This was one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen. The story is totally bleak, with few breaks in the presentation. Two veterans of the Iraq war come home to a place which could be seen as ugly as the war they just left. The entire film is shot in a gray or dark light - this place has been deserted by even a little sunshine.
The performances were very good. I guess that's the redeeming aspect of the film. Just about every actor did their best with such a tragic story. See it for the acting, but don't expect a great story.
7 Reviews
Could've Been Amazing
kittenofthesea-49-7863369 May 2011
Amazing actors in a well written story. The down side- don't go without your Dramamine. I got motion sick! First, I found myself backing up into my chair as if I were inside the actors personal bubble. The camera was at the actors shoulder, complete with all the movement nearly the entire movie. The camera shot was excessively too close and the constant panning around the room made for a dizzying, nauseous experience. I'm not one prone to motion sickness either. I understand that the desired affect was to draw the viewer into the actors, but I wish the cinematography had been different. It really would've been a great movie otherwise. If you can handle it, I recommend it on account of the outstanding acting and story line. It's a great story of how a persons power and control of their own life can be taken away. The characters are very relatable.
" Dark " is the word !
adabsiz8 July 2020
Just about the worst film ever ... made on a shoestring budget it seems, full of gory violence and non-Iraqi action ! It used to be Vietnam a few decades ago , but things have moved on it seems.
What a wasted and pointless effort in the name of art (?) ...
What a wasted and pointless effort in the name of art (?) ...
Imagine if Quentin Tarantino had no talent...
Quiestar9 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The film opens in black and white. Not film noir, but well-lit, high key, black and white. The very moment I was thinking, "Please don't let this be a black and white "art" film," the black-and-white turned to a sepia tone, and then color. The reason? The first of the director's secrets not to be revealed. My guess? Some editors have a difficult time avoiding the many options available for them to manipulate a film. Granted, all the magic in post couldn't have saved this film.
The onion-skin plot was introduced, quickly morphing into a low-budget, poorly acted treatment of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Pulp Dogs? The few cast members not shot or stabbed, were supporting cast members. That the "talented survive in show business," was demonstrated by those left alive. I don't think that is the meaning behind the statement. But that's okay. Meaning was something the director was hesitant to share with the audience. The lead actors performed equally as convincing when they were dead as when they were alive. At least a sequel is out of the question, unless the director hops on the zombie bandwagon.
Someone in the forums already mentioned the Pulp Fiction briefcase, which, like in the QT movie, the viewer never was privy to the contents. In Pulp Fiction, we saw a golden glow far more subtle with the hint of a metaphysical origin, providing an element of some speculation as to its content. We also saw a well-crafted, superbly edited film in Pulp Fiction. In Cost of a Soul, the first impression of the briefcase's contents was a flat panel fluorescent light. I suppose this was to signify something slightly more than another tribute to the works of Quentin Tarantino. Perhaps it was yet another secret known only to the director. That covers the cinematic expression of the film, except to mention that the Wizard of Oz like color-shifting which started the film, was also used, in reverse order, to end the film.
The story was a well-worn tale viewers have been exposed to so many times, it appeared even the actors were bored. The director attempted to bring life to his story, by employing experiments in cinematography and editing, more comfortable in first time regional film festival offerings. The plethora of continual "pull focus" shots which caused an unsettling case of vertigo, led me to believe the camera operator/focus puller had both just returned from a seminar featuring the technique. Used sparingly, pulling focus it is a common technique which has the ability to subtly move the viewer's attention from one character to another in a scene by changing focus. The constant shifting of focus became as obvious as green screen shots in low-budget 1970's horror flicks.
At nearly two hours, it was as exciting as seeing how far Silly Putty could be stretched before snapping in two. Three stars for the off-screen super-talent who pulled off the financing for the cost of the Cost of a Soul.
The onion-skin plot was introduced, quickly morphing into a low-budget, poorly acted treatment of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Pulp Dogs? The few cast members not shot or stabbed, were supporting cast members. That the "talented survive in show business," was demonstrated by those left alive. I don't think that is the meaning behind the statement. But that's okay. Meaning was something the director was hesitant to share with the audience. The lead actors performed equally as convincing when they were dead as when they were alive. At least a sequel is out of the question, unless the director hops on the zombie bandwagon.
Someone in the forums already mentioned the Pulp Fiction briefcase, which, like in the QT movie, the viewer never was privy to the contents. In Pulp Fiction, we saw a golden glow far more subtle with the hint of a metaphysical origin, providing an element of some speculation as to its content. We also saw a well-crafted, superbly edited film in Pulp Fiction. In Cost of a Soul, the first impression of the briefcase's contents was a flat panel fluorescent light. I suppose this was to signify something slightly more than another tribute to the works of Quentin Tarantino. Perhaps it was yet another secret known only to the director. That covers the cinematic expression of the film, except to mention that the Wizard of Oz like color-shifting which started the film, was also used, in reverse order, to end the film.
The story was a well-worn tale viewers have been exposed to so many times, it appeared even the actors were bored. The director attempted to bring life to his story, by employing experiments in cinematography and editing, more comfortable in first time regional film festival offerings. The plethora of continual "pull focus" shots which caused an unsettling case of vertigo, led me to believe the camera operator/focus puller had both just returned from a seminar featuring the technique. Used sparingly, pulling focus it is a common technique which has the ability to subtly move the viewer's attention from one character to another in a scene by changing focus. The constant shifting of focus became as obvious as green screen shots in low-budget 1970's horror flicks.
At nearly two hours, it was as exciting as seeing how far Silly Putty could be stretched before snapping in two. Three stars for the off-screen super-talent who pulled off the financing for the cost of the Cost of a Soul.
Don't listen to critics, try this movie. Chris Kerson nails this role!
reverendrazorback29 June 2020
I really don't know why there are so many bad reviews. Sure it was Sean Kirkpatrick's first film he directed. Sure there may be a few shots or scenes rough around the edges, but in the 2nd half of the movie, what would seem like a straightforward plot takes some twists.
I've never heard of or seen Chris Kerson in anything before, but he seriously takes this movie from a 6 to an 9 for me. He does a great job at making you feel for his character (Tommy). You don't necessarily like him, but you can understand and sympathize for him.
I wish they would have spent a little more time showing how Tommy got to where he was in the military. Also great performances from Mark Borkowski (Jake) and Gregg Almquist (Bernie). Gregg portrays a pretty accurate organized crime leader for that time period and type of city.
I've never heard of or seen Chris Kerson in anything before, but he seriously takes this movie from a 6 to an 9 for me. He does a great job at making you feel for his character (Tommy). You don't necessarily like him, but you can understand and sympathize for him.
I wish they would have spent a little more time showing how Tommy got to where he was in the military. Also great performances from Mark Borkowski (Jake) and Gregg Almquist (Bernie). Gregg portrays a pretty accurate organized crime leader for that time period and type of city.
Good Performances
mrusso903 April 2019
Great Performance and a View of Reality
kitsmom-765499 September 2023
All of the actors were great. I had never seen the two key actors (the soldiers returning from Iraq) before and I thought they were great and perfect choice for the movie. The other actors (family members and bad guys) were also very good and compelling. Somehow, I missed what was in the briefcase so maybe I'll figure it out if I watch it again.
Yes, it's a dark movie but I think it gives a look at the crises occurring in so many of our cities today - never ending violence and lost hope to get out of a vicious cycle. I found it riveting and the color tones matched the dark topic. Hoping someday people dont have to live like this.
Yes, it's a dark movie but I think it gives a look at the crises occurring in so many of our cities today - never ending violence and lost hope to get out of a vicious cycle. I found it riveting and the color tones matched the dark topic. Hoping someday people dont have to live like this.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
