For an indie film this movie makes you feel like you're watching an old detective movie.The plot makes you think about who the murderer really is, and you don't really expect it to be who it is.It has many time period artifacts in it.The characters all have a uniqueness about them.They all are what you would envision their character to be.Joey is a troubled and lonely private detective,that would like to be his former self,again,but trouble keeps following him where ever he goes.Marianna wants to take care of herself,but isn't quite sure of the world.Ginger knows how things work,but still can't find happiness.What transpires between these three characters,and who comes out ahead is the question.
5 Reviews
Great title to the movie , because it describes much more than a actual location .
t88788 November 2003
This movie had the ingredience to be a great movie . It had the violence , sex , and corruption that many people love to see . Most of the actors did a outstanding job , but a few did not hit there mark . Although it draged a bit at times , the editing and the music went together well . With the right backing this movie could easily become a great film . I think this movie is worth seeing because it has something to say rather than just some mindless action .
Mediocre Mystery
bmoviefan10015 March 2004
A friend of mine had a DVD copy of this film, so I thought I would give it a try and watch it. I wasnt that impressed with it at all. The direction was non-existent! The story itself was not bad. I enjoy murder mysteries, but I had a hard time following this one. I did like how there were many people in the town who had the motive to murder Mariana. But then when you find out what actually happened, it was very confusing and not very believable. As far as acting goes, the actors looked like they wanted to do more with their scenes, but they seemed very stifled by the utter lack of direction. I thought Laura Parish did a fine job as Ginger, she was given ALOT of dialogue and she handled it well. Vickie Smith also was good as Lisa Losers, the bar owner. Her acting style was very subtle which played well against some of the overacting by her co-stars. Cassandra Schomer and Micah Shane Ballinger were given little to do with their parts, which is a waste of two very good actors. Overall I gave this movie a 5 out of 10, not a complete waste of time, but not great!
`Losers Lounge' recalls the majesty of golden age Noir films but can't quite get there itself.
duandsku22 November 2003
I recently sat in during a screening of this picture, and I must say that it wasn't my type of film. While this was clearly a first try film, and a certain amount of raggedness is to be expected, there are a few key problems that made the entire experience underwhelming.
The script should have gone through a few revisions before making it to the screen. The plot centers on the death of a young girl that takes a job serving drinks at Loser's Lounge. This leads to the questioning of a local reporter who is the prime suspect of her murder. However, the death of the girl doesn't happen until probably 50 minutes until the film, which means the first 50 minutes are entirely exposition with no plot arc directing it to anywhere interesting. This all leads into a completely standard murder mystery that is at once completely obvious as well as difficult to follow. Anyone that has seen any of the noir films (`The Maltese Falcon' comes to mind, but there are many others) that this was based on will know long before the end who was responsible for the murder, yet the plot details are so difficult to follow that the clues are incomprehensibly hidden in long dialogue passages. By the time the lead characters figure out the mystery, the viewer will have no idea how they could have possibly figured it out based on the clues they have discovered.
Another big script problem is that ninety percent of the character development comes in the form of long monologues in which characters discuss their entire back story and history before the movie started. Characters admit to many seedy details of their lives, including stories of prostitution and child molestation. Now, many films of this genre have used this technique ("Chinatown" is perhaps the most famous example), but this film seems to have one huge monologue every scene. Each of the main characters has 2 or 3 monologues over the course of the film and just about everyone has one at some point. The acting doesn't help, as none of the actors seem to know what to do with this writing other than just recite it like they are reading it off the page for the first time. By three quarters of the way through the film, the monologues seem completely unnecessary and for this reason alone the film felt endless. At one point, a waitress asks the main character, "So, why'd you move here?" He responds, "It's a long story." This inspired laughter from the audience in the theater simply because everyone knew this was going to lead into another needlessly long monologue and eat a few more minutes of their time.
The direction of the film doesn't help much either. The filmmaking process seems to have not included any storyboarding, as shots violated the line of action and the framing was not based on any standard cinematographic principles. This often leads to a confusing experience, trying to figure out where people were located in a room or what the location of the scene was like. The film is extremely sparse visually, as sets consisted of mostly a couch or a bed in the middle of a completely white room that has a couple of pictures on the walls. There is always so much white space on the screen with no interesting lighting or angles that the visual element feels irritatingly monotone. There is also hardly any movement on screen; characters typically stand or sit in one position and don't move around and the camera is always on a tripod without any motion the vast majority of time.
