Girl with a Gun

There's so little action it shouldn't be catagorised as an action it should be under drama. In which case it works as a drama but as an action film it's pathetic.

It's got some really boring and disjointed editing too.

I didn't enjoy the film.

I give it a 2/10 and that's generous.

There's so little action it shouldn't be catagorised as an action it should be under drama. In which case it works as a drama but as an action film it's pathetic.

It's got some really boring and disjointed editing too.

I didn't enjoy the film.

I give it a 2/10 and that's generous.

Best avoided as it's the most boring action film of all time.

This film does well in setting up the plot relatively early and carrying the theme throughout. The sound quality, music composition and camera angles were spot on, which is not always performed effectively on lower budget features. Mr. White put a great team together and the cast was well chosen overall. Especially appealing wwere the chosen locations throughout the film with precision authenticity of the area and culture represented. Drone shots were chosen wisely but not overdone. Editing was performed to perfection in my opinion.

I am looking forward to future projects from this writer/director.

That's about it. I'll give them 3 stars for actually getting something in the can. Most don't and they waste people's time and money. Another 2 for what looks like the directors first crack at a feature.

Here is where it broke down for me. There were some good performances and some "pull you out of the film" ones. Overall it felt clunky, and had a local only feel. Some seemed to be reading off a page of paper. I wish ULB directors would get away from the "Be A Producer, Get a Role" model which in visiting credits seems to be the case for this film. It appears that it was shot only in Louisiana and I know over the last few years they've developed some good "Supporting" actors who can contribute to rounding out a cast. Several years back I worked on a project there with Egerton and Hauser and I met many local actors and their performances were really good. So, I'm confused. I'm guessing from the look of the cast their only talent draw was Jeremy London. He's just so blah and washed up and his performance was definitely far behind some of the other locals. I am sure most of the cast money went to him and frankly the director could have scratched him and filled his cast with actors who are not just phoning it in. That could have boosted the project a few points. So for cast I'm going -2 for a total project rating of 3. Truly the efforts of the crew need to be praised for their diligence and fortitude. Hoping the director finds those diamonds in the rough with actual credits next time he directs.

To call this an amateur student film would be an insult to amateur student films. The story could have been written by a six-year-old (and probably was). The acting (if you could call it that) reminded me of a kid's high school play... a bad one. I looked and looked for some redeeming quality to justify my spending time on this but, alas, I could not find one. There are endless continuity mistakes, editing errors where everywhere (looked like cut and paste...done poorly), the music was as weak, misplaced and ridiculous and the dialog was painfully crude.

If this was not intended to be some kind of joke, like a parody on making a movie, then it failed there as well. And if the writer/director was seriously trying to make a movie, then he and all who participated, should be properly embarrassed.

My advice to all who were part of this thing: Don't quit your day job...you are going to need it.

I believe that under proposed Diversity/Equity rules, I am obligated to award at least one point for actually getting this film into production. Because, as we all know, effort counts. And, to be fair, the cinematography is stunning. You can take any of the outdoor shots at random, and turn them into a screensaver, effortlessly. Wow. That said, writer/director Kevin White has produced a film that is so wrong on so many levels, it can be immediately studied in any film class anywhere as an example of what not to do. The dialog was intended to be pithy (nothing wrong with pithy) but instead comes across as if there are entire scenes missing. There is nothing wrong with using "unknown" actors -- as long as they can actually act, and sell their roles. None of that here. Every movie needs something called the "glue", something that holds your attention while the story is being developed. None of that here either. As I have explained in other reviews, one of the giveaways of an ultra-low-budget indie is a sound track so intrusive that it actually tries to compensate for everything else that is missing. Check. If effort counts, viewers who make it to the end of the reel should get points also. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))