The Scenesters

The phrase "first time film-makers" is usually associated with messy, amateurish affairs. Not so for this movie. A masterwork of "found footage", this film contains a broad range of styles, expert editing, sharp writing, terrific performances, and a killer soundtrack (literally). Hard to believe this is a low-budget, and even harder to believe that it is a feature film debut for this group. And unlike most "comedy troupes" (for example, Twisted Lizard) who make movies, these guys did not just put a comedy sketch writ large or a series of disconnected jokes loosely tied together onto the screen: they made a complete and complex story with various layers intertwined together to form a very satisfying whole.

It's a great movie for seasoned pros. It's an amazing accomplishment for first timers (and I say first implying there will be a second and third and...).

I can see why it has done so well on the film festival circuit and I wish these guys luck with distribution!

If you borrow this film based on the 18 Film Festival palms listed at the top of the case, as I did, you're apt to be terribly disappointed by way too many minutes of silly pointless meandering nonsensical filmic moments adding up to less than nothing. Yep, it's edited and has a sound track, but it's no more a hip murder mystery than it's an "award winning" production. It has evidently played at a lot of festivals, and occasionally been deemed "interesting" or "well-written," but unless you're entertained by bad actors pretending to do a documentary, you may end up just wondering as I did: "Why did I bother to watch the whole thing?!" I'd rather watch "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" twice than see even half of this movie again. Even "Hank the Cave Peanut" is more entertaining. There are a few laughs in this, but Ouch! they're spread real thin. Do yourself a favor and watch almost anything else. A moment of camp, another of kitch, 8 moments of dreary cliché posing as art.

I was fortunate enough to see a screening of this along with the "Annapolis Pretentious Film Society" a few nights ago. In attendance was Todd Berger himself. It was a great chance to hear from the writer/director about the process of making this delightfully funny film-noir/detective movie. As a film lover, I loved that I could sit back and enjoy the gentle mocking of the noir films of days gone by and laugh out loud at some truly absurd moments. Berger helped explain the cameos/bigger-star scenes (Fenn, Landis, etc.). I really hope that some of these stories making it onto the "making of" portion of the DVD. I anxiously await the moment when this gets released on DVD -- because I would love to watch it again with some friends!

The Scenesters (2009)

A series of murders are being committed and it seems the killer is among a group of associates and friends in L.A. who all have a hand in investigating. Some of these people are filmmakers who have decided to film the scenes from the inside, and so there is both the omniscient footage of the overall situation and the footage being shot by the film (video) crew itself. Then there is added footage from other sources, like a training video for crime scene cleaners and the ongoing excerpts of a trial in a courtroom where the main characters appear to talk about the events in retrospect.

So what "The Scenesters" is first of all is complex, an interwoven and sometimes surprising tossed salad of points of view and styles. Some viewers will find it sloppy and annoying, or just confusing enough to give up, but in fact it makes pretty good sense, and the dumbed down acting can be forgiven or absorbed as intentional. Because these are meant to be regular people who happen to be caught on camera.

It's impossible and senseless to talk about plot here, beyond the step by stop procedure of finding another victim and getting more clues and false leads. It's only gruesome in small doses--this isn't a slasher film by any means. If anything it's a little too hip--a film made by young people for young people (people in their 20s, let's say). But that's also what keeps it current and fresh.

It's so much about how it's made you ought to at least try to watch it. I see that the IMDb rating is really low, under five stars, and yet the few actual written reviews give it nine or even ten stars each. That's revealing: people who are into movies and how they are made and really want to work at enjoying them (and who take the time to write reviews) got more out of the this movie. It doesn't mean it's flawless, not a bit, but it's very very interesting, one of the more intriguing movies I've seen in awhile.

Very few people have reviewed this movie probably because it's not very good (no offense to those who liked it). I saw the movie on one of the premium TV channels and almost stopped after the first 15 minutes. I decided to keep watching to see if it could possibly get better, but unfortunately I wasted my time. I won't try to describe the movie, look at other reviews for that, but essentially, this looks like an attempt by film class students at making a movie. Most of it is shot with the appearance of amateur home movies. It's rated R because of language, adult content and some violence. The IMDb has placed it in the following Genre: Comedy, Crime, Mystery, and I agree. It is humorous at times, but really is more a pathetic attempt at humor most of the time. I really tried to give it the benefit of the doubt so I watched the entire film. In the end I was debating whether to give it a rating of 2, 3, or 4 on a scale of 10. I decided to be generous and give it a 3/10. It isn't the worst film I've ever seen but is certainly in the bottom 5% of the thousands of films I've seen. I would not recommend it and if you are interested in an in offbeat film to pass the time, I'd suggest the movie "11:14" which is 100 times better.