MovieChat Forums > The Mooring (2021) Discussion > Director Mr. Glenn Withrow get back to y...

Director Mr. Glenn Withrow get back to your acting!!

posted 11 years ago by Dario_the_2nd
25 replies | jump to latest

Just finished the third one of tonight, this is such a movie you regret that you saw it! SUCH A WAST OF precious movie-time. The story is so NOT original, that we get a few hundred of these easily in a dozen! And it so didn't deliver the needed thrills! Music and sound department had an off-day i fear and the director hadn't the slightest idea of what he was doin? Camera-crew did play along and shot the movie in the classic camera-angles what in the end results as a piece of wannabe survival-horror/thriller but it doesn't even come close. Director Mr. Glenn Withrow get back to your acting and leave the directing of such movies to the pro's! As a director i guess there's not much of a career-perspective ahead! Or next time check your classics in the genre so at least you have a little idea on the how's and why's of directing! Here's such classic in its genre Fortress (1985) (TV) and that's even a made for TV-thriller that outruns ya by miles!

D/

I, me it is who demands your gallows speech!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stonesthrow2002 11 years ago

Funny, those that can't do, usually have the biggest opinions. I, for one, saw this film in a different light. I saw a film that looked great, shot on a micro-budget with no name actors that all delivered superb performances. Thomas Wilson Brown (Honey, I Shrunk the Kids) makes his long awaited return to film and delivers a chilling performance that is fabulously creepy. Those that seek blood and gore, you'll have to look elsewhere as Glenn Withrow opted to shoot more Hitchcock style with the violence than Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive). Now, there wasn't a true protagonist, which would have been preferred but this was written by a high school girl so for this first attempt, I have to applaud. And for those that are looking for an "original" story, keep looking! It's all been done...

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Thrill_KillZ 11 years ago

Well seeing it rated at 4/10 it should have at least met everyone's expectations. Beyond that, what the serious problem with the film is if only someone half intelligent changed a few things it could have been really good.
#1.) they could have given us a motive, giving us a scene of the rednecks killing the previous boat owners & now having been identified(which they weren't even in the film)feel the need to kill witnesses.

#2.) every boat has at least a flare gun plus GPS navigation which they could have shown being destroyed before the older woman went to use it when the boat broke down. Also a scene of them relieving her of her emergency cell/SAT phone could have been added.

a few small reality checks before filming go a long f'ing way in these small Indie films, if it was written by a high school girl it should have been revised as noted at least, I don't like when a film can do & they are too dumb to. It could have been a 6/10 here or at least a mid 5 instead of teetering on the edge of <4/10

BRAINS!BRAINS!BRAINS!!!(380)
http://www.imdb.com/list/l0fDojvcY5I/

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Thrill_KillZ 11 years ago

I was pretty much doing trying to do the same thing, getting an HONEST review out for a film when I see that it contains little to no information at all. I averaged one review a week for about a year and all of them were small indie films, I never saw the point in bothering to take the time for some Hollywood BB'er when there is 100 other's that have already said it all. For some reason, I just stopped for a while like four months. Well I guess reason being I got burned out with all of the idiocracy from these brain dead user's coming in after me with there 1/10 worst movie I've ever seen sh!t. You mentioned something that I don't think I have ever heard someone speak of "constructive criticism", IF ONLY user's knew of such a tactic, if only, it would be a really great place around here. It got to a point where I was just so sick of the infantile user's that I said screw it, but recently I have started back up. It's like I needed a de-tox, had an overdose of ignorance.

I've noticed more & more small indie's popping up regularly, all of them without a shred of info, and that will kill a film, literally make it fade away into obscurity without not more than a dozen people seeing it. So usually I always try to at least give a quick heads up as to the watchability in the message board but nobody ever see's it, but I keep seeing more & more films that consist of "blank" film pages so I am gonna try and get back on the horse and maybe help some unknown micro-budget tiny jewel of a film get some looks.

I agree that (decent)people have some kind of system for rating a film and how complex it can be and is for you and I have a particular way of determining a fair rating. Unfortunately we are the exception to the rule in a sense. One technique I find helpful when I look at the real vote history breakdown I immediately eliminate all of the 1's and all of the 10's, once that is done it's surprisingly clearer.

Back to the film above and especially the tile of the OP's post. The film I watched, considering the odds stacked against the entire film crew, 1st time actresses, very low budget, written by a young girl, to go and attack the 1st time director when he was against all the previous odds is childish & pointless. He managed to complete a watchable decent feature film that while the film had a few plot points that were not taken care of properly(mainly just the two I mentioned above) the rest of it was not bad. I know I couldn't direct a pack of ammatuer teenage girls and have it come out well & I surely know the OP probably couldn't even work a camera properly no less direct.

