200 American (2003) User Reviews

A little cliché, but not too bad

[Vanyel · 6/10 · 20 February 2005]

Not nearly as bad as the comment "Embarrassing" made it out to be --- I've seen far worse production values and acting, and the lead (Sean Matic) is actually a fairly decent actor. Comparing this movie to porn is incomprehensible, as the movie shows no skin below the belt, and no sexual activity either. Yes, the story is weak, with parts that are both forced and cliché, but there are also parts that break the cliché slightly and a few good emotional moments that end up making it at least watchable.

The interviews on the DVD are interesting, though I haven't yet watched with the commentary track to say how well done they are, but usually the descriptions of "guerrilla film-making" are educational for the filmmaker wannabee...

Good job considering the conditions

[Rainykeith · 5/10 · 8 July 2005]

I am a playwright, movie script author and arts critic for a major newspaper chain, 80 years old and straight and I believe the writer/director did an unusual job considering that it was a no budget movie made under some of the most difficult conditions.

That he did not push nude or sex scenes showed clearly that he was not shooting this for the porn community or the gay niche community alone, but was trying to make a serious statement. You may criticize the statement from your point of view, but not the artistic intent.

Instead of some of these reviews that are nothing but catty, make your own movie under the same conditions and see how well you do.

The actors were not bad at all and I give credit to the writer/director for having the guts to create, rather than be one who sits around, considers himself a "critiquer" and spews negatives.

Won Me Over Despite Major Flaws

[ekeby · 6/10 · 9 August 2006]

I gave it six out of ten stars, half of which were A's for effort. The basic premise is entirely plausible, but some of the subplots are pretty silly. Circumstances revolve around an ad agency and its owner. If you've ever worked in an ad agency, and I have, this is kind of a comic book idea of what that would be like. None of it rang true for me. The photo shoot scenes were also painfully amateurish.

Nevertheless, two of the lead actors eventually won me over. The guy who plays the Australian hustler does an extraordinarily good job--very understated--with a difficult stereotype: the hustler with a heart of gold. Pretty Woman is referenced early on, but when we meet this guy, the level of trust we have for him is nothing like we instantly feel for Julia Roberts. He's slightly menacing, clearly hiding something. Through the course of the film he gradually reveals his gold heart, and it's done at just the right pace. It was a surprise to learn he's not Australian--the accent had me fooled.

The guy who plays his love interest also does well, even though he struggles with some impossible dialog in his office scenes. The guy who plays his boss is the weakest link in the chain. His performance is in that close-but-no-cigar category. Acceptable, but not much more. The other performances are a grab bag, quality-wise.

Is it worth renting? If you're working your way through the LGBT oeuvre like I am, yes. Keep you expectations low and you won't be disappointed.

Great!

[soulstrong · 15 December 2005]

This is a wonderful film. Especially since it was made on a low budget, it's outstanding as a film. Yes some lighting troubles and views, but sometimes compromise is best. The acting of this film is great, and the flow is continuous and not choppy. My only problem with the film is that it shifts from main focus on Conrad>Ian to Ian>Michael. But the writing is just great, little hints of jokes here and there and though it isn't a comedy, it's still great. The chemistry is well done as well, especially considering that most (if not all) of the male leads were all straight. Still, this film rocks; the DVD could have been better, perhaps the Commentary louder than the film, but this is still a great piece of work. This film had NO budget and was created with everything being free, given that it's amazing that the actors they found were as good as the ywere. The leads were all attractive enough for the roles, and brought something new to the table. I'll definitely start looking up more 3rd Productions Productions and more from the lead actors, who were not only good looking but fabulous actors with talent.

Horrible

[imringoloveme · 1/10 · 6 July 2005]

I read some reviews before I rented this little movie and I heard that the quality wasn't that great but i decided to try it out. BIG BIG MISTAKE. Well actually I love watching horrible movies because then at least i can laugh and wonder why anyone would ever make this. First of all it looks like someone took my video camera and decided to do a student film. You can see the camera shaking and you can hear the camera man moving the camera to get different shots. Haha, that amused me. The acting is horrible. haha and man the story itself was just bad. Being sold to white slavery...trying to be funny? Sorry you failed and made me go LAME. Haha this movie...this movie... if you want to see a good movie go see Latter Days or something! Don't SEE THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU ARE READY TO HIDE YOUR FACE IN YOUR PILLOW BECAUSE YOU FEEL SO BAD FOR THE ACTORS.

