom worked hard on this film. So the question lingering in my mind is this... Considering the time, effort and obstacles... why didn't they at least have a good script?
LUSTER is just another in a long line of films to emerge from the "new gay cinema" that started in the early '90's. And like all the rest - it sucks. Bad script, bad acting and low production values.
First the script. Coppola once commented about the dilemma of every filmmaker. He said all filmmakers aspire to something greater. But at the same time they don't want to be seen as pretentious. This script may aspire, but in the end it is pretentious. The film centers on a young man who knows nothing of love but falls in love every 10 minutes. And the biggest problem is that by the end of the film he still knows nothing of love. The character doesn't grow or learn so what we're left with is a series of events that culminates into nothing. Then there's the dialog. Does anyone over 16 actually use the term "buzz kill" anymore. While the writing tries to be authentic to the world it's trying to emulate, it fails to actually capture that world. Also, there's a scene in the beginning that is SO reminiscent of a similar scene in "High Fidelity" it's embarrassing to watch.
Then there's the acting. With so many starving actors in Hollywood, how hard is it to find decent actors? Apparently harder than we all thought. None of the performers seem prepared to act on film. Most of the time I felt like I was watching an acting exercise by students who were less than prepared. But blame for the poor performances can be spread around. It's the director's responsibility to pull good performances from his talent and here he drops the ball.
And finally the production standards. There's really no excuse no matter what the budget to have shots that are out of focus, yet that happens several times in this film. And there are the scenes in the office building that take place in almost complete darkness. Apparently they wanted to capture the cityscape outside the window but were either unable or incapable of lighting the interior to compensate for the color temperature. So what we get are several scenes in silhouette that are hard to watch.
Like I said in the beginning, I respect independent filmmakers but the hardships they face cannot be used to forgive bad scripts with lousy dialog, inadequate talent, poor directing and a failure to meet minimum production standards. Despite good intentions, LUSTER is just another bad independent film that fails to live up to the promise of the movement.