Wow! I was so amazed by the poodle from Canada's comments that I decided that I had to comment. I am not usually the type to comment but I felt I had to as I don't think that this person was at the same film . I was blown away by Richard de Klerk's performance. He carried the movie and I am glad to see that I wasn't the only one that thought so, as he got a round of applause for his incredible performance at the fest. I definitely agree that the other performers were good as well. As a person in the industry I went into the theatre fully expecting a stellar directing job from the director of the film as many of the independent films at the fest showed, but I was sadly disappointed. As the end credits began to roll I started to analyze the work and found that really the actors are what made the movie. Had it not been for the talent of Richard de Klerk, Jovanna Huguet, Richard Johnson and Heather Feeney (and yes Colin Lawrence was great too, very sexy!) the film would not have been worth seeing as the directing was clearly not up to snuff and it was up to the actors to make up for it. There were shots that really weren't planned out right and scenes that could have been far better had they been directed differently. I say I hope Richard de Klerk continues to choose roles like this cause not only can he handle it he makes it look stellar!
8 Reviews
Worth a look, but not quite there
cpfelon6 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Part of the game was an alright production. It did have a degree of marginality about it though. The technical side of things had issues but are tolerable for the most part. It was in the story side of things where the film ran into problems.
The lead character of Robert (played by Richard DeKlerk) did not adequately establish his drug dealer edge side of his persona. Though DeKlerk did a reasonably good job in his performance, it just felt like the character lacked that swagger about him that really made us feel like he had that bad (criminal, tough, etc.) mentality in him. Though the focus of the film was not on that aspect of his character it was none the less lacking and seemed to take away from the believability of the character.
The attempt to use the "grity" hand-held camera feel for the film was also not used quite to its best affect. Though tolerable for most of the film, some aspects (such as the first shot establishing the building) should perhaps have relied upon a more steady look. Overall though I guess it did create a certain stylized effect which was reasonably effective. The film simply needed to pull away from it at times though as to not disrupt the desired emotional tone.
The doctor character did not seem all to well written in dialog or actions. It felt like doctor wanted to be the doctor from the Soprano's with an edge, I'm not quite sure. Whatever it was, it did not come off as a very believable character in this viewer's eyes. The silhouetted sequence was shot rather well though.
Finally, the dialog in general could have used an objective critique before filming began. Line's such as "...we need trees on this team and you're just a bush," "...facts are concurrent with..." (Robert went from street thug to English Literature professor in a heartbeat), and "...the plot thickens..." (yes that was an actual line) were just to cliché or not suiting of character. What appeared on the screen seemed like a script that could have used a little more time in the ringer.
Anyway, it is good to see homegrown talent getting recognition. Hopefully lessons will have been learned and future undertakings will show levels of maturation. Film is probably worth a look, if nothing else, if you're Canadian, at least check it out to support your own.
The lead character of Robert (played by Richard DeKlerk) did not adequately establish his drug dealer edge side of his persona. Though DeKlerk did a reasonably good job in his performance, it just felt like the character lacked that swagger about him that really made us feel like he had that bad (criminal, tough, etc.) mentality in him. Though the focus of the film was not on that aspect of his character it was none the less lacking and seemed to take away from the believability of the character.
The attempt to use the "grity" hand-held camera feel for the film was also not used quite to its best affect. Though tolerable for most of the film, some aspects (such as the first shot establishing the building) should perhaps have relied upon a more steady look. Overall though I guess it did create a certain stylized effect which was reasonably effective. The film simply needed to pull away from it at times though as to not disrupt the desired emotional tone.
The doctor character did not seem all to well written in dialog or actions. It felt like doctor wanted to be the doctor from the Soprano's with an edge, I'm not quite sure. Whatever it was, it did not come off as a very believable character in this viewer's eyes. The silhouetted sequence was shot rather well though.
Finally, the dialog in general could have used an objective critique before filming began. Line's such as "...we need trees on this team and you're just a bush," "...facts are concurrent with..." (Robert went from street thug to English Literature professor in a heartbeat), and "...the plot thickens..." (yes that was an actual line) were just to cliché or not suiting of character. What appeared on the screen seemed like a script that could have used a little more time in the ringer.
Anyway, it is good to see homegrown talent getting recognition. Hopefully lessons will have been learned and future undertakings will show levels of maturation. Film is probably worth a look, if nothing else, if you're Canadian, at least check it out to support your own.
Call the film doctor!
vancinecity9 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is 98 minutes of my life that I can never get back. The final product was a coherent film, perhaps, but it certainly was also a film with many a flaw. The film seems flawed right from the script through to what is provided as the end product. After watching this, I somewhat question the quality demands made by the entrance committee at the Whistler Film Festival, it truly boggles the mind.
