I was so looking forward to seeing this and I knew that it was an independent movie made without a Hollywood budget. However, nothing could have prepared me for what I was about to see.
First, hats off to Caroline Barry who did quite well considering what she was given. She rose above the rest and seems to be the one actor who will possibly get recognized in the film industry. I wish her the best of luck. The same can be said for Christopher Lambert although some might consider his performance "hammy". He was not just a villain and by the end of the movie I almost felt sorry for him. Unfortunately, practically all other acting was just unbelievably terrible. I can't stress that enough. It's really bad.
Secondly, it was strange to see how some special effects (e.g. the exterior shots of the city streets) looked absolutely fabulous and yet others, mainly the exterior shots of the asylum, looked poor. The biggest disappointment was how some sets were shot on location yet many looked fake... like they were poorly green-screened or something. It was so distracting. The sound was horrible as well. There was so much echo in almost every scene. The lighting was also bad so the picture quality suffered to varying degrees. The weirdest thing was that the picture looked jittery. It looked like a few frames just suddenly dropped out so people were sometimes "stuttering" as they moved. The sound was unaffected though. No skips or anything during these moments.
Perhaps the most perplexing thing about the movie is the R-rating for "disturbing scenes". The violence and atrocities lost all impact due to the overall amateurish production and bad acting. I just can't understand, given today's standards of movie classifications, how anything over PG-13 was given. In fact I could see a PG-rating being given before an R-rating.
I just don't understand it. The budget is estimated at $12 million but it is definitely NOT seen on screen. My best advice would be to read the book and use your imagination.
First, hats off to Caroline Barry who did quite well considering what she was given. She rose above the rest and seems to be the one actor who will possibly get recognized in the film industry. I wish her the best of luck. The same can be said for Christopher Lambert although some might consider his performance "hammy". He was not just a villain and by the end of the movie I almost felt sorry for him. Unfortunately, practically all other acting was just unbelievably terrible. I can't stress that enough. It's really bad.
Secondly, it was strange to see how some special effects (e.g. the exterior shots of the city streets) looked absolutely fabulous and yet others, mainly the exterior shots of the asylum, looked poor. The biggest disappointment was how some sets were shot on location yet many looked fake... like they were poorly green-screened or something. It was so distracting. The sound was horrible as well. There was so much echo in almost every scene. The lighting was also bad so the picture quality suffered to varying degrees. The weirdest thing was that the picture looked jittery. It looked like a few frames just suddenly dropped out so people were sometimes "stuttering" as they moved. The sound was unaffected though. No skips or anything during these moments.
Perhaps the most perplexing thing about the movie is the R-rating for "disturbing scenes". The violence and atrocities lost all impact due to the overall amateurish production and bad acting. I just can't understand, given today's standards of movie classifications, how anything over PG-13 was given. In fact I could see a PG-rating being given before an R-rating.
I just don't understand it. The budget is estimated at $12 million but it is definitely NOT seen on screen. My best advice would be to read the book and use your imagination.