The Living and the Dying (2006 Video) User Reviews

great short film on this DVD

[produciton · 7/10 · 30 November 2006]

'The Living and the Dying' is a pretty good low-budget movie, but there is a short film on this DVD package that is awesome! It's called 'Jack and Jill' and it's about a college professor in a wheelchair staying in a hotel room. He's recently lost his wife and he spends his days drinking and doing crossword puzzles. One day, there is a knock on the door that separates his room from the next one. A note is slipped under the door from a woman who says she has noticed him around the hotel and wants to get to know him. He is flattered and intrigued, and writes her back. They slide notes under the door throughout the day until she invites him to dinner. He is elated and hurries to get himself dressed. And that is where the movie really begins!

This movie is only five minutes long, but it seems like even less than that, it flies by so fast! There is practically no dialogue except a voice-over of the girl's voice (what a voice!) reading her letters to him, and a little bit of spare music on the soundtrack. Robert Watson as the professor is perfect, depressed, devastated, giddy at the thought of impending romance. The ending is a total stunner, guaranteed to pull the rug out from under you! Wherever you think this movie is going, you're wrong. This movie would have done Hitchcock proud. Get this DVD just for 'Jack and Jill.' A great short film.

Pretty good for straight-to-video

[unringabell · 7/10 · 27 November 2006]

A friend of mine bought this DVD off the internet and suggested I take a look at it. I didn't recognize anybody attached to it, but said I'd give it a look. The movie sat in my bedroom for about a week before I broke down and popped it in. Wow, was I pleasantly surprised. It kind of reminded me of a David Mamet play: a bunch of low life criminals stuck in close quarters cursing at each other. (Boy, is there a lot of cursing in this movie! It must have set some kind of record. I lost count after 150 f-bombs) The plot isn't much. A prison break (which we don't see) that apparently goes very badly (since one of the bad guys has a hole blown in his head you could drive a truck through!)and forces a small group of losers into some house that's being repainted (or something) where the survivors take turns accusing and blaming each other for what went wrong during the prison break-out. A lot of threats, guns, fighting and posturing. All the while, the guy with the hole in his head lays dying in the next room. Oh yeah, since he's the only one who knows were some stolen money is, he won't talk unless he's sure his partners are going to get him some much-needed medical attention.

The movie seems to play out in real time, which gives it a creepy effect. After a while, you kind of feel you're in the house with them.There is a lot of blood in this movie, too. I mean, these people are covered from head to toe. Gives new meaning to the term "bloodbath." This was obviously shot on video, which doesn't mean it's bad, just that there's a lot of grain in the darker shots. Which is every other shot, since the lights are kept to a minimum. Directing and camera work are pretty solid, editing too.

The acting is not bad. Some come off better than others. The only girl in the movie comes off the best. She's very believable as an average girl who was pulled into this situation without knowing what was going on.

The movie is funny in a "GoodFellas" kind of way, and there is some suspense leading to a ironic ending. It looks like the filmmakers got a lot of mileage out of very little money or resources. It's worth watching although the language and violence might turn some people off. Music is kept to a minimum, which makes things creepier, but what music there is is well used. The movie also leaves a lot of things unanswered, not major stuff, but there are questions that linger in your mind after it's over.

The disc also had two bonus shorts and a preview for some mafia-looking movie called Christian Soldiers. All these other movies have pretty much the same cast, which is cool because you get to see three different performances from each of them."Jack and Jill" is a very cool five minute Hitchcock-type movie. The other one is some sci-fi cop movie that looks like it could be a series on the Sci-Fi Channel.

Where do morals and character collide..?

[logan33417 · 7/10 · 19 December 2006]

Oh my!!! As a female viewer, I was a bit offended by some of the salacious comments made to the lead female character. I found her to be vicarious and without any support. However, I just loved the whole story. While a prison escape has been done before, the follow up of what happens with the characters is what is usually lacking. This film fills in all those little gaps. Once I got past the first three to four minutes of opening credits, I was sucked in!!!