Right from the start there seems to be technical problems. Establishing shots that should help set something up are shaky and create feelings of nausea. Then there are shots where there is clearly a lack of detail in the blacks. It appears as though the shots were shot too dark and boosted digitally which created artifacts and unaesthetic grain (apparent in some of the doctor's office scenes). Finally, where was the cinematographer on the set? So many of the shots suffer from over or under exposure. That was not stylization, that was poor cinematography. Also, the sound mixing needs more work. In some scenes there is a room tone that just appears and disappears as cuts are made. It just very inconsistent and distracting at times.
Now, though the stylization of the material is consistent, it is not necessarily to the benefit of the film or its audience. While effective during moments when grit or harsh emotion are needed, it proves ineffective during moments when pensive thought or more reflective emotions are needed. The style should be used to help establish specific emotional tones at the right moments, not dominate the entire film. This prevents one from being able to be pulled back and forth, instead we are blanketed by one all encompassing emotion.
The story itself also is flawed. The lead character is a drug dealer, or so we are expected to believe. However there is a clear lack of establishment of that fact. We encounter certain conversations and moments which inform us he is such, but we lack moments which make us FEEL he is such. Whether it be a lack in performance or a lack of necessary scenes, there is not enough present to really solidify the believability of the lead character. While on the topic of character flaw, there is also the psychiatrist in the film. This character just does not seem to serve much of a useful point in the story. You can see some hints of an attempt to set something up with the character but it is never followed through with properly (like how about her actually helping the protagonist in a meaningful way). There also seems to be an attempt at some kind of sexual chemistry, but if that was the case, it failed. Whether it be lack of direction or lack of sufficient dialog, it is unclear; what is clear is the fact that it just does not work effectively from a story telling standpoint.
While the other characters do not seem to suffer such fate (at least not glaringly), they do not really come out of it with any lasting feel at all. The performances per-say were not so flat, but the characters themselves seemed flat. It just seemed like motivations and depth of character were lacking throughout. What really drew the sister into dating the junkie? The movie implied he had quite the reputation, so why would a character with an apparently good head on her shoulders enter into a love and drug affair with our antagonist? It seemed like an outside of the story objective view of things was missed; as a result such confusions are created. Though perhaps the basketball team aspect does motivate it in a satisfactory manner, it is quite far from an original or scintillating story. Additionally, the relationship of the protagonist and his sister with their parents also had a less than ideal feel about it. The performances of both parents were solid for the most part, but the relationship between them and their children, as scripted just seemed lacking. Most notably, where the heck did they go in the end of the film when the daughter is in the most dire of conditions?
The right hand man (Marcus) and the junkie (Drew) are quite convincing in their performances though and managed to prosper in quite the less than ideal setting. A little more establishment of the relationship between Marcus and Robert would have been nice though. If not that, than at least some side plot about his internal dissension of the ranks before he does so outright would have helped a great deal. While the character of Drew was performed well, it also lacked somewhat. In the early goings it might have been nice if Drew had been a bit more suave to show some reasoning behind Janice's attraction to him. Instead he was quite the seedy junkie right from the get go. This is more the fault of the screenplay and/or director than the actor though.
Finally, the script is just full of cliché babble and actions. You just do not feel you get to know anything about anyone or anything. It just seems to fall into place like you would expect or in many cases, you did expect. I wonder if any kind of third party literary critique was given to this script before production began? Sure nothing in life is perfect, but surely a paid professional, with years of experience in the business, could have picked up some of the flaws, inconsistencies and clichés present here. In the end it just felt like a story that lacked many things as a result of someone trying to write outside of their element. "Write what you know," its a rule you should live and die by if you really want to be successful in this business.
Right from the start there seems to be technical problems. Establishing shots that should help set something up are shaky and create feelings of nausea. Then there are shots where there is clearly a lack of detail in the blacks. It appears as though the shots were shot too dark and boosted digitally which created artifacts and unaesthetic grain (apparent in some of the doctor's office scenes). Finally, where was the cinematographer on the set? So many of the shots suffer from over or under exposure. That was not stylization, that was poor cinematography. Also, the sound mixing needs more work. In some scenes there is a room tone that just appears and disappears as cuts are made. It just very inconsistent and distracting at times.
