Rating: 
Summary: funny Stuff
Review: Friend of mine had a copy, looked interesting.
Got to say, who are the people bashing this film? I laughed. I mean get real... this is an Independent film The storyline made for some crazy situations. Looks like onece again "the 5% club" that didn't get or appreciate the experience rule the reviews. I watch alot of films and this one is being bashed way too harsh. As for funny man Rodney D....he's not the only one having trouble getting a little respect ;)
Rating:
Summary: funny Stuff
Review: I am a Canadian film fest buff and had to see this newest release out of Vancouver. The movie feels like it is not finished being edited. If a studio picks it up, they could make it into a film out of the Clerks genre, but as it stands it is weak. The long shots feel like they are done by either a naive or inexperienced cameraman/director and are awkward and boring, they do not add mood, unless mood is trying to make your audience feel like you don't know what you're doing. I like the spirit of the movie, and its premise is a good one, but it is not fit for public consumption as it stands. There is a teaser flick on the DVD that's good - who the heck did that? The soundtrack is good, tho' the songs are replayed too much. Kim Kuzma's "The Price You Pay" is great. I feel bad for the actors, as an earlier reviewer pointed out, they weren't half bad and there's a well-performed "climax" scene - but them's the breaks for being involved with a new company without experience in directing and editing - it's the price you pay!
Rating: 
Summary: It's the price you pay
Review: I am a Canadian film fest buff and had to see this newest release out of Vancouver. The movie feels like it is not finished being edited. If a studio picks it up, they could make it into a film out of the Clerks genre, but as it stands it is weak. The long shots feel like they are done by either a naive or inexperienced cameraman/director and are awkward and boring, they do not add mood, unless mood is trying to make your audience feel like you don't know what you're doing. I like the spirit of the movie, and its premise is a good one, but it is not fit for public consumption as it stands. There is a teaser flick on the DVD that's good - who the heck did that? The soundtrack is good, tho' the songs are replayed too much. Kim Kuzma's "The Price You Pay" is great. I feel bad for the actors, as an earlier reviewer pointed out, they weren't half bad and there's a well-performed "climax" scene - but them's the breaks for being involved with a new company without experience in directing and editing - it's the price you pay!
Rating: 
Summary: Low Budget Independent film like this is for filmmakers only
Review: I had a friend of a friend of a friend in the film and was always getting e-mails (and still do!) forwarded to me from them in the excitement and I actually went to the 'world premiere'. The bands singing that night were great. However, I post this because I feel jipped after all the hype and finally have a venue to express it.
I figured through all the slick publicity stuff that it was this big major motion picture and the tickets and DVD cost enough to assume so. I think that's where it goes wrong - there is something terribly wrong with over publicizing something, over charging something without considering the quality of the product you are delivering. This is where a business model has been used which just plain old doesn't work the same in the film industry! You insult your audience by saying one thing and delivering another. Call it what it is! That's all I asked. If I was told a pal was in a low, low budget first time film of an inexperienced person hoping to break into independent film by using inexperienced cast and crew and if you want to support someone following their dream, yadda, yadda - well then, I would support this for the sake of honesty and art and would have gone for seven bucks to the back of a club to watch it(not $25 of my hard earned money for a 'world premiere' of a 'major motion picture' WHAT IS THAT?). But instead it's misleading with it's slick presentation, 'motion picture' tag lines, and mis-leading marketing & synopsis to the point people have higher expectations and that polarizes the audience to the point they can't see it as a beginner's film, they just see it as a sham.I say call the kettle black. It's a very low budget film made by an evidently very inexperienced group of people and that is very obvious when you see the film. I don't know who you blame in this situation - the Director? the Producer? Someone is misleading someone here. It's first year student film quality - if that. There is even a scene where a phone rings by accident. And although some couldn't act their way out of a paper bag I hardly blame them because it's so hard to get past the terrible production quality. The poor actors didn't stand a chance. Hey, on one hand I say good for him/her for following their dreams and obviously someone knows how to market but shame on them for being so terribly misleading about the quality in the process. I feel bad for those associated with the film - obviously my pal had high hopes for their friend and their friend seemed to think this was their big break - the hype must have been unbelievably misleading for everyone involved. If anything, buy this film if you are a filmmaker to learn what not to do. Peace.
