Broken

Before we continue to point out all the limitations of "Broken" or any of Mr. Ferrari's (is that his real name?) productions, we must understand the limitations of said video- grapher. First, Mr. Ferrari never attended a real film school where they teach content, story, history or originality. He went to a technical film school called "Full Sail" in Florida, know as the APEX Tec of film schools. His films have a juvenile fascination with technical feats and special effects. Stories, characters and ideas never rise past a 10th grade comic book reading level. Like some one pointed out "Broken' would be cool if a 18 -19 year old made it. Having a lack of education in film and literary history allows him to fall into every cliché and stereotype with out knowing it's already been done. Like a teenager he gravitates to violent action with no story. Everything is a stereotype, nothing is deep. He sites his hero's as Tarrintino and Robert Rodriquez, two supposedly self taught filmmaker. Well, Tarrintino is a film scholar in his own right, and a gifted artist. Mr. Rodriquez did go to film school in Austin and has a sense of humor which Ferrari has none. All Mr. Ferrari and his collaborators do is make inferior hack versions of movies they like. When looking at his reel it feels like a bunch of stunted 30 something year old males got together and made home movies like they are 12 years old. He's more excited about a muzzle flash or squibs then the story. The other thing that is annoying about Ferrari is that he calls himself a filmmaker. The guy has only shot a few feet of film for that abortive film trailer, and a spec spot or two. Now that video is available to everyone, we have to deal with a high volume of garbage. Real film has become the currency of serious filmmakers. Robert Rodriquez makes HD films now, after shooting miles of real film. Ferrari and company should keep their money on shooting a 35mm short that has a story, real actors, a brain, and no cheesy childish gags or gimmicks. Mr. Ferrari's ego dose not allow him to be anything but a "director". But his talents indicate he should be a special effects supervisor. Alex, please leave the directing to those with vision, originality and talent.

I eagerly awaiting the DVD availability of Broken after viewing the trailer. The trailer was awesome and the editor made the most of the high production value of the film. However, I was someone disappointed with the "other" aspects of the film. The acting was decent on all sides as was the direction, but the story itself was lacking, too conventional and sometimes longwinded. N one can deny the high production value of the short. The filmmakers undoubtedly spent a lot of time, energy and effort to take the production value out of the low altitude budget range low budget film-making and into the stratosphere. they succeeded on all levels. And with the inclusion of over three hours of behind the scenes, how they did it footage, the DVD is worth a buy.

Recently Alex Ferrari sent me a copy of the short movie he's just completed along with his co-writer/producer Jorge F. Rodriguez, called Broken. Going by the trailer I'd seen on the site I wasn't sure what to expect, it looked slick, it looked high budget, but it was cut really fast making it difficult to gleam much from it other than style. In a fifteen minute short, I guess that is to be expected of its trailer.

Ferrari is someone who comes from the conventional film making routes but became bored and disillusioned with the whole process, and I would presume industry. He turned his back on this high budget, overly engineered process and looked to see if he could make an independent movie for a small budget and still make it look and feel like a Hollywood movie.

The question is did he succeed? Well I think that's slightly unfair to ask so early on, so let's just look at the short first and then we can make a decision.When I started to think about this review I looked at the different elements of the short. The story is pretty simple and is connected to two simple ideals, Kafka and Hitchcock. It looks at someone who is taken from their normal surroundings and existence and pulled into a world they don't understand with events spiralling around them. It's a classic and effective tale to tell, and also quite stunning to get across in a mere fifteen minutes, but they do. The paranoia and confusion that you see throughout Le Procès (The Trial) and North by Northwest is there, and tangible.

What does strike you throughout the movie are the high production values. The lighting is superb, dark, tight and claustrophobic. The effects are very visual and don't fail to impress when you realise the budget involved and the products and process used.

For me there were a couple of jarring moments that took me out of the movie briefly, and they were all down to some of the actors in a more action sequence just not committing themselves totally and therefore slightly missing the mark. There's also one stock moment that slightly disappointed me because up to that point it had all felt so fresh and unique.

Not that much I'm sure you'll agree, and definitely not so annoying that your experience will be marred by it. You're likely to see much more of these in any fifteen minutes of a Hollywood movie with hundred times the budget and production possibilities, and much, much less style and passion.

For me the bad, or is it good, guy played by Paul Gordon is the winner in this piece as far as the actors go. He's slow, deliberate and doesn't give out too much. There's enough brooding badness to suit and yet a touch of something more hidden in the background...we'll never know, the fifteen minutes are up and you're left with your imagination and many questions, and that's a big win in my book. Unlike most Hollywood movies when the credits role and you start to think about the trip home, what's for tea, work tomorrow, this filled you with questions and a desire to work out who, what, why.

So, does it manage to do it? Without a doubt. The camera work, editing, restrained writing and likewise performances bring it all across wonderfully. With a little more on some of the actors more action performances and effects you would never have realised it wasn't a full budget Hollywood short.

Ferrari, Rodriguez, Gordon and the rest of the team are definitely people to look out for.

There was no reason on this green earth to have spent so much money ($8,000) and time (Just see the 3 hours of bonus features) to make a really bad movie. What was Alex Ferrari (Director)and Jorge F. Rodriguez (Producer) thinking? I guess something along the lines of getting their ethnic (but cute) looking lead actress (Samantha Jane Polay)strapped to a chair. My favorite part of watching this DVD is when the filmmakers to the surprise of everyone announce that all the actors on screen that they had treated as extras from a bad Matrix ripoff actually had character names (Marquez), as if the poor actors in this film needed to be singled out further. Let's see what else can I single out. Oh, the usual; bad acting, bad sound, it looked like it was shot on VHS, bad direction...wait now it's just getting too easy. I'll stop cause I'm falling asleep just thinking of that thing they call, "Something that Quentin Tarantino might have done on his day off." Please.

Saw the trailer and explored the website a long while back...looked very, very cool. Then saw several mentions of "over XX visual effects shots!!" repeated over and over in various comments and descriptions. Got a bit suspicious...

Saw the whole film this weekend. DVD menu: looks awesome! Credit sequence: looks awesome, builds excitement and expectation!

The actual film: not good. Very disappointing. So many missteps and "tin ear" moments that it was one of the biggest, "What were they thinking?!?" moments at the whole film festival.

The story is convoluted and barely served by the acting and editing (though actress Polay does a good job with the very,

very little she is given). The Duncan character (main villain) is straight out of the overwrought "look at me! I'm a craaazzyyy bad, bad man!" style of writing and acting.

Above all, the film shows a very immature, shallow sensibility informing most of the major decisions. The ending is just plain camp - so much like the end of the "Thriller" video that I expected to hear Vincent Price laughing in the background.

That said - - the "on message" buzz presented on review sites speaks volumes about how well these indie filmmakers have promoted their stuff. They clearly got the most they could out of their budget (whether or not it really was $8,000) and are riding this horse as far as it will take them. And, as I said, they do create a pretty cool look in many places.

As a fellow indie filmmaker, I understand and respect the work and determination that goes into that. However, if they truly have been given funding to do a feature (clearly their goal in making the short), I hope they focus less on the glitz and the positive press it has earned them from people with bad taste or low standards and more on telling an actual story with interesting characters (within your world of high action-adventure production values).