Last Call

Filmed in 2 simultaneous one-shot takes, Last Call tells the story of a depressed drunk man who, on the anniversary of his son's death, mistakenly calls a community college when trying to talk to someone from the suicide hotline. The call is picked up by the night cleaner, who is a single mother who is awaiting a call to make sure her child is ok.

The film shows both people simultaneously, in real-time as this life-changing phonecall unfolds.

This film is a beautiful piece of work that really shows that people can make a difference and that sometimes if you show you care, just for a moment, you could change a life...maybe even save it.

I thought this was quite emotional, and the message stays with you. It's nice to be nice, it really is.

But it's short! Gimmick is great but it gets old really fast.

Last Call (2019) - [7/10]

Wow. This film was absolutely remarkable. I went into Last Call (2019) expecting the worst, and got the best short film I think I've seen (definitely a 9/10). It is incredibly emotional, tense, as well as artistic. The one-shot take was not used as a gimmick (like I feared it would going into the film) but, enhanced the viewing experience. The split screen composition of the film was a bit unique in the beginning of the film, (just because we've never really seen that before) but it made absolute sense. Gavin Michael Booth created an extraordinary short, but I don't review short films. I review features. So, I am going to treat this review (and film) as if it were a feature film.

With that being said, let's start with the very beginning - the screenplay. Gavin Michael Booth and Daved Wilkins (also the co-star of the film) did a really good job writing this story - a story that needed to be told. Each piece of dialogue, even from the very beginning of the film, serves a purpose and is brought back by the end of this extremely realistic narrative. At times the dialogue can come off as a tad expositional and on-the-nose, but those moments don't come close to the number of times I said to myself, "That's a great line." Booth and Wilkins evolve this complex story in a unique way. A way that makes you question how they were in fact able to do so. At a certain point in the film, all that we've seen story-wise begins to click together. We begin to predict what will happen next, but at that point Booth and Wilkins' writings are two steps ahead of us. With the subject matter this film was focused on, it is easy to become predictable. And this wasn't predictable. From the beginning of the film, we can't even imagine how these characters are going to cross paths - rather cross telephone lines. It's really good. They tell a very important story and are able to portray an important message in doing so. The writing is the heart of a film and without a great director, feelings that come from the heart can be lost. No feelings were lost in this film.

Gavin Michael Booth showcased great directorial talent in this emotional film. Each emotion was carried out. One minute you were punched in the gut because of what happened on screen, and the next you were beginning to tear up because of our characters. I really felt like some moments could have pushed to be more emotional, pushing the envelope of what we see onscreen, but I can see why the decision was made not to do so. What it must have come down to is the choice to have constant emotion or the choice to build emotion in large crescendos only then to decrescendo into nothing; he chose the latter. I have a lot of respect for Booth. The amount of staging and blocking that went into the film must have been immense, but it definitely payed off. The characters were never really doing nothing, and if they were, it didn't feel boring. Be it from the rich dialogue or from the excellent camera movements (I'll talk about that more later), we were constantly engrossed in the film. I feel like sometimes our characters were moving a little too much. Constantly doing stuff, only to make it obvious when they weren't doing stuff. This would then open a space for emotional moments to hit. It makes a lot of sense why they were doing stuff, but I would have liked a little more moments of "just talking" without movements. The director is only able to conjure as much emotion as the actors are able to portray, so the role of the actor is to make these emotions dance across the screen.

There were really only two characters in this film, Beth (Sarah Booth) and Scott (Daved Wilkins). Both of these actors give quite good performances - Sarah Booth especially. She was able to give a completely raw and emotional performance that this film needed. As a direct contrast to Booth, Wilkins portrayed a distant and emotionless Scott perfectly in order to make this juxtaposition to happen. Sarah Booth is a definite standout in this film. She serves as a point of reference for the audience, and it works. From the very first scene, we associate ourselves with her and begin our journey. I found myself completely astounded at the emotion she was able to bring to the screen - at one moment in particular I got goosebumps. Wilkins portrayed his character like he needed to - emotionally distant and frightened with himself. I really liked the moments where we would get to see the "Real Scott." As if he would wake up from his intoxication, we would see who this guy really is (and who he could be). Very good performance by Wilkins. The actors are only able to portray emotion when it is captured by the camera. In that way, the camera movements have to translate this emotion for the audience to see.

