| Overall Grade: |
B- |
|
| Story: |
C+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
B- |
|
|
| Direction: |
B- |
|
|
| Visuals: |
B- |
|
|
Fair, but nothing memorable
by Chris (movies profile)
Jun 12, 2006
1
of
1 people found this review helpful
I suppose I decided to be somewhat lenient with this movie and rated it as a "fair" in most categories. It wasn't a bad movie, but not great either. It was certainly better than some movies I've rented lately. I'll try to write this without revealing anything too important.
First of all, though, I have to say this and get it off my chest - what is with movies that use actors in their 20s to play teenage characters? Michael is supposed to be 17 years-old, but the actor appears to be much older, and it's enough to be distracting. In every scene he's in, I found myself thinking "he is NOT 17 years-old." The scenes with his mother are a bit awkward because of this. It's very hard to sympathize with the tension of a mother trying to reach her troubled teenage son when the character just does not look like a teenager. I saw this movie with one of my friends, and we both placed him more likely in his early or maybe even mid 20s. I don't know anything about the actor or his age, but that was just the impression we got. So why not just have the actor play a young adult, a college student perhaps, and make it more believable. The scenes played with his mother lecturing him and trying to reach him just feel a bit forced. It seems like it's mostly lower budget movies that use older actors to play teenagers. My guess is that it's done for liability issues and to avoid regulations with employing minors. Fine. Then
they should let the actors play characters that are closer to their own age.
The story itself wasn't too bad, and in fact for a while in the beginning I was genuinely in suspense about who might have really committed the murder. The problem is that a character is introduced at about the middle of the movie, and at the time seems like just a superficial background character. Then suddenly, this same character plays a pivotal role in the ending of the movie. It just feels too much like a "Murder She Wrote" episode where everything is resolved way too conveniently and too abruptly. I have to be very vauge about this, because if I say anything else I'll probably ruin the movie for you.
The acting was mixed. Some was just not believeable, and not how you would expect characters to act in a certain situation. And again, there is that pesky problem of the main character just looking a little too old for a teenager. The mother was played adequately at some times, but lame at others. I suppose you could also blame this on bad dialogue. Surprisingly, some of the background characters were played a little better than the main roles.
Overall, I'd have to say the movie is "fair." It's not too bad, but nothing special either. The movie does have a little bit of a low budget feel to it. You'll also have to get past the awkwardness of Michael not quite looking like the teenager character he is supposed to be and some scenes, especially at the end, that feel a bit contrived. But I think it might be worth renting for a little entertainment on a slow night. |
My Public Profile 
