As the other comment (at this time) has noted, this kind of film has been done before, and better. This is probably OK if you have nothing better to do on a rainy day, but you wouldn't go out of your way to see it. Audiences have an expectation that there will be a certain level of quality from, say, the cinematography, editing, or music departments. Unfortunately, it's lacking.
Also, how is it that I can watch this film, paid for in part by Astral, Corus, Canadian tax credits, and BC provincial credits or fund or something, and yet it's not clear whether the city identified as "Vancouver" looks like Vancouver, BC intentionally, or is failing badly at pretending to be Vancouver, WA? Given that we're in the midst of the Olympics in Vancouver, isn't this something you'd want to get across clearly in your movie, set in "Vancouver"?
I thought the acting was OK for what it was.
The plot was OK, for a typical shoot-everyone movie from the 80s, but today's audiences (in other words, I) expect more in terms of dialogue. Nevertheless, I was kept moderately interested throughout. Good for a nothing-else-to-do day.
Also, how is it that I can watch this film, paid for in part by Astral, Corus, Canadian tax credits, and BC provincial credits or fund or something, and yet it's not clear whether the city identified as "Vancouver" looks like Vancouver, BC intentionally, or is failing badly at pretending to be Vancouver, WA? Given that we're in the midst of the Olympics in Vancouver, isn't this something you'd want to get across clearly in your movie, set in "Vancouver"?
I thought the acting was OK for what it was.
The plot was OK, for a typical shoot-everyone movie from the 80s, but today's audiences (in other words, I) expect more in terms of dialogue. Nevertheless, I was kept moderately interested throughout. Good for a nothing-else-to-do day.