When my friend brought this "film" to my attention I honestly thought it was a joke. Now, I don't have time to take you blow-by-blow through the entire movie
so, I'll just enlighten you about the trailer www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5h81SmgUaI
1. The Story – The plot of this movie is one you've seen a million times. A guy who is down in the dumps, usually because of the loss of a loved one (in this case, his grandfather), meets a free spirited girl who makes him feel alive for the first time.
Really? It's as if the filmmaker (and I use that term loosely) saw: Garden State (Braff, 2004), Elizabethtown (Crowe, 2005), & 500 Days of Summer (Webb, 2009), then said, "Hey, I can make that movie!" Go back and look at the trailers to these real films, especially the one which also utilizes the road trip, Elizabethtown. The saddest part about this, even with the story handed to him on a silver platter, the Director failed miserably.
2. The Production Value – Now, I know that this movie was probably done on a budget of nothing (God, I hope.). But, how in the world can someone with a working brain look at takes like these and say "We got it!"? They had a way to record sound, didn't they? What's with the deafening background noise? Why does it sound like some of the dialog was recorded with a camera microphone? What about the lighting? Why would you have your two leads in complete darkness during a "pivotal" part in the movie? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! This says to me that the Director doesn't know how to light a scene.
It's also very apparent that the Director owns one camera lens.
3. The Writing! – The dialog in this movie is so awful that it makes Mallrats (Smith, 1995) sound like Shakespeare. My Lord, the clichés alone makes me wonder if the script was taken from a 7th grade girl's diary.
Lucy: If you ever see me again, I want to you to pretend you never met me. Just turn around and walk the other way."
Lucy: "It's not the destination that counts, Donnie, it's the journey."
Lucy: "You don't have any friends, do you?" Donnie: "I have you."
I can imagine the cover page to the script adorned with scribbled hearts and unicorn stickers.
And you might ask; "What about the dialog that isn't hackneyed, asinine, dribble?" Well, that dialog is just trash that doesn't flow well at all.
4. The Acting – It's just awful. But I guess they can only perform as well as they're directed.
5. The Directing – Ha! See everything above.
6. In Conclusion - This movie offers nothing on the surface or in the subtext. It's derivative, mindless, schlock that presents itself as art.
The guy can't come up with an original idea. He's awful at recording sound. He can't light a scene. He apparently needs crayons to write. And, he doesn't know how to direct actors. I would like to know where this guy obtained his film education.
1. The Story – The plot of this movie is one you've seen a million times. A guy who is down in the dumps, usually because of the loss of a loved one (in this case, his grandfather), meets a free spirited girl who makes him feel alive for the first time.
Really? It's as if the filmmaker (and I use that term loosely) saw: Garden State (Braff, 2004), Elizabethtown (Crowe, 2005), & 500 Days of Summer (Webb, 2009), then said, "Hey, I can make that movie!" Go back and look at the trailers to these real films, especially the one which also utilizes the road trip, Elizabethtown. The saddest part about this, even with the story handed to him on a silver platter, the Director failed miserably.
2. The Production Value – Now, I know that this movie was probably done on a budget of nothing (God, I hope.). But, how in the world can someone with a working brain look at takes like these and say "We got it!"? They had a way to record sound, didn't they? What's with the deafening background noise? Why does it sound like some of the dialog was recorded with a camera microphone? What about the lighting? Why would you have your two leads in complete darkness during a "pivotal" part in the movie? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! This says to me that the Director doesn't know how to light a scene.
It's also very apparent that the Director owns one camera lens.
3. The Writing! – The dialog in this movie is so awful that it makes Mallrats (Smith, 1995) sound like Shakespeare. My Lord, the clichés alone makes me wonder if the script was taken from a 7th grade girl's diary.
Lucy: If you ever see me again, I want to you to pretend you never met me. Just turn around and walk the other way."
Lucy: "It's not the destination that counts, Donnie, it's the journey."
Lucy: "You don't have any friends, do you?" Donnie: "I have you."
I can imagine the cover page to the script adorned with scribbled hearts and unicorn stickers.
And you might ask; "What about the dialog that isn't hackneyed, asinine, dribble?" Well, that dialog is just trash that doesn't flow well at all.
4. The Acting – It's just awful. But I guess they can only perform as well as they're directed.
5. The Directing – Ha! See everything above.
6. In Conclusion - This movie offers nothing on the surface or in the subtext. It's derivative, mindless, schlock that presents itself as art.
The guy can't come up with an original idea. He's awful at recording sound. He can't light a scene. He apparently needs crayons to write. And, he doesn't know how to direct actors. I would like to know where this guy obtained his film education.