BRAINS!BRAINS!BRAINS!!!(380)
http://www.imdb.com/list/l0fDojvcY5I/

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] velocitysc43 11 years ago

The motive was that the guy was sick and twisted and clearly got off on hunting these girls down. It shows in the beginning of the movie how he kidnapped his accomplice 15 years earlier. He abused her and she was probably afraid to not go with along with anything he said. After being captive that long living with that violence she was psychotic too.

[–] scs0 11 years ago

Keep in mind that the counselor never acted like there was a serious threat until she was bound and gagged. Therefore she had no need to reach out for help: the only problem she needed help with (in her mind) was the mechanical problem with the boat and a problem like that seems like it should be resolved by doing exactly what she tried to do.

As for the radio, flare gun, GPS, and the rest. These girls were so obnoxiously useless that those devices could have been present and just not used. Remember: these were the same girls who didn't even think to pick up a stick or a stone as a weapon while being hunted by a killer so it seems believable that *THESE GIRLS* would have been too stupid to utilize tools like that.

Civility is just a warm and fuzzy name for censorship.

[–] AceRoccola 11 years ago

Your complaints are ridiculous. There's no reason that anyone should have been arming themselves with guns just to go camping.

Newsflash: the characters in a horror film do not know they are going to be in a horror film, and as such don't often have a chance or a reason to prepare themselves for a showdown with a backwoods serial killer. You dolt.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] balducci2 11 years ago

About a cell, is cell coverage good in the middle of the woods in northern Idaho?

Even if it is, I doubt the boat mechanic would drop everything to boat out there to fix the houseboat. He'd probably ask for it to be brought into town in order so that he does not waste his entire day on a small engine repair job. The above also applies to calling him on a radio.

As for abandoning her charges for half a day ... I don't know, they all seem to be of the age that they can look after themselves under even remotely normal circumstances (the scenario in the film is anything but normal or realistic). Certainly on scouting trips back in my youth, I can remember being us being left alone for several hours on our own.

[–] scs0 11 years ago

"*Oh no not a gun!*"
Seriously it is the 21st century and the way people wet their pants at the idea of someone owning a gun shows just how laughable a species we still are. Every responsible person ought to own a gun the way a responsible person would own a fire extinguisher. It's a shame people are so gullible to fear-mongering tactics.

As for the radio, so what? Why would anyone have used it? The counselor wasn't aware she was in a horror movie until she was bound and gagged, and whenever the girls got a chance on the boat they had precious little time to do anything. Besides they were too busy crying and screaming to think about anything.

Civility is just a warm and fuzzy name for censorship.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] velocitysc43 11 years ago

Really the whole concept behind the movie was not terrible. Yes, it is kind of cliche but aren't all movies like this? If they had a radio or a gun or some type of way to defend themselves there wouldn't be a movie. Plus the leader was killed earlier on so she might have had some kind of device to get help. The girl who was 2nd in command was clearly not experienced and even expressed that when the leader told her to watch over the girls for the rest of the day.

Since the girls were so dependent on technology which in turn impacted others lives... i.e. the cyber bully, the one who caused the accident without it they were nothing and couldn't save themselves.

[–] scs0 11 years ago

>> Funny, those that can't do, usually have the biggest opinions.

You don't need to be a film maker to judge the quality of a film. It's funny that I agree with much of what you said, but the logically fallicy that you started the post with needed to be addressed.

BTW: The only thing that was really bad about this movie was the terrible camera work.

Civility is just a warm and fuzzy name for censorship.

[–] poizon-4 11 years ago

The good:
Acting seemed very realistic for the most part

The bad:
Camerawork
Lighting
Story
Pace
Sound mixing

2/10

[–] nikkiten1979 11 years ago

Same here. The acting was pretty good.
Camerawork wasn't too bad, and the lighting was decent for an indie.

The worst was the story and the pacing - that was pretty horrible. I didn't understand what the writers were thinking having the bad guys go back and forth from the woods to their boat and those girls seemed like they were barely moving from their spot. Those guys kept getting back on track too easily. They even had time to go back and do a little sexy time. Sorry, when I go camping in the woods/forest I get prepared for anything that can happen. Bears and wolves can attack - you just never fcking know! I've been camping many times and we've had bears attack our camp TWICE! and bears usually don't attack camps. We tried to scare them off with our rifles, but then killed one of them because he attacked one of our guys. What about some psycho weirdo freak who lives in the woods - it's not like those cannot exist. You have a group of young ladies and you have nothing to defend yourself in case you could get attacked? That's so naive. I can understand the girls not able to think that far ahead or in so much detail, but what was that old woman's excuse? They needed at least one phone on the boat, flare gun, knives, gun. I'm against guns normally, but in many instances they are very necessary.

(•_•)

can't outrun your own shadow

[–] SillyGayBoy 9 years ago

Did your friend get badly hurt by the bear?