It seems like this movie had a mad idea.... but somewhere down the line someone really stuffed up....
Was it bad directing, bad acting, bad writing?
I think acting was horrible... dialogues were disgusting.... and no directing at all...
Good idea but...
--------
http://www.BigMonya.com
I didn't think it was that horrible, but yes, it had some serious problems. Those problems arose somewhere in James M. Hausler's conception of the project, although it's difficult to say if the problems arose in the writing stage--with the script, during the shooting stage--with decisions to change the script while shooting, or during the editing stage, where Hausler would have overseen the film becoming something very different during that process. We would either need a copy of the original script or we would have had to been present during the development to say for sure. It's difficult for me to imagine Robert Forster, Richard Roundtree or Robert Loggia signing on for a script that resembled the final product, which is a bit of a mess, but not for their performances . . . and that suggests to me that maybe Hausler changed his ideas at some other point.
I could easily see this being an excellent film with just a bit of work, or a bit less oddity in Hausler's decisions (such as infamously just ending the film in the middle of a climax that he was building towards for 80 minutes with absolutely no resolution) . . . I just don't know what he was thinking.
It would be interesting to hear what Forster, Roundtree or Loggia have to say about the final cut, if indeed they've seen it (and it would be more interesting to hear what they'd have to say off the record probably).
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies