After reading the review above, and seeing the film first hand at the Las Vegas Film Festival a few years back, I'd like to point out a few things. Firstly, if you are going to blame the Writer(s) then you should really blame the solely listed writer, Cory D. Miller as `story by' credits are often handed to writer's who's original work has been re-written past recognition. Just for curiosity, however, I checked the WGA database and found that only Pifer and Johnson's names appear on the original script (I wonder what kind of script it was, as the story itself seems interesting. Whelan clearly just put his name on the `story-by' credit - as seen on the film itself - because he thought he contributed to the original story idea, but clearly by the WGA database, not the original script. A common megalomania occurrence in Hollywood, I'm sorry to say). The film itself seems to have suffered from many film blunders (like huge plot holes, like the two men are supposed to be `in a race' but the better cyclist often stops and waits for his supposed `opponent' to catch up, and many others), but from the list of producers (7 listed in the credits!) it would seem the primary blunder was the `too many cooks' problem that plagues and has plagued Hollywood from its inception. Overall it's a decent effort from first time film makers and Neil Mather's performance does indeed steal the show (the other performances - Gorrence and O'Connell - were decent as well) with an extra stand out performance by Rick Hoffman (Terry Loomis of TV's `Philly') as a convenience store clerk who's been on the job for too many hours and is losing touch with reality. Many of the scenes (the one with Johnathon Silverman - `Weekend at Bernie's' fame - for instance) seem to have been thrown in just because the actor was available or someone had a `good idea' (which often happens when too many fledgling film makers get together on their first project). The ending is creative and interesting, but the fact that the villain (O' Connell's character) kills two people and gets away with $2,000,000 in stolen cash, makes you wonder what values the filmmakers were trying to promote (again, I wonder if that was in the original script.)? I personally would not recommend the film for this last reason alone, but, overall for what seemed to be a shoestring budget film shot ON LOCATION and on the road, it's an impressive achievement.
2 of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this