A Cute Surprise

[jmorris236 · 6/10 · 7 November 2005]

The premise sounded cute, and I do have a penchant for comedy, so I purchased this film assuming that it would be a typical independent gay video. In other words, I expected it to be poorly acted, poorly directed and have a marginal plot used as a barely justified excuse to show lots of beefcake. Surprise! Although there were certain aspects of the plot that I found ridiculous (the main one being the idea that the rich, handsome, muscular, intelligent advertising exec would hire a relatively skinny immature male hustler and then fall in love with him) the picture managed to grab my attention fairly early on and hold it. The main problem for me was that I personally found the hustler to be the least sexually appealing of the three main characters. Since the ad exec (to my taste) was ten times better looking than the hustler he lusts after, I didn't buy it for a second. However, I was pleased by the fact that the film didn't seem to pander to viewers only interested in seeing naked torsos, and the humor came across as genuine and, in spots, quite clever. As the film progressed, I found myself warming to the characters, and their situations suddenly seemed almost believable. In the end, I decided I liked this movie quite a bit more than I thought I would. You may too, as long as you don't expect too much more than a pleasant romantic diversion.

Probably the WORST gay movie I have ever seen!

[Aussie Stud · 1/10 · 15 January 2005]

I saw this advertised on Netflix in the "Gay and Lesbian" section and the synopsis sounded cute, so I thought to myself that it wouldn't hurt to give this movie a shot.

Wrong. From the beginning of the movie, we have one of the most unique plot lines ever to be featured in a gay movie... a hot sad gay guy has just been dumped by his boyfriend and looks for love in all the wrong places, starting with the escort section in the back of a gay rag! How unique! Not to mention the escort who shows up happens to be a good looking Australian guy stuck in a financial rut (who has the strangest bones and muscles ever seen in a torso). Needless to say, the escort is only interested in business, but the hot sad gay guy falls for him and helps him out by giving him a high-profile job at his business firm! Then it gets even more original from here. The escort falls in love with his business partner and here begins a complicated gay love triangle.

What is with this rut lately of gay films that continually explore the sad and lonely single lives of very attractive gay men who are financially successful and situated that pairs them up with a very attractive "come from the wrong side of the tracks" guy in relationships that go awry? The only difference with this movie is that it was poorly acted and heavily laden with a continual line of gay clichés that as a gay viewer myself, I was embarrassed just watching it! This movie was so amateurish, it could only be adored by a pretentious small-town gay and lesbian film festival wedged between various film shorts and a documentary on gay life in Anytown, America. What a load of garbage and a waste of my time! I couldn't identify with anything or anyone in this so-called "movie".

It was neither charming nor witty. The plot was trite, the characters were shallow, the story writing was lazy and the whole idea was predictable from the start. If very attractive gay men can't seem to get it together in the real world, then I guess the average Joe such as myself doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell either!

Gay or straight, this movie was trash. Watch "Chuck and Buck" instead.

My Rating - 0 out of 10

Renter (Not Owner)

[NJMoon · 6/10 · 21 January 2006]

Director Richard LeMay admits on his DVD commentary that he changed his mind halfway through writing 200 American about what story he wanted to tell. But it doesn't take LeMay's commentary for us to realize that this film's major problem is lack of focus. The title alone should indicate that the central figure must be Ian, the Aussie rent boy searching for a way to stay in America without a legit green card. But LeMay instead opens his film from the POV of Conrad, an ad exec on the rebound from his ex, looking to get off with a renter instead of risking the emotional perils of dating. Never mind the fact that Conrad is a hunk that anyone would gladly bed gratis. Doesn't anonymous sex (for free) also imply 'no strings'? One would think so. The ad game must be going pretty well for Conrad, because he eagerly shells out a thousand clams for his hourly Boy from Oz to stay the night. But mid-vid LeMay ditches the inigmatic saga of Conrad and Ian for a more conventional romantic soap opera between Ian and Conrad's white bread co-worker Michael. To compensate, LeMay quickly resurrects Conrad's ex and proceeds with one of the most predictable pairings in queer cinema: Ian and Michael. Add to this lack of dramatic structure the fact that there's something a little lethargic about the whole affair and you've got a ho-hum gay indie.

The dialogue tends toward the trite and the editing and cinematography are very hit and miss. The script's single funniest moment (although it tries for many more) involves confusion between the Dalai Lama and Lorenzo Lamas. A fed-up fashion model also provides a much-needed cathartic blast. Oddly, there's an unfortunate subplot about white slavery that should have hit the cutting room floor.

LeMay's greatest asset is his cast, all of whom reportedly worked for free. They manage to make even the most illogical of plot points bearable. If it weren't for the quality of the performances, 200 American might well be totally unwatchable. If LeMay had spent some of his 200 on a script doctor, this film might have been something worth owning. As it is, it's just a 'renter'.

200 American refers to the budget, obviously.

[acciojosh · 2/10 · 5 January 2008]

I don't like putting people's hard work down, but it feels like a thirteen-year-old girl who has a fascination with gay blokes and doesn't know a thing about them wrote it. Ian is meant to be from Sydney, but can't even hold his accent for an entire sentence, let alone even hit the right Aussie accent when he does. The plot is full of holes; the editing was terrible, the script short and the direction could not have been any better. The budget may be low, but I have seen movies without budgets that use talent to pull them off and they work. It was a high school movie, not something to be proud of. My suggestion for the creator; centre on one plot, pay more attention to their acting talent than their bodies and be more assertive with your actors when it comes to direction. For the rest of us - if you can sit through the entire movie without wanting to scream, throw something or roll your eyes, I will be surprised.

a few redeeming qualities, but in general, not worth the time.

[edforever · 6/10 · 5 April 2005]

this movie was very bad in some ways. but on finishing it, i found it wasn't entirely irredeemable.

yes, the production values are horrendous. that was my main complaint. the film was grainy and the colors ugly. in fact, after seeing the gorgeous backdrop of new york in "hitch", looking at the new york city that this film was supposedly set in was distinctly unpleasant. some of the scenes were bad beyond belief. for example, i have never seen such a cheap set-up for a photo shoot depicted on screen. one of the characters in the movie is a photographer and i couldn't help but wonder who else but a tourist would use the small, cheap-looking camera that he was toting. the character didn't even look like an ordinary pro photographer, much less a hot shot fashion photographer. hot tip for the costume manager: real photographers usually carry huge SLR cameras and wear those vest jackets that have loads of pockets to carry their lenses and filters.

with the exception of the leads in a few scenes, the acting was uniformly amateurish. what does save this movie however, is the script. there is the inevitable comparison with pretty woman, but with a twist. some of the lines in the movie were actually not bad at all, and showed a nice restraint in some scenes. those were scenes where the silence, if it had been managed by better actors, might just have worked. on the downside, the quality of the script is uneven. there are some utterly useless extraneous bits here and there and gratuitous use of the f-word that contributes nothing to story or character.

perhaps not the "worst gay movie ever", as one poster put it, but i would say in general, not worth the time.

Whew-- at least I made it through

[karyblake · 2/10 · 12 October 2005]

I just finished the movie and honestly can't begin to say how disappointed I am. The initial pain comes from the horrible music that they used. After that you've got a relatively bad script... after that you've got some minor league talent.

I mean-- I could go on listing the horrible aspects of this movie, but I will say that I respect the passion these people had for the project. Passion can't do enough to make the film okay.

I think the worst part of this is that reading the info for this movie on Netflix made it sound so interesting. I put this on my list with some decent excitement thinking I was going to get a low budget good indy film and after the first shot of Conrad playing mood to show how lonely he was in front of the TV-- well I knew it was going to end in pain... for me.

Please avoid this at all cost. I know saying this might actually make someone else go and rent it (I'm usually one of those people... don't want to be a sheep), but trust me on this one.

Enjoyable Little Film

[ninetyninedegrees · 8/10 · 27 January 2005]

I rarely comment on films in IMDb, but felt compelled to defend this film I quite enjoyed it. I thought it was an entirely believable plot, decent quality production, and decent acting. I very much enjoyed Sean Matic as Ian/Tyler. An Hawaii raised American, his Aussie accent was very convincing.

"Worst Gay Movie ever.."??? C'mon. If you want to see the worst gay-themed movie ever made, try Green Plaid Shirt, or any Jeff London film (The Last Year, And Then Came Summer).

The world would be a very boring place if we all thought the same way and liked the same things.

Keep an open mind and give 200 American a try.

