In Between

I'm a big fan of Robert Forster and I'd watch just about anything he was in, but sticking with this turkey to the end was almost too much to ask. It starts off with a promising situation: three strangers waking up to find themselves locked in a strange house, but it never really delivers a satisfactory ending. It evokes the mood of dramas like The Twilight Zone but can't sustain it throughout, bogging down in confessional dialogue. Besides bad writing, the film suffers from bad editing. Some of the camera cuts seem accidental: The character caught on camera looks surprised and hesitates, as if waiting for a cue. There are some awkward, amateurish pauses where nobody says anything but you have the feeling someone should be saying something. Robin Mattson is good, as always, and there are some amusing elementary special effects, but on the whole I felt that I had wasted the time it took to watch it.

This movie is truly a unique experience, and I mean that in a good way. I mean, it has only four speaking parts and takes place entirely on one set. Also, the period of time the story covers is only about two hours. Something like that is nearly impossible to find anywhere in the movies, studio or independently made. That distinctive format in itself made this so enjoyable to watch. '12 Angry Men' followed this same format, as did 'My Dinner with Andre' and 'Two Girls & a Guy.' Its really tough to write an interesting screenplay under these circumstances because the entire movie is based on the characters just sitting down and talking to each other through the whole thing. You really have to write creatively to keep an audience's interest the whole time. Well, it kept me interested, so I guess it had good writing. Lastly, I was really impressed that such a little known movie had Robert Forster and Alexandra Paul in it. Talk about a rare gem. In short, I liked it. Wasn't spectacular, but I liked it.