अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंVeteran LAPD detective Henry Cardenas faces off against his toughest murder suspect yet, Vince Marins, who claims to be something other than human. Over the course of 24 hours, truths, both ... सभी पढ़ेंVeteran LAPD detective Henry Cardenas faces off against his toughest murder suspect yet, Vince Marins, who claims to be something other than human. Over the course of 24 hours, truths, both new and long-buried, will be revealed.Veteran LAPD detective Henry Cardenas faces off against his toughest murder suspect yet, Vince Marins, who claims to be something other than human. Over the course of 24 hours, truths, both new and long-buried, will be revealed.
- पुरस्कार
- 2 जीत और कुल 1 नामांकन
David Castañeda
- Louis Medina
- (as David Castaneda)
Karine Martin
- Stephanie Galliard
- (वॉइस)
- (as Lindsay Ingrid Mussard)
कहानी
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाScreened at the Nevermore Film Festival in February 2018.
फीचर्ड रिव्यू
This falls into a specific small niche of philosophical "shoulda been" films where there is a brilliant premise spoiled by mediocre-to-bad acting and some horrifically bad writing. I often tend to love them despite their glaring flaws but I also spend the entire time wanting to throw things at the screen.
Dialog. Does nobody teach dialog anymore? This, like many works written by untrained writers, contains a series of monologs rather than any realistic sense of conversation. There are people spouting stiff, unnatural, overwrought and perfectly turned phrases at each other. In the cases where the acting is good (the interrogator) it merely comes off as eye-roll-worthy. In the cases where the acting is mediocre (the suspect) it makes you shake your head sadly. Where the acting is horrific (the partner and the journalist) it makes you physically wince. You never forget that this is WRITING. With every word spoken you are painfully aware you are watching something that was carefully written and edited and rewritten. You can actually feel the writer agonizing over every word, trying to get it just right. It's as if each character pauses before speaking to organize every thought into a neo-Shakespearian soliloquy. Except without the pauses, because we are supposed to believe this nonsense just falls from their tongues like hymns from the lips of angels.
Except for the ending sequences, almost every scene outside of the interrogation room is unnecessary. Every bit of plot that takes place outside the interrogation room can be evoked through the discussion between the only two characters who really matter. Characters such as the reporter are purely there for expository (and as an awkward vehicle for the "reveal") and can be cut completely. The obnoxious partner can fade into the scenery without loss to the core of the film (and he should. And I hope the actor who plays him fades along with him). Both characters are only mildly realized and feel more like interruptions than adding any depth to the film. I don't need to be told repeatedly that the interrogator is good at his job. I see that he is good at his job.
As for the ending, without spoiling, one of the characterizations has been done so many times it is tired and actually detracts from the impact. Later, a confrontation is unnecessary and confusing and changes the tone. It was all just six degrees south of great, and it's a frustrating six degrees. If you are a writer, ask yourself "What is the most important thing that needs to happen here?" Then write those things. Everything else is trying too hard.
To see a brilliant example of a philosophical film centered around an interrogation, watch Una Pura Formalità (A Pure Formality) by Giuseppe Tornatore starring Roman Polanski and Gerard Depardieu. It's an Italian film made in French (strange combo, yes), but make sure you watch with subtitles rather than a dubbed version: it is imperative that you experience the subtle, nuanced acting. Even if you are someone who eschews foreign films, watch it. If you saw and liked The Ascent at all, you will be awed by Tornatore's brilliant work. THIS is writing. This is how you write complex philosophical dialogue that still feels like two people are actually speaking to each other rather than holding court and making hubristic, hyperbolic proclamations. You can see that once all the carefully constructed words are removed, there is room for the emotions that should be filling every inch of this story.
If this were a truly bad film, I probably wouldn't bother reviewing. But it has so much potential I just want to grab the writer and shake some experience into him. Murtagh is obviously smart and imaginative and has something to say. Unfortunately, he still desperately needs to learn how to say it. All writers feel like they were born to their craft, but classes are important even to the best natural talent. I would tell him to study dialog (please, for the love of all that is holy in the universe, learn dialog). Hire an editor, because everyone needs a brilliant editor. Once he does, he will wish he could go back and remake this. Actually, I wish he would. It wouldn't be the first time the film industry had a do-over, and I'd love to see this film properly made.
Dialog. Does nobody teach dialog anymore? This, like many works written by untrained writers, contains a series of monologs rather than any realistic sense of conversation. There are people spouting stiff, unnatural, overwrought and perfectly turned phrases at each other. In the cases where the acting is good (the interrogator) it merely comes off as eye-roll-worthy. In the cases where the acting is mediocre (the suspect) it makes you shake your head sadly. Where the acting is horrific (the partner and the journalist) it makes you physically wince. You never forget that this is WRITING. With every word spoken you are painfully aware you are watching something that was carefully written and edited and rewritten. You can actually feel the writer agonizing over every word, trying to get it just right. It's as if each character pauses before speaking to organize every thought into a neo-Shakespearian soliloquy. Except without the pauses, because we are supposed to believe this nonsense just falls from their tongues like hymns from the lips of angels.
Except for the ending sequences, almost every scene outside of the interrogation room is unnecessary. Every bit of plot that takes place outside the interrogation room can be evoked through the discussion between the only two characters who really matter. Characters such as the reporter are purely there for expository (and as an awkward vehicle for the "reveal") and can be cut completely. The obnoxious partner can fade into the scenery without loss to the core of the film (and he should. And I hope the actor who plays him fades along with him). Both characters are only mildly realized and feel more like interruptions than adding any depth to the film. I don't need to be told repeatedly that the interrogator is good at his job. I see that he is good at his job.
As for the ending, without spoiling, one of the characterizations has been done so many times it is tired and actually detracts from the impact. Later, a confrontation is unnecessary and confusing and changes the tone. It was all just six degrees south of great, and it's a frustrating six degrees. If you are a writer, ask yourself "What is the most important thing that needs to happen here?" Then write those things. Everything else is trying too hard.
To see a brilliant example of a philosophical film centered around an interrogation, watch Una Pura Formalità (A Pure Formality) by Giuseppe Tornatore starring Roman Polanski and Gerard Depardieu. It's an Italian film made in French (strange combo, yes), but make sure you watch with subtitles rather than a dubbed version: it is imperative that you experience the subtle, nuanced acting. Even if you are someone who eschews foreign films, watch it. If you saw and liked The Ascent at all, you will be awed by Tornatore's brilliant work. THIS is writing. This is how you write complex philosophical dialogue that still feels like two people are actually speaking to each other rather than holding court and making hubristic, hyperbolic proclamations. You can see that once all the carefully constructed words are removed, there is room for the emotions that should be filling every inch of this story.
If this were a truly bad film, I probably wouldn't bother reviewing. But it has so much potential I just want to grab the writer and shake some experience into him. Murtagh is obviously smart and imaginative and has something to say. Unfortunately, he still desperately needs to learn how to say it. All writers feel like they were born to their craft, but classes are important even to the best natural talent. I would tell him to study dialog (please, for the love of all that is holy in the universe, learn dialog). Hire an editor, because everyone needs a brilliant editor. Once he does, he will wish he could go back and remake this. Actually, I wish he would. It wouldn't be the first time the film industry had a do-over, and I'd love to see this film properly made.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $15,000(अनुमानित)
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 38 मिनट
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.35 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें