13 January 2017 | barry-steers
Well that was a waste of 69 minutes! The lead protagonist couldn't act if his life depended on it. He was so wooden I'm surprised he didn't give himself splinters every time he opened his mouth to give a tedious and lengthy line. The film was really bad. I was wondering why scenes were so long and filled with absolutely meaningless dialogue then realised it's because talking is a lot cheaper than doing anything. Basically this movie was written on the back of a stamp with no budget so it had to be filled with mundane, irrelevant and poorly executed dialogue to pad it out by about 90%. Examples of this were excessively protracted scenes where the lead actor was asking a series of questions in his role as a private detective. Not only were they delivered flat as if he was reading cold off a script he'd never seen before but the questions went on and on obviously to fill time on an already short running movie.Such was the length of such drivel that one actor in particular had issues with her lines. Her dialogue was peppered with points where she stumbled over them which was most bizarre. They also couldn't afford proper microphones so sound levels were all over the place and even in the same scenes, actors had completely diverse levels so either booming or quiet. The whole film was just a waste of time and effort. I'm sure the production team slapped each other on the back to congratulate themselves on reaching past the hour mark for material to piece together to make this film but boy was it dull and 3rd rate. The problem is that I've seen low budget movies and if you have the right story and cast you can work magic. Unfortunately they didn't have any of that here. It was a movie borne out of someone's ego that they thought they were special and could create some type of masterpiece. I hate to tell you but you suck as a director, the story sucks, the script and actors certainly suck and everything about this stinker does also.