While his comments can be offensive, my favorite character was Jack. He is clearly the muscle and the mouth of the group. He also has the mouth that would give any Naval officer or redneck truck driver a heart attack. But it works, I could not help wondering what else this jerk might say or who he might beat the heck out of next. Robert was sweet and evil, all at the same time. His greed for that missing cash is clear, but his need for clemency is apparent. I found myself feeling pity for him. When Ron was injured, I could not have been more happy. He plays this, "I'm the victim and I don't deserve this." Ron played this role so well that I wanted to reach out and smack him myself. I thought about the movie long after it was over. I kept thinking about Marks character and what I would have done if I'd been in his position. While Mark was portrayed as prey to greedy thieves, throughout the film, it struck me! He was a thief too, and would have killed for that money as well.

It takes a powerful film to keep you thinking about it after it has ended. Every character is so different, that they fit together so perfectly. The location is a little passé and there is extensive swearing, but it works!!!

Females beware

[wendybelle · 7/10 · 4 January 2007]

This is definitely not a movie for the ladies! So many four-letter words, and most of them it seemed were directed at the only female in the cast. I've heard my share of foul language, but some of this was hard to take. I mean, here you have four large guys and one small, little girl, and she just gets abused throughout the whole movie. There is always the threat of physical violence, including two fight scenes and a whole lot of blood. The movie makes you feel bad, which, because it deals with hardened criminals and a lot of money at stake, it's supposed to do. It sure is effective, maybe too much so.

The actors are all really strong in their roles. I wonder if having them play characters with their own names was on purpose on the part of the writer? Did he know them all before (I assume that he did) and wrote the parts specifically for them? They all did a really good job. The movie doesn't look like it cost a lot, so everyone involved should get a lot of credit. I like watching these kinds of movies, made by unknowns with very little money. You really get a chance to see what they can come up with, because they don't have access to a hundred million dollars. I recommend this movie, but beware ladies!

Lots of profanity and blood

[gominidvd · 6/10 · 27 November 2006]

Not bad for a ultra low budget film. A lot of profanity and blood. The girls acting was probably the best out of the bunch. I didn't understand all the material hanging all over and it took me a while to understand the time line of the movie. I did notice a continuity error or two. I have scene worse though. I thought the film maker(s) did a good job with the ending, it made it worth watching. I wouldn't recommend it to certain females who might find the language content offensive. This movie isn't for the faint of heart either. The movie probably could have been better if they showed more instead of implying some things.

Where was the beginning and end

[tylenegetshim · 6/10 · 17 January 2007]

The acting is lacking. The set leaves something to be imagined but also does keep one guessing guessing what the hell is going on in this place. I did love the color of the film. It was grainy and reminds me of, "The Shield." Filming of this movie is clear at times and others are snowy!! I wonder why there is no opening to this film. How much would it have cost for these producers to have at least "some" part of the prison break? Perhaps show the vehicle being shot up or the actors reactions to being shot at. The ending also leaves me to wonder what will happen to the lead female. Ron ensures her that she will not get into trouble, yet she is clearly arrested and traumatized over the ordeal. So watz up with that?!? The story line is somewhat defined but the picture itself leaves a viewer to guess too much. I would really like to know why 6 people would risk so much for 2 million dollars that would be split so many ways. In todays world, it wouldn't satisfy an appetite for the likes of a person like the lead roles of Jack and Robert.

Not bad but not great either.

[rureadydv · 6/10 · 15 December 2006]

I purchased the DVD for a fair price, and finally got around to watching it. What made the feature acceptable to watch was the SWAT team. I liked how it was incorporated into the movie. I was convinced that it was a real SWAT team only to find out in the end credits that the team was real. They must have had a good connection there. Without the SWAT sequences I probably would have given the feature a much lower score. I did like Jack and Jill, I think it was about five minutes or so. It reminded me of stuff I saw years ago like Alfred Hitchcock type presentations. Lunar 3 was just plain bad, it didn't make any sense. I probably wouldn't have put it on the disk. The Christain Soldiers trailer looked interesting though.

