Uncritically noxious indeed. Painfully bad with pretentious, pseudo-philosophical ramblings and ultimately marred by tainted IMDb reviews which appear to come from the filmmakers or friends of.
After having read the 'glowing' reviews, I decided to give this film a go. Silly me. I should have smelled the celluloid rat from the unusually high and positive ratings-not one bad review on IMDb? I now realise the ratings were fake. As a rule I have a distaste for most 'critics' but after watching this painful rubbish (and being mislead by fake reviews), I decided to become that which I despise: A Critic.
As soon as I began watching I realised the script could have come from a 'Cut-Up' technique using The Sun (National Enquirer) for its content. Conceptually, there was initially some potential but this was quickly negated by the one-dimensional characters and terrible script. The acting was so wooden that alerts should have been sent to the Forestry commission. This film is laughable, apart form the fact it will rob you of 90 minutes of time you could spend doing something more productive like sticking pins in your eyes. There is a scene in a gym at 22:30/40 with a laughably stilted exchange between 'Mark', the 'amoral/moral porn producer'/detective/internet 'entrepreneur' and 'Charlie' which left me cringing for its epic failure. All the way through this filmic debacle, the soundtrack/background music was jarring-it just didn't fit, it seemed disjointed-(as did the acting, writing, sound, er...everything). It's like they just randomly plucked music from the 'cut 'n' paste hat'. It didn't work. The audio itself seemed like it was taken from a badly dubbed 70s Kung Fu flick. Worst of all were the vacuous, pseudo-philosophical ramblings that perpetuate this vapid, infantile mess. It seems like it's his first film after having just left college but that no excuse. The ending? Well, looks like they just gave up. I only wish it had come sooner or not at all. Beyond Good and Evil? Yup.
When IMDb allows false ratings like this I find myself disappointed, disgusted and angry. I wasted 90 minutes of my life on this rubbish which only has a high rating because, coincidentally, all the 'reviewers': * All 7 people have ONLY 'reviewed' one film-this one; * Have all joined in the past 4 months; * All gave consistently high 'marks' * They ALL come from America/Chicago; and, no doubt, all have some connection to the film itself. Why don't you just have the courage of your celluloid convictions and NOT try to 'fix' the ratings. As 'Artists', and in this case I use that term very loosely, you should allow the 'work' to speak for itself, to stand on its OWN merit or lack thereof. That's what being an artist is all about- I'm an artist, a painter and photographer so I know all about 'baring one's soul'. Giving your own film these arbitrary rating does nothing but put people off any future endeavours. I only give it one out of ten because they don't allow lower or minus marking which would have been more appropriate for this sad, pretentious waste of space.
After having read the 'glowing' reviews, I decided to give this film a go. Silly me. I should have smelled the celluloid rat from the unusually high and positive ratings-not one bad review on IMDb? I now realise the ratings were fake. As a rule I have a distaste for most 'critics' but after watching this painful rubbish (and being mislead by fake reviews), I decided to become that which I despise: A Critic.
As soon as I began watching I realised the script could have come from a 'Cut-Up' technique using The Sun (National Enquirer) for its content. Conceptually, there was initially some potential but this was quickly negated by the one-dimensional characters and terrible script. The acting was so wooden that alerts should have been sent to the Forestry commission. This film is laughable, apart form the fact it will rob you of 90 minutes of time you could spend doing something more productive like sticking pins in your eyes. There is a scene in a gym at 22:30/40 with a laughably stilted exchange between 'Mark', the 'amoral/moral porn producer'/detective/internet 'entrepreneur' and 'Charlie' which left me cringing for its epic failure. All the way through this filmic debacle, the soundtrack/background music was jarring-it just didn't fit, it seemed disjointed-(as did the acting, writing, sound, er...everything). It's like they just randomly plucked music from the 'cut 'n' paste hat'. It didn't work. The audio itself seemed like it was taken from a badly dubbed 70s Kung Fu flick. Worst of all were the vacuous, pseudo-philosophical ramblings that perpetuate this vapid, infantile mess. It seems like it's his first film after having just left college but that no excuse. The ending? Well, looks like they just gave up. I only wish it had come sooner or not at all. Beyond Good and Evil? Yup.
When IMDb allows false ratings like this I find myself disappointed, disgusted and angry. I wasted 90 minutes of my life on this rubbish which only has a high rating because, coincidentally, all the 'reviewers': * All 7 people have ONLY 'reviewed' one film-this one; * Have all joined in the past 4 months; * All gave consistently high 'marks' * They ALL come from America/Chicago; and, no doubt, all have some connection to the film itself. Why don't you just have the courage of your celluloid convictions and NOT try to 'fix' the ratings. As 'Artists', and in this case I use that term very loosely, you should allow the 'work' to speak for itself, to stand on its OWN merit or lack thereof. That's what being an artist is all about- I'm an artist, a painter and photographer so I know all about 'baring one's soul'. Giving your own film these arbitrary rating does nothing but put people off any future endeavours. I only give it one out of ten because they don't allow lower or minus marking which would have been more appropriate for this sad, pretentious waste of space.
