Tries hard, fails miseralby. Disjointed ambigious directing, mostly poor to average acting, pretty weak story that goes downhill pretty quickly. Now, the acting could have had something to do with the script. The actors tried very hard to make it tenable but pretty much failed. I laughed my ass off though at the first mention of acid induced raccoons.
Oh well, better luck next time.
Who took my toast?
Hey, thanks for watching anyway... rock on... clearly you've never done acid at altitude :)
shareWell I liked it. I'm partial to low budget/independent films and although this is not the best I've seen, I enjoyed it. Sure, the acting wasn't great, the ending a little silly but it was entertaining and you can't ask much more from a film with a low budget.
My main criticism is that it seemed to try to hard to be a blockbuster type film. I think that's where it failed. The independent films I always dislike the most are those that try too hard. Seclusion was saved because it had a decent script. But that's just an opinion from an unqualified armchair viewer :)
I paid £5 for both seclusion and Wim Wender's 'Land of Plenty', A bargain if you ask me. (I must admit that I thought Land of Plenty was the best film I've seen all year).
Anyway, to the director, I thought you did a good job, I'll see if I can get a copy of Spotless, that looks pretty interesting too.
I love the description, "like a porn movie, without the porn". Everything about this movie was SO Awful! I take that back, the cabin was nice. I wonder who gave it up for a week so they could shoot this garbage?
shareAgree completely---- a HORRIBLE movie.... What a waste of the beautiful scenery in Colorado. TERRIBLE. Completely misrepresented as a "political thriller," too.
share[deleted]