maybe too much

[stargazer1135 · 7/10 · 16 December 2006]

This movie was pretty hard to take at times, with the level of violence and bad language. But, the acting and film-making was so good that it held your interest. The aspect of the movie that appealed to me was how engrossing it was at presenting a group of people trapped in a house together with time running out and none of them trusts the others. The way these people talk to one another is hard to take, there is such an undercurrent of - not hostility or distrust - but out and out evil. When one character talks about "dumping these two in the river and getting out of here", you actually shudder when you find yourself agreeing with him, not from a humanistic standpoint, but because it's logically the best thing to do.

This movie is, in a way, the quintessential no-budget movie: A lot of raw talent using less than no resources, and making a very watchable movie for a select audience. You just have to decide if you are that audience.

Very well done film.

[camerapaulshep · 9/10 · 26 November 2006]

The actors were all excellent. They flowed with the story and you rarely noticed they were acting. Great work. The story could have used a little less gore. I'm not sure if the director has a strong likeness for gore or what. If he took out some of the blood and let our imagination do a little more imaging I think I could have enjoyed the film a whole lot more. I'm not sure what their budget was but I'm sure if they had a little more money we would have seen a bigger set and more action versus more gore. Hats off to the cast and crew for putting together a great film.

If I could ask the director one question it would be: Who is the director he most admires? At one point I feel I am watching an Alfred Hitcock film than it transforms into something from the twilight zone. It reminds me a lot of a film called clock. It's filmed well but It always seems to have a hidden meaning in the story line that makes one think and contemplate what might be on the mind of the writer or the director. I would label the film a dark mystery rated r for the language.

Hope the cast and crew make more films and somehow steer away from the gore and they will surely have a ten

To much profanity, blood and violence

[indieboy10 · 4/10 · 17 December 2006]

When I read the synopsis and viewed the trailer for The Living and the Dying I thought it would be a really good movie. Now that I have seen it; it wasn't what I thought it would be. It's what actually transpires after the prison break, so you need an imagination. Right from the start there is enough profanity and blood for ten movies. There are quite a few derogatory statements made against the female gender too. It was just to much, possibly an over kill. I didn't totally trash it because I thought some of the acting was decent and seeing a real SWAT team was pretty cool for a no budget movie. Another reason I didn't give it a low score of 1 because of a short that is on the DVD which in turn was pretty good. I also took into account that the film maker appears to have made a genuine effort in comparison to some of the other no budget trash I have seen.

gripping and gruesome!

[gymrat90046 · 9/10 · 26 December 2006]

Took a chance on this one. But, isn't every no-budget, straight-to-video movie peopled with unknowns in front of and behind the camera a risk? So, after sitting through a lot of dreck at home and in the theatre all summer, I finally come across a movie that is what it is, and isn't about to apologize for it. Tough, gritty, violent, profane, sexist, offensive to just about everybody... this movie is certainly all of those things. But, it's also funny, fast-paced, provocative, well-acted and written, tightly directed and edited, with dozens of memorable lines, and an ending that manages to be both poignant and justified, but also satisfying and morally necessary.

Credit everyone involved, including the camera-work and the music. There are no "artful" shots that call attention to themselves, just the story worked out - straight up, no chaser. And the music was so subliminal in spots that you're not even aware it's there, only that it has had an effect on you that underscores the emotions in each scene.

The title is certainly iconic, but also right for a movie that reportedly cost $2,500. Little movies shouldn't normally have "big" titles. If you aim high and miss, it's always worse than if you aim low, or not at all. But somehow, this little movie earns that title. It touches all the colors of the character rainbow - regret, sadness, greed, loss, denial, hope? - in short, it's about life and death among the ones who acknowledge their sins, and the ones who aren't even aware of them. It's about all of us.

Well Done !!!

