complete garbage


i work in a video store, and we get all new releases early. i like to watch the smaller titles, as most of my co-workers don't, which is how i discovered great films like The Nines, Midnight Clear, The Hottest State, and Ira and Abby.

i have an open mind when it comes to movies, and was interested in the story advertised on the ad box for this film, so i took it home.

it is clear to me that the filmmakers spent more on the packaging for this movie than the actual production of it.

one of my favorite films is Clerks, possibly one of the lowest budget films ever, yet one of the greatest overall imho.

the camera work is terrible, the acting is terrible, the sound quality is terrible, and the drawn out storyline could have been told in a 30 minute biography.

i am ashamed to put this movie on my shelf. i have told many of my regulars not to bother with this film, and those who have the unfortunate experience of actually renting it, i will gladly grant a free rental exchange, as this is the worst movie i have ever seen.

perhaps take a little more time, and effort, if you expect to rob people of valuable time. i would have rather spent the time i watched this movie(and yes, i watched the whole thing) stabbing myself in the eye with a rusty fork.

reply

what do you think of the visual aspect of the film?

reply

the visual aspect? what visual aspect. the only redeeming thing in this film is the costumes, which seem pretty well done. other than that, I COULD MAKE A BETTER MOVIE, with pictures taken on a 110 camera, made into a flip book.

perhaps if the "love" series people got a hold of the story and script (love's unending legacy, ect.) it wouldn't be so terrible. at least they know how to use a camera.

the sound quality was terrible, the visual quality was terrible, half the time the character's faces weren't even in frame, which wasn't an artistic expression, it was just poorly done.

i don't have any filmmaking training, i just watch a lot, A LOT of movies, and this is by far the worst excuse for a film i've ever seen.

reply

well, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the film. I know quite a few people who loved it. I've seen it, and I'll agree it has it's issues, but it's unlike any film I've seen before.

reply

If you work in a video store, and see the other stuff, there is NO WAY this could remotely be the worse you've seen. I'll preface this by saying I have not seen it, but the fact that some people like it, and you yourself found a few aspects of the film worthwhile immediately takes it out of the running for worse.
There are SO MANY straight to video films that are SO bad it boggles the mind. These other films have NO ONE that likes them, no one. They have no redeeming value whatsoever. After reading and seeing the comments on here and elsewhere I think it can not be considered anywhere near the "worse", and not worth watching. As I said, I have not seen it yet, and will reserve actual comment on the film after I see it, but I think it's a disservice to just categorically tell others the movie is not worth watching, let them make up their own minds.
You want bad, try watching movies such as "Crossbones" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420565/, guaranteed you'll move the worse movie on your list to "Citizen Kane" status after seeing Crossbones.

reply

i have seen a lot of bad movies, A LOT, and all of them are bad for their own reasons.

Hatched was terrible due to the acting and lack of realistic gore.

Ghost Son was terrible due to poor acting and comical special effects.

Gigli was terrible due to.....oh hell, it's bennifer, of course it was terrible.

of course, all of this is my opinion.

another thing that is my opinion is that this movie, the story that it's trying desperatly to portray through poor acting and even worse camerawork, is interesting. it's my opinion that the only people who actually thing this is a "good" film think so for religious reasons, which i refuse to get into, because it's not worth my time.

this movie was painful to watch, because it was so poorly done. the story may be great, but if you try to create the mona lisa with crayons, guess what it's going to look like.........GARBAGE.

i stand by what i said.....this movie is terrible. i have, actually, seen pornos directed and acted better.

reply

Unfortunately, I will have to agree with xina4581. This is a surprisingly awful movie.

I reserved it at the library, didn't know anything about the film, but knew a little about McPherson, and thought the film might be interesting because of the subject. I was both surprised and disappointed. I learned a little more about it here, and by following links from IMDB.

I am a film buff, but not a very serious or knowledgeable one. I live in Seattle in an area of the city that has many local independent (most now formerly locally owned) screens, and some years I catch a few movies at the Seattle International Film Festival. Recently I've watched many DVDs from the Seattle Public Library, which is building an extensive collection. Never been to film school.

Regarding the awful camera work mentioned by xina4581, all the shooting was obviously done with a handheld camera and a very unsteady hand. Most of the film is shot with bizarre closeup face shots, the view wanders constantly, and the camera work is very unsteady. Oh, did I say "film"? There are no technical specs listed here at IMDB, but the entire movie was obviously shot using a handheld home video camera. (Later I've read something from Rossi indicating the entire movie was shot with two handheld cameras purchased for under $300). Note that Rossi cites Ed Wood as a major influence. He also compares himself the Bergman and Fellini!

There are a few preaching scenes with riveting oratory, but these apparently use original recordings of Aimee Semple McPherson, with the actress lip syncing the words.

The movie seems to go light on the subject's obvious fraud in which she faked her own death, but after watching the whole two hours I learned that Rossi is a fundamentalist preacher, and was once a minister at a Foursquare church, which was founded by Aimee Semple McPherson.

Rossi inserted himself into the movie, so it is obvious who did the worst camera work, because these are all scenes he is not in. I guess shooting parts of actor's faces has some budget advantages, because you don't have to build any expensive sets, or go on location. Allegedly the film won an award for being a best film shot for under $75,000, and another from the "International Guerrilla Film Association" as the #1 of 100 Best Guerilla Films of all time. Only they don't seem to exist, either the list, or the organization:

http://thebusmansholiday.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html

The blogger is a professional journalist in Pittsburgh, where the director once lived. Be sure to click on ALL the links. I just

This movie uses some real actors. It was fun to see Carl Ballantine, now in his late 80s, who played the memorable character Gruber on the 1960's sit-com, McHale's Navy. He has a brief part early in the film. Ballantine has been a magician all his life, and apparently Rossi met him at The Magic Castle in Los Angeles.

Also, Rance Howard (father of director Ron) has a big part early in the movie. He is now in his sixth decade in film, and has appeared in hundreds of movies and television dramas. He has a fine performance in this movie, apparently made with mostly amateur actors.

I've gotta get off the computer now, and there is a lot more I would like to say, but no time. Do some googling, and check out the other comments in this forum, and note all the postings by shills. Try to guess which ones are actually Rossi himself, but are attributed to someone else.

reply