Trouble Is My Business

It's such a long time since I've seen such poor acting. What promised to be a Sin City (esque) thriller turned into a wooden, awkward embarrassment. It may have been great after 10 minutes but I'd rather poke pencils into my eyes than have to endure any more.

I confess, I couldn't get all the way through this: porn-level acting, script and production values but with zero sex and nudity. That's quite a frustrating two hours, to be honest.

I checked it out because of it taking the title of a Raymond Chandler book of short stories - none of which are here used. Since the film is set in the same genre, in the same period, and very much in the same style, stealing the title could be seen as - at best - audacious, but less generously as outrageous cheek.

It's clear the creators were trying for something better, on a very small budget, and they should be applauded for that, but the end result just really isn't very good at all, with nothing new or interesting to add to an already very well-explored territory.

Don't waste your time with this flick. I'm being gracious with 2 stars.

The film tries too hard to be noir and fails miserably. With essentially a "no name" cast, which is not normally a red flag, but in this case it is. This is more a parody of a noir detective film, at least that's the way it comes across. Acting is high school drama class quality... seriously, I really can't single out one good portrayal. The writing is an insult to classic noir, the directing is hamfisted and sophomoric.

The 8,9 and 10 star reviews were probably made by the cast, crew and family members as they are so over-the-top gushing platitudes as to be completely unbelievable.

This movie is awesome. It was filmed on a shoestring and you won't notice. There are plot twists and suprised and you will love it

The acting is terrible, but I would blame for that mainly the director skills. Well, a director has to do several stuff besides guidance of acting performance, and I think other work isn't that bad. The genre is more than clear and the art coherent, the mise-en-scene is sometimes too predictable (mainly the shots), and the dialogs are funny, not that overdone like the acting. This is a film where the people did a lot of things, the main actors wrote and produced, other staff is in secondary roles, so it seems like a heart-project. If you can live with overacting, it is a interesting homage to Film-Noir. PD1: Thinking about it, maybe the overacting (also overstatement of mise en scene with details like CloseUps, tear on cheek, etc) is on purpose, there is people who like it (Jim Carrey, overacts in most of the films, but he can also, as he has shown sometimes, act in another style). Well, in that case, it isn't lack of skills, it's just a style I don't enjoy.

PD2: Funny is also so much people taking negative comments personally, accusing of trolling, manipulation, and other conspiracies. 'common, everybody is free to have an own opinion, and everybody shall decide what to take from them.