Wallflower

Beyond the incredibly poor taste, and failure to realize a tone appropriate for the topic... the movie is boring. There's very little development or movement, it really feels like they filled up enough time to sell it as 'the true story' (but its not true at all, almost nothing about this movie is true, accurate, or even does justice to the actual victims of this tragedy). I'm frankly offended that my time was wasted on something so cruel and opportunistic.

My name is Randi Pinney, you can find me here on IMDb, and I am who the main character is based on. I lived thru this experience, I also served as associate producer and film consultant. This film is based on true events that occured years ago in Seattle after a rave at a house partys closing hours. It was early morning, air was moist, and tragedy struck. This is by far the hardest thing I have ever had to overcome. My personal feelings about the film are irrelevant, jagger did an amazing job with his vision and I love the quality of the scenery. The story is real, people lost their lives, and those that survived lost a sense of safety. Life has never been the same.

The whole movie felt like a series of unfortunate events that was unraveling. Technically it was just one. I've seen better pictures about this subject. Maybe because I herd this was happening at a rave I was expecting more kinetic energy but the film was as slow as can be and not interesting enough to stay alert. Nice try though. I know how hard it is to make a film and I'll give it an A for effort.

This is supposed to be a real kill spree, but ...but...but... why? this must be one of the bluriest storytelling ive witnesed on the screen lately. skip this if your not extremely interested. a 3 from the grumpy old man

Google, discrete on its source, defines an antihero as a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes. In Wallflower, 'lacks' is a misnomer, lacking - unironically - the villainous amorality shown by the pro, sorry.... antognist of the film. The example illustrates better: "with the age of the antihero, baddies and goodies became less distinguishable from one another".

The film has artistic merit. No qualms there. But let's face it... plenty of people have engaged in violence as a form of artistic expression. Whether it's Hitler's paintings or Trump's tweets, I'd still prefer to spend my time gazing on a tortured soul's attempt at expression over a villain's version of "art". Put more directly, given the choice between good and evil, the writer choices ambiguity, but loses touch with morality in the process.