The Girl Is in Trouble

No one else is going to review this so I guess I will.

I know that shaky-cam is the new hip technique but please, knock it the f*** off. It gives me a head ache. It doesn't make the movie look interesting or hip. It makes it look cheap, as in too cheap to hire a camera guy who isn't drunk. If that's the case then borrow a tripod. It looks like the whole thing was shot on cellphones. Maybe it was.

There's an old adage in screen writing that says, "show it, don't tell it." Movies are a visual experience as well as audio. If you want to tell a story with words then write a book. A little narration at times is OK, but a little bit goes a long way. In this film the narration goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Is that annoying to read that? Then you're beginning the get the drift.

Pros -

The acting is good from everyone. The story, if not altogether original, is decent. But the overall experience is just too annoying to put up with.

It's rare to see a movie character utters this quantity of monologue, The Girl Is in Trouble might just beat Sin City for time spent narrating. It starts off well, cinematography is sleek for urban setting, the earlier scenes are intriguing and actors' performances are admirable. Sadly, the persistent rambling plods the pace severely, not to mention it tries to switch back and forth through different timelines and perspectives, even those of unnecessary characters.

August (Colombus Short) has experienced strings of unfortunate events, though they pale in comparison when he finds a snuff video on the phone of Signe (Alicja Bachleda). Situation gets worse as the persons on the video are tied to wealthy company and gangster. The actors do a fine job, they fit their roles very well. Colombus Short is presentable as the lead, he also narrates most of the movie, this part can be annoying though it's mostly the fault from the script.

Jesse Spencer as Nicholas, the rich guy and Wilmer Valderrama as Angel, the brother of a missing drug dealer perform their bests. They deliver a sense of dread and cunning nature in tandem. While most of the cast mainly dabble in TV shows, the acting department is very solid. Camera work highlights the ambiance of the street and this is particularly useful on creating the gangster or crime thriller atmosphere.

Narration pretty much hampers the entirety of the movie. August just won't stop blabbering. It seems he's psychic as well because he knows the most intimate moments of others. He is also historian, since he gives lecture about immigrants and history of the district. This goes on until the end, he even manages to cover that one friend from social media or that one lesbian fling. All of this with sudden shift in timeline and useless trivia.

The audiences will be most likely numbed by the constant jabbering before it reaches the climax. Nevertheless, the lively feel of the city and its occupants are good enough to overcome the distracting narrative, barely.

Where to begin? Acting is mediocre at best.

Storyline is like something a couple of middle school kids would makeup during a lunch break.

Like the previous reviewer had stated....the monologue is excessive, boring, wanders off on ridiculous tangents....AWFUL! This movie was the most painful movie I have ever watched. I literally quit watching the movie and then later resumed it 4 times.

For a 90 minute movie it felt like 4 hours.

The movie is so boring. I can think of maybe 2 scenes that total 3 minutes where the movie actually made me turn my head to fully see the screen. Prior to that I shifted between listening with both eyes closed and then laying on my side with only one eye partially opened....it is that bad.

I really think this movie must have gotten a 5+ rating because of Spike Lee's name.

Not that Spike Lee has ever done a great movie....but the fact that Spike Lee is just a cool name.

Do yourself a favor....slide down razor blades into a pool of alcohol and skip this movie. You'll feel much better in the end.

An obscure indie film noir ? A film like this needs IMDb commentator support if only because the only films being reviewed will be ones appearing in the local multiplex or ones getting their debut release on The Horror Channel . It so far has four comments and mixed opinions from my peers so went in to this film with a very open mind

The story itself has a premise of man meets mysterious woman with a problem and finds himself caught up in events outside his control . More than a shade of Chandler or Spillane in there somewhere and watching the film unfold I see Nigerian born director Julius Onah is very much in the style of Martin Scorsese with his use of voice over , flash back and other directorial quirks such as freeze frame . However Onah emulates this style very badly . Perhaps the most annoying aspect is the voice over . The story is told through the eyes of August who is an unemployed bartender and DJ . August never misses the opportunity to tell us what's on his mind and while he's telling us all this the imagery does the worst thing possible - it shows us what the narrator is talking about . From what I've learned from film school good use of voice over is ironic narration where as bad voice over is obvious or expositional narration . The whole technique of it here is totally over done while being badly used . There's also an other aspect about the voice over and that it totally distracts from much of the core story involving a woman who has recorded a murder on her phone and often found myself wondering where the story was going or if the director had totally forgotten about it . To give Onah his due he might be making an existentialist type of film noir and Scorsese is indeed a grand master auteur of existentialist philosophy but unfortunately there's only one Martin Scorsese . Better luck next time Julius and next time make your own movie

I always choose my rating before opening IMDb to avoid influence. With rare exceptions, I rate about -1 point bellow average, -2 if it's an action movie, -3 when it shows an apathetic guy in a spaceship (sorry Matt). Over time, I became pretty good at guessing ratings. I was extremely surprised to see that most of you gave this movie a 5. Looking at the demographics, women are rating higher than man and the delta increases with age. So I've rated this movie like an old American lady. Maybe we are both missing a sweet voice telling us stories while watching a guy running in a grey city. The dissociation of the narration and the picture is perfectly cinematographic and used to be common decades ago. It is not an incursion literature in cinema, but it just requires some imagination to visualize what's not on scene. Recent movies for younger generations intend to avoid ellipsis at all cost and depict in details and in real time or slow-mo each aspect of a story, leaving no room for imagination. What else can I say? - I like the highly multifaceted characters - The storyline follows several unexpected turns. If someone pretends to have guessed the next moves, don't believe him. - I didn't notice such a constant voice-over and went through the movie once more choosing 20 random scenes: 2 had a voice-over, 1 had indirect speech and 17 were direct dialogues. So I don't think that the problem with the narration is its duration, but the fact that it takes us far from the context and can be sometimes academic. Personally, I liked learning about the New York immigration timeline. - I've seen so many shaky cams recently, that I barely notice them anymore - For those who like movies with a moral, there is probably one about quick judgment based on out-of-context videos. As a conclusion, I think it's a pretty good evolution to the film-noir. Too bad you all seem to want to bury the genre!