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.
Tell Your Friends