Altered Minds

I really enjoyed this movie, which was much better than I thought for a very low budget film. I was curious to read reviews and then caught the one entitled "Beware the hype for a morbid failure" that will probably be above mine that tears up the film - and incorrectly. I felt like it deserved a response from someone who did some acting but didn't take it the full route but has an educated eye.

1) Genre: There is nothing wrong with the genre. Without ruining the film, there is nothing wrong with not being sadly predictable from the moment the reel is in motion.

2) Technique: Shot with the wrong camera. This clown evidently didn't see the budget and the overwhelming majority of people - especially the average movie goer - will never be able to tell the difference. He then says "this monetary decision..." - as if a film is not worth doing at all unless it has a huge budget to be able to get the alleged camera of choice. What a snob, probably a frustrated director.

3) Acting: The clown can't decide whether ONE of the actors was somehow "incompetently played" but fails to say how. What happened was probably intentional because it makes sense in how the film plays out.

4) Deus Ex Machina: Makes you wonder whether this clown was ever truly competent in film. Doesn't know what this is and there is nothing that is pulled out of a Roman Deity's buttocks to save the day. Perhaps he shouldn't be lecturing about film school 101 because you don't need to be a director to understand the term.

5) Pretentious: Seems like someone has a serious bug up his bum, talking about how something may have been subliminally inserted into the credits. And then he rambles on about the film's showing at festivals... well... if you don't have HUGE money to pay for all those fancy cameras then you have to work very hard to get people to see the film, especially the right people. Could this LOR from New York, NY be a bigger turd? Sounds like it's par for the course in the entertainment industry.

6) Signs of the Amateur: This clown had to try to belittle the director even more. My guess... a former employee who was terminated. His complaint is that there were lots of thank yous in the film. Well... when you're a small time film maker on a small budget who is grateful for all the people who contributed to making this tiny budget look MUCH larger than it is, you MUST include them in the credits. That's business and relationships 101.

Overall I really enjoyed the film and didn't look at my watch once. For a low budget film that looks like it was only 6 figures and MAYBE just into 7 figures, it was great. It is SO MUCH better than the shlock I see on Cinemax, Showtime and other cable channels that get rerun over and over. And the bottom line is that it did have an interesting story line and believable ending. And the fact that this impish film student or former employee didn't even bother to discuss the film and just went for unrelated issues that a movie goer couldn't care less about tells you that there really weren't any significant complaints with the movie itself to warrant criticism!

So on that note I enjoyed it. I saw just a handful of things I might have done differently but I thought it was miles better than the shlock you see on low budget films and shaky cam reality movies. Worth the look and no regrets.

Was not going to comment on this until I read one grossly overrated review comparing this film to a Bergman production and another response likened it to that of Hitchcock. This film was nothing at all to be held in such esteem. What insult.

The story was poorly written. Mumbo jumbo of supposed psychoanalysis. It's entire plot failed. Any degree of suspense is predictable. Emotional moments, intending to be poignant, are not qualified by any caliber of acting and in my opinion, forced and cringe-worthy.

As producer and curator of The NY Film Critics Series I chose to screen TRR for our groups due to its mysterious vibe of the unmanifested. What I mean by that is that it appeared that the filmmaker(s) approached this project with a vision in mind and that the film ended up with exponential layers. It is a known fact that at some point every movie takes on a life of its own, but in this case, it is entirely clear that the director was keenly aware of when to get out of the way.

I strongly recommend that when viewing this film, that one should experience it in the same spirit. When watching it, clear your head with no expectations. Do not try to draw your own conclusions or predict what may happen next. Allow the work to wash over you as a willing vessel, placing your human on vacation for 90 minutes or so.

mark ehrenkranz NYFCS series producer http://nyfilmcriticsseries.com/

Stars Judd Hirsch as Nate Shellner. His family has gathered around for his birthday. He's not doing well. When he asks them to read his obituary out loud, we learn that he is an award winning psychiatrist, who worked for the US government, specializing in PTSD, formerly called shell shock. One of the sons, Tommy, clearly has issues of his own... he keeps asking where the family dog is buried, in spite of the many denails from the family. He has also admitted that he stopped attending therapy. Suspense. Some violence, blood and guts. We finally get the whole story from dad at the end. Co-stars CS Lee from Dexter. Ryan Onan. Pretty freaky. Not for the weak of heart. It's well done.. my one complaint is that the family wouldn't have ignored the violence between families members for so long... i think most people would have either left the house, or maybe called the cops. Written and directed by Michael Wechsler.

though I don't see the rave reviews for it.

Do generally like Judd Hirsch but kinda felt him unbelievable in the character, in fact none of the acting particualry stood out.

Decent plot, decent premise, decent pace... nothing spectacular but comparatively a solid effort.