Well, someone has to say it! There are 21 comments behind this one and only one that actually speaks the truth about this film! Just because you're making an Indy film doesn't mean you don't have to care what comes out of the camera and just because you're watching an Indy film doesn't mean you don't have to care if it has anything to say at all.
*Minor Spoilers*
There should be a greater purpose in making a film than just 'making a film', you should spend the proper amount of time writing a film and then rewriting and rewriting again. Then when you have that final draft, re-write it one more time just to make sure it's really what you are trying to say. `A Better Place' runs into trouble from its writing alone.
Never mind its amateurish look and fake blood; these can be easily forgiven had the writing been up to par. I wish I could say a lot of Indy films lately showcased better writing but sadly this is not the case. Indy was born out of the shackles and banalities, clichés, trivialities, and other trite conventions of the 'mainstream Hollywood film'. But there used to be something to an Indy film, it used to be something the Independent Producer was really proud of to put his name and his money behind it, however, in recent years the general concern for quality in the Indy film has went into the toilet as IFC and video stores will pick up and distribute almost anything.
What's quality? Well, mainly 3 things, writing, acting, and editing. Directing is something that happens when the other three are done right, a film that's beautifully written, brilliantly acted, and well edited almost always looks and feels good, regardless of who directed it. So what's the problem with `A Better Place'? Well, mainly the writing and theatre-style acting, which results in the appearance of poor directing.
This is a cheesy made-to-be-like-reality teen horror/philosophical thriller, but it is neither 'real' nor philosophical. The intentions are good, I can feel what the director is trying to say, but he is babbling like a baby most of the time. I don't know where he or anyone else on the film went to school but kids do not act and talk like this, at least anyone interesting and worth listening to: kids trying to act like they went to school and had those kinds of friends act like that. Real edgy students are ten times colder and ten times more hateful, spiteful, aggressive, and sexually explicit. Perhaps two of the only films I've seen in the last 10 years that expressed how teens that I care about watching are these days were "Kids", which really captured America's badass inner city high schooler and "Bully" which showcased the utter stupidity, boredom, and animalistic qualities of modern suburbia punks who can't do anything right.
These films accomplish something `A Better Place' doesn't, mainly because the writing is so much more true to life, the acting is subtle yet aggressive, and most importantly, loads of meaningless pretentious dialog doesn't drown out the acting.
Basically, this is the thing, just because you CAN make a film doesn't mean you should. I have a studio quality DV camera, I have 20,000 dollars or so I could go into debt if I wanted to, and I know people in L.A. that do all the jobs I could ever want or need on a set, but that doesn't mean I should go out there and make a film just to say I made one. I know I don't have writing that's solid enough yet. I've got a lot of good ideas but the writing just isn't done or isn't up to par for what it needs to be.
What I'm saying is that Indy directors today that write their own scripts need to take a step back and say, `Wait, even though I can make this film that was snubbed at every studio, rejected by big name Indy producers, and with an unknown cast, it doesn't mean I should. What am I trying to say? Does it come through with my writing, is my writing even realistic? Do people actually talk like that out loud or just in their heads?'
Raoul (the first reviewer) makes the two most important points, `A Better Place' is neither "real" nor "hardcore" -- the two things it tries the hardest at attempting. It's not real because people don't really talk like that out loud and the acting is theatre style, it's over acting for the stage and not under acting for the camera. It's not hardcore because the philosophical badass has nothing to say, wow a God hating nihilist, what else is new, looked around lately? A real badass would have pushed around Barrett and made him submissive, punched the old man or killed him on purpose because he was greedy, raped Augustine in front of Barrett, and eventually made Barrett kill Todd. Disgusting? Well maybe but that's hardcore. Simply put, the characters don't clash enough and their attempts at "hardcore" actions are unfounded and unbelievable, they are too wussy, they are fake and not extreme enough to be believable and scary from today's perspective because they are so extreme.
I can't say anything about the 20 people before that all loved the film, except that all of you and the greater Indy audience in general, need to stop accepting mediocrity and banality in Indy films and realize you're all being DUMBED DOWN by the general drop in quality of these IFC student projects. And to all these directors, stop and think before you make your next film, have some other people read your script, and then again, and then again -- just because you have the resources doesn't mean you should just shoot trivial characters and ideas, make sure you really have something to say that hasn't been said better before.
