MovieChat Forums > Hollidaysburg (2014) Discussion > Better than Not Cool, but that's not say...

Better than Not Cool, but that's not saying much


Not Cool was crap. It's not the abomination that people say, but it's a bad, unfocused movie, made by a guy whose comedy is lazy and hacky. Hollidaysberg is a better movie, only because it makes more sense.

First off, the actors felt way too old. I don't know how old they really are, but they all looked way older than the are supposed to be. Because of that, it doesn't feel like college kids, but more like people in their late 20's. And Phil felt like was in his 30's. I didn't get Anna's character. There was no point to her. And in every scene she's in, she makes herself a distraction. The scene in the kitchen, she just starts stretching for no reason. It's a distraction. Or she reacts very broadly when the other actors talk, like intensely staring and raising eyebrows. It's a very Silent Bob performance. And on the flipside, Paul (played by her husband) really overacts. Any scene he's in, he chews up the scenery. He tries too hard to stand out.

The movie felt like a 90's movie, sans flannel. If it wasn't for the texting, I could've seen this being a movie set in the 90's, with Tori sort of looking back on it all. And it had that 90's indie vibe, like Before Sunrise or Beautifil Girls, where it's very talky and people are having a life crisis. But it's not as good as those movies. It's a forgettable movie. There's no scene or character that stands out. The movie is boring. It's chiche and average.

The tone of the movie is off too. Like it feels like a 90's movie or something like My So Called Life, but then there are these unfunny, hacky bits where it seems out of place.

It's not a bad movie. It's a movie that's been done a lot. It adds nothing new or interesting. It feels like a student film. There's no original voice to it.

reply

Agree 100%. Much better than Not Cool, but not really a good movie either.

I had no reason to like/root for any of the characters ( in either film for that matter). There were no goals/character arcs, plot points, or anything that help develop the plot of a movie.

And yeah, why did Anna have to be in the film? It was a throwaway part (a lesbian lover that has trouble speaking; hilarious, right? No!!!) that was unnecessary. She definitely lost a little of my respect for doing that.

But I will give her credit for the fact that it looked and sounded more like a real film. Great cinematography, ambiance, sound, music, score, etc.

Not bad, but could have been a much better film with more story arc and character development.

reply

The guy in the movie wasn't her husband. It was her brother-in-law and collaborator.

I do not have a signature.

reply