This film was really immersive, in the way 1917 (2019) and Rope (1948) are, but without the hidden cuts. It is all filmed in a one-shot take and it serves a purpose. I feared that this film would simply use the technique as a way to make itself standout, but it didn't. It was really purposeful. It really helped bring the tension and emotion onscreen, as we were really with our two characters; we were with our two characters because of the split screen. It was really an ingenious idea to use split screen because without it, this film wouldn't have worked. If it wasn't one-shot I don't think it would have worked as effectively either. That being said, there were moments where close-ups and alternate angles could have helped the film (and probably improved it), but because it is one-shot it wouldn't have worked. It was better to sacrifice these alternate shots and angles then to sacrifice the immersive nature of the one-shot take. Seth Wessel-Estes did a great job finding moments that were beautiful. Be it from finding clever framing or perfect shots for both different locations. It's incredible to think about how they made this film. It was filmed in two separate locations at the same time, yet they were able to film moments where it was as if they weren't. The only issue I had with some of the cinematography was that it was a little too shaky. It was kind of disorienting when one section of the screen was shaky, but the other wasn't. Also, there were moments when I could see the reflection of the cameraman, but that's really hard to get around. Overall the cinematography was really effective in portraying this story in a unique way. The cinematography is able to portray emotion through sight, but what we are able to hear is an incredibly different sense.

The composer, Adrian Ellis, did an excellent job with the music. The soundtrack ties this film together. Our characters are not always talking, so in comes the soundtrack. It perfectly portrays the mood of the film. Really great job from Ellis.

With all of these different skills combined, Last Call (2019) is able to create a living, breathing film. It squeezes all emotion out of you (as well as its characters) and aside from a few errors (like time period technology. It wasn't clear when this film took place, and some set pieces contradicted others i.e. flip phones vs rooms full of desktop computers) this film is really good. When the phone rings, you never know who might be on the other side, needing your help. When Last Call (2019) begins, you never truly know how it will impact you, until it does.

From the art style and the lack of fanfare (I had to put the year in to even find the right movie on IMDb) I was expecting the typical low budget, high concept offering with a bit of promise, using amateurish actors to create an ok movie, that's ultimately instantly forgettable. THIS MOVIE IS NOT THAT.

The one take aesthetic and split screen cinematography works just perfectly to convey the urgency of a serendipitous conversation between a woman in the right/wrong place and a man with nowhere left to turn. The acting from Sarah Booth in particular is astonishing (never seen her in anything before this), the dialogue is realistic and the soundtrack fits the mood just right.

I've never seen anything like it, the closest I can think of right now is Locke with Tom Hardy, but this movie is so much better and more heartfelt than that. I'll be recommending it to everyone I know. 9/10. (And no I'm not a paid reviewer or have anything to do with the production, look at my other reviews!)

There are many things to admire about this movie: it looks good, the actors are believable in their roles, its limited locations are interesting, and the premise is intriguing. That the movie was filmed in one take, simultaneously in two locations, following two actors, is certainly an impressive technical feat.

Split screen movies can work. This one, often, does not. At times, the viewer struggles to get a sense of each character's setting or movements, and does not quite because the screen is, literally, cut off.

The fact that the movie was filmed in a single take is impressive, but it leaves the audience watching a lot of moments that would have been better edited out. Realism is not achieved by watching characters putter about. For instance, near the beginning, we get to watch Scott walk home from a bar and Beth go out to her car to search for a cell phone charger -- in real time. Whole minutes roll by, taking up valuable time in this 75-minute movie, where the story could be underway.

The actors' performances have some good moments, but overall, there is an ocean of pathos, pushed by voices that border on simpering. We get it, Scott is in crisis, Beth is "thrown in the deep end", trying to help him with limited skills, and heavy emotions arise during their collision. But the watery, bordering-on-crying voices go on so long, they are so one-note, they begin to grate and actually hamper the impact of the scene.

The music is well done. Particularly at the beginning, doing a great job of setting the tone for what we are about to see. As the movie progresses, the music suffers from the same abundance of pathos that weighs down the performances -- a little of the emotional music would go a long way. Here, it's wall-to-wall.

In the end, the actors and music director are wedging themselves into the workable spaces left by the filmmaker's central gimmick: filming in real-time, split screen, no cuts. It would have been very interesting to see what this film might have looked like without the gimmick, which would have provided the space needed by the actors and music.