This movie was never released into theaters or any other market and all we have to go on are three user reviews. The first and last are somewhat informative. The middle one though shows bias and reveals that the user to be either a friend of the director, or perhaps even the director himself.
It makes absolutely no sense that, if this movie was the work of genius they claim it is, that the producer would feel compelled to take it into the editing room to change it. Usually in such cases there are significant problems that have to be remedied to save the picture and make it releasable.
The feature in question is not available in any form. There must be a reason why and the middle review is trying to place the entire burden of blame on the producer. But it appears that there were others who share this responsibility.
"Every Girl Should Have One" was a first time directing effort of a former child actor who had also written the screenplay. His IMDb profile indicates no other directing experience before this movie was made. The third review indicates that he was unable to get good performances out of the younger actors. Only the old pros were able to pull their weight. The first review indicated that the movie had a number of clichés in it and had a dated feel. Comedy heist movies certainly do not have to be dated and many hold up well over the years. (Example: the Pink Panther series). The movie promised to be a light heist comedy but this obviously didn't quite happen due to who wrote it and who directed it. The producer was not on the set or in direct control of the decisions made there. The writer/director was. Unfortunately there was a disconnect for whatever reasons (other business responsibilities perhaps) and the project was able to go along too far before the producer could discover the state of things and attempt to repair the film.
There are certain lessons to learned from this film: If are a producer and you are using a first time director, keep close tabs on what they are doing - especially if they are also the writer, because their judgment may not be as critical as someone looking at the script with a fresh eye. Also it is important to spread the risk if you can by not financing the whole thing yourself, or at the very least, be intimately involved with the day-to-day details to protect your investment.
So while this is not, and can not, be a review of the actual movie, I hope it can be at least a rebuttal of the unfair middle review (the one that reveals insider information as in the original title). Hopefully it reveals the cautionary tale that is behind the making of this movie.
It makes absolutely no sense that, if this movie was the work of genius they claim it is, that the producer would feel compelled to take it into the editing room to change it. Usually in such cases there are significant problems that have to be remedied to save the picture and make it releasable.
The feature in question is not available in any form. There must be a reason why and the middle review is trying to place the entire burden of blame on the producer. But it appears that there were others who share this responsibility.
"Every Girl Should Have One" was a first time directing effort of a former child actor who had also written the screenplay. His IMDb profile indicates no other directing experience before this movie was made. The third review indicates that he was unable to get good performances out of the younger actors. Only the old pros were able to pull their weight. The first review indicated that the movie had a number of clichés in it and had a dated feel. Comedy heist movies certainly do not have to be dated and many hold up well over the years. (Example: the Pink Panther series). The movie promised to be a light heist comedy but this obviously didn't quite happen due to who wrote it and who directed it. The producer was not on the set or in direct control of the decisions made there. The writer/director was. Unfortunately there was a disconnect for whatever reasons (other business responsibilities perhaps) and the project was able to go along too far before the producer could discover the state of things and attempt to repair the film.
There are certain lessons to learned from this film: If are a producer and you are using a first time director, keep close tabs on what they are doing - especially if they are also the writer, because their judgment may not be as critical as someone looking at the script with a fresh eye. Also it is important to spread the risk if you can by not financing the whole thing yourself, or at the very least, be intimately involved with the day-to-day details to protect your investment.
So while this is not, and can not, be a review of the actual movie, I hope it can be at least a rebuttal of the unfair middle review (the one that reveals insider information as in the original title). Hopefully it reveals the cautionary tale that is behind the making of this movie.
