Standing Still

An amazing cast (impressive that the director got them all to do this low-budget film) Great job by first time director Matthew Cole Weiss. Funny, enjoyable to watch and identifiable. Think any recent college grad would relate. Colin Hanks as the agent, Jon Abrahams as the forlorn and lovable "Pockets Malone" and Ethan Embry as Donavan Parker, the originator of Power TIme were a riot. James Van Derbek looked great and did an excellent job as the actor "Simon Blake". The girls are all beautiful. Even the supporting cast is impressive, (Xander Berkley & Roger Avery). I enjoyed the soundtrack as well. Kudos to Weiss and the producers for this impressive little film.

A group of college kids return four years after graduation for a wedding. It sounds clichéd, and well, it is, but the ensemble is great that I didn't mind too much. It stars 20-something actors including Colin Hanks, Ethan Embry, Adam Garcia, Amy Adams, Mena Suvari, James Van Der Beek, and Jon Abrahams. Xander Berkeley is also in it for a little bit. The film has a bunch of familiar story lines with all of the different characters, but the actors do a good job of performing it. I would have liked it more if it stayed strictly comedy though, there were some parts where it tried to go to drama and it just felt a little out of place.

But anyway, it was a nice film, I'm sure the average college kid will enjoy it. And with so many characters, the director did a good job of not making the film too crowded and unorganized.

Watching this film reminded me of what it was like to be sick on a Sunday and the only channel that works is Lifetime. The dialogue is lame and predictable. There is little or no authenticity to the characters emotional discoveries. Surprisingly, James VanderBeek brought a lot to his character's role but his screen time was comparable to Christopher Walken's in True Romance. It was like watching the Family Stone minus the funny improvisational parts and extending the bad Hollywood movie parts. The actors may be good on their own but the direction and writing are to blame here. They throw in a pathetic lesbian scene and other moments that wouldn't have happened if this were to take place in real life but the screen writing class told them it is what the viewers want to see. There is also little or no attempt to hide how low budget this film was made for.

These "slice of life", realist drama-comedies are far from my favorite genre, but as a serious movie buff, I've seen tens of them over the years, and Standing Still is right up there with the best of them.

The only flaw I can find, really, is the title, which is a bit enigmatic (not that I mind enigmas, but it's a bit out of context here). A better title would have been "Secrets", or even "Shuffle" if something less obvious was desired, as the plot is focused on an event--a wedding--that brings a wide range of people together, some unexpected, almost all with some kind of secret, and reshuffles them in various ways--often through revelations of their secrets.

Realist movies can easily become unfocused or boring--after all, that's true of most folks' lives if we were to follow them around with a video camera and expect people who don't know them to be entertained watching the results. But Standing Still manages to create suspense, tension and a healthy dose of humor while expertly weaving together a large number of threads, all while keeping things fairly firmly in realist territory and providing satisfactory resolutions. It's also emotionally satisfying and relatively "deep", often in subtle ways, all aided by the fantastic performances. Everyone says just as much with subtle body language as they do via their dialogue, and this just as often occurs in what could tend to be read as the lighter or shallower scenes.

I wanted to see far more about every one of these characters--and we could hardly call that a flaw.

The bad: This movie was a lousy wreck, which better resembled a WB sitcom than something that should be on the big screen. 25 minutes into the movie I was still thinking, "who are these people??" - there seemed to be very little character setup or development. For the most part, the acting was poor -- again, it was more like watching "Dawson's Creek" than an actual movie. The story was extremely basic, which is fine except that the dialogue was poorly written as well. The subplot with the groom-to-be's father was not necessary and distracted from the good vibes to the movie -- it was hard to watch, but not in a "I'm moved" sort of way, but more in a "I want to barf" kind of way.

The good: The movie pretty very short, so however bad it is, at least it's over quickly. Which was good because otherwise I don't think I would have made it all the way through. Also, some of the women in the movie were pretty good to look at, which makes getting through the film a little easier.

Seriouly, I'm not a high-brow movie viewer...I like a fun, dumb movie every now and then. But this movie was a wreck in most every way possible. Watch it for a great lesson in poor character development, sappy dialogue, and character clichés (the movie star character who seems happy but is actually very sad...how original).