NOTE TO THOSE NEVER INVOLVED IN THEATRE: The term "community theatre" is simply the worst adjective that can be applied to anything theatrical.
OK. I got snookered.
I am I HS theatre teacher, and I received an unsolicited ad for this film through my school email. We do a Shakespeare every other year, so I regularly have a unit on the Bard in my advanced acting class. Reading all the "rave reviews" at their website - and being sympathetic to the plight of independent film producers - I broke down a bought a copy. (Actually, I bought it through Amazon which was cheaper than on the film's dedicated website....) I thought it might be instructive or at least a bit of "fun" for my class.
Hmmm.... Worst mistake of my life: A. buying stock in Chrysler, or B. buying this film. (gotta think about that one....)
This was without a doubt the most amateurish "professional" film I've seen in decades. Bar none. How it got made is a mystery to me - no doubt there are some maxed out credit cards and former friends and relatives who are now screening their phone calls.
Let's forget for a moment that the script is dreadful: full of clichés, wooden dialogue and contrived contrivances! (I actually could go to town on the lumberingly inept script - but as bad as it was, it wasn't the worst aspect of the production. There are millions of bad scripts out there. Serendipity or tenacity got this one produced. We'll spare Mr. Gold the drubbing he deserves. I'm limited to 1K words.)
Let's also forget the less than stellar production values: better production design, properties, makeup artists, lighting, etc. can be purchased when the $$$ is there. It obviously wasn't.
I prefer to focus on the Acting/Directing. As a failed actor myself, I never review the "quality" of an actor's performance. Sure, some actors are more talented than others, but a good director can get a decent performance out of almost ANY actor. So let's assume that the cast as a whole is at the very least capable - if not even outright talented. Then the utter atrociousness of these performances is entirely the fault of the incipient "director", Christopher J. Prouty (please God - for the sake of his future career, let that be a pseudonym).
To be kind, I'll assume Mr. Prouty has risen to his lofty position from the "other" side of the camera. I've seen far weaker "tech" in other indie films. But he has no idea how to handle an actor. It's difficult enough to get believable performances in a naturalistic small cast film. But in this bit of labored schtick? Prouty wouldn't know a farce if it bit him on the arse! Of all comedic forms, it's the hardest to pull off - and harder on film than on stage. FAIL!
Let me immediately shoot down the weak excuse: "But, they were playing bad actors!" How can we tell the difference when there's no truth in "either" performance? No doubt, each actor was left to his or her own devices to develop these "thespians" - and they certainly brought a cornucopia to the table. But Prouty obviously never worked to trim and polish those performances - to fit them together. What we get is a ratatouille of clashing flavors: bitter, sweet, savory and dry at the same time. Those characters didn't belong in the same world together, let alone the same room. Underplayed, overplayed, arch, naturalistic, puerile, campy, and just plain "wrong" - what could have been an endearing look at a kooky bunch of insecure but genuine theater-folk turned into a melee of actors trying to "out-outlandish" each other. And all that can be said of Mr. Gold's leading performance is "crawl before running". He was not quite yet equal to the task at hand.
(Dear Lord, save me from the excruciating urge to quote Hamlet's advice to the players. Prouty should have it tattooed on the inside of his eyelids.)
There were a few moments in the film that were engaging - but very few. As bad as it was, I began to wonder why I even kept watching. Then it hit me. Viewing this debacle was rather like watching a particularly untalented community theatre actor struggle through material that is way over his head. Favoring the underdog as I do, I keep hoping for a miracle to happen. But, of course, it never did.
On the plus side: The ghostly special effects were surprisingly not too bad. (When compared with the dismal script and acting.) Really, if the film had been made a decade or two earlier we might even have called them "good". Certainly the advent of computer technology has made those heretofore "too costly" effects a bit more accessible to the low budget indie. While Prouty has no idea what to do with an actor, at least he knows how to use his equipment.
I have an old VHS copy of "Plan 9 From Outer Space". This DVD is going on the shelf right next to it. I've never purposely collected dreadfully bad films. But now, with two of them, I guess I've started.
