How to start? Dam California came onto my radar about a year ago, it was being touted as this amazing feature length film. I can no unequivocally say, "False Advertising".
If IMDb.com had a zero star rating this film earned that, it in no way earned a single star. There are so many issues with this film, that it is incredibly hard to begin this review. I've never felt compelled to review an indie film, until now.
THE STORY: What story? It is a disjointed attempt at storytelling, if you can use that word for this film. It involves a water company stealing water from people; then it involves a James Bond Girl Reject in a doctor roll (Who researches fish in a fish-tank), who halfway through subdues a man with a fancy arm hold out of nowhere, with no build up or anything. We are then introduced to a news reporter for an agency that cannot figure out if it is in Television News or Newspaper. You would think if you're representing news, you would do research into it, alas this was not meant to me.
Then it goes to a senator and a water company official who say they want all the water for themselves and last but not least, and I am probably forgetting things, there is a returning war vet who is sad for some reason (never explained) who works for the water company. Every character is flat, emotionless and a text book example of how not to write characters. I truly feel bad for the actors who performed in this.
The film changes it's own story countless times, the doctors are fighting one thing in one scene, then talking about the bad water company doing a different thing, and then back to the first thing. It left the audience chuckling, and talking amongst themselves.
There is no understanding of the act structure, no act breaks, no characters that you can identify with. It has not emotion. No excitement. No redeeming qualities.
The ending, my god, that ending was the worst, it fails to do anything, besides cap off this film as one of the worst films. It was as the title to this review states, deplorable.
THE CINEMATOGRAPHY: Certainly this couldn't be bad? No it wasn't, it was tragic. The director of photography had no clue what he was doing, no clue how to light, no clue of the rules of cinematography. It seemed like they sought to hide the shoddy camera work with numerous dolly shots, almost every scene had a dolly shot and for no reason.
There were several shots that were framed with the actors in the very edges of the left frame, with nothing in the right side. Terrible.
EDITING: Come on, it seems to have been edited by someone with no experience at editing who bought final cut and said "Hey, I'm an editor now". Terrible.
WRITING/DIRECTING: Non-existent. Utterly terrible. Issac Piche, also wrote this film, and from that you can guess where this review is going. A gander through a book on writing/directing would have proved a little useful for the director. However, this could not be saved by a book, it could only have been saved by a real writer, putting together the script, again this was not to be on this film.
From actors, to locations, to the script, to camera work and through the post-production, this is a textbook example of how not to direct a movie.
SAVING GRACE: and there can only be one, when looking at a couple of the actors, some had some talent and we're given this piece of garbage and told to make Shakespeare with it. I feel bad for them and after talking to them, they are just as disheartened about this etch-a-sketch representation of film-making, as the rest of the audience was.
VERDICT: If you looking to watch a movie as an example of how not to make a movie, this is a perfect film for you. However if you want good story, good acting, good cinematography and or a coherent film about water rights, you are heeded to avoid this film like the plague. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!
4 out of 11 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
