MoeHartman

The fact of the matter is that it's hard to make a good movie on a low budget. Even when a talented person is put behind the camera, the technical limitations will likely show, and the actors will be anything but the best available. There is so much going against Ethan Hunter's debut film, For Catherine, but at the same time, it shows Hunter's potential to be a great filmmaker.

For Catherine's biggest strength is undoubtedly Hunter's writing. Hunter admits to being a devout fan of Kevin Smith, and it shows with much of the humor coming from everyday conversations, but even the plot itself is inventive, with the main character, Duo, mailing all of his possessions to himself during a bout of loneliness and confusion. For Catherine is the chronicling of Duo's rise from that state as he gains new found independence and as his belongings are returned one by one. The dialogue is for the most part well written, and while the characters could be just about any twenty-something, that's where part of their charm lies.

Unfortunately, most of the other aspects of this film suffer. The majority of the actors in the film had no prior acting experience and it shows. Most of the supporting characters sound like they're reading from a card and are completely unconvincing, and while Grant Henry, who also supplied the movie's whimsical soundtrack, is more bearable in the role of Duo, the movie would have been greatly improved with more competent actors or even just an acting coach. It seems like Hunter just gathered up his closest friends, which makes the stiff acting all the more sad when you consider that the people are probably playing parts based on themselves. Hunter himself has a small part, and he's the only actor who looks and sounds comfortable with his role.

There are a number of technical issues, too. Lighting seems to be almost non-existent, and the camera work is very amateurish with many goofs and flaws, and for the most part, For Catherine has very dull cinematography. All of this is understandable considering that the movie was made on less than $1000, but even if it is understandable it is not excusable. All of this goes to show how much better this movie would have been had it been made by someone with even just a little bit more experience or money.

With all that holds it back, though, For Catherine still manages to be entertaining. As previously mentioned the dialogue, while seemingly, mundane, is full of clever little jokes that spring out of realistic conversations. By the end of the movie, though, it's hard not to feel for Duo in his quest to regain Catherine, and he's a character that you want to root for. And while Hunter flubs a bit when he attempts to get on his soap box, his sentiments of anti-conformity and anti-commercialism are ones that aren't expressed enough in the film industry.

For Catherine is full of obvious flaws, but it's a charming enough little film, if you can look past them. Many people will inevitably hate it for such shortcomings, and they do ruin what is a great script, but if nothing else, For Catherine showcases Hunter's ability to write a clever, but realistic script. With a little bit of rewriting, a better cast, and some studio backing, For Catherine could be remade into a great film. As it is, it's nearly unwatchable. With a little financial backing, though I wouldn't be surprised if Hunter went on to do great things.