*Minor Spoilers*
There should be a greater purpose in making a film than just 'making a film', you should spend the proper amount of time writing a film and then rewriting and rewriting again. Then when you have that final draft, re-write it one more time just to make sure it's really what you are trying to say. `A Better Place' runs into trouble from its writing alone.
Never mind its amateurish look and fake blood; these can be easily forgiven had the writing been up to par. I wish I could say a lot of Indy films lately showcased better writing but sadly this is not the case. Indy was born out of the shackles and banalities, clichés, trivialities, and other trite conventions of the 'mainstream Hollywood film'. But there used to be something to an Indy film, it used to be something the Independent Producer was really proud of to put his name and his money behind it, however, in recent years the general concern for quality in the Indy film has went into the toilet as IFC and video stores will pick up and distribute almost anything.
What's quality? Well, mainly 3 things, writing, acting, and editing. Directing is something that happens when the other three are done right, a film that's beautifully written, brilliantly acted, and well edited almost always looks and feels good, regardless of who directed it. So what's the problem with `A Better Place'? Well, mainly the writing and theatre-style acting, which results in the appearance of poor directing.
This is a cheesy made-to-be-like-reality teen horror/philosophical thriller, but it is neither 'real' nor philosophical. The intentions are good, I can feel what the director is trying to say, but he is babbling like a baby most of the time. I don't know where he or anyone else on the film went to school but kids do not act and talk like this, at least anyone interesting and worth listening to: kids trying to act like they went to school and had those kinds of friends act like that. Real edgy students are ten times colder and ten times more hateful, spiteful, aggressive, and sexually explicit. Perhaps two of the only films I've seen in the last 10 years that expressed how teens that I care about watching are these days were "Kids", which really captured America's badass inner city high schooler and "Bully" which showcased the utter stupidity, boredom, and animalistic qualities of modern suburbia punks who can't do anything right.
These films accomplish something `A Better Place' doesn't, mainly because the writing is so much more true to life, the acting is subtle yet aggressive, and most importantly, loads of meaningless pretentious dialog doesn't drown out the acting.
Basically, this is the thing, just because you CAN make a film doesn't mean you should. I have a studio quality DV camera, I have 20,000 dollars or so I could go into debt if I wanted to, and I know people in L.A. that do all the jobs I could ever want or need on a set, but that doesn't mean I should go out there and make a film just to say I made one. I know I don't have writing that's solid enough yet. I've got a lot of good ideas but the writing just isn't done or isn't up to par for what it needs to be.
What I'm saying is that Indy directors today that write their own scripts need to take a step back and say, `Wait, even though I can make this film that was snubbed at every studio, rejected by big name Indy producers, and with an unknown cast, it doesn't mean I should. What am I trying to say? Does it come through with my writing, is my writing even realistic? Do people actually talk like that out loud or just in their heads?'
Raoul (the first reviewer) makes the two most important points, `A Better Place' is neither "real" nor "hardcore" -- the two things it tries the hardest at attempting. It's not real because people don't really talk like that out loud and the acting is theatre style, it's over acting for the stage and not under acting for the camera. It's not hardcore because the philosophical badass has nothing to say, wow a God hating nihilist, what else is new, looked around lately? A real badass would have pushed around Barrett and made him submissive, punched the old man or killed him on purpose because he was greedy, raped Augustine in front of Barrett, and eventually made Barrett kill Todd. Disgusting? Well maybe but that's hardcore. Simply put, the characters don't clash enough and their attempts at "hardcore" actions are unfounded and unbelievable, they are too wussy, they are fake and not extreme enough to be believable and scary from today's perspective because they are so extreme.
I can't say anything about the 20 people before that all loved the film, except that all of you and the greater Indy audience in general, need to stop accepting mediocrity and banality in Indy films and realize you're all being DUMBED DOWN by the general drop in quality of these IFC student projects. And to all these directors, stop and think before you make your next film, have some other people read your script, and then again, and then again -- just because you have the resources doesn't mean you should just shoot trivial characters and ideas, make sure you really have something to say that hasn't been said better before.