Embarrassing

[wdh6 · 1/10 · 22 January 2005]

Holy cow...what that guy "AussieStud" from Providence said...really, REALLY awful. It's shot on video, it looks cheap, the acting is terrible...nothing to recommend this movie at all. Get some porn and be done with it...seriously, both the acting and the production values will be far superior to this dreck. I simply cannot say how rotten this movie is. I tried to find one performance that wasn't painful, but failed.

The actor who plays the lead is hot. The "hustler" is really not attractive enough to be worth all the trouble he causes. A bad, bad movie, proving that gay men need to demand a little bit (well, a lot) more quality from their artists.

Did I mention it was awful?

Get a refund

[marcelproust · 2/10 · 19 July 2006]

There's nothing wrong with low budget - the sight of boom mic shadows hovering on the actors' faces, scenes filmed in cast and crew apartments, a "supermodel" with thighs like canned hams - but honestly, there is no excuse for a script that can't make up its mind.

There are at least three different films being made here - and sadly none of them hold enough interest to keep your attention for the 80 minute running time. There is a gay remake of Pretty Woman, with the Julia Roberts part taken by an Aussie tart with a heart. There is a cynical portrait at a broken-hearted ad exec whose good looks can't conceal the control freak underneath. Competing with these are some bizarre sub-plots regarding the fashion industry, NYC gay life and even white slavery. (Incidentally, what is the difference between white slavery and, well, slavery?)

The acting is perfunctory at best and there are a few amusing moments, but by and large, after laying out 200 American, you may well be asking for your money back.

Terrible!

[paj28 · 3/10 · 7 March 2005]

I actually sat through the "making of" section of this DVD, and upon finding out that it was made with no budget and mostly straight actors then it all made sense. The premise of the movie is at least interesting enough, but everything about this movie just didn't work. The dialogue comes across as unnatural and stiff, and with the exception of the hustler/photographer wannabe character, the acting is pretty poor. The story plays out like a bad soap opera, with far too many contrived plot points. And the music is thoroughly horrendous! Every time the electric piano chimed in at the "serious" moments, or one of those bad songs started I wanted to throw heavy cookware at the television!

What the?!

[djkizza · 1/10 · 26 April 2006]

I went on the IMDb to look up this movie and see if a little bit of web searching could have spared me the waste of 1 hour and 20 minutes of my life that I will NEVER get back... Then I came across the other comment for this movie... "The acting is exceptional"?!?!?! I thought the acting was the WORST part of the movie, next comes the production, this editing is scratchy, the camera-work is lacking and the music is at times weird and randomly inappropriate. But the acting really was exceptional...

And the writing, oh where can I start with the writing?! Lets start with the fact that one of the characters is sold to a white slavery by a co-worker for doing her job ring and instead of her being distraught she brags about being approached for a book deal and how she gave her phone number to one of the police who rescued her...

Also, two of the random prop characters (Two stereotypical "hood" women) tells one of the main characters that she loved the Dalai Lama in the TV show Falcon Crest... her friend then says "Girl, you so stoopid, that was Lorenzo Lama. Dalai Lama his grandfather." That is the quality of this movie.

The whole thing sucked. I just wanted to cry after watching it and I still do...

BTW - I am gay, so don't start with the anti-gay movie review comments.

The Worst Movie EVER

[brett-denver · 1/10 · 30 June 2008]

OK. Where do I start? I used to spin around in a video store and rent whatever I pointed to. There were some bad movies out there; "Whore" was pretty awful, "Dirty Habits" (about spying nuns) was at least tolerable. This was simply the worst piece of cinema I've ever seen.

First it was totally predictable. I'd comment about how I bet they make a "Pretty Woman" reference and within a minute it was there! That was like number thirteen of 20 or so poorly scripted things that occurred in this film. Poorly made, poorly shot, poorly directed. Horribly acted. This isn't even a movie. It's torture. It's unbelievably bad.

Nobody is going to give a gay hooker a job in the real world. Just because you're pretty and nice? Please. And it wasn't as if the eye candy made up for the cinema excrement that made up this movie. ugh.

Why Don't Most Viewers Like This Charming Upbeat Film?

[clive-13 · 9/10 · 15 October 2005]

What do viewers of Gay cinema want? After reading the other reviews AFTER I watched this film I was stunned at the many negative reactions.Some reviewers saw the beauty and craftsmanship. Other obviously expected and saw something else and that is a shame. It had no drug addicts laying in alleys or violence, gay bashing, murders, religious zealots, or any number of the sick and twisted character seen in many Gay projects. It was urbane, bright, and ultimately uplifting. Not that there is not room for those films with dark plots. It just was nice to see "nice" and "real" in a Gay project.

