Fourteen

I wouldn't call it as a drama movie. There is no real story. The film is to long for that short story they just drag it for long

The people who made this movie really had their act together. Truly outstanding performances by the two lead actresses made it easy to forget that their characters on screen were fictional. The supporting cast also added color and substance to what otherwise could easily have been a boring story about a deteriorating friendship.

Dan Sallitt directed Fourteen. Among other accomplishments he demonstrates that fine entertainment can be offered without relying on explosions or psychos with guns to mesmerize viewers.

Congratulations to all!

DVD lacked subtitles for the elderly, disabled, hearing impaired, and ESL viewers. Disrespectful & cheap on the part of the producers especially when audio & enunciation is were very poor.

Very, very cheap production. We get two cameras on tripods 95% of the time staring at talking heads (high % of personal issues) or people walking in & out of camera view. Viewer left staring at, in several cases, just a door or wall. Usual eating, drinking, smoking (must not be a smoker as it left the mouth immediately) scenes in living, bedroom, kitchen, dining predominate movie time.

For a film to work you have to offer your audience some form of entertainment. If story or plot isn't the priority, then you have to deliver pretty great dialogue. If you can't deliver great dialogue then you have to put on show high quality acting. This film has none of those three important components.

If you can't offer those essential three, then you better offer some sort of thrill or visual feast. This is clearly not that type of film either. So what you left with is basically a cheaply shot, amateurish play with no substance. It's simply poor writing.

Example, rather than show the woman becoming more dysfunctional we get to hear it through a friend. And not even in a type of revealing story way but in a 'I think she needs to see a doctor something's going on' way. It's exposition. The number one worst rule of screenwriting. I question the motive of critics and wonder which film they've seen.

Long takes can work wonderfully too but here they offer no artistic reasoning. It wants to be high art. It wants to be the indie films of the 90s but it's really very shallow.

The only redeeming quality is the lead actress. She pulls it off but only just. The rest reveal their shortcomings from the opening moments. There are far better low-budget films around that haven't received the type of publicity this one has. God knows why.

I don't like to be critical of independent film because I admire the DIY approach to art. This film suffers from a dreary palate (digital) and rough sound. The actors all sound like they're reading lines. The budget is listed at 95,000 which seems high for what's on the screen. If they said it was made for 3,000 I would believe it. As for the story there isn't much of one or characters that are interesting or charismatic.