Noah is a student trying to get into medical school on a basketball scholarship. However, neighborhood rivalry makes things more difficult than he originally thought and a somewhat shady sports agent taunts him with dreams of big money.
For the record, I watched this movie because it is number 1 on the IMDb Bottom 100 list. This film seems to take more flak than anything Uwe Boll has done - his movies, also bashed, are higher rated but still in the Bottom 100 on IMDb. However, I tried to watch as if I had no knowledge of what others thought it just to form my own opinion free from intervention.
The conclusion of my little experiment is the film is really not that bad. Is it stellar? No. But worst movie ever. No. Obviously Preston A. Whitmore II isn't Spike Lee or Scorsese and the film seems over edited, especially in the beginning with constant whooshes and sped up pans. Yes the script isn't a drama masterwork - it includes a pointless 'where are they now' narration/titles at the end, but that is probably more indicative of the film's budget rather than creative choice. Then the actors aren't world class, but who really cares? The story is consistent, remarkably free of profanity or other exploitation and stereotypical portrayal of inner-city life. It has, as another user wrote, "a positive overtone" while staying well clear of being preachy.
As far as being worse than Uwe Boll is another thing. Boll makes mediocre made movies with no plot. This film is better than mediocre and has a decent well-intentioned plot to it, which essentially should lift it above anything like 'House of the Dead' or 'Alone in the Dark.' But maybe people are so hungry for sensation these days that they like awful sensation over decent, if not stellar, drama. If that sounds like a drug addiction to you, well you're right, because it is. --- 6/10
Rated PG-13: minimal profanity and some sexual content
For the record, I watched this movie because it is number 1 on the IMDb Bottom 100 list. This film seems to take more flak than anything Uwe Boll has done - his movies, also bashed, are higher rated but still in the Bottom 100 on IMDb. However, I tried to watch as if I had no knowledge of what others thought it just to form my own opinion free from intervention.
The conclusion of my little experiment is the film is really not that bad. Is it stellar? No. But worst movie ever. No. Obviously Preston A. Whitmore II isn't Spike Lee or Scorsese and the film seems over edited, especially in the beginning with constant whooshes and sped up pans. Yes the script isn't a drama masterwork - it includes a pointless 'where are they now' narration/titles at the end, but that is probably more indicative of the film's budget rather than creative choice. Then the actors aren't world class, but who really cares? The story is consistent, remarkably free of profanity or other exploitation and stereotypical portrayal of inner-city life. It has, as another user wrote, "a positive overtone" while staying well clear of being preachy.
As far as being worse than Uwe Boll is another thing. Boll makes mediocre made movies with no plot. This film is better than mediocre and has a decent well-intentioned plot to it, which essentially should lift it above anything like 'House of the Dead' or 'Alone in the Dark.' But maybe people are so hungry for sensation these days that they like awful sensation over decent, if not stellar, drama. If that sounds like a drug addiction to you, well you're right, because it is. --- 6/10
Rated PG-13: minimal profanity and some sexual content