In terms of period details, it's hardly ever believable that this story is actually happening in the '40s, as there are details that are identifiably modern, such as a modern refrigerator and a NASCAR poster. At one point, one can see a figure that seems suspiciously like a computer screen. The clothing styles are similarly plain and are questionable of what year they are supposed to be representing. The music in the film was quite minimal, as there were a couple pieces that seemed appropriate for the time period, but most of the music consisted of monotonous two chord synthesizer loops and at one point a break-beat based techno song came into the foreground. These components often distract from the movie, and at best simply add to the droning experience of the film.
Technical problems aside, many of the actors seem to have fun during the filmmaking process, and there is a positive first time filmmaking quality that can be felt in the film. However, since none of the actors are professionals, one can't really believe that the characters are truly 1940s prostitutes, private detectives, police officers, etc. Perhaps if they were making a film closer to their frame of reference, like a modern story about family or friendship, a much more interesting indie film could have resulted. Instead, the picture is simply a fallen satellite that can only long to be one of the stars that shined so bright many years ago.
On an end note, anyone that sees this film might as well stick it through to the end, as the final plot developments turn into something quite comically absurd. The audience during the showing couldn't sustain their laughter as the main characters make such bizarre, unrealistic decisions that one can't take them seriously. Also, this film probably sets a record for the longest lists of epilogues ever seen in a movie; each of the characters established over the entire film are given a one line summary of what happened to them in the next several years after the events of Losers Lounge. These ingredients were actually quite a memorable ending for the film, even though perhaps for slightly different reasons than the filmmakers were intending.
The script should have gone through a few revisions before making it to the screen. The plot centers on the death of a young girl that takes a job serving drinks at Loser's Lounge. This leads to the questioning of a local reporter who is the prime suspect of her murder. However, the death of the girl doesn't happen until probably 50 minutes until the film, which means the first 50 minutes are entirely exposition with no plot arc directing it to anywhere interesting. This all leads into a completely standard murder mystery that is at once completely obvious as well as difficult to follow. Anyone that has seen any of the noir films (`The Maltese Falcon' comes to mind, but there are many others) that this was based on will know long before the end who was responsible for the murder, yet the plot details are so difficult to follow that the clues are incomprehensibly hidden in long dialogue passages. By the time the lead characters figure out the mystery, the viewer will have no idea how they could have possibly figured it out based on the clues they have discovered.
Another big script problem is that ninety percent of the character development comes in the form of long monologues in which characters discuss their entire back story and history before the movie started. Characters admit to many seedy details of their lives, including stories of prostitution and child molestation. Now, many films of this genre have used this technique ("Chinatown" is perhaps the most famous example), but this film seems to have one huge monologue every scene. Each of the main characters has 2 or 3 monologues over the course of the film and just about everyone has one at some point. The acting doesn't help, as none of the actors seem to know what to do with this writing other than just recite it like they are reading it off the page for the first time. By three quarters of the way through the film, the monologues seem completely unnecessary and for this reason alone the film felt endless. At one point, a waitress asks the main character, "So, why'd you move here?" He responds, "It's a long story." This inspired laughter from the audience in the theater simply because everyone knew this was going to lead into another needlessly long monologue and eat a few more minutes of their time.
The direction of the film doesn't help much either. The filmmaking process seems to have not included any storyboarding, as shots violated the line of action and the framing was not based on any standard cinematographic principles. This often leads to a confusing experience, trying to figure out where people were located in a room or what the location of the scene was like. The film is extremely sparse visually, as sets consisted of mostly a couch or a bed in the middle of a completely white room that has a couple of pictures on the walls. There is always so much white space on the screen with no interesting lighting or angles that the visual element feels irritatingly monotone. There is also hardly any movement on screen; characters typically stand or sit in one position and don't move around and the camera is always on a tripod without any motion the vast majority of time.
