1 line
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
1 line
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
While I hesitate to be a party-pooper, I must call a spade a spade and say that (IMHO) this film would probably NOT have gained general release had it not been for the tragic circumstances of the writer/director's demise.<br /><br />The acting is fine, 'tho a bit amateurish, the editing is crisp, and the cinematography is acceptable. The major faults lie in the story and direction. There's hardly any substance here. It's doesn't work as comedy - not even light-grey (certainly not "dark") comedy... characters are poorly developed (except for what other chrs have to say about them -- sure, Earl is a jerk, but not all that bad a jerk, and - for that matter, so is the sexually exploitative and wholly unethical Dr. P, and Becky and Dawn tell us that Joe is insufferable and Cal a mean-spirited slave-driver). The only chr I could see with any clarity was Ogie (sp?), and that's because there wasn't much there to begin with. No one's motives were any more than hearsay by other chrs.<br /><br />Was this a morality tale? A comedy? A spoof? (Of what?) A love story? (certainly not! How could one see the frantic necking and sex between Dr. P and Jenna as being in any way serious?) It could be called a "chick flick," but only if the definition of chick-flick insists that every male chr be a self-interested, sex-seeking arschloch. Were the chrs stereotypes? Clichés? WHAT WAS THE POINT?<br /><br />To be sure, this was an earnest effort at film-making/storytelling, but it falls far short of just about everything except "cute." |