Reviews written by registered user
|5 reviews in total|
I saw this film with a bunch of other short films at the Cleveland
International Film Festival, and it was not much different from many of
others I have seen through out the week. It started so cool and
mysteriously yet ended with such a let down.
A man who lives alone recently walked out on his girlfriend. A man, appearing to be sales representative, enters the man's apartment, which is empty. He claims that he needs nothing and is waiting to meet someone, but the salesperson is persistent.
Endings make a lot for a short film, and this one was too cute, when it could have been so much more. After the beginning, I had such high expectations. The title does not really seem appropriate either, although the two violinists, from which the title must come, were a nice touch, and a rather clever addition, but by no means a major theme in the film. Nothing too special: 4/10
This movie really annoyed me. The entire thing had sort of this amateur,
student-made television show type feel to it. The acting was bad and the
plot was stupid.
John is the manager of a comedy club that supposedly started the careers of comics like Colin Quinn and Woodey Allen. When his new land-lord becomes the woman he had a one-night-stand with on New Year's Eve, she decides to evict the club because she felt that John mistreated her that New Year's Eve.
The movie is filled with cameos, and has a couple badly acted, but funny jokes, but the ending is really predictable and really stupid. The entire premise of the film becomes so apparently pointless. The fact that the main character, being the unrighteous man he is, manages to succeed (without doing anything but having a few connections), proves how empty, and meaningless this film is.
I did not really like the general atmosphere and style of this movie.
Things were too vague. Short film can often be limiting, and keeps a
director from clearly expressing his intent, and unless this movie was
filled with pointless scenes to convince the audience to draw their own
conclusions, this was the case.
A woman brings her daughter and one of her daughter's friends with her to meet with an ex-convict. The mother used to be the ex-convict's social worker, and through out the film it is made apparent that the mother is attracted to this ex-convict.
A lot of this film could really be put up for debate as far as what was meant. The movie ends abruptly, and I felt that a lot was left unexplained, however one could argue otherwise. The daughter talks in sort of a voice like she is reading from a book, and there were no other performances to speak of. Most of the cinematography was good; the DoP did a good job of taking advantage of what scenery he had to deal with.
I saw this film at the Cleveland Film Festival, it was one of the few US
films showing, so I wanted to see it, but after reading the review in the
festival magazine, my expectations were low. The only reason I call this
film "kind of original" is because the concept was original, yet the humor
that was employed, has kind of already been done.
It is about an aspiring actor in Los Angles, who is considered a failure by most around him. Because of his failure, he creates an imaginary "audience" (that's you), that watches him as he goes through daily life. He goes to great extents to impress his audience by doing things like attacking random suspicious-looking characters on the street. After a few violations, a judge has him see a psychiatrist, and from there, things start getting a little bit more interesting.
It was a pretty upbeat movie, and a few parts had me laughing, but it mostly consisted of making-fun of common film clichés and stereotypes, and despite this, the film still employed a few of these on its own. The main character often talks directly to the audience, which gets sort of irritating and there's also this villain that runs around, who also becomes annoying. The acting was nothing special, but I will give the writer a bit of credit, sometimes you are left wondering where he will go next, but for the most part the film manages to remain entertaining. Pretty average: 5/10.
I do not even want to summarize this movie; it is not worth it. There is
not really a plot, just expect a bunch of fights with knives and blood.
quality is what you are looking for, you will not find it here.
It is not realistic at all. To have a giant forest as a battle ground and still have the "good guy" happen to trigger every little string for a booby-trap makes me want to puke. If you have ever seen "The Fugitive" with Tommy Lee Jones, you are going to be reminded of it A LOT. Tons of chase scenes and fights, it was relatively intense, but what happened next was so predictable that some of that intensity was lost.
I am giving this film a 2/10. The only thing that saves it are the occasional nice shots, the DoP is an accomplished one. There was also this theme of hunting, being hunted and hunting wildlife (and its inhumanity), which was noticeable, but worthless, pointless, and unfulfilling.