This is one of the very BEST of all the low/no budget Gay Indies I have seen since the rise of the"New Gay Cinema" that started in the 1980's and now sees numerous new films premiering yearly.

So the plot is not very original. This was a ROMANTIC comedy folks... It has a happy ending. It wasn't written and produced to make a great philosophical statement. It is about the most common and beautiful emotions of humanity. I speak, of course, of the mysterious lure of love. Love lost, love discovered anew, Love lost again only to become love rediscovered. LOVE.

The story is is an old one. OK, it is a cliché. but one that will always be popular regardless of gender. Boy (Conrad) loses boyfriend, He wants to get off, He's horny and lonely but does not want to date because he is still in love with with his partner of three years who he has now broken up with. So he calls up a hustler (Ian), who also has lost a boyfriend. He is from Australia. After coming to the States with his male lover he is dumped. He has no way to make a living as an alien. He can't go to school, or really follow any dream of his own. He has no one and nowhere to turn. He meets a pleasant women (Sara) who will gladly marry him for 10,000 dollars. So he becomes a professional hustler in order to make the bread to get his US citizenship. Hence the title, "200 American". That's Ian's (the Australian) hustler's base price for a couple of hours of no strings sex. Oh, but the complications arise. Misunderstandings, secrets not told and conflicts bewitch the very attractive and sexy male leads. Actually calling them boys is a misnomer. All of these guys are men and they are believable in their role as star crossed gay men.

The various other subplots just add to the attraction of this VERY nicely acted film The male leads (mostly straight guys) are all excellent actors. A lot of criticism has been thrown at the creators of Gay Cinema condemning this issue. I have friends that say "why can't they find Gay men to play these roles"? As Richard LeMay the creator of "200 American" states in his commentary, "I wanted strong realistic acting"....so what that the best actors that auditioned were straight men. That is why they are called ACTORS! Yes, I would like to see more "real" Gay actors in many of these films. Where are they? Are they afraid to come out? How silly. These "straight" guys act in roles as "Gay" men and they do it very well. What's to complain about that? There is much better acting here than in MANY other recent gay films. The smaller parts are handled by another group of really good actors (male and female), and they were able to come up with great on location filming in many nice locations in and around New York City. The editing and photography are so GOOD for a no budget film. In fact, if the writer and producer had not explained that it was really a NO budget film I would never have known.

Finally, the music written for this film is lovely. To me it fit the theme of the film perfectly. I applaud the writer, producer and director Richard LeMay. He not only made a beautiful, well made and acted little film, he trashed his sad ending he had originally written and has the 4 male leads get who they wanted. Truly a happy "GAY" film.

I highly recommend this light hearted, but NOT slapstick, funny flick about what we all WANT and NEED. You know, someone to love and be loved by. What's wrong with that? Sometimes I think a lot of folks don't appreciate the basics in cinema. They never get stale. especially in a well written, produced, directed, edited and photographed story of the power and beauty of love.

This film hits just the right spot to make you feel good and say AWWWWW.... As I said, What's wrong with that? 9 out of 10 stars Read some of my other reviews on Gay cinema. Some people would call me a romantic but, I repeat, what's wrong with that? Clive-13

terrible

[lettertoraoulpeck · 1/10 · 4 April 2006]

Easily the worst movie I have ever in my lifetime seen. The titled intrigued me and the story line could have been good but there was absolutely no character development, among other things. A fourteen year old fag-hag could write a better script than that. Absolutely the worst screen writing I have ever in my life encountered. The actors were decent and probably would have been great if the screenplay was no so poor.

I was very disappointed in this. Congratulations though to the actor playing Ian. I see a lot of good potential in him, I just hope he finds some better movies to star in.

Have you people been sniffing glue?

[ran1456 · 1/10 · 8 July 2007]

I cannot believe people feel the need to write so "passionately" about how much they love this film. How on earth could anyone watch this film and then think it was anything but a steaming pile of low budget crap.

200 American is a joke. Firstly, the storyline is nothing new and at times made me want to become bulimic.

The actors are unbelievably bad. One of the main characters is supposed to be Australian and his accent is awful - it is not Australian at all and I'm sure many Aussies would be very offended by it. Sean Matic really should take it off his CV.

