I did not like the movie and had to suffer through the whole movie before I could decide how to rate it. I would have liked to award 10stars based on the efforts they made with such a low budget. It is a very fine job for $30,000 and these days low budget movies should be encouraged but just because i like the idea, still, the star rating is for entertainment value not for intentions. The acting was just fine, that they got no money for it, or deferred , shows how much can be done on hope of a pay off if it is successful. More movies should do this. However well they performed and seemed to fight with the bad audio and disjointed editing and confusing message(s), if there were more than one.I was most frustrated by having to crank the volume and adjust just to hear what often turned out to be meaningless. It just needed more work in continuity, editing-post production tasks- to make it really viable as a whole effort. It just didn't make all the connections. good scenery, some good shots but lost in confusion. other shots of a guy urinating and flushing had no apparent value yet survived the cutting room. if there were some abstract water connections , it was not enhanced by watching and hearing a urine stream. I nearly stopped right there. 4 or 5 stars is generous to a good attempt but ,still, lousy movie experience. I did watch it to the end and still have that conclusion...fine acting by novice amateurish group of young people that was not helped by shoddy post production efforts and bad audio- music, songs, continuity.
5 Reviews
Admirable attempt yet a complete failure
CineCritic25174 June 2007
The movie Hog Island is about a woman escaping her everyday life for reasons which are unexplained. She escapes to Tomoles Bay where she hopes to find some peace and quiet. Not before long she gets unwillingly involved in the lives of two local fishermen. The premise of the movie is a simple one: what could happen if a women would choose to just walk out of her life one morning leaving behind a confused husband and relatives only to find an equally confused self.
It was like watching a bad play performed by an amateur acting-group. And hearing these actors and actresses deliver their lines grudgingly and occasionally with such unbelievable poor timing, it makes you ask yourself whether you're watching a serious attempt at film-making or just a promo on how acting should not be attempted.
I have to be honest, I didn't finish this movie till the end, I didn't even get half way. This is because besides the questionable acting, the movie plods more than any movie I have ever seen with scenes being repeated over and over agai. And they presented a story which was neither compelling, thought provoking, original nor something otherwise engaging. The soundtrack was obviously recorded in someone's living room and performed by people that hopefully still hold day jobs.
I know this all sounds very harsh but let me assure you that I'm not trying to exaggerate.
It isn't the worst low-budget movie I have ever seen, but this is mainly the case because the movie isn't pretentious in any way. I was so amazed at the poor quality of it that I checked the website related to this movie. Via this site I found some explanations for the poor production values and I paraphrase: "with a budget of only $30.000 the project was financed solely by the director Tom Clyde and his wife who wrote the story and screenplay. Nearly the entire cast and crew worked for deferred pay and much depended on the chipping in of friends and neighbors."
I realize that this sort of production should be approached with some leniency given the budget constraints and in this case also the unfamiliarity of the director with creating film. This, however, does not make this movie more enjoyable, that is to say, if it was enjoyable at all. Which it truly wasn't.
thas said, other aspects of the movie like the visuals or cinematography seem a sad waste for they were actually quite handsomely done. I almost feel bad for giving this movie a 3, but it holds so little production- and entertainment value that anything above that figure is just being kind.
Paraphrased from: http://www.ptreyeslight.com/cgi/news_search.pl?record=38
It was like watching a bad play performed by an amateur acting-group. And hearing these actors and actresses deliver their lines grudgingly and occasionally with such unbelievable poor timing, it makes you ask yourself whether you're watching a serious attempt at film-making or just a promo on how acting should not be attempted.
I have to be honest, I didn't finish this movie till the end, I didn't even get half way. This is because besides the questionable acting, the movie plods more than any movie I have ever seen with scenes being repeated over and over agai. And they presented a story which was neither compelling, thought provoking, original nor something otherwise engaging. The soundtrack was obviously recorded in someone's living room and performed by people that hopefully still hold day jobs.
I know this all sounds very harsh but let me assure you that I'm not trying to exaggerate.