Now, though the stylization of the material is consistent, it is not necessarily to the benefit of the film or its audience. While effective during moments when grit or harsh emotion are needed, it proves ineffective during moments when pensive thought or more reflective emotions are needed. The style should be used to help establish specific emotional tones at the right moments, not dominate the entire film. This prevents one from being able to be pulled back and forth, instead we are blanketed by one all encompassing emotion.
The story itself also is flawed. The lead character is a drug dealer, or so we are expected to believe. However there is a clear lack of establishment of that fact. We encounter certain conversations and moments which inform us he is such, but we lack moments which make us FEEL he is such. Whether it be a lack in performance or a lack of necessary scenes, there is not enough present to really solidify the believability of the lead character. While on the topic of character flaw, there is also the psychiatrist in the film. This character just does not seem to serve much of a useful point in the story. You can see some hints of an attempt to set something up with the character but it is never followed through with properly (like how about her actually helping the protagonist in a meaningful way). There also seems to be an attempt at some kind of sexual chemistry, but if that was the case, it failed. Whether it be lack of direction or lack of sufficient dialog, it is unclear; what is clear is the fact that it just does not work effectively from a story telling standpoint.
While the other characters do not seem to suffer such fate (at least not glaringly), they do not really come out of it with any lasting feel at all. The performances per-say were not so flat, but the characters themselves seemed flat. It just seemed like motivations and depth of character were lacking throughout. What really drew the sister into dating the junkie? The movie implied he had quite the reputation, so why would a character with an apparently good head on her shoulders enter into a love and drug affair with our antagonist? It seemed like an outside of the story objective view of things was missed; as a result such confusions are created. Though perhaps the basketball team aspect does motivate it in a satisfactory manner, it is quite far from an original or scintillating story. Additionally, the relationship of the protagonist and his sister with their parents also had a less than ideal feel about it. The performances of both parents were solid for the most part, but the relationship between them and their children, as scripted just seemed lacking. Most notably, where the heck did they go in the end of the film when the daughter is in the most dire of conditions?
The right hand man (Marcus) and the junkie (Drew) are quite convincing in their performances though and managed to prosper in quite the less than ideal setting. A little more establishment of the relationship between Marcus and Robert would have been nice though. If not that, than at least some side plot about his internal dissension of the ranks before he does so outright would have helped a great deal. While the character of Drew was performed well, it also lacked somewhat. In the early goings it might have been nice if Drew had been a bit more suave to show some reasoning behind Janice's attraction to him. Instead he was quite the seedy junkie right from the get go. This is more the fault of the screenplay and/or director than the actor though.
Finally, the script is just full of cliché babble and actions. You just do not feel you get to know anything about anyone or anything. It just seems to fall into place like you would expect or in many cases, you did expect. I wonder if any kind of third party literary critique was given to this script before production began? Sure nothing in life is perfect, but surely a paid professional, with years of experience in the business, could have picked up some of the flaws, inconsistencies and clichés present here. In the end it just felt like a story that lacked many things as a result of someone trying to write outside of their element. "Write what you know," its a rule you should live and die by if you really want to be successful in this business.
Lousy movie
Fictional-Reality22 February 2006
It's my second bad rating today.
I really hate doing this, but I hate even more seeing things like "rating 8/10 by 45 votes" for one really lousy movie. I wonder who gave this votes, may be the movie crew itself?
On the Subject:
1) It's a low budget movie.
2) Unknown (at least for me) actors with bad performance.
3) No special FX, low cost cameras.
4) Long scenes from the same point of view (like the number of cameras was very limited)
Sorry, but I prefer a well done stupid movie (Hollywood style) than a movie with good potential and very bad realization which is the case here. There is no excuse to make a movie without regards to any current technical standards only because it's not a Hollywood production. There are many good movies without using "state of the art" equipment, but this one is away from them. It looks like an unprofessional work to me.
I hope my comment prevents people from being misled like me by the high score here.
I really regret watching this movie. Pure waste of time.
I really hate doing this, but I hate even more seeing things like "rating 8/10 by 45 votes" for one really lousy movie. I wonder who gave this votes, may be the movie crew itself?
On the Subject:
1) It's a low budget movie.
2) Unknown (at least for me) actors with bad performance.
3) No special FX, low cost cameras.
4) Long scenes from the same point of view (like the number of cameras was very limited)
Sorry, but I prefer a well done stupid movie (Hollywood style) than a movie with good potential and very bad realization which is the case here. There is no excuse to make a movie without regards to any current technical standards only because it's not a Hollywood production. There are many good movies without using "state of the art" equipment, but this one is away from them. It looks like an unprofessional work to me.
I hope my comment prevents people from being misled like me by the high score here.
I really regret watching this movie. Pure waste of time.
