The Scratch

I'll start by saying that I watched the movie because of the title, not because of the description or the poster, so I did not have any expectations. It wasn't as bad as what the previous two critiques have made it to be but it definitely could have been better.

It is sad, because I thought the idea of the movie was great and it could've been a good movie. I have seen other low budget films and some of them seem to pull it through, I guess this wasn't one of them.

The movie is supposed to be intriguing but I feel like too many things were left out.

Anyway I don't want to give an in depth review since, I just spent all this time watching it I am going to do something better with my time.

peace&love

Have you ever wondered what a porn flick would look like without all the sex? Well, wonder no more, for Jorge Suarez's "The Snatch" answers this age old question... You still get the same wooden actors, the same stilted dialog, complete with lengthy pauses between lines of dialog, and enough throw away jazz to fill the multiple periods of inactivity. from what my wife and I were able to figure out, you have some inexperienced PI/cop who gets caught up in a caper involving a computer hacker and some downloaded software.

It's really hard to tell, as the pace is slooooooooooow with choppy editing, doing anything in it's power to keep the viewer inattentive. Although promoted as an action film, the director spends an inordinate amount of time on talk scenes. Now perhaps if the dialog, screen play, and acting were interesting, this wouldn't be so bad, but with on screen interaction akin to that of a third grade production of Chicken Little, one can't help but chalk it up to a minuscule budget preventing too many action scenes.

Speaking of the occasional action scenes, well, they mainly comprise of 2 minute gun fights over-saturated with an inappropriate "peppy" jazz score. It's obvious that the film makers are big fans of films such as Bullett, Lock Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, et al, but need to take another look at those films and realize that throwing some jazz, attempts of witty dialog and periodic action do not an engaging movie make.

The directing wasn't completely without its moments of charm. Some of the angles and use of light were spot on. A good example would be at the 1hr6min mark, with some nice steady cam work. The editing was for the most part pedestrian, with the occasional jump cut, which keeps the pace much too slow for the type of film this wishes to be.

On a side note, I did enjoy the little joke regarding Harv's reading matter...some of the magazine titles were pretty funny.

All in all, I didn't hate this movie. Though slow and plodding for the first hour, it does pick up speed in the third act, but I doubt most will be willing wait this long for an action movie to get active.

It's another low-budget gangster suspense heist film. It starts off with the heist going wrong per usual, and you having to piece it together for the next hour and a half. And as usual everyone has their own secret motives for the heist, if there is an actual heist, or have you been duped as well as the hench-men. There was suspense there was comedy a lot of comedy. A guy rubbing one out at his desk while talking to his girlfriend. Rival factions sitting quietly at a booth, each one pointing guns at each-other. I can't think of any major plot holes, the script was better than the acting, the acting was well and good enough for a heist film. I really enjoyed it.

Most everybody in this film except the hired gun (the real actor) was a bouncer or in the security field. They were all from the package of hot-dogs on the back of the neck club. And there was a lot of gun disarming an take-away which were quick but not pretty, and are classic police tactics. There weren't the head butts and round-house kicks you see in todays movies.

I found this at the Dollar Tree, it was on a DVD with 10 other action movies. So, basically I paid 10 cents for this movie. So it wasn't bad, for the price.

So, what first struck me was that most of the talking seemed like an audition tape, and it seemed that way because the director decided to set up a camera with some actors in the shot, and then just let them recite dialogue for a few minutes with no cuts. It seems like the first and only take was used each time. I want to fault the actors for their performances, but had the director been less of a "one take wonder" kind of guy, and given the editor something to work with, you could trick the audience into thinking these are good actors. I'm guessing the director figured that the dialogue-heavy moments didn't matter, so he put the camera on a tripod and went to the bathroom.

Also, it seemed like they rented a house, emptied it out, and then used the rooms inside to film all interior scenes. So, there's a scene in a bar, and a scene in a detective's office ... um, I'm having trouble even remembering the movie as I write this, and I just watched it today ... but it seems like they just redecorated the same few rooms to save money. There are more convincing studio sets on Saturday Night Live.

The action scenes, which take place mostly in the last half, seem lively, passionate, and stylish. It seems like there might have been storyboards involved. The performances are more energetic. There actually seems to be multiple camera angles so that the editor can get a good tempo going. The action scenes aren't perfect ... they're not even really good, but they're better than the other stuff in the movie. You can tell that everyone knew that these were the Mkoney Shots that would attract an audience.

The only thing that stood out as "good" in the movie was that the gunshots sound real.