Waste of money
They could have made this for even less than the supposed $300.
The dialogue is so inaudible that it might as well have been a silent.
I always say that a low budget is not an excuse to make a bad movie and that all you need is good acting and a good script but obviously that's pushing it a little far here. There is no acting to speak of and the script is just a jumbled mess of many different things that have been done before.
The movie certainly has heart and it's in the right place but the execution is so amateurish, from audio levels to the "acting" that the best script would have been lost on it, imo.
So I guess if you have 500+ relatives and facebook friends, you can get anything rated well on imdb but nobody who is not related to the filmmaker would give this more than a 5 and that'd be generous.
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco
Glad it's not just me.
I fully expected a fanboy backlash in defence of the movie. As you say, a low budget doesn't excuse a film that lacks essential ingredients.
Kudos for being able to make a film on that small a budget (although you have to wonder if the $300 is true). In fact, congratulations to any film maker who has managed to turn out a movie for next to nothing.
But once that achievement has been rightly acknowledged, should it really then go on to influence your overall view of the end product?
Agreed. Disappointing that the IMDb score is so misleading for this. I get the feeling they hoped it would be a cult hit like Primer, but it's not executed well enough. It's a good effort for young indie filmmakers, but I wouldn't go beyond praise for trying...
"oh mummy, oh daddy - lets all play Kabadi!"
Disappointing that the IMDb score is so misleading for this. I get the feeling they hoped it would be a cult hit like Primer, but it's not executed well enough. It's a good effort for young indie filmmakers, but I wouldn't go beyond praise for trying...
I agree with this 100% share