(2004)

User Reviews

Review this title
4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
in response to the negative reviews...
kylasmyla6 June 2007
...take another look. i didn't like it at first and thought 'what the hell did this win for?', but upon second and third viewings found myself doubled up with laughter. i mean, come on - "look! i'm a bat!" - that's brilliant! or "you seem to be having some serious continuity issues with your desk there, debbie".

i think understanding this film and it's genius requires its audience to be 48 hour participants themselves, or at least to be familiar with the competition. its blatant self-awareness and commentary on the required fields (genre, prop and line) make it a nice change from the many films that try and make themselves look like actual short films, which of course is pretty much impossible given the time constraints. although it may take a certain type of viewer, and a couple of viewings to 'get it', this is an utterly hilarious piece of work thrown together in what i'm assuming was actually less than 48 hours (given taika's participation in another entry that same weekend). love it : )
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Hilarious
laughingmonky27 May 2007
Taika once again shows how much fun a person can have by setting up a camera in front of themselves and putting on some silly wigs and funny teeth. And anyone not infected by this fun while watching this short, is taking the whole film making process and presumably themselves, far to seriously. Lets not forget this is the same guy who made the Oscar nominated short "Two cars, one night" he knows how to make a film. His 48 hour films are always a welcome oasis amongst the painfully amateur 'serious' films we all have to endure at any screening of 48 hour films. I only wish he would produce an entire TV series in the same vein.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So very VERY bad it made my eyes burn
sub5029 December 2005
The only thing worse than the diabolical quality of this film is the Director/Creators shameless and pitiful efforts to pass off the total lack of quality or professionalism as being on purpose. I am sad to report that, in an effort to be objective, while looking the short over for redeeming qualities I found none. The story, as it is, is poorly improvised and pointless. The sound is badly recorded, noisy and inconsistent. The camera-work is ineffective and totally amateur. The acting is... well, I wouldn't even call it acting.

The final product, in all fairness and without a word of exaggeration, is the kind of result you'd most likely get if you gave two teenagers with a long police record of disruptive behavior a twelve ounce bottle of vodka each, a broken VHS handy-cam held together with tape, and fifteen minutes to script and film the whole event. To think that this abortive slice of uncreative trash won the Wellington area competition puts the 48-Film festivals' credibility in dispute with the general public.

Should the attempt to make a "bad" piece of film on purpose actually have been the case, the camera-work and acting would have been endearing and funny, not outrageously pathetic to the point of upsetting the viewer. To even make the claim that it was this bad by design shows contempt for the viewing public. The reason it is so bad, in my ever so humble opinion, is because the people who made it where short on the talent stakes, and just plain old lazy.

If you are looking for a clever short that will make you smile, look for the other place getters for the 48-Hour film festival online - avoid this trash like the plague. I give it a solid -8.5 out of 10 .... that's right, NEGATIVE 8.5.
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I want my 8 minutes back
stuffedpiggy6 March 2006
I'd like to know who I have got to sue to get back the eight minutes of my life I wasted watching this thing (not that I did not call it a film).

The one thing that I can not figure out is just why a cool actor like Cliff Curtis (who has acted very well in a number of movies such as Once Where Warriors, Deep Rising with Jamie Lee Curtis, and River Queen with Tem Morrison) would let his Filmography be sullied with such rubbish - I'd bet he's missed out on some movie roles because he's linked to "henious crime", and casting staff would watch it and decide that a quality actor would never participate in this low level of amateur work.

I am personally insulted as a viewer and 48-Hour film fan that I am expected to believe that the finished product was this bad by design. I've seen a lot of other NZ shorts like "Jesse McLeod: The Journey" written by Te Radar (my hero) which are actually well made and deserving of a place in the 48 Hour film contest. This film would have been better as a finished product if the tape had been accidentally erased or run over by a truck before it was entered in to the contest.

This film is another nail in the coffin of Cohens possible career in film, along with his lack of humility during appearances on NZ television while his films have been shown at festivals (which did nothing to endear him in the hearts of New Zealanders). He will do well if he grows up and pulls his head in - you don't see Peter Jackson acting like a fruit during interviews, do you?
3 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed