A family reunion goes awry when the oldest son makes the accusation that his dying father, a famed psychiatrist who also did work for the CIA, adopted his children for the purposes of psychological experimentation.
The Red Robin is a tense psychological thriller unveiling the troubled past, conflict-filled present, and uncertain future of a remarkable family, the Shellners. 75 year-old Dr. Nathaniel Shellner's led an extraordinary life as a psychiatrist working with traumatized patients fleeing war zones, earning himself a Nobel Prize for his work. After having one child, Leonard (48), with his wife, Lillian (72), the Shellners elected to adopt the remainder of their family from the camps where Dr. Shellner worked. Ultimately the Shellners incorporated five children from all over the world into their family - Tommy (36), Julie (38), and Harry (37) As Dr. Shellner lies on his death bed on a frigid, icy day on the fringes of New York City in suburban New Jersey, the family convenes at the house where the couple raised the children for a final, bittersweet farewell to a sensational and inspiring public figure. Or, that's the idea until all hell breaks loose after Tommy arrives and accuses his ... Written by
Michael Z. Wechsler
Excellent film, don't listen to the jackass in film school
I really enjoyed this movie, which was much better than I thought for a very low budget film. I was curious to read reviews and then caught the one entitled "Beware the hype for a morbid failure" that will probably be above mine that tears up the film - and incorrectly. I felt like it deserved a response from someone who did some acting but didn't take it the full route but has an educated eye.
1) Genre: There is nothing wrong with the genre. Without ruining the film, there is nothing wrong with not being sadly predictable from the moment the reel is in motion.
2) Technique: Shot with the wrong camera. This clown evidently didn't see the budget and the overwhelming majority of people - especially the average movie goer - will never be able to tell the difference. He then says "this monetary decision..." - as if a film is not worth doing at all unless it has a huge budget to be able to get the alleged camera of choice. What a snob, probably a frustrated director.
3) Acting: The clown can't decide whether ONE of the actors was somehow "incompetently played" but fails to say how. What happened was probably intentional because it makes sense in how the film plays out.
4) Deus Ex Machina: Makes you wonder whether this clown was ever truly competent in film. Doesn't know what this is and there is nothing that is pulled out of a Roman Deity's buttocks to save the day. Perhaps he shouldn't be lecturing about film school 101 because you don't need to be a director to understand the term.
5) Pretentious: Seems like someone has a serious bug up his bum, talking about how something may have been subliminally inserted into the credits. And then he rambles on about the film's showing at festivals... well... if you don't have HUGE money to pay for all those fancy cameras then you have to work very hard to get people to see the film, especially the right people. Could this LOR from New York, NY be a bigger turd? Sounds like it's par for the course in the entertainment industry.
6) Signs of the Amateur: This clown had to try to belittle the director even more. My guess... a former employee who was terminated. His complaint is that there were lots of thank yous in the film. Well... when you're a small time film maker on a small budget who is grateful for all the people who contributed to making this tiny budget look MUCH larger than it is, you MUST include them in the credits. That's business and relationships 101.
Overall I really enjoyed the film and didn't look at my watch once. For a low budget film that looks like it was only 6 figures and MAYBE just into 7 figures, it was great. It is SO MUCH better than the shlock I see on Cinemax, Showtime and other cable channels that get rerun over and over. And the bottom line is that it did have an interesting story line and believable ending. And the fact that this impish film student or former employee didn't even bother to discuss the film and just went for unrelated issues that a movie goer couldn't care less about tells you that there really weren't any significant complaints with the movie itself to warrant criticism!
So on that note I enjoyed it. I saw just a handful of things I might have done differently but I thought it was miles better than the shlock you see on low budget films and shaky cam reality movies. Worth the look and no regrets.
4 of 5 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?