rusrobertblemker

I saw this last night and it was great. A great assemble piece of incredible Chicago acting talent. Each of Micheal's films explore relationships, family and always has satisfying endings.

I had been following Hex Studios social media for awhile and was intrigued by this film's story and concept. I donated to the cause and received my BluRay in a timely fashion. The packaging and contents are great and well designed; the disk had no problems on playback. They do a really good job on marketing and packaging.

The film is a good example for anyone wanting to see moody lighting in a cool baroque location. Unfortunately that is the only thing this film offers; it feels like the team's main focus was creating cool shots with Dario Argento colors in Ridley Scott smoke. The initial advertised story, of a haunted automata, is lost in a series of odd scenes between every other character but the automata.

I feel they realized too late in the game that the amazing Alexandra Hulme could expertly mimic the movements of the automata but her beautiful skin would never come across as a doll. They would need CG to flatten her skin to complete the illusion. A strong script would have allowed the audience to suspend disbelief and buy this amazing actress as a doll. Unfortunately they did not believe in the script so we see very little of the automata. (Her "turning scene" is amazing.)

So we are left with scene after scene of confusing conflicts between characters with no through line or satisfying conclusion. (Hex Studios has released scathing reviews of Ari Aster's work recently - they would do well to learn basic story structure from his films.). Even the mysterious backstory is overly confusing. Honestly it is hard not to fast forward this movie. There is zero tension or scares.

A for effort, D for execution. I will not be supporting another campaign from Hex Studios. I will check out their offerings on my streaming services if they come out hoping for more growth and tighter stories. Good luck, writing is rewriting - you can't fix a bad story in post.

I saw this film last night at the Midwest Indy Film Fest in Chicago. I commend the filmmakers on a beautiful and challenging story and wonderful execution. I strongly disagreed with the length and labored approach in the final edit. I agree with the director that languor and easy films are needed in our fast pace world, yet, here the length is doing your film a disservice. The film lover next to me fell asleep! I struggled to keep interested.

As filmmakers you need to take a stand with your beliefs, but you need to realize the risks. Does this particular film need to be 39 minutes, 37, 22? Is that worth endearing the film to this part of the audience, while, this part of the audience falls asleep? I bring this up because I feel the film will lose nothing, and gain so much more, if it was tighter. The idea that you need a labored approach for this heavy theme is not a valid argument. Roman Polanski's "Two Men and a Wardrobe" is soaked with rich themes and is 15 minutes. Marcell Ivanyi's "Wind" is spell binding in the themes it introduces at 6 minutes.

Ultimately, the short film is a unique artform, complex and ever changing. There is a certain social contract that exists between filmmaker and audience on what that artform is. What is the general public perception on the range of length of the short film artform? Do you feel the labored edit of your story is justified by the power of the third act and the direction of the characters arc? Why do some people enjoy the pace of "Lost in Translation" but fall asleep here? You can break those conditions whenever you like, and I hope you do, just recognize the risk.

To end on a good note, I like your effort now; I'll love your film after a tighter edit.