OK, on the technical side of things and from a film school aesthetic, the film was nicely shot. The drab green hue from the fluorescent lights painted the scene nicely with a pallor of typical lower-income, middle-of-nowhere pathetic. This is due - I'm sure - in no small part to cinematographer Jim Eastburn's growing skill lensing several projects most people will probably never see.
However, the editing was strange. Not strange in an artsy, trendy "Oh look, the filmmaker is being avant garde" kind of way. It was more like a "what the hell was the point of THAT?" feeling.
After reading the script, I honestly don't know who to blame here. Writer Jamie Preyer clearly was attempting to be funny with the short story, but what's in the script and what's on the screen seemed like two different things. It's one thing to go off script, but it's entirely another to dispose of all the elements that tell the story. What you are left with is a head-scratching, well-lit, mess that makes no sense.
However, the editing was strange. Not strange in an artsy, trendy "Oh look, the filmmaker is being avant garde" kind of way. It was more like a "what the hell was the point of THAT?" feeling.
After reading the script, I honestly don't know who to blame here. Writer Jamie Preyer clearly was attempting to be funny with the short story, but what's in the script and what's on the screen seemed like two different things. It's one thing to go off script, but it's entirely another to dispose of all the elements that tell the story. What you are left with is a head-scratching, well-lit, mess that makes no sense.