It isn't the worst low-budget movie I have ever seen, but this is mainly the case because the movie isn't pretentious in any way. I was so amazed at the poor quality of it that I checked the website related to this movie. Via this site I found some explanations for the poor production values and I paraphrase: "with a budget of only $30.000 the project was financed solely by the director Tom Clyde and his wife who wrote the story and screenplay. Nearly the entire cast and crew worked for deferred pay and much depended on the chipping in of friends and neighbors."
I realize that this sort of production should be approached with some leniency given the budget constraints and in this case also the unfamiliarity of the director with creating film. This, however, does not make this movie more enjoyable, that is to say, if it was enjoyable at all. Which it truly wasn't.
thas said, other aspects of the movie like the visuals or cinematography seem a sad waste for they were actually quite handsomely done. I almost feel bad for giving this movie a 3, but it holds so little production- and entertainment value that anything above that figure is just being kind.
Paraphrased from: http://www.ptreyeslight.com/cgi/news_search.pl?record=38
Amazing film!
havenmunch9 June 2007
If you like movies where you don't have to think then "Hog Island" is probably NOT for you. However if you like to be intellectually stimulated this intriguing mystery will keep you guessing to the end. The characters are complex and seeing this film will forever change your conceptions of the good guy and the bad guy. As in real life some of these characters are vulnerable and at times are kind hearted but we also see a darker side to their personalities. Life is not always so clear cut black and white but what makes these characters so real is their shades of gray.
I feel compelled to comment on the person from the Netherlands who gave their opinion on this film. In my opinion this movie is a mystery. You cannot not stop watching an Agatha Christie movie, or any other mystery, half way through and be able to give an accurate review. I own "Hog Island" on DVD and have seen it a few times. Watch it for yourself and decide the film's merits.
I feel compelled to comment on the person from the Netherlands who gave their opinion on this film. In my opinion this movie is a mystery. You cannot not stop watching an Agatha Christie movie, or any other mystery, half way through and be able to give an accurate review. I own "Hog Island" on DVD and have seen it a few times. Watch it for yourself and decide the film's merits.
I thought it was great
mthompson89 June 2007
I really liked this movie. As mentioned in other comments, it was a nicely unfolding mystery. No one beat you over the head with the plot, and unlike most current movies, you have no idea where the story is going in the first three minutes. I like that.
I also thought that the film had a nice Lynch-like, or even Hitchcock-ish quality: some great sweeping shots, really nice cinematography, good acting (personally I'm tired of super slick production, quick cuts, and shiny happy people without depth).
Although none of these films could be put in the same genre by anyone but me probably, I thought it had much of the qualities of films I like that don't have to be supershiny and perfect such as Vampiros Lesbos, Diva, The House on Haunted Hill, 400 Blows, and a dash of Withnail and I.
This film doesn't rush, it nicely unfolds and was a nice surprise.
I also thought that the film had a nice Lynch-like, or even Hitchcock-ish quality: some great sweeping shots, really nice cinematography, good acting (personally I'm tired of super slick production, quick cuts, and shiny happy people without depth).
Although none of these films could be put in the same genre by anyone but me probably, I thought it had much of the qualities of films I like that don't have to be supershiny and perfect such as Vampiros Lesbos, Diva, The House on Haunted Hill, 400 Blows, and a dash of Withnail and I.
This film doesn't rush, it nicely unfolds and was a nice surprise.
Wonderful Independent Film
missellie1419 January 2011
This is a film with beautiful cinematography and a European air. Don't expect Hollywood. Or big budget. With the colors and scenery that are throughout the film, it has a haunting beauty. The pictures and scenery in Point Reyes is breathtaking and the people are true-to-life. The budget for the film is small (under 30,000 I understand), but the filmmaker manages to make it feel like more. Would I see it again. Yes? I am anxious to see more work by this filmmaker. I loved the old saloon which I've been to see in Point Reyes. I also enjoyed the character Jake floating on the boat towards Hog Island. It was a beautiful moment.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
