ejmd-2
Se unió el sept 2000
Te damos la bienvenida a el nuevo perfil
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos7
Para obtener información sobre cómo conseguir distintivos, visita página de ayuda sobre distintivos.
Calificaciones2
Calificación de ejmd-2
Comentarios1
Calificación de ejmd-2
This is a truly bizarre film.
The first thing that struck me was the dialogue: it is not only frequently very difficult to understand the lines as spoken by the cast, but often, when the words are understood (I had to resort to subtitles) they make little sense. I have to conclude that either the script has been written by an illiterate with no ear for dialogue, or the script adopts a particular argot that is spoken by a very specific demographic, such as a handful of teenagers living in a particular district (possibly in the area in which the film was shot or the neighbourhood inhabited by the writer/director).
There are also scenes that make no sense. For example, fairly early on in the film, a male character erupts in an inexplicable (and incoherent) rage at a female character who then drives off and cries. Later in the film two male characters (one being he of the previous rage) sit and smoke together whilst engaged in impenetrable dialogue. In another scene, a fat boy who appears to be a drug dealer (perhaps "drug dabbler" might be a better term), dressed like an over-sized child who speaks incomprehensibly seems to give the male lead a bag containing some sort of drug (even the subtitles give up on Fat Drug Boy, and frequently offer "{mumbled}" as a gloss on the actor's efforts to speak).
It's difficult to tell if the whole shtick of this production is to critique an incoherent generation, or if the production itself is part of that generation's contribution to culture. (It dawns on me as I type these comments that this film might be an example of a movement or style called "mumblecore", in which non-actors, or bad actors and actresses, mumble improvised lines or drift with little direction around the structure of an amateurishly constructed story-line.)
In several ways (albeit none of them particularly good) this is an interesting film because it can prompt discussion about whether it deliberately sets out to be bad or if it remains blissfully unaware of its own failings if, indeed, failings they be (as Enid in Ghostworld might have put it, "it's so bad, it's good" to which Becky replies: "it's so bad it goes right past good and all the way back round to bad again").
Ultimately, it's difficult to tell if the impenetrable and unlikely dialogue, senseless scenes and talent-less acting are offered as a parody of or an homage to the "stoner flick" or if this film's very existence is a tribute to the producer's talent in actually getting enough funding to make this strange turkey squawk at all.
The first thing that struck me was the dialogue: it is not only frequently very difficult to understand the lines as spoken by the cast, but often, when the words are understood (I had to resort to subtitles) they make little sense. I have to conclude that either the script has been written by an illiterate with no ear for dialogue, or the script adopts a particular argot that is spoken by a very specific demographic, such as a handful of teenagers living in a particular district (possibly in the area in which the film was shot or the neighbourhood inhabited by the writer/director).
There are also scenes that make no sense. For example, fairly early on in the film, a male character erupts in an inexplicable (and incoherent) rage at a female character who then drives off and cries. Later in the film two male characters (one being he of the previous rage) sit and smoke together whilst engaged in impenetrable dialogue. In another scene, a fat boy who appears to be a drug dealer (perhaps "drug dabbler" might be a better term), dressed like an over-sized child who speaks incomprehensibly seems to give the male lead a bag containing some sort of drug (even the subtitles give up on Fat Drug Boy, and frequently offer "{mumbled}" as a gloss on the actor's efforts to speak).
It's difficult to tell if the whole shtick of this production is to critique an incoherent generation, or if the production itself is part of that generation's contribution to culture. (It dawns on me as I type these comments that this film might be an example of a movement or style called "mumblecore", in which non-actors, or bad actors and actresses, mumble improvised lines or drift with little direction around the structure of an amateurishly constructed story-line.)
In several ways (albeit none of them particularly good) this is an interesting film because it can prompt discussion about whether it deliberately sets out to be bad or if it remains blissfully unaware of its own failings if, indeed, failings they be (as Enid in Ghostworld might have put it, "it's so bad, it's good" to which Becky replies: "it's so bad it goes right past good and all the way back round to bad again").
Ultimately, it's difficult to tell if the impenetrable and unlikely dialogue, senseless scenes and talent-less acting are offered as a parody of or an homage to the "stoner flick" or if this film's very existence is a tribute to the producer's talent in actually getting enough funding to make this strange turkey squawk at all.