eddiec-1

The best thing I can say about this movie is that Mary Neilson looks good in shorts.

Everything else is a waste of time.

The writing is unfocused; I was a third of the way through the movie and still didn't know what any of the characters wanted, what their purpose was.

The dialog was like people talking in separate conversations than the other. Fortunately, the sound quality was so muffled I couldn't hear half of what they were saying anyway.

The camera angles were often taken at interesting angles but without a purpose for the angles. Like, an intentionally shaky hand held camera looking through a broken window at the character walking by. But why? Am I looking at the character from the POV of somebody spying on him? Nah, no reason. Just something the director/cinematographer was taught to do.

Other reviews said the acting was bad. But I don't blame the actors for the problems of this movie. That (dis)honor lies at the feet of the filmmaker.

I don't agree with the user reviews that trashed this movie. Those users, I think, just don't like the genre. This is a well written, well acted, well directed, well filmed movie. Its quiet understated tone isn't going to be for everyone but it achieves what it set out to accomplish.

The acting is good, directing not bad. The writing/editing are a problem. I kept thinking about how much better this movie could have been. It doesn't need a much bigger budget, except to give this promising crew more time for rewrites, reshoots, and reediting.

There's a better movie hiding in here.