Time of Her Life

The film is bad on virtually every level-even student films run circles around this for quality. The dialogue and acting is dire. The exposition dumps are hilarious. Virtually all the actors seem to be just reciting lines into space, there is no sense that they are talking to each other or have any sense of timing. The lighting fluctuates wildly. The tone flicks all over the place and the lead actress can't decide whether to be chummy with the ghosts or terrified- so she goes back and forth throughout the film. She also receives and forgets information consistently- maybe the script changed throughout filming. If I had to hear the fake asthmatic gasp of the lead one more time, I might have had an asthma attack myself. It's completely inaccurate as to English inheritance law and just generally doesn't make much sense. Part of the reason my review is so harsh is that I am very leery of all the 10 star reviews- an adoring mother wouldn't be able to give this 'baby' more than a 6 and an honest review is truly a 1.

I've just had a chance to see this film, and having read the comments below, feel the need to add my say. First I must say that I have spoken to Greenway about working in their next film, 'The Book', so bear in mind that I think the film is more than good enough to warrant putting my time and effort into the opportunity of working with Steven Smith. I would not discount all of the negative points in the previous two postings (although I'm glad that one had the sense to point out the dazzling performance of the Gardener), however it is clear to me that Steven is going to go far in his career. I did enjoy watching the film, and found that as the story progressed I, like the characters, became drawn into the story of Hylands House.

"A REAL GHOST CAPTURED ON FILM" trumpets the front cover. "WAS IT ONE OF THE STARS AFTER SEEING THE FINISHED PRODUCT, HAUNTING THE SET OF WHAT DROVE HIM TO THE EDGE OUT OF SHAME". I ask. But I kid... Suicide is no laughing matter... so don't do it. There are people who love you, the Samaritans are only a phone call away, it'll take ages for your mum to clean the bathtub... etc. But IF there was a good reason for taking the ultimate step, being part of this... THING must rank somewhere between your family discovering you're a poultry molestor, or that you have all of Shaking' Stevens back catalogue in your collection.

I have to ask... Is this a joke? When they picked these actors, who must rank among some of the WORST I've ever seen (they can't even smile convincingly) was it because they paid into the project, or the casting director had a LOT of extended family members? And as for the dialogue... Jeez. It starts off like a bad episode of Eastenders, then we get the historical flashbacks... And it starts to resemble a REALLY bad Jane Austen adaptation. (Apologies for linking the great lady's name with this tripe). Seriously, if you set up a cringe-o-meter for the lines here, it would be off the scale every 10 seconds.

AHA you might add, it may be a boil on the bum of Satan, a complete disgrace to the film industry and anyone with a brain, but at least it's good for a few unintentional laffs, right? Well... Yes, and no. Yes, in that there are some choice moments here which'll have you rolling in the aisles, but having to tolerate the rest of the crap that is bundled along with it... I don't think so.

I'm thinking back to that supposed spectre "CAPTURED ON FILM", and I have another theory. Could it be... Jeremy Beadle playing a gag on us all from the afterlife? Did the spook have a big bushy beard, and was he carrying a microphone? If it was indeed the prankster himself, than THAT WOULD EXPLAIN EVERYTHING!! Making a fake movie... that must rank as one of his most audacious set-ups yet. Of course... anyone who's watched it would figure it out immediately... NO-ONE would spend money on making something as shoddy as this. Right? RIGHT?! 0/10

The quality of the film is way beyond its budget with good acting and beautifully filmed across historic landmarks in England. The storyline keeps your attention and the music provides the right atmosphere throughout the film. The film starts off as a suspense thriller and turns into a period romance so it should appeal to a large cross section of people. The movie switches across two hundred years between the present and the past, with some clever effects when the two times are interacting with each other. Due to the nature of the film with its strong storyline and the way it was shot, it will look good both on the big screen and on DVD.

Steven M.Smith. A name to remember, a future light of UK independent film making. Time of her life, is a very impressive first effort from this writer/director, as indeed too was his directorial debut of notable admiration. But the real triumph was his almost single handed quest, dogged determination, and a shear single-minded focus, to achieve the ultimate goal of making that first movie. Steven's first effort should be noted, as a beacon to all would be filmmakers. why? Because he's done it, he's made that journey of ups and downs. He held the whole production together with string and gaffer tape, whilst juggling cast/crew and finances with both hands tied behind his back. When he ran out of money and the usual doors slammed in his face, he somehow found enough to keep going. At the end of it all, I guess this films entire journey will probably have taken over two years of his life, maybe even more, and in all that time I know his dedication would not have dropped below 110%. All young would be filmmakers, or old, need to learn from people like Steven, as this guy has completed the journey on which many of them wish to travel. And for all of Steven's endeavours he now has to his credit a truly wonderful first time independent feature. Well Done!