The other actors are hammy at best. They look like they have just come from a local Church amateur dramatics group. Not one of them can make you believe that their character is real.

What I also found annoying and a complete waste of my life was the little scenes here and there that were totally irrelevant and added nothing to the plot or character development e.g. the scene with the models.

The budget must have been about $2. It looks like someone filmed it with a mobile phone and every now and then you see shadows of the crew. AWFUL! The best scene has to be the "elevator" scene where they're not actually in an elevator at all. When a lift comes to a sudden stop the people inside usually move a little bit.

Overall this film is an abomination, I would only advise you watch it to laugh at the lives of these pathetic actors and their lack of skill.

Struggling to find a positive

[Aussie-Woo · 1/10 · 13 August 2012]

I know it's easy to sit behind a computer, in my living room and critique the hard work of a writer, producer, director and a bunch of actors. I know it's not fair to comment as though my opinion is the only one that counts.....but having said that, this film is amazingly, spectacularly, brilliantly bad. Being Australian I have to respond to those who have commented that they "saw potential in" the actor who played Ian and those who suggested his accent was "passable" - clearly you've never heard an Australian accent. I'm not defending the Australian accent, it can be horrendous, but this guy didn't get it right for a single word. I was born here, I know Australian accents....this is nothing like one. Aside from this, the acting was appalling. I know there was no budget, that's great, but the DVD is still being flogged for $25 bucks, so if people still have to pay for it they should expect a certain level of quality. As far as I could tell the storyline was made-up as they filmed, like the actors were slotting-in implausible plot deviations as a dare to see if their fellow actors (and I use the term loosely) could run with it - the case in point was randomly selling a woman to white slavery by trapping her in a cage at a sex club, woeful - movies do not get worse than this. Seriously, if you haven't seen it yet, don't. I can not be clearer than this, do not watch this movie.

200 American? Give me my money back.

[pdlhw · 4/10 · 15 March 2012]

This comedy has less rhythm than a porn movie, even if the story looks taken from there. The mix between Pretty Woman and a Soap Opera makes it quite bearable. Edition is almost so bad as the acting. Just a few moments between Ian and Michael are believable. The low music budget doesn't help, because it makes the movie looks like the porn action is going to start in every minute but it never comes. The funniest scene is where the stuck ladies in the elevator decide to stop all the noisy conversation between Conrad and Martin, and this scene last just a few minutes in the whole movie. If you have 200 American, just spend the money in some other place.

Not a good one

[lasttimeisaw · 4/10 · 7 March 2007]

An indie film about two couple gay men's lives, how they deal with relationships and responsibilities. Every man has his own problem, dashing outside, but desperate inside.

How to pursue the lifestyle you are seeking for? How to find another perfect half of your life? Films can offer different options, but reality itself deters you, not everyone is lucky enough to get what he wants. The world looks more colorful and uncertain when you are aware of its capacity and emptiness, rather depressing.

Actors are all unknown, and the acting is just so-so, not so convincing but for a small romantic film, I should not ask too much.

Still not get the title, why "200 American"? Maybe I missed something and I admit I had been fallen asleep during the film playing. Shameful for me! I always think I can survive from any films no matter how boring or awful they are.

A hustler from Australia meets a business man and ends up working for him. From there things get sticky when he falls for his new supervisor.

[ytiea · 9/10 · 8 March 2005]

I loved this movie. A group of friends and I rented the DVD and were all caught off guard by how good it was. It is so rare to find a gay themed movie about average guys. Unlike the cover art suggests, this story is not about sex. It is a simple tale of people finding themselves. The acting is exceptional. The writing is great too. The only thing holding this movie back is it's budget. Obviously shot on the cheap, it more than makes up for it in heart. How many big budget stinkers have we seen? Too many. On top of all that, the three leading men are hot! Also, the commentary and interviews were fun too. I highly recommend this to everyone.

I've seen worse...

[boib8inla · 4/10 · 16 March 2022]

An intriguing, promising idea that is wasted. Poor writing, pedestrian acting (generally ok but sometimes awful), second rate direction and photography. I wasn't drawn into the story or the characters.

Not an abysmal movie but certainly not what I hoped for.

Oh, and Tyler/Ian's Australian accent? Looks like American audiences were fooled. But it needed a lot more work to be convincing to any Australian.