Artful success is not dependent on budget and the truly gifted filmmaker can rise above the restrictions they must labor under. I am always searching for those films that shine like a diamond amongst the dross of product cobbled together by lazy, unambitious, undisciplined, and - frequently - incompetent, wanna-be producers and directors; those who happily settle for the excuse "I didn't have any money" or "I had to work with all amateurs" and hope it covers their want of ability. In the hands of serious, competent filmmakers a low budget is not an excuse for a poor film. Consider Primer, Absentia, The Blair Witch Project, Coherence, Resolution, Man Bites Dog, Pi, Following (they're harder to find in the micro-budget realm but more rewarding as the creators are likely to significantly shine once larger budgets come their way). And with this, my first exposure to the work of Jason Figgis, I suspect I could be looking at another to join those filmmakers.
But this is a difficult film for me to assign a rating to. It is obviously the work of a talented filmmaker who found a way to maximize their limited resources while attempting something far more ambitious than the usual genre fare. I cannot speak highly enough of the naturalness and intensity of the performances (especially Darren Travers and Jason Sherlock), the commitment of the actors, the cleverness of the conceit, even how effectively Jason Figgis used the simple (but overused) faux documentary/found footage aspect. I am not a fan of poor camera handling - it can't be acceptable simply because it's low budget or "found footage" - but here it actually serves the film; it highlights the intensity of the scene, ratcheting up suspense, or putting us in the midst of the chaos, and disorientation, many of the characters are experiencing. All without calling attention to itself (outside of a few meta references). It seems organic to the movie, not just the film-making conceit. And just as the situation the characters find themselves in becomes unexpectedly twisted, so, too, does Figgis begin to twist the audience's sympathies. He bravely makes you understand, and dares to make you feel empathy for the characters engaging in despicable acts. Yet even as those acts escalate, Figgis never allows the "villians" to betray they're instinctive cruelty or callousness just to make them more palatable. That takes courage of the highest order and Figgis is to be commended highly for it. But sadly after an interesting set-up, and an even more interesting turn of events, the film eventually settles down to repetitious screaming and shouting of the same points and virtually the same half dozen lines of dialogue. It's as if everything was improvised (and it might have been) and the poor actors couldn't think of anything else to say. They stay committed to their characters throughout, and, yes, those characters are not necessarily the most literate individuals, but after a while the same lines shouted and screamed and growled just becomes numbing and tedious. And drifts perilously close to becoming dull, thus dissipating much of the power the film has built up in the first half. It doesn't help that a key character becomes virtually mute after a certain point when his arguments or defenses or justifications could serve to inflate the tension, and bewitch the viewer as to possible outcomes. The film obviously has more on it's mind than simply being effective; there are social issues and moral issues mentioned but, ultimately, none of this is really developed and expanded on. There are even some major issues (such as "why" key actions were taken) that are never really addressed, which isn't so much an added mystery as a simple defect. Or, maybe they were addressed more than I noticed but they were lost and buried in the repetitious screaming of the other, oft repeated lines. Maybe I zoned out because tonally the film had settled into a high-intensity rut - but a rut nevertheless. I could have done without yet another round of characters taking pictures of each other and spent that time learning something: about the people, about the situation or about what the filmmaker has to say about it all. I'll forgive the poorly executed violence (its really tough to do well on a super low budget) and the obviously digitally inserted gun flashes; those aspects of physical film-making (like set design) require a very particular set of skills that not every low budget production is privy to; but the script - the story - progression and development, in the end this is the spine of your feature. I literally shudder to think what this director and that cast could have done with a more illuminating screenplay. There is no question in my mind that, then, this would have rated ten stars from me, but as it is.... I'll give it a 7 for the sake of people who might just glance at the rating instead of reading the review - in actuality I'd make that a 6.5.
I will be seriously talking about this film, and I plan on re-watching it again soon (which is probably the highest compliment). I will seek out Figgis' other work to see if this was an amazing fluke or the beginning of an awesome arc.
I'll have to be giving it a qualified recommendation as opposed to the unqualified one it came so close to achieving. But it came closer than most.
4 out of 6 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