In terms of period details, it's hardly ever believable that this story is actually happening in the '40s, as there are details that are identifiably modern, such as a modern refrigerator and a NASCAR poster. At one point, one can see a figure that seems suspiciously like a computer screen. The clothing styles are similarly plain and are questionable of what year they are supposed to be representing. The music in the film was quite minimal, as there were a couple pieces that seemed appropriate for the time period, but most of the music consisted of monotonous two chord synthesizer loops and at one point a break-beat based techno song came into the foreground. These components often distract from the movie, and at best simply add to the droning experience of the film.
Technical problems aside, many of the actors seem to have fun during the filmmaking process, and there is a positive first time filmmaking quality that can be felt in the film. However, since none of the actors are professionals, one can't really believe that the characters are truly 1940s prostitutes, private detectives, police officers, etc. Perhaps if they were making a film closer to their frame of reference, like a modern story about family or friendship, a much more interesting indie film could have resulted. Instead, the picture is simply a fallen satellite that can only long to be one of the stars that shined so bright many years ago.
On an end note, anyone that sees this film might as well stick it through to the end, as the final plot developments turn into something quite comically absurd. The audience during the showing couldn't sustain their laughter as the main characters make such bizarre, unrealistic decisions that one can't take them seriously. Also, this film probably sets a record for the longest lists of epilogues ever seen in a movie; each of the characters established over the entire film are given a one line summary of what happened to them in the next several years after the events of Losers Lounge. These ingredients were actually quite a memorable ending for the film, even though perhaps for slightly different reasons than the filmmakers were intending.
Nice Looking Noir Film
MicroCinemaMagazine15 September 2004
With a reported budget of less then $1,000 this film is a perfect example of microcinema working for the little guy. The film was shot in the tradition of the old classic Film Noir style film-making. It is set in 1948 in the fictitious town of Passionville, IL.
Joey Ferdinando (Brian Talbot) is a private eye who, after being forced out of the Passionville Police Department, now works catching cheating husbands.
His favorite hang out is Losers Lounge owned by Lisa Loser (Vickie Smith). Everyone who is anyone frequents the lounge in search of good times, drinking and a few extra curricular activities. One day Lisa is approached by Mariana Walker (Autumne Sorgius), a young girl in search of a job. She is hired on the spot and begins whoring almost immediately. Mariana is killed later in the film and Joey is dubbed the #1 suspect. He is constantly being scrutinized by Sergeant Frank Monday (Kevin Croak) and Mayor Hermann Paxton (Bob Williams) for his role in the murder and eventually has to prove his innocence amidst all the corruption and dirty politics.
The storyline was great, however the acting left a little to be desired. Technically the film was solid with the exception of the lightning and audio inconsistencies. We would like to give props to the chase scene involving Joey and Rich (Tim Tyler). Instead of using a traditional dolly Don Boner's crew improvised by having the camera man ride in the trunk of a car while it was moving. The end result being an impressive action sequence that could be considered the best scene of the entire film.
This film is a prime example of what can be achieved on a limited budget and a little imagination. My only suggestion...spend more time on casting.
Joey Ferdinando (Brian Talbot) is a private eye who, after being forced out of the Passionville Police Department, now works catching cheating husbands.
His favorite hang out is Losers Lounge owned by Lisa Loser (Vickie Smith). Everyone who is anyone frequents the lounge in search of good times, drinking and a few extra curricular activities. One day Lisa is approached by Mariana Walker (Autumne Sorgius), a young girl in search of a job. She is hired on the spot and begins whoring almost immediately. Mariana is killed later in the film and Joey is dubbed the #1 suspect. He is constantly being scrutinized by Sergeant Frank Monday (Kevin Croak) and Mayor Hermann Paxton (Bob Williams) for his role in the murder and eventually has to prove his innocence amidst all the corruption and dirty politics.
The storyline was great, however the acting left a little to be desired. Technically the film was solid with the exception of the lightning and audio inconsistencies. We would like to give props to the chase scene involving Joey and Rich (Tim Tyler). Instead of using a traditional dolly Don Boner's crew improvised by having the camera man ride in the trunk of a car while it was moving. The end result being an impressive action sequence that could be considered the best scene of the entire film.
This film is a prime example of what can be achieved on a limited budget and a little imagination. My only suggestion...spend more time on casting.
- 3.5/5 Little Guys -
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
