The Girl Is in Trouble

The other night I caught up with "Cadillac Records". I was impressed with Columbus Short, a new name to me, and I decided to look out for his subsequent movies. After watching this mess I will stop looking.

Alicja Bachleda made her movie debut at 16 in a masterpiece. Sad she has sunk to this.

Mike Starr, who has appeared in an enormous number of movies as a heavy, either played straight or for humor, does his usual reliable job here.

I love Film Noir, and there is a good story hiding somewhere within all the confusion. Mr Onah should have handed over the direction to someone with a clue. They are not shy about promoting Spike Lee's name as one of the 17 (!) producers, executive producers and assistant producers. You would think that Lee or one of his colleagues would have had the common-sense to steer the director away from some of his more egregious errors, such as:

--- The incessant narration, on topics related and unrelated to the story in progress.

--- Awful camera-work, replete with shakes and glare.

--- The pointless flashbacks (a common feature of such low-budget would-be neo-noirs).

--- The horrible soundtrack, which made it almost impossible to follow the plot. So often these days the music (if that is what it is meant to be) drowns out the dialogue, made worse when, as here, many of the cast seem to suffer speech impediments.

I was discussing with a friend only today why so many Brit actors are now popping up in US movies, even in supporting roles as "All-American" characters. My friend thought it was because they were cheaper, but I think the main reason is because they can articulate. Method acting is great when used by a Newman or a Steiger, but downright confusing when attempted by knuckle-dragging illiterates who think it is a way to by- pass real training as actors.

I give it 4 for the sense of location and the promise in the plot. Not the lead actors' fault, they did their best. I don't suppose anyone involved will go near Onah as a director again. Maybe he can make a career as a screen-writer.

It looked like something made by a student. I see here that it was. I think a good rule-of-thumb for novice directors is to keep it simple, then add special effects and gimmicks as their skills increase with experience.

Ordinarily I don't enjoy a film narrated from the protagonist's point of view, but in this case I found the actor's voice soothing & dialog to be fundamental to the plot. His perspective was important because it added an element of surprise to the plot as it unfolded. Reminiscent of everyday, real life situations when issues of believability & trust can cloud one's judgment when dealing with the unknown, this storyline engaged me throughout the film. The actor's were believable & production values were strong! I was easily able to suspend my disbelief in order to enjoy myself. Truly a surprise pick that I might have otherwise skipped if I hadn't taken a chance! Worth my time!

An obscure indie film noir ? A film like this needs IMDb commentator support if only because the only films being reviewed will be ones appearing in the local multiplex or ones getting their debut release on The Horror Channel . It so far has four comments and mixed opinions from my peers so went in to this film with a very open mind

The story itself has a premise of man meets mysterious woman with a problem and finds himself caught up in events outside his control . More than a shade of Chandler or Spillane in there somewhere and watching the film unfold I see Nigerian born director Julius Onah is very much in the style of Martin Scorsese with his use of voice over , flash back and other directorial quirks such as freeze frame . However Onah emulates this style very badly . Perhaps the most annoying aspect is the voice over . The story is told through the eyes of August who is an unemployed bartender and DJ . August never misses the opportunity to tell us what's on his mind and while he's telling us all this the imagery does the worst thing possible - it shows us what the narrator is talking about . From what I've learned from film school good use of voice over is ironic narration where as bad voice over is obvious or expositional narration . The whole technique of it here is totally over done while being badly used . There's also an other aspect about the voice over and that it totally distracts from much of the core story involving a woman who has recorded a murder on her phone and often found myself wondering where the story was going or if the director had totally forgotten about it . To give Onah his due he might be making an existentialist type of film noir and Scorsese is indeed a grand master auteur of existentialist philosophy but unfortunately there's only one Martin Scorsese . Better luck next time Julius and next time make your own movie

Where to begin? Acting is mediocre at best.

Storyline is like something a couple of middle school kids would makeup during a lunch break.

Like the previous reviewer had stated....the monologue is excessive, boring, wanders off on ridiculous tangents....AWFUL! This movie was the most painful movie I have ever watched. I literally quit watching the movie and then later resumed it 4 times.

For a 90 minute movie it felt like 4 hours.

The movie is so boring. I can think of maybe 2 scenes that total 3 minutes where the movie actually made me turn my head to fully see the screen. Prior to that I shifted between listening with both eyes closed and then laying on my side with only one eye partially opened....it is that bad.

I really think this movie must have gotten a 5+ rating because of Spike Lee's name.

Not that Spike Lee has ever done a great movie....but the fact that Spike Lee is just a cool name.

Do yourself a favor....slide down razor blades into a pool of alcohol and skip this movie. You'll feel much better in the end.

This is a good example of a decent premise and cast bogged down by poor "style" choices and unnecessary narration. The filmmakers clearly decided to make up for the low budget by mixing up the story in disjointed flashbacks instead of letting the story flow naturally. Everytime you start to get into a scene BAM they cut into a flashback, and sometimes intercut a flashback with a flashback. They probably thought this was a way to be flashy but, for me, it was just distracting. Then to add to the annoyance, they added a voice over to explain EVERYTHING and introduce characters that don't matter. Things get very cluttered. In the end it just gets in the way of itself. I truly believe if they told a straight forward story they'd have a decent indie/thriller on their hands. Instead it comes off as a bad experiment.