[tobietreat · 5/10 · 17 January 2007]

There are so may barriers that filmmakers must face in school. I cannot believe that this film pulled it off. The participation of a police department makes me so happy as a future filmmaker. How do I go about getting these connections? The storyline is well laid out but also leaves a viewer to use his imagination. I would love to work with the crew of this film. Dedication to a project is apparent here. And I cannot help wonder how one comes aboard on such a small project. Other than a successful journey, this film would leave a future filmmaker to wonder how to get such devotion to a small but tremendous project. I cannot wait to finish my final project in school. This film shows that it can be done with the proper dedication.

great performances

[microship1 · 8/10 · 14 December 2006]

What great performances across the board in this movie. I saw on another site that this movie cost about $2,500 to make. It looks it, but I don't mean that in a bad way. The grungy aspect of the film-making actually accentuates its effectiveness. It's a tough little crime film, with more implied than seen where the violence is concerned, although there is a lot of blood on the screen. It's like a throwback to the pulp crime film films of the fifties, but with a lot of four letter words.

The cast is what makes it a good ride. Each is excellent in their own way. Robert Watson is the leader of the criminals. He's a sympathetic character, despite his rage and confusion about what to do to get out of their present situation. Jack Valvo is his partner. At first, Jack is introduced as a soccer father playing with neighborhood kids in a park, but then we see him as he really is: pure evil. He gets a lot of the film's funniest lines.

Geri Lee is the only female in the film, and as is probably expected, she handles all of the emotional scenes. She's alternately tough and fragile, a combination that is a lot harder to pull off than we would think. Ronald Fox is the guy with the biggest secret. At first, I wasn't sure how I felt about this performance, but on a second viewing I could see just how good he is. And Mark Bowie has the almost thankless role of the "dying" character, but he does a good job of expressing physical agony with the realization that he is not going to survive. His black and white "scene" is one of the best in the movie.

Throw all these people in a house together for 60 minutes, and watch the fireworks fly! When they turn it on, the sparks really fly! Kudos to writer/director Richard Cecere for giving these terrific actors ample dialogue and scenery to chew on. It comes across more like a filmed play than a movie that manipulates time and space, but when you only have $2,500 you do what you can.

Now this is an Indy flick!

[vital-living · 8/10 · 19 December 2006]

This is how it should be done! No pretense about being a big-budget Hollywood movie even though you have a budget of five dollars. Just get in there and tell your story any way you want to, and who cares what people think of it? This movie is dark, brutal, grungy, and funny as hell! All the actors are good, there are a lot of memorable lines, the film keeps you guessing, and it was shot as if the events were happening and not rehearsed. I'm tired of all these Indy movies that want to look like the latest blockbuster with perfect lighting and popular songs on the soundtrack. Finally, here is a movie that is ugly and harsh, and tells it like it is. There's no softening of the characters to make them more likable. All of these people are hateable! But they were real! Here are a bunch of filmmakers that have guts! Give the director credit for at least sticking to his guns. He sure as hell didn't make a date movie! As for the shorts on this disc, they were great, too! A Hitchcockian twist makes Jack and Jill kick you in the gut! And Lunar3 would make a great series on the SciFi Channel, instead of all that cheese ball junk they replay a million times a year! See these movies! And, please, if the filmmakers get a budget to work with, don't blow it by going mainstream!

not for the popcorn crowd

[newyorkminute60 · 8/10 · 28 December 2006]

I see a lot of movies that you can watch with one eye closed, or with frequent trips to the bathroom or candy counter, and you still don't have any trouble following what's going on. If I know where a movie is going right from the start, I can't watch it. I get bored too easy because the filmmakers didn't really make any effort to challenge me. Now, to be fair, most movies aren't smart enough to challenge the audience. They are content to give the people what they think we want, and no further than that. They don't have any respect for the intelligence of the viewer.

Not so with "The Living and the Dying." Here's a movie that sets up a bunch of stuff, and don't even bother to answer all the questions it proposes. Why? Because, it doesn't need to. Roger Ebert in his review of Five Easy Pieces, wrote that all that matters in a movie is what happens while you're watching it. Back story and developments that have nothing to do with the main story which are left dangling at the movie's close are not important. Just what is happening to the characters while you're watching the film.

