Look Again

A fresh moral story about the idea of intuition versus having the power to know the future, or in this film, know someone's intention or aura. An impressive, human interest feature about relationships and human nature, as touching as it is funny.

Off the top, I love an Indian lead. Anand Rajaram is very strong and pairs well with equally strong female lead Brittany Allen; you can definitely feel the chemistry between them, it's believable. Powerful supporting performances by Darryl Dinn, Christian Potenza, and Joel Keller give the film its life and color. The dialog, the writing is snappy, clever, and hilarious; the film moves at a good pace, keeps you interested. Very impressed by the entire package here and applaud its great execution.

Give this film a chance, amidst all the big budget blockbuster static, open your heart to this independent feature that was, no doubt, meticulously put together by passionate professionals who bleed, sweat, and go sleepless nights to pursue the dream of making a film for audiences to enjoy. Give them your time, it's worth it.

The best two words to sum up this movie are "clever" and "sweet". Together, or independent of each other, they are not necessarily bad things to be; even here they are both still positives, however, in this particular case the one also works against the other and it is only because of that that this film does not become great.

The trailer tells you all you need to know about whether you might be interested in this type of film; it's a light, indie fantasy with likeable performances, romance, and a suggestion of serious themes and concepts. And it nails all of those aspects. It is clever, and witty and the performances are uniformly spot on. There are a couple of occasions where some purely visual sequences could have been tightened - the physical comedy skills of the actors are good, but not so good that we couldn't have left some scenes a minute earlier - and I am not a fan of the slightly wavering "indie camera" (usually a clue that they felt they didn't have the time to set up a tripod and are trying to do a static-shot hand held) but that's a personal technical preference, and not an outright detriment. The direction occasionally shines (as in the opening scene of the main character's attempted suicide) but, by and large it is visually unremarkable. Where director Daniel O'Connor's real strengths lie are in his writing and his handling of the performances.

But as positive as those things are, they also point up the films only serious weakness: it only HINTS at delving seriously into anything. It is so obviously sweet and good-natured, that you know instantaneously where the film is going and how it's going to end. That the main character would even risk possible harm to himself is simply a set-up to the clever premise of guardian angels showing up, and this side of his character is never dealt with again. That characters will skirt the deeper implications of what qualifies as good and bad - even as they are supposedly discussing them - either indicates a lack of depth in the writer (which I tend to doubt based on the cleverness of the dialogue etc) or an intentional unwillingness to probe anything too deeply. Even when job applicants are being chosen based on whether they are "good" or "bad" people, it is shocking that no one mentions that a good person could still be incompetent, or a "bad person" could be great at their job.

We follow our lead down a predictably darker path (although more a slightly shaded path than anything truly dark) but there is nothing plumbed there beside simple platitudes. And a happy ending is never in doubt. This would all be intolerable in a movie that wasn't so charming, but as much as I was enjoying myself watching it play out (I am a sucker for intelligently written dialogue) I felt cheated out of the Great Movie this little picture could have been with a tad more ambition (or, perhaps, courage?).

I unquestionably recommend it, provided you are not expecting something with any serious insight. It is clever and it is sweet, and it does both of those really, really well. The trailer hinted at additional depths, but unfortunately the film itself had no intention of going there.

I have to confess I didn't hate this movie but there is definitely something about it the just doesn't work.

I know it's not the acting performances because they were pretty solid and enjoyable. It could be a combination of script and production values. Filmmakers really need to remember that when you film in a room that is sparse or sparsely decorated, you're going to wind up with a sound that pretty much plagues this movie: hollow. Pretty every scene sounds hollow and when you look around at the rooms they're filming in, there is not much more than a piece of furniture or two. No matter how much of a "neat freak" a person may be, I have yet to see anyone's kitchen with things on the counter or even a plant or two.

As for the script...it's almost there but could still use some tweaking to get rid of the more stilted or lame dialogue that just doesn't work.

I watched this on Prime and it took about 5 times to get through it. I would get to the point I think "enough is enough" but something about it kept drawing me back to finish it.

It could also be the glasses themselves. When worn they tend to look very clown-ish and did not promote the storyline. I really wanted to like the film because the premise is very interesting and it went where I think it needed to go.

I had this sitting in my watch list for a while because while the concept sounded good, I watch a lot of low-budget films, and it had the potential to be either something worth watching or just a hunk of boring and poorly executed junk.

I think the concept is something many people can relate to, being a nice person, BUT being a terrible judge of other's character and/or being far too trusting of others so much so you cannot seem to find decent people to be associate with. This is a philosophical film, how do you know how to judge people's character rightly? Can you possibly know that someone wont screw you over later? Are people all good or all bad? How long do you have to know someone before you can judge their character? Why do people habitually choose bad people to be in their life? If we focus so much on other people, and stop looking at our own flaws do we bring our own downfall? How do we build our intuition on how to know who to trust and what to trust them with? The problem is, the script telegraphs everything in advance and explains it's philosophical underpinnings rather than letting the audience chew on them and come to their own conclusions, in other words, it is just to ham-fisted to be truly effective the way that it wants to be.

The script is fairly clever in showing a person who cannot exercise good judgement, and the movie does well to point out we all make judgements, something people try to avoid these days by saying "Don't judge me!", which in and of itself is a judgement.... I cannot tell you how many people I have met who do the same things the main character does, and in that regard the script does very well at showing a person who cannot and refuses to learn to use good judgement and trust people blindly for various reasons.

The execution is not as good as it could be, there is a far too long facial and hair cut scene, could have been 20 seconds and had the same effect. The script is decent, but a little too heavy handed and very uneven, and it sometimes drags in places, this would be a lot better if it was trimmed down to about 80 minutes to trim down some of the filler. While I don't generally mind it when movies don't use a lot of music, this is one case where some more music would have really helped the lack of music makes the pace drag as the movie moves along, especially since the pace goes from brisk to plodding about halfway through and becomes a lot more predictable and the downfall is hard to watch. The music when used, is well-done, but there really should have been more of it.

I can't complain about the sound, it is generally well-done, there are not any major fluctuations in sound. Again, the acting is uneven, the lead at first is very wooden, but gets a bit better as the movie progresses. The two angels, while funny, are the weakest actors here. I wish the camera work was a little more steady, it isn't shaky, but it does move around a lot, and it is a bit distracting, and I don't know why they filmed it this way, it is just a bit odd.

I would recommend this to people who don't mind low budget films that are a bit moralizing and philosophical, it could be more whimsical, but to be fair, it does deal with some weighty subject matter. I would recommend this if you are out of things to watch, and don't mind a movie with the flaws I mentioned above.