I had the pleasure of seeing this film and was very impressed with all aspects of it. The story was great. I really understood the situation and characters because the writing and acting were superb. The thing that amazed me the most was the fact that this was shot on almost no budget at all. One usually has to pay good money to get the talented people that worked on this. To summarize the plot a little, it is about a kid named Martin who has a horrible home life. His parents are not around and is being raised by his grandparents. An abusive grandfather and overly tender grandmother make for a crazy dynamic in his home. His friend Digger and he are dealing with issues of breaking free of the poor lifestyle their families have been in for so long. The track coach notices that Martin outruns the rest of the track team and sees his way to a college coaching job. If you have the opportunity, find this movie and watch it.
6 Reviews
it's the boy's story, not the coach's!
erostratus-amazon18 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Lowbudget but high quality film about a talented runner in a troubled household who is recruited by the high school coach to run competitively. This film had a lot of things going for it: a great cast, interesting characters and an unobtrusive style (after the first 10 minutes, I forgot I was watching a movie because I was already in the movie). Scenes in school/hanging out and at parties captured the highs and lows of teenage life pretty well, as well as their dysfunctional families. But the bad guys lacked subtlety. The grandfather nearly always was nasty and ferocious; the bully just teased the main character even though he was on the same track team (which after a certain point I find hard to believe). I accept that these characters were flawed and even dangerous, but they didn't have to be that way every moment of the film.
SPOILER ALERT: I appreciated how the protagonist and the coach were more complex charactersnot entirely bad, not entirely good, but one thing stuck out. In one scene, the coach is revealed to have a sexual thing with a student (spied on by the protag's sidekick). We really didn't have to see this; it would have been more effective to present this information indirectly through rumors rather than to show a scene. (That would have given the coach's character even more ambiguity). The real problem with the end is the moral superiority of the protag at the end in his speech to the coach. Yes, it was a sign that the protagonist had grown (I bought that completely), but it turned the coach into the 100% bad guy (when clearly the coach had done a lot of good for the protag). Sexual peccadilloes notwithstanding, I really don't care terribly much that the coach had entirely self-serving motives for helping the boy. (I actually preferred to have the coach's character to be more ambiguous). The key moment in the film is when the audience sees that the protagonist had gotten past the coach's plans and has taken the initiative to map his own life (even when it runs against the direction his mentor has mapped for him). That first act of confident assertion is the moment when we see that the protagonist will manage all right, regardless of the troubles at home. The fact that the coach is a self-interested scumbag (in comparison) is just not that important to the boy's story.
SPOILER ALERT: I appreciated how the protagonist and the coach were more complex charactersnot entirely bad, not entirely good, but one thing stuck out. In one scene, the coach is revealed to have a sexual thing with a student (spied on by the protag's sidekick). We really didn't have to see this; it would have been more effective to present this information indirectly through rumors rather than to show a scene. (That would have given the coach's character even more ambiguity). The real problem with the end is the moral superiority of the protag at the end in his speech to the coach. Yes, it was a sign that the protagonist had grown (I bought that completely), but it turned the coach into the 100% bad guy (when clearly the coach had done a lot of good for the protag). Sexual peccadilloes notwithstanding, I really don't care terribly much that the coach had entirely self-serving motives for helping the boy. (I actually preferred to have the coach's character to be more ambiguous). The key moment in the film is when the audience sees that the protagonist had gotten past the coach's plans and has taken the initiative to map his own life (even when it runs against the direction his mentor has mapped for him). That first act of confident assertion is the moment when we see that the protagonist will manage all right, regardless of the troubles at home. The fact that the coach is a self-interested scumbag (in comparison) is just not that important to the boy's story.
The acting
andpride-116498 August 2018
I attended the preview of this film in Portland. The actors were not thanked though they worked for free. It was NOT filmed in 18 days, though that was the intention. It likely cost more than 6k. The writer WAS warned that his depiction of high school runners, running, and high school classes and coaching were inaccurate. He did not care. There are issues with various technical aspects, which is typical in low-budget independent films.
