Division 19

This was bad. The long shots of actors faces staring into the emptiness, trying to convey emotion and a sense of introspective feeling wears out really quickly as soon as they become too frequent. Also long shots of empty streets or random people roaming around streets used to often also kills the mood because they become repetitive. Since there was little story to be told I guess they had to try to make the movie longer. The base idea, not being extraordinary, wasn't completely bad, but the way it was executed was very poor and maybe I was shutting down but some things were missing or didn't make total sense. The overall acting was also bad.

I will only recommend this movie for good background noise. The dialogue is repetitive, bland, and short with no real point in what is being said. The characters are shallow. The beginning of the movie establishes a story the entire rest of the film does not follow in a very bad, poorly thought-out way. This film is an hour-and-a-half of a couple characters standing in different locations, and that's it.

Entirely too many scenes of the actors just staring into the distance apparanty to fill the time lost from lack of content. Repetitive scenes of people just walking. The idea behind the movie was solid, but the direction was terribly lacking. Hopefully a more skilled director will take the idea and present us with a version that won't make me demand that the money I spent on the rental be returned. I gave the movie a three rating because there was obviously some effort involved. Don't judge a movie by it's trailer.

I had a really hard time staying awake for this mess of a film.

The first 1/4 of the film was decent enough to suck you in, but then it was just random dumb camera shots (literally, 5 second scenes jumping all over the place - to no where) and some decent (but useless) Parkour acrobatics.

Clearly the concept was taken from many other films, but I didn't care about that. What bothered me was writer/director/producer Suzie Halewood's poor attempt to create a decent story/screenplay. It almost seems like of the 5 hours total of decent filming, it was edited down to random 5-10 second scenes that were repetitive and ended up no where. Major plot issues with lack of any real story, and even worse dialogue. How do two brothers meet again after 10 years, have a one-sided 5 second conversation about nothing, then onto the next scene? Jamie Draven as Harden needed much more dialogue, instead of all these irrelevant scenes on buildings.

I get this was a low budget film, and I really enjoyed the low budget effects, but the problem here is the very amateurish writing and terrible screenplay with useless scenes, jumping in and out of nowhere. Halewood's directing behind the camera was not bad, but her editing the film to its final cut was atrocious. A 5th grader could've written a more solid story.

Nevertheless, ignore the clearly fake 8-10/10 reviews. This film had a great opportunity that Halewood blew trying to wear all these hats. It's a 4/10 from me, strictly for the decent low budget effects and the acting.

The concept of the movie was very interesting. Prisoners are filmed, and subscribers see live interactions between felons. You can buy a subscription to an individual felon. Sadly, the directing and screenplay did not live up to my very low expectations (due to Redbox reviews). Scenes didn't make sense. The lead actor maybe had a dozen lines. From scene to scene the story and shots were disjointed.

I only recommend watching this movie as a drinking game. Drink whenever a scene makes no sense. Drink when the Hardin says a word. Drink when they camera shifts points of view for no reason.

So awful. Worst movie I've seen in 20 years.