Rating:
Summary: Horrible
Review: I watched this movie because I know someone in the film. If you also know someone in the film then I recommend that you stay as far away from it as possible as I will never look at my friend in the same way again. This movie is horrible. It will bore you for about an hour, then it will reveal the utterly crappy plot that was somehow hidden under all the boring and unrealistic dialogue. There are many glaringly obvious plot holes, too many to cover (Pregnancy tests will not be accurate the day after intercourse!!!) and I don't want to give this work any dignity by discussing the content specifically. I will say that when you watch the movie, it is evident that even the director/writer "Moth Aikmen" knew it was crap because he threw in about 30 minutes of nudity to cover the boring plot. Before you go running guys, these aren't the prize pigs that you'd be hoping for. Apart from the story, it looks like the movie had absolutley no budget. The lighting is so bad in some scenes it is hard to even see the characters (Dock scene), and the movie can be inaudible at times too (Party scene with Gordon and the lod guy). In addition, they could not afford to take more than 2 takes per scene, so when you watch, virtually every scene has one or two moments that should have been left on the cutting room floor, but weren't because they didn't have anything to replace them. But I can look past that considering its an Indie, except when I found out that the budget for the film was 100,000, and apparently from that 100 G's, they spent 80,000 on a marketing campaign to convince people that there is something here when there really isn't. I am only writing this because when I looked at the reviews, there was one giving it 4 of 5 stars. This is obviously an insider review. I have nothing to lose or gain from this film, and would have turned it off within 20 minutes of starting had I not known the afformentioned party, who by the way told me "this is the worst movie I have ever seen." The only saving grace for this movie was one song off the soundtrack, not the entire soundtrack, but just the one song by Kim Kuzma, somthing like "It's the Price You Pay To Go On Living." But it is played so often, when I watched it with a group of people, laughter erupted after the 7th or 8th time it played. Do not be confused, this is no Clerks, no one will ever enjoy this movie.
Believe me, they should be paying you $26.99 to watch.
Rating:
Summary: Horrible
Review: I watched this movie because I know someone in the film. If you also know someone in the film then I recommend that you stay as far away from it as possible as I will never look at my friend in the same way again. This movie is horrible. It will bore you for about an hour, then it will reveal the utterly crappy plot that was somehow hidden under all the boring and unrealistic dialogue. There are many glaringly obvious plot holes, too many to cover (Pregnancy tests will not be accurate the day after intercourse!!!) and I don't want to give this work any dignity by discussing the content specifically. I will say that when you watch the movie, it is evident that even the director/writer "Moth Aikmen" knew it was crap because he threw in about 30 minutes of nudity to cover the boring plot. Before you go running guys, these aren't the prize pigs that you'd be hoping for. Apart from the story, it looks like the movie had absolutley no budget. The lighting is so bad in some scenes it is hard to even see the characters (Dock scene), and the movie can be inaudible at times too (Party scene with Gordon and the lod guy). In addition, they could not afford to take more than 2 takes per scene, so when you watch, virtually every scene has one or two moments that should have been left on the cutting room floor, but weren't because they didn't have anything to replace them. But I can look past that considering its an Indie, except when I found out that the budget for the film was 100,000, and apparently from that 100 G's, they spent 80,000 on a marketing campaign to convince people that there is something here when there really isn't. I am only writing this because when I looked at the reviews, there was one giving it 4 of 5 stars. This is obviously an insider review. I have nothing to lose or gain from this film, and would have turned it off within 20 minutes of starting had I not known the afformentioned party, who by the way told me "this is the worst movie I have ever seen." The only saving grace for this movie was one song off the soundtrack, not the entire soundtrack, but just the one song by Kim Kuzma, somthing like "It's the Price You Pay To Go On Living." But it is played so often, when I watched it with a group of people, laughter erupted after the 7th or 8th time it played. Do not be confused, this is no Clerks, no one will ever enjoy this movie.
Believe me, they should be paying you $26.99 to watch.
Rating:
Summary: A 1 star rating is generous!
Review: It is beyond my comprehension how the director could possibly claim that Gordon is a finished product worthy of public scrutiny. I have to assume that Amazon has no idea of how amazingly unprofessional of a movie Gordon is as there is no way it would be able to pass any quality-control measures that Amazon might have in place allowing the film to be sold on their site. I am not being the least bit facetious when I say the the quality of the film-work in Gordon is beneath that of most low-budget pornos. The only laugh I had associated with Gordon was when I read the director's comment "long, complicated shots were used to enhance the reality of the situation." This is essentially a euphimism that should be translated as follows: "the jerky, out of focus, amateurish, sloppily edited, poorly lit camera work is attributable to the fact that I have absolutely no idea of what I'm doing." I'd love to offer a critique of the plot but doing so would suggest that one exists in the first place.
Do not be mis-lead by the director's friends/family who are posting positive reviews (such as the previous 2 that were so similar in content/wording but posted under different aliases. Give me a break guys!!!)
Rating: 
Summary: Great indie flick reminiscent of "Clerks"
Review: Overall, Gordon's a slick indie movie that's well-written and well-crafted. You have to keep in mind that the characters are purposely trite and stereotypical -- very much like the characters in "Clerks" -- so don't expect too much depth in that area. The soundtrack is brilliant, so be sure to pick it up in addition to the DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Boring
Review: The marketing of this movie was very clever - I bought it. It's the worst movie I've ever seen. It is unprofessional, very long and boring and not worth paying for the partial nude shots (no talent necessary). If this quality of film was created by 13 yr old film students, at least it would be understandable. One actor did a good job, the rest were really bad. I fast forwarded several scences because I couldn't stand the torture and still have not sat through the whole thing - I've got better things to do.
Rating:
Summary: Boring
Review: The marketing of this movie was very clever - I bought it. It's the worst movie I've ever seen. It is unprofessional, very long and boring and not worth paying for the partial nude shots (no talent necessary). If this quality of film was created by 13 yr old film students, at least it would be understandable. One actor did a good job, the rest were really bad. I fast forwarded several scences because I couldn't stand the torture and still have not sat through the whole thing - I've got better things to do.
|