Fantastic Film worth seeing
laniejd27 December 2004
This film was absolutely fantastic. It really makes you think about life and the choices that one makes in life. It is one of the few movies that I have seen lately where I didn't take my eyes off the screen. The acting is phenomenal,especially the characters who play Robert (Richard de Klerk) and Janice(Jovanna Huguet)Richard de Klerk's performance rivets the viewer right until the end of the film, he is an incredible actor. For a film that is low budget it is truly remarkable what the film maker Rick Alyea was able to do.The film looks so professional that it makes you think, who needs big budgets to pull off an amazing film that is absolutely riveting. Basically this is a wonderful movie that is a must see!!!
Touching film about a gut-wrenching problem.
alexia24624 January 2005
Finally - a movie that doesn't show the stereotypical view of the drug business. Writer/director/producer Rick Alyea's vision is inspiring. He uses a very simple plot line and his lead character Robert (played by talented young actor Richard de Klerk) to show that not all who have chosen the path of wholesaling drugs are cold, pompous, hardened criminals. It is de Klerk's performance that fulfills the tag line: "For everyone with an addiction there is hope" as he embodies the human side of Robert's dilemma, whether to continue in his extremely lucrative illegal business or help his sister Janice (Jovanna Huguet, who gives a very believable performance of a drug addicted teen). The film was not only moving but enlightening. I'm sure many may be able to identify with this story, whether it is because they have been touched by drugs personally or through knowing someone with a drug addiction problem. I definitely recommend this movie.
Gripping
anna124684 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I really liked this movie. It was a good story which, in my view, is the most important ingredient in a film. Couple that with the fact that the acting was excellent from the charismatic lead playing Robert to the drugged out sister, Janice, and her self-serving "boy friend" Drew. Marcus was great as were the actors playing both the parents. The psychiatrist seemed to lack people skills but played her awkwardness in dealing with Robert quite well. Dr. Calderecci was probably not used to dealing with someone who made their living wholesaling illegal substances given the office furnishings and upscale building where she practiced. I thought using her as the person Robert was revealing his life to, cutting back and forth to the scenes as he told the story, was quite effective.
This movie does not stress the criminal aspects of the drug scene. It deals more with the fact that everyone has a human side, showing even those involved in the drug business can have families not all of which are poor or dysfunctional or abusive. It shows kids getting involved in drugs can happen in middle class neighborhoods and that young people do drugs for all kinds of reasons, peer pressure and disappointment in life rating pretty high.
The writer/director has taken a story that could play out anywhere in North America in an ordinary middle class neighborhood and handled it in an entertaining, informative and moving way. I tried to force back tears at one point as did my friend. I also remember you could hear a pin drop in the theatre at the Whistler Film Festival where I saw it.
It must be difficult to write, cast and then direct your own film. However it seems Rick Alyea knew what he wanted and came out with a great movie. He appears to have a way of picking out the real issues in life, those that can rock you to your core.
I think anyone with teens could get something out of seeing this film. It's as much a film for parents as it is for young people.
This movie does not stress the criminal aspects of the drug scene. It deals more with the fact that everyone has a human side, showing even those involved in the drug business can have families not all of which are poor or dysfunctional or abusive. It shows kids getting involved in drugs can happen in middle class neighborhoods and that young people do drugs for all kinds of reasons, peer pressure and disappointment in life rating pretty high.
The writer/director has taken a story that could play out anywhere in North America in an ordinary middle class neighborhood and handled it in an entertaining, informative and moving way. I tried to force back tears at one point as did my friend. I also remember you could hear a pin drop in the theatre at the Whistler Film Festival where I saw it.
It must be difficult to write, cast and then direct your own film. However it seems Rick Alyea knew what he wanted and came out with a great movie. He appears to have a way of picking out the real issues in life, those that can rock you to your core.
I think anyone with teens could get something out of seeing this film. It's as much a film for parents as it is for young people.
The message is clear
ian873 May 2006
I have seen the devastation of drug addiction - the pain it causes in families who have been touched by it and this film touched a chord in me. It is beside the point that it is low budget; it is beside the point that technically it does not measure up to the Hollywood movies; it is beside the point that maybe there aren't enough camera angles, something I would never even notice as a viewer; it is beside the point that it doesn't have cool special effects and a number of other high cost production perks; it is beside the point that there are no "big name Hollywood notables". However, it is the point that a group of people got together with whatever their talents, be they raw or experienced, great or small, to tell a story that has an impact. This is what counts in life. So, if you must judge this movie for what it lacks instead of the message it sends, you have missed the point.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
