User Reviews

Excellent job by the director/editor for making this film, especially in the non-tradition sense of Hollywood filmmaking. This is one talented individual (Bill Boll) and he is sure to make more waves doing stuff like this.

I like the film a lot.

I realize that the stars of a film get most of the ratings attention, but I must point out a small but riveting performance by Stephen Potter. I'm no fan of dream sequences, but Potter's appearance in this one made it enjoyable.

Frankly, I'd not seen Potter in any other films before this one. I, for one, hope this is just the first of many. I know director Boll also works in the documentary genre, but I hope he'll turn to mainstream films again and re-cast Stephen Potter.

Again, a small film but a fine performance. Now that "April" is available on DVD, perhaps it will get the notice it deserves.

In university, I had to write a paper for a class, but halfway through I forgot what I was writing about. So I tacked on a conclusion that didn't make any sense, handed in the paper, and prayed. That's exactly what this movie is like.

Jack is an innocent young Christian who always does what his parents tell him to do. So when he finally escapes their clutches by going to university is it any wonder he goes a little wild? When he falls into a "bad crowd," he tries booze, pot, and acid, and loves them all. And he also loves April -- a free spirited young woman who wears large, ugly, red plastic glasses that are so obviously fake and don't suit her character in the slightest.

(She wears them cause she's smart. What a non-brilliant bit of prop use that was. It doesn't work in bad porn films, and it doesn't work here.)

As with many movies written and directed by a young man, the female lead doesn't make any sense. Everyone loves April because she's wild and carefree. She doesn't love anyone back. This is never explained. Is she just a tease? Is she insane? Does she have no sexual needs of her own? Is she saving it for marriage? What is the deal with April?

Or is the writer guilty of that typical sin so many young male writers make -- he thinks of her character as more of a thing a man desperately wants, and so forgets to give her a personality? In any case, you would think a title line character -- she's a religion, for pete's sakes! -- would have a little more depth.

This movie is incredibly low budget, so it should come as no surprise that it's poorly done. Three examples:

1. The acting is often embarrassingly bad -- especially our hero Jack. His googly eyed innocence is very muppet like.

2. The writing is often goofy beyond belief. Jack pulls out a bottle in several scenes, as if from out of nowhere. This is how we know he's becoming a troubled young man. The repetition of it -- not to mention the SIZE of the bottles -- made me laugh out loud.

3. The camera work is often annoying. In one scene, a character delivers a line. Cut. Another character delivers a line. Cut. A third character delivers a line. Cut again. Very grating.

And yet, despite all of its flaws, the film is VERY watchable. I was never bored. I was always curious where the movie was going. And some scenes did remind me of my own university life -- although for me there was more sex and less drugs. Which is probably healthier.

This film is definitely a mixed bag. I'd have to say it's a good start for Bill Boll. Hopefully he matures with time. I would be interested in seeing other works by him, in any case.