Border to Border (1998) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Misplaced blame... but not such a bad flick
writerdirectorX14 November 2002
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 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This film is worth watching
lifeadventure4 November 2006
"Border to Border" is a very impressive film to watch, especially for a low budget film. I caught this film at the Napa Valley International Film Festival a few years back and meet the director Tom Whelan after the screening. When I watched the film I was very entertained and had a good time joining the crazy journey with the two lead characters Neil and Alex. Sure there were holes in the story (what independent film doesn't have them?) but then I learned that Whelan shot this film on weekends and holidays for about 8 months while working at Warner Bros. Eight months! I was able to speak with him after the screening (which happened to be the only sold out screening in the entire festival- and he received a standing ovation) and he was very nice and appreciative when he spoke to the audience. He managed to get this film in the "CAN" for only $225,000 while shooting in five states and over 140 different locations all without ever getting film permits! He manged to shoot the film on 35mm and with a crew of about 18 people, not including producers, I found out they had many producers - all people from the studio. He would start shooting scenes in one state and then finally finish the scene five months later in a different state. It's dam tough nowadays to make an interesting independent film and he managed to do it. He talked about shooting films in foreign countries and I have just recently noticed he shot a film in Thailand/Malaysia called "Somewhere" and a feature he just finished filming called "The Art of Travel" which was shot in Los Angeles, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Bolivia! I'm dieing to see that film. The guy has talent and seemed liked a guy who really loved to make movies. "Border" is really worth viewing. It's a dam good independent film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Love This film
carl_marlin200220 November 2002
I had just finished film school and was working on a show at Warner Bros when these guys started making this film. I read the original script and couldn't imagine why anyone would want to make this film. They said they were using the basic story but rewriting it. Man- did they ever- I didn't read the new script but went to one of the screening they had. I actually had to go several times before I could get in. I was stunned at the movie- it was incredible what they had done with this film. I wasn't the only one who loved it, the crowd was really into it and a mostly studio crowd, that's saying alot. I know they won several film festivals and were featured on ET and E! These guys went to hell and back to make this film. It took them almost a year to complete and I was amazed at the fact they spent under $300,000 and shot on 35 while holding down full time jobs at the studio. I had no idea what they went through till I check out the website. They shot in 140 locations from Canada to Mexico- that is unbelievable for a first time project. Imp in the early stages of my first film and I use this film as inspiration. I still can't imagine how they did it for so little and made it look so good. Don't listen to these other comments - sounds like a bitter wanna be writer- I'll bet money neither one has every made a film-as far as I know the last screening was at least 1-2 years ago and this "poe" guy wrote his comments a few months ago- sounds like a personal vendetta- he must have written the original piece of dung - LOL. Applaud this first time effort-I would have never guessed it was the first film if I didn't know. This film is not GONE WITH THE WIND, but as an idie film- I'd give it an 8- factor in it cost under $300,000 and was shot ON LOCATION from Canada to MEXICO and it should get an Oscar. Check out the website on the main page - love the stories- I would love to see it again. You guys did the impossible and did it with style- By the way EINSTEIN- Curtis Armstrong is listed first because it in ALPHABETICAL ORDER. The "A"'s first then the "B"'s--- see the pattern- and as far as the cameo of Jonathan Silverman- KUDOS on getting him- and I thought the scene was funny as hell even though you must not have had a lot of time for coverage. This is a MUST SEE for any filmmaker- its indie filmmaking at its best- You'll be VERY impressed- I hope my first film is half as good as this one- Thanks for the inspiration- its keeps me going You guys should look at the fact that after 2 years- people are still talking about your film- A huge fan Carlton
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
At last- the cure for insomnia!
poe42629 May 2002
It's easy enough when assessing the work of a neophyte filmmaker to point the finger of blame; easy enough to second guess, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, what the intentions were. First-time filmmakers (or "paid amateurs," if you will) can sometimes be forgiven their tell-tale excesses (on the theory that they really didn't know what they were doing, though many of them have graduated from film school these days and certainly SHOULD know better).

In this case, blame must be laid with the WRITERS. There are four credited here, which is almost never a good sign. Four different directions in which the film might go, and, in this one, that's the crux of the problem: one can't distinguish between the comedy, the drama, or the mix because the director- who happens to be one of the writers- doesn't have a firm grip on things. (And why is Curtis Armstrong- who played "Booger" in the REVENGE OF THE NERDS movies- wasted in a brief cameo? His part is only marginally significant, and could've been handled by a no-doubt less expensive newcomer. Familiar faces turn up throughout this movie, briefly, and fall by the wayside, as it were. The string of cameos are notable only for their brevity. Were the filmmakers demonstrating some misplaced largesse?) Storywise, there are gaping plot holes large enough to drive a truck through (logic never rears its ugly head), there are nonsensical, inappropriate comments (and two-bit witticisms and cheapjack philosophy) from out of left field throughout that leave one scratching one's head in confusion (inane banalities abound). See the movie for the performance of newcomer Neil Mather, who steals the show, but don't expect a whole lot else for your money.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed