Change Your Image
odochartaighllc
Reviews
Victim (2010)
The Independent Film that Could have been!
I just watched this film last night with another filmmaker and we both seem to be on the same page in our opinion of this film.
Matt Eskandari & Michael Antony Pierce had in their hands an opportunity to make a really good independent film that could have lived on as a memorable cult film. Stephen Weigand and Bob Bancroft each gave what this film needed to be believable. Stephen most certainly gave his heart and soul to the unnamed character, making some serious transitions as the film progressed. Even the art direction and cinematography offered an exceptional product for the budget.
So where does the film fail? The directors, producers and the editors failed in the most basic ways. Continuity and "in your face" visual bloopers.
The first obvious goof that I noticed was Weigand's shoes. He is seen in the bar and parking lot with shoes. OK... that was acceptable. But then he is seen in the basement barefoot. That also was acceptable. And then suddenly from one cut to another Weigand is wearing a pair of shoes that appeared magically out of nowhere... not just a pair of shoes... but not the same pair that he was kidnapped in. Was the editor working on 72 hours of no sleep when he edited this scene? Was the continuity or script supervisor taking a day off on the day they filmed that scene? Was the first director or production assistants not paying attention? Or was the filmmakers committing a basic film school no no by not paying attention to detail? Even on short films, I have always used Polaroids to keep track of what the actors were wearing in a scene, and I assure you that magic shoes would not find their way into a scene. The dirty soles of an actor that suddenly seems to clean themselves up is forgivable... but magic shoes should have been caught at so many different points is a filmmaking sin.
The second obvious goof was after Weigand was stripped of his clothes. It's perfectly acceptable that an actor on a set would be wearing a "sock" to conceal his penis. However, the filmmaker and editors need to make sure that it's never obvious on camera. In this case... the sock is "in your face". In a scene that is suppose to make the audience feel for Weigand's character... my buddy and I found ourselves cracking up when the white sock suddenly makes an unexpected appearance on nearly full screen. Now please explain how any editor or filmmaker or producer could miss that in the editing room? Especially when they would be reviewing this footage frame by frame looking for the right cuts? That sock would be in their faces for at least an hour as they edited the film and color corrected it. So HOW did that sock become part of the cast? It could have easily been edited out of the scene.
Mr George has a bandage on his neck for much of the film. However, no one would have a bandage like that for 4 months, unless their neck was developing gangrene.
Stephen Weigand and Bob Bancroft both showed that they took the film seriously. It was the filmmakers who allowed such obvious mistakes to reduce this film down to amateur. That is sad considering that 90% of the film was good, but the obvious mistakes are so distracting they they become laughable... which is disappointing since had we not been subjected to these goofs... I was actually impressed with what I was seeing.
Is it worth watching... yes... but regrettably, it won't be as memorable as The Passion of Darkly Noon or Dare was for me. Or even Boot Camp. We have watched so many incredible independent films lately and this one promised to be one of them. But instead of being memorable as an outstanding film... it has become an example for filmmakers on how the simplest mistakes can ruin a film.