I think to say that this movie should not be the last artifact of human civilization (though I appreciate the sense of humour), and that it is in a nutshell "a big shame" is to be grossly unfair. Again, to say all the cast is of nobodies takes our film desires and thinking back to kindergarten level.
If you would feel an actor in a movie is really a Somebody because he annihilated thousands of troops solo with an extra-terrestial firearm, or leap across 30-metre apart towers and such stuff in about five useless movies, then you need to grow up. Learn on the difference between raw publicity hype and sublime refinement in art.
Hardly any of us would judge a movie solely on the basis of it having well-known actors. Substance in acting, plot, direction, production and all that comes with that, is the name of the game.
And that the lead actress will never make it big oozes with empty political rhetoric, jealousy, and I wonder what making it big means to some people, and if it was in 1969 the last time they checked the showbiz kaleidoscope. Sarah Lancaster is as bankable as they come.
If the essential backbone of a film is a bin of litter, let it be so and comment on the quality of acting/cast separately. In most cases, the two will hardly occur in the abysmal, to make a worthless movie. One of the two is usually up to optimal quality.
I watched this movie two weekends ago, and as I missed a part of the beginning, I'm not in a position to authoritatively comment on the plot and whole storyline.
Then let's get one thing straight; if the aesthetic dimension of a role in a motion picture is a countable factor, then you've got to give it up to elegant Sarah Lancaster. She is the centerpiece of Living with the Enemy. I bet she positively influenced most viewers of the movie because of how radiantly she came out in the role. The tribulations of the innocent princess endeared her to the audience, and together with Mark Humphrey, the combination was good for dessert.
PS: And yes, she is hot.
If you would feel an actor in a movie is really a Somebody because he annihilated thousands of troops solo with an extra-terrestial firearm, or leap across 30-metre apart towers and such stuff in about five useless movies, then you need to grow up. Learn on the difference between raw publicity hype and sublime refinement in art.
Hardly any of us would judge a movie solely on the basis of it having well-known actors. Substance in acting, plot, direction, production and all that comes with that, is the name of the game.
And that the lead actress will never make it big oozes with empty political rhetoric, jealousy, and I wonder what making it big means to some people, and if it was in 1969 the last time they checked the showbiz kaleidoscope. Sarah Lancaster is as bankable as they come.
If the essential backbone of a film is a bin of litter, let it be so and comment on the quality of acting/cast separately. In most cases, the two will hardly occur in the abysmal, to make a worthless movie. One of the two is usually up to optimal quality.
I watched this movie two weekends ago, and as I missed a part of the beginning, I'm not in a position to authoritatively comment on the plot and whole storyline.
Then let's get one thing straight; if the aesthetic dimension of a role in a motion picture is a countable factor, then you've got to give it up to elegant Sarah Lancaster. She is the centerpiece of Living with the Enemy. I bet she positively influenced most viewers of the movie because of how radiantly she came out in the role. The tribulations of the innocent princess endeared her to the audience, and together with Mark Humphrey, the combination was good for dessert.
PS: And yes, she is hot.