The Girl Is in Trouble

This is a good example of a decent premise and cast bogged down by poor "style" choices and unnecessary narration. The filmmakers clearly decided to make up for the low budget by mixing up the story in disjointed flashbacks instead of letting the story flow naturally. Everytime you start to get into a scene BAM they cut into a flashback, and sometimes intercut a flashback with a flashback. They probably thought this was a way to be flashy but, for me, it was just distracting. Then to add to the annoyance, they added a voice over to explain EVERYTHING and introduce characters that don't matter. Things get very cluttered. In the end it just gets in the way of itself. I truly believe if they told a straight forward story they'd have a decent indie/thriller on their hands. Instead it comes off as a bad experiment.

It's rare to see a movie character utters this quantity of monologue, The Girl Is in Trouble might just beat Sin City for time spent narrating. It starts off well, cinematography is sleek for urban setting, the earlier scenes are intriguing and actors' performances are admirable. Sadly, the persistent rambling plods the pace severely, not to mention it tries to switch back and forth through different timelines and perspectives, even those of unnecessary characters.

August (Colombus Short) has experienced strings of unfortunate events, though they pale in comparison when he finds a snuff video on the phone of Signe (Alicja Bachleda). Situation gets worse as the persons on the video are tied to wealthy company and gangster. The actors do a fine job, they fit their roles very well. Colombus Short is presentable as the lead, he also narrates most of the movie, this part can be annoying though it's mostly the fault from the script.

Jesse Spencer as Nicholas, the rich guy and Wilmer Valderrama as Angel, the brother of a missing drug dealer perform their bests. They deliver a sense of dread and cunning nature in tandem. While most of the cast mainly dabble in TV shows, the acting department is very solid. Camera work highlights the ambiance of the street and this is particularly useful on creating the gangster or crime thriller atmosphere.

Narration pretty much hampers the entirety of the movie. August just won't stop blabbering. It seems he's psychic as well because he knows the most intimate moments of others. He is also historian, since he gives lecture about immigrants and history of the district. This goes on until the end, he even manages to cover that one friend from social media or that one lesbian fling. All of this with sudden shift in timeline and useless trivia.

The audiences will be most likely numbed by the constant jabbering before it reaches the climax. Nevertheless, the lively feel of the city and its occupants are good enough to overcome the distracting narrative, barely.

An obscure indie film noir ? A film like this needs IMDb commentator support if only because the only films being reviewed will be ones appearing in the local multiplex or ones getting their debut release on The Horror Channel . It so far has four comments and mixed opinions from my peers so went in to this film with a very open mind

The story itself has a premise of man meets mysterious woman with a problem and finds himself caught up in events outside his control . More than a shade of Chandler or Spillane in there somewhere and watching the film unfold I see Nigerian born director Julius Onah is very much in the style of Martin Scorsese with his use of voice over , flash back and other directorial quirks such as freeze frame . However Onah emulates this style very badly . Perhaps the most annoying aspect is the voice over . The story is told through the eyes of August who is an unemployed bartender and DJ . August never misses the opportunity to tell us what's on his mind and while he's telling us all this the imagery does the worst thing possible - it shows us what the narrator is talking about . From what I've learned from film school good use of voice over is ironic narration where as bad voice over is obvious or expositional narration . The whole technique of it here is totally over done while being badly used . There's also an other aspect about the voice over and that it totally distracts from much of the core story involving a woman who has recorded a murder on her phone and often found myself wondering where the story was going or if the director had totally forgotten about it . To give Onah his due he might be making an existentialist type of film noir and Scorsese is indeed a grand master auteur of existentialist philosophy but unfortunately there's only one Martin Scorsese . Better luck next time Julius and next time make your own movie

I always choose my rating before opening IMDb to avoid influence. With rare exceptions, I rate about -1 point bellow average, -2 if it's an action movie, -3 when it shows an apathetic guy in a spaceship (sorry Matt). Over time, I became pretty good at guessing ratings. I was extremely surprised to see that most of you gave this movie a 5. Looking at the demographics, women are rating higher than man and the delta increases with age. So I've rated this movie like an old American lady. Maybe we are both missing a sweet voice telling us stories while watching a guy running in a grey city. The dissociation of the narration and the picture is perfectly cinematographic and used to be common decades ago. It is not an incursion literature in cinema, but it just requires some imagination to visualize what's not on scene. Recent movies for younger generations intend to avoid ellipsis at all cost and depict in details and in real time or slow-mo each aspect of a story, leaving no room for imagination. What else can I say? - I like the highly multifaceted characters - The storyline follows several unexpected turns. If someone pretends to have guessed the next moves, don't believe him. - I didn't notice such a constant voice-over and went through the movie once more choosing 20 random scenes: 2 had a voice-over, 1 had indirect speech and 17 were direct dialogues. So I don't think that the problem with the narration is its duration, but the fact that it takes us far from the context and can be sometimes academic. Personally, I liked learning about the New York immigration timeline. - I've seen so many shaky cams recently, that I barely notice them anymore - For those who like movies with a moral, there is probably one about quick judgment based on out-of-context videos. As a conclusion, I think it's a pretty good evolution to the film-noir. Too bad you all seem to want to bury the genre!

The other night I caught up with "Cadillac Records". I was impressed with Columbus Short, a new name to me, and I decided to look out for his subsequent movies. After watching this mess I will stop looking.

Alicja Bachleda made her movie debut at 16 in a masterpiece. Sad she has sunk to this.

Mike Starr, who has appeared in an enormous number of movies as a heavy, either played straight or for humor, does his usual reliable job here.

I love Film Noir, and there is a good story hiding somewhere within all the confusion. Mr Onah should have handed over the direction to someone with a clue. They are not shy about promoting Spike Lee's name as one of the 17 (!) producers, executive producers and assistant producers. You would think that Lee or one of his colleagues would have had the common-sense to steer the director away from some of his more egregious errors, such as:

--- The incessant narration, on topics related and unrelated to the story in progress.

--- Awful camera-work, replete with shakes and glare.

--- The pointless flashbacks (a common feature of such low-budget would-be neo-noirs).

--- The horrible soundtrack, which made it almost impossible to follow the plot. So often these days the music (if that is what it is meant to be) drowns out the dialogue, made worse when, as here, many of the cast seem to suffer speech impediments.

I was discussing with a friend only today why so many Brit actors are now popping up in US movies, even in supporting roles as "All-American" characters. My friend thought it was because they were cheaper, but I think the main reason is because they can articulate. Method acting is great when used by a Newman or a Steiger, but downright confusing when attempted by knuckle-dragging illiterates who think it is a way to by- pass real training as actors.

I give it 4 for the sense of location and the promise in the plot. Not the lead actors' fault, they did their best. I don't suppose anyone involved will go near Onah as a director again. Maybe he can make a career as a screen-writer.

It looked like something made by a student. I see here that it was. I think a good rule-of-thumb for novice directors is to keep it simple, then add special effects and gimmicks as their skills increase with experience.