Sum of Existence

they say that the sum of a films parts shouldn't equal more than it's whole. This is true with Sum of Existence. It has amazingly strong acting, strong story line, strong characters, strong direction, strong photography, but something about it doesn't quite fit.

It could be the edit. The film is an intriguing journey through a post-rape mind that has been hypnotized to forget. The protagonist Liz, is played by a talented young actress, and gives us an interesting character to follow during the film. The concept is brilliant. Cohen, (the writer/director) has done his job in creating a believable and realistic yet somehow surreal world in which to tell his story.

An odd one to call. This film has so many strengths in so many areas, but as a whole, something about it just doesn't gel with me. Odd. I did enjoy watching it though, so give it an 8/10.

I saw this movie. It was OK.

there were some incredibly strong performances from the actors, particularly from the girls who played Liz and Michelle. i found some of the other leads to be a bit over the top, some were a bit wooden, but overall the acting was one of the stronger points. the concept was interesting but wandered a little at times, at other times skimming over things which seemed like they deserved more attention.

it was difficult to really empathize with either of the female protagonists (the teenage girl or the psychiatrist)- mostly because their characters seemed to almost be fighting over which one was the focus of the main story. because of this they both came off a bit cold, something which may have been solved by their relationship with each other but wasn't. in their scenes together Juliet (the shrink) came off as patronizing and superficial, and the girl as a result just came off like a whiny brat (which considering she's recovering from a savage attack seems pretty damn harsh). there were other characters and sub-plots which could have brought a more human element to both these characters: Juliet had an ex-boyfriend character who was a rape counselor, any and all warmth about her character came from their relationship. unfortunately for her he was only in a couple of scenes (which also seemed strange considering his character was pretty much imperative to the whole story). he was one of the film's only completely sympathetic characters, had the potential to link Liz's family and Juliet on a more personal level but didn't. instead there was scene after scene of the parents fighting with each other which just distracted from the main story and made their characters seem cold and selfish. Liz had a best friend Michelle who spent most of the film going through an emotional crisis/ethical dilemma. the actress in this role delivered a notably convincing performance but the character just sort of added to the heaviness of the plot. there was a definite opportunity to balance this (which i can only assume was cut from the film for god knows what reason): they had a third friend who was a goth (the only teenage girl that didn't have blonde hair?) who for some reason was only there for the beginning and the end of the film. she was clearly supposed to be best friends with Liz and Michelle, it was set up that these 3 were being constantly verbally (albeit lamely) abused by the "popular girls" but that their strong friendship bond prevented the bitchiness from affecting them. why was she not around while Liz spent most of the film in a violent mental/emotional struggle and Michelle spent most of the film in tears? some of the other characters just blended in as part of the backdrop, such as the crazies in the psych ward, the bitchy girls, the nurses etc, probably their scenes could have been minimized as much of their interaction was unnecessary.

there were a couple of plot holes which was frustrating, it did seem as though there was little communication between the director/writer and the editor and some of the shots were weird and slightly inappropriate (stuff like characters cut off the edge of a shot for an entire scene... if they're there why can i only see their arm?). it ran too long (which i think is pretty standard fare for a writer/director debut)- some scenes dragged, some probably should have been cut. the music was really repetitive and often completely inappropriate. the dark mood probably would have been more balanced with a greater diversity of music- the only music was the score (apparently they lived in a suburb with no radio stations?) which was all based around a sombre piano that came in suddenly and forebodingly no matter what the scene.

there were some great elements in the film, there were also many things overlooked. brings up some interesting points but doesn't follow all of them through. the acting is good, if you can get past the urge to punch the characters for all being total downers. not a movie to cheer you up if you're feeling blue. might have made a great TV show.

Seriously. 13 votes and this thing has a rating of 7.5? That's what happens when the director and producers are allowed to vote on their own product. Although in a forum like this I guess that's impossible to police. I won't dignify this piece of trash with any more time - I just needed to provide a Public Service Announcement. DON'T SEE THIS FILM!!! PLEASE!! Even if mere grade school amateurs has made this film, you'd still be hard pressed to smile and lie to them about their chances of making it to Hollywood. .............oh dear lord - IMDb requires a minimum ten lines of text. I'll just blather on for a bit now so I can meet their quota. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. There. And I guarantee you that this review was less painful than the film it's about.

Sum of Existence is an extraordinary film that breaks with one of the most cliché'd traditions of psychological thrillers -- the idea that hypnosis is a panacea that can be used to solve problems. In fact, the story centers around the way that the use of hypnosis takes a girl who has already been brutally wounded and unbalances her in ways that almost get her -- and others -- killed.

Liz Murphy is a normal, vivacious teen, who was brutally assaulted by a stranger and left to die. Months after the attack, she lives in a strange sea of denial and confusion. Attempting to go about her normal life, she doesn't understand why so many people treat her differently, even her best friend and her parents, nor why she's periodically haunted by strange, frightening flashes of... something...

What Liz doesn't know is that, in the aftermath of her attack, she broke down so completely that, as a last resort, her parents turned to a psychiatrist who used hypnosis to block her memories. In the short term, it helped her to recover. But it's left her behaving in ways that her friends and family find disturbingly out of character, and THEY are still dealing with the fallout of what happened to her, even if she no longer is. Worst of all, her assailant is furious that she's forgotten him, and is determined to make her remember.

Although a lot of the conventions of the traditional thriller are in place, including the cat-and-mouse game that soon develops between Liz and her stalker, what truly distinguishes this film is the way it delves into the minds of its characters. It explores Liz's fragile state, and the way simply burying a trauma such as hers only worsens its impact. It explores the mind of her psychiatrist, a woman who becomes far too attached to her patients and can't always discern (because she's lost her objectivity) what is truly best for them. And it explores the mind of the twisted psychopath who has become obsessed with Liz's destruction.

Brooke Anderson is a luminous actress, definitely one to watch. She makes Liz's plight very real, and yet manages, even when Liz is at her worst, to imbue the character with a quiet strength that comes to the fore. Liz is nobody's victim, and her mind is nobody's playground, and watching her take back her life and her sanity is a very triumphant experience.

"Sum of existence" is amateurish: amateurish acting, scripting and direction. I came across this film on TV one night and assumed it to be either an acting school's end of year film, or someone's private project. I watched it in disbelief that a, it had been made and b, it was being shown on free-to-air television. When I discovered it was backed with government money and all involved were allegedly professional, I was shocked. It is a poor attempt at a thriller, with clichéd situations. I can find nothing to recommend in this film. It is an embarrassment to the Australian film industry. The industry here is notoriously underfunded and it makes me angry that money should have been spent on this schlock. All those who were involved in funding and making it should have a good long hard look at themselves.