Despite all that, the performances are excellent.
Despite all that, the performances are excellent.
Mandy was really cool
joko2g9 October 2005
Alright, so I'm a liar. I haven't, technically speaking, seen Kicking Bird. Still, Meriwether is the only person I know on IMDb, and having acted alongside her since the making of the this movie, which, by the way, cost only $6,000 and was filmed in 18 days (which seems to be the only thing anyone has to say about the thing), I'm going to assume that Mandy was really cool, since no signs point in the opposite direction, and Meriwether is nothing but cool in life. In my defense, I did see the trailer, which had highly enjoyable music and may have featured a silhouette of M-Dub's hair against a black background; I'm not entirely certain. At any rate, I wish future greatness upon the whole Portland gang.
this was a waste of $6,000
dyltayl14 April 2008
First off, as a runner this movie offended me. He (director) obviously did zero research before starting this travesty-attempt at a film. The characters were laughably terrible, and i wanted the main character to be beaten. brutally. Had he spent one tenth the time on character development that he spent using the phrase 'bud' or showing motivation montages, i might have had some reason to care what the outcome was. I walked out at about halfway, and want my life back. I'm pretty sure the budget went toward the beer bottles and hooker. This money would have been better spent on either the Honda he considered buying, or given to a charity.
Clichéd characters, horrible editing, terrible lighting and sound...
iboggs-124 May 2011
First off, I saw this film FIVE YEARS AGO and still remember it as the worst film I've ever seen.
The film's premise has a lot of potential, unfortunately Baker totally fails to take advantage of that, and instead relies on hacked together clichés right up to the end. The characters are completely one-dimensional; we never get a chance to find out a solid background of any of them through the film. Character dialog is also completely forgettable, veering off into the realm of corny one-liners toward the end of the film.
Baker also doesn't seem to know how to light a scene. I mean, indie films are usually low budget/tech in the lighting department, and this film is no exception, but other directors manage to squeeze every cent out of their lighting. Not Baker. Half the time you can't actually tell what's happening in a scene from the lack of lighting. Outdoor scenes look completely washed out. Some scenes are bizarrely lit from the corners for no apparent reason, rendering the rest of the frame in darkness.
Yet another technical problem with this film was that it was shot in digital. I'm a big fan of digital, but you have to know how to use it. Scenes were flat, the frame rate was totally wrong, and the entire thing looks like it was shot on a $200 Walmart camcorder. Once again, in low budget films this is not an issue if the filmmaker knows how to make it work.
I would say this film is forgettable, but it's so terrible that it has been etched into my memory forever. Please Kelly Baker, do something useful with your money and stop wasting people's time.
The film's premise has a lot of potential, unfortunately Baker totally fails to take advantage of that, and instead relies on hacked together clichés right up to the end. The characters are completely one-dimensional; we never get a chance to find out a solid background of any of them through the film. Character dialog is also completely forgettable, veering off into the realm of corny one-liners toward the end of the film.
Baker also doesn't seem to know how to light a scene. I mean, indie films are usually low budget/tech in the lighting department, and this film is no exception, but other directors manage to squeeze every cent out of their lighting. Not Baker. Half the time you can't actually tell what's happening in a scene from the lack of lighting. Outdoor scenes look completely washed out. Some scenes are bizarrely lit from the corners for no apparent reason, rendering the rest of the frame in darkness.
Yet another technical problem with this film was that it was shot in digital. I'm a big fan of digital, but you have to know how to use it. Scenes were flat, the frame rate was totally wrong, and the entire thing looks like it was shot on a $200 Walmart camcorder. Once again, in low budget films this is not an issue if the filmmaker knows how to make it work.
I would say this film is forgettable, but it's so terrible that it has been etched into my memory forever. Please Kelly Baker, do something useful with your money and stop wasting people's time.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