OK. I got snookered.
I am I HS theatre teacher, and I received an unsolicited ad for this film through my school email. We do a Shakespeare every other year, so I regularly have a unit on the Bard in my advanced acting class. Reading all the "rave reviews" at their website - and being sympathetic to the plight of independent film producers - I broke down a bought a copy. (Actually, I bought it through Amazon which was cheaper than on the film's dedicated website....) I thought it might be instructive or at least a bit of "fun" for my class.
Hmmm.... Worst mistake of my life: A. buying stock in Chrysler, or B. buying this film. (gotta think about that one....)
This was without a doubt the most amateurish "professional" film I've seen in decades. Bar none. How it got made is a mystery to me - no doubt there are some maxed out credit cards and former friends and relatives who are now screening their phone calls.
Let's forget for a moment that the script is dreadful: full of clichés, wooden dialogue and contrived contrivances! (I actually could go to town on the lumberingly inept script - but as bad as it was, it wasn't the worst aspect of the production. There are millions of bad scripts out there. Serendipity or tenacity got this one produced. We'll spare Mr. Gold the drubbing he deserves. I'm limited to 1K words.)
Let's also forget the less than stellar production values: better production design, properties, makeup artists, lighting, etc. can be purchased when the $$$ is there. It obviously wasn't.
I prefer to focus on the Acting/Directing. As a failed actor myself, I never review the "quality" of an actor's performance. Sure, some actors are more talented than others, but a good director can get a decent performance out of almost ANY actor. So let's assume that the cast as a whole is at the very least capable - if not even outright talented. Then the utter atrociousness of these performances is entirely the fault of the incipient "director", Christopher J. Prouty (please God - for the sake of his future career, let that be a pseudonym).
To be kind, I'll assume Mr. Prouty has risen to his lofty position from the "other" side of the camera. I've seen far weaker "tech" in other indie films. But he has no idea how to handle an actor. It's difficult enough to get believable performances in a naturalistic small cast film. But in this bit of labored schtick? Prouty wouldn't know a farce if it bit him on the arse! Of all comedic forms, it's the hardest to pull off - and harder on film than on stage. FAIL!
Let me immediately shoot down the weak excuse: "But, they were playing bad actors!" How can we tell the difference when there's no truth in "either" performance? No doubt, each actor was left to his or her own devices to develop these "thespians" - and they certainly brought a cornucopia to the table. But Prouty obviously never worked to trim and polish those performances - to fit them together. What we get is a ratatouille of clashing flavors: bitter, sweet, savory and dry at the same time. Those characters didn't belong in the same world together, let alone the same room. Underplayed, overplayed, arch, naturalistic, puerile, campy, and just plain "wrong" - what could have been an endearing look at a kooky bunch of insecure but genuine theater-folk turned into a melee of actors trying to "out-outlandish" each other. And all that can be said of Mr. Gold's leading performance is "crawl before running". He was not quite yet equal to the task at hand.
(Dear Lord, save me from the excruciating urge to quote Hamlet's advice to the players. Prouty should have it tattooed on the inside of his eyelids.)
There were a few moments in the film that were engaging - but very few. As bad as it was, I began to wonder why I even kept watching. Then it hit me. Viewing this debacle was rather like watching a particularly untalented community theatre actor struggle through material that is way over his head. Favoring the underdog as I do, I keep hoping for a miracle to happen. But, of course, it never did.
On the plus side: The ghostly special effects were surprisingly not too bad. (When compared with the dismal script and acting.) Really, if the film had been made a decade or two earlier we might even have called them "good". Certainly the advent of computer technology has made those heretofore "too costly" effects a bit more accessible to the low budget indie. While Prouty has no idea what to do with an actor, at least he knows how to use his equipment.
I have an old VHS copy of "Plan 9 From Outer Space". This DVD is going on the shelf right next to it. I've never purposely collected dreadfully bad films. But now, with two of them, I guess I've started.