5 February 2015 | photoe
Example of how not to direct
The movie is set in the 1970s, but there are lots of errors in the props and locations. ITs clear there was no art direction budget to speak OK. There are the requisite TV shots of Richard Nixon and opening credits with the assassinations of the late 60s - Cliché! THe score is very stock.
The movie is really an example of what not to do directing a film. The movie executes mostly professionally on a technical level, but the direction of the actors is either ignored or rushed, so the end impression is a movie that plods and builds no tension nor environment. Plus I guess the film is supposed to be a comedy of sorts. I guess there is some sort of interwoven character plot, but I can't follow it, and there is a gaping lack of any credible villain.
Andy Dick's performance isn't a comeback, but proof he shouldn't be hired, not that his character is given much direction. Christian Slater is also still annoying, and I hoped that his less-cool character would make him more watchable, but it didn't. He's still doing the same old tired rebel/wild off shtick he can't pull off.
MIchael Jai White looks like he's floundering a bit. Crispin Glover is wasted in a ludicrous costume that detracts from every scene he's in.
The cop lead is the only one who really holds any credibility. The actresses are attractive and clichés as well. The underwear shots are gratuitous in the way that makes you think the director is paying more attention to them than the rest of his film.
After an opening when you think it will be a cool underground film, it starts to bore. Slater and Dick wear so thin as to be unwatchable. Other character actors look like they are waiting for direction or slipping out of character.
The film is really so very boring and pointless, and there is no tension, no interest in what is going to happen, nothing. It's a real example of how to make a truly non-compelling film.