TLATD is like that. Several elements are introduced which are never fleshed out, mainly because they don't have anything to do with the ultimate resolution of the plot. Characters are fleshed out only to the extent that we know how they are reacting to what is happening all around them. There are no flashbacks to explain things. We, as an audience, are left to figure things out for ourselves, or not to. It's our choice. Of course, none of this is to suggest that the movie is unsatisfying. Far from it. The film is so lean in spots, so tightly wrapped and fast-paced, that it almost takes your breath away. Then, just like in real life, everything grinds to a halt, so that two characters can spend what seems an eternity cleaning blood off a floor while in the next room a character wheezes unbearably in an agonizing death throe.

I've read other comments here that talk about the performances and the writer/director, so I won't bother to repeat what has already been written. They all deserve credit for producing a movie that is honest, unflinching, and worth watching. That's high praise for these days.

brutal but brilliant!

[bsabbathdio · 10/10 · 20 December 2006]

If you're like me and you're tired of all the feel-good movies Disney keeps churning out, you'll love this movie. It's one of the best films I've seen at recreating the feel of a seventies movie in both style and perspective. Remember the movies of the seventies? Back when young filmmakers invaded the theaters with revolutionary cinematic works, challenging convention in every way and providing undiscovered talent with complex characters to sink their teeth into? One of the elements that distinguished the movies of the seventies was the belief in characters over plot, and that's what this movie has. The story is nothing more than a hook to open the door to a quartet of fascinating "types." There are really no good guys, just degrees of bad. Morality rears it's head, but only in distinguishing the levels of depravity exhibited by each of the participants. The proceedings degenerate into a series of, not highs and lows, but lows and lows, with each character finding new ways to sink further into the pit.

Give the actors a lot of credit for playing characters named after themselves, especially when each of those characters is unlikable. Usually an actor can separate them self from their roles, but not here. One has to wonder how difficult is was to play a lot of these scenes without the benefit of distancing the person you are from the person you're playing.

And writer/director Richard Cecere deserves a lot of credit as well, for writing a tough, uncompromising script that dives into the worst creature on earth -the human animal- and dredges up all that makes us contemptible - greed, lust, apathy, selfishness. To say that some of these characters get what they deserve is an understatement, and completely misses the point of the movie. It's more important to determine what the effect is on the ones who survive.

There really are only two kinds of people. The Living and the Dying.

full length feature and bonus short film are killer!

[StuntActor · 8/10 · 4 December 2006]

probably the most amazing thing about this film was that the writer / director had the vision to pull it off and was adept at bringing the cast together to make it happen. For the budget, it has considerable production value (God knows I've seen films with a thousand times the budget and worked on a couple that were real stinkers). Rich Cecere's (the director) ability to tell stories that are one part morality tale and one part man vs man or man vs himself make for insightful watching. And the film's climax is poignant and worth the wait. Plus - the short film on the DVD is quite a treat. Well acted, well-directed, and quite surprising. It's nice to see that while other people sit on their asses bitching about how there's no film work in Florida, or talk and do nothing, others are taking a proactive approach to creating a body of work, and proving that there is talent and ability both in front and behind the camera.

A very enjoyable film.

[ffiisshh · 10/10 · 16 January 2007]

From the very beginning, this movie grabs you and never lets go. A very imaginative plot propels the audience in this spell-binding whirlwind and thrusts us into utter chaos. The combination of Director and actors seems to be a perfect fit for this story-line...(hat's off to them and the casting director). As in previous "Cecerian" flics, there is an edge of gritti-ness that really shines through with regard to the characters' plight. It is very difficult to achieve that kind of dynamic tension in a script and actually have it translate beautifully in the final shots. Also, In response to previous posts, I think that the gore and use of profanity fits like a glove, adding to the realism and intensity of the performances across the board, very much in the Scorcesian manner of film-making. A very enjoyable film all around...I am certainly looking forward to Mr. Cecere's next movie.