I have a fairly high tolerance for low-quality and low-budget movies, especially when they strive to be different from the usual Hollywood pap. In fact there are only two such films I have seen this year that I felt had no redeeming qualities: this film and Red Cockroaches. And even Red Cockroaches made me look at ketchup differently.
The script is horrible. It is obvious from reading the liner notes of the DVD that the writer/director changed the script on the fly (including the addition of the silly twist ending), probably after a late night session bulls^H^H^H^H^Hbrainstorming with the actors. It is even more obvious from watching it ("a Dr Who scene? sure!").
The dialogue is horrible. People don't talk that way. Boyd Rice delivers monologues that sound as if he is reading from one of his own articles. I'm sure these were intended to be socratic dialogues (especially since they reference the concept, albeit poorly), but they managed to sound even *more* contrived than that, impossible as it sounds. And the attempts at slang? Ouch. Painful embarrassment for the character.
The acting is horrible. The only one of any note was Daniel's partner Paul; he may not be able to carry a movie on his own, but standing next to Boyd Rice made him look like John-friggin-Malkovich. Once again, reading the liner notes made it apparent that the director knows/idolizes Boyd Rice, to the point where he was unable to give good direction (if he had it) to an actor. Stilted, wooden, monotonic moments are what we get. Keanu would be proud.
The violence is poor. Maybe a viewing of Doom Generation is in order. It *is* possible to do good violence with a low budget. Simply firing guns (most of which were poor, though Paul's revolver was actually a quality piece) and splattering red paint around doesn't do it. Unless of course you're talking TROMA, where violence isn't actually the point.
I cannot continue this review without addressing the terms 'controversy' and 'artistic integrity'. There is nothing controversial about this movie. The views expounded upon (at great tedious length) are not original or unique; they have been gracing the pages of zines and books from the fine folks at loompanics, paladin press, and the anarchist bookstore in SF for DECADES. In the course of my checkered literary past I have encountered these same arguments and views repeated ad nauseum.
I'm sure the director and actor both hold these opinions as their own -- that's patently obvious from the ham-fisted way they were inserted into the plot(?), and the lackluster delivery (i.e., it's not an actor making you believe they believe this, but a believer droning on and on about their religion with no regard for their listener). I do believe they thought they were casting pearls before swine in the making of this film. But that does not make the opinions original, controversial, well-thought-out, appealing to any but the most philosophically naive, or indeed anything but what they are: a reactionary position against the established order which would not succeed on its own merits and thus must actively strive to emphasize its difference and novelty.
To paraphrase Tom Stoppard's play The Real Thing, which actually treats the subject of watching a work such as this quite well, "Making a bad film is no proof of integrity".
What makes a good movie? Interesting characters. A compelling script. Convincing acting. Natural dialogue. Incredible cinematography. A sense of mood or atmosphere. You don't have to have all of these, but you need at least one. And Pearls Before Swine strikes out.
The script is horrible. It is obvious from reading the liner notes of the DVD that the writer/director changed the script on the fly (including the addition of the silly twist ending), probably after a late night session bulls^H^H^H^H^Hbrainstorming with the actors. It is even more obvious from watching it ("a Dr Who scene? sure!").
The dialogue is horrible. People don't talk that way. Boyd Rice delivers monologues that sound as if he is reading from one of his own articles. I'm sure these were intended to be socratic dialogues (especially since they reference the concept, albeit poorly), but they managed to sound even *more* contrived than that, impossible as it sounds. And the attempts at slang? Ouch. Painful embarrassment for the character.
The acting is horrible. The only one of any note was Daniel's partner Paul; he may not be able to carry a movie on his own, but standing next to Boyd Rice made him look like John-friggin-Malkovich. Once again, reading the liner notes made it apparent that the director knows/idolizes Boyd Rice, to the point where he was unable to give good direction (if he had it) to an actor. Stilted, wooden, monotonic moments are what we get. Keanu would be proud.
The violence is poor. Maybe a viewing of Doom Generation is in order. It *is* possible to do good violence with a low budget. Simply firing guns (most of which were poor, though Paul's revolver was actually a quality piece) and splattering red paint around doesn't do it. Unless of course you're talking TROMA, where violence isn't actually the point.
I cannot continue this review without addressing the terms 'controversy' and 'artistic integrity'. There is nothing controversial about this movie. The views expounded upon (at great tedious length) are not original or unique; they have been gracing the pages of zines and books from the fine folks at loompanics, paladin press, and the anarchist bookstore in SF for DECADES. In the course of my checkered literary past I have encountered these same arguments and views repeated ad nauseum.
I'm sure the director and actor both hold these opinions as their own -- that's patently obvious from the ham-fisted way they were inserted into the plot(?), and the lackluster delivery (i.e., it's not an actor making you believe they believe this, but a believer droning on and on about their religion with no regard for their listener). I do believe they thought they were casting pearls before swine in the making of this film. But that does not make the opinions original, controversial, well-thought-out, appealing to any but the most philosophically naive, or indeed anything but what they are: a reactionary position against the established order which would not succeed on its own merits and thus must actively strive to emphasize its difference and novelty.
To paraphrase Tom Stoppard's play The Real Thing, which actually treats the subject of watching a work such as this quite well, "Making a bad film is no proof of integrity".
What makes a good movie? Interesting characters. A compelling script. Convincing acting. Natural dialogue. Incredible cinematography. A sense of mood or atmosphere. You don't have to have all of these, but you need at least one. And Pearls Before Swine strikes out.
