I recently sat in during a screening of this picture, and I must say that it wasn't my type of film. While this was clearly a first try film, and a certain amount of raggedness is to be expected, there are a few key problems that made the entire experience underwhelming.
The script should have gone through a few revisions before making it to the screen. The plot centers on the death of a young girl that takes a job serving drinks at Loser's Lounge. This leads to the questioning of a local reporter who is the prime suspect of her murder. However, the death of the girl doesn't happen until probably 50 minutes until the film, which means the first 50 minutes are entirely exposition with no plot arc directing it to anywhere interesting. This all leads into a completely standard murder mystery that is at once completely obvious as well as difficult to follow. Anyone that has seen any of the noir films (`The Maltese Falcon' comes to mind, but there are many others) that this was based on will know long before the end who was responsible for the murder, yet the plot details are so difficult to follow that the clues are incomprehensibly hidden in long dialogue passages. By the time the lead characters figure out the mystery, the viewer will have no idea how they could have possibly figured it out based on the clues they have discovered.
Another big script problem is that ninety percent of the character development comes in the form of long monologues in which characters discuss their entire back story and history before the movie started. Characters admit to many seedy details of their lives, including stories of prostitution and child molestation. Now, many films of this genre have used this technique ("Chinatown" is perhaps the most famous example), but this film seems to have one huge monologue every scene. Each of the main characters has 2 or 3 monologues over the course of the film and just about everyone has one at some point. The acting doesn't help, as none of the actors seem to know what to do with this writing other than just recite it like they are reading it off the page for the first time. By three quarters of the way through the film, the monologues seem completely unnecessary and for this reason alone the film felt endless. At one point, a waitress asks the main character, "So, why'd you move here?" He responds, "It's a long story." This inspired laughter from the audience in the theater simply because everyone knew this was going to lead into another needlessly long monologue and eat a few more minutes of their time.
The direction of the film doesn't help much either. The filmmaking process seems to have not included any storyboarding, as shots violated the line of action and the framing was not based on any standard cinematographic principles. This often leads to a confusing experience, trying to figure out where people were located in a room or what the location of the scene was like. The film is extremely sparse visually, as sets consisted of mostly a couch or a bed in the middle of a completely white room that has a couple of pictures on the walls. There is always so much white space on the screen with no interesting lighting or angles that the visual element feels irritatingly monotone. There is also hardly any movement on screen; characters typically stand or sit in one position and don't move around and the camera is always on a tripod without any motion the vast majority of time.
In terms of period details, it's hardly ever believable that this story is actually happening in the '40s, as there are details that are identifiably modern, such as a modern refrigerator and a NASCAR poster. At one point, one can see a figure that seems suspiciously like a computer screen. The clothing styles are similarly plain and are questionable of what year they are supposed to be representing. The music in the film was quite minimal, as there were a couple pieces that seemed appropriate for the time period, but most of the music consisted of monotonous two chord synthesizer loops and at one point a break-beat based techno song came into the foreground. These components often distract from the movie, and at best simply add to the droning experience of the film.
Technical problems aside, many of the actors seem to have fun during the filmmaking process, and there is a positive first time filmmaking quality that can be felt in the film. However, since none of the actors are professionals, one can't really believe that the characters are truly 1940s prostitutes, private detectives, police officers, etc. Perhaps if they were making a film closer to their frame of reference, like a modern story about family or friendship, a much more interesting indie film could have resulted. Instead, the picture is simply a fallen satellite that can only long to be one of the stars that shined so bright many years ago.
On an end note, anyone that sees this film might as well stick it through to the end, as the final plot developments turn into something quite comically absurd. The audience during the showing couldn't sustain their laughter as the main characters make such bizarre, unrealistic decisions that one can't take them seriously. Also, this film probably sets a record for the longest lists of epilogues ever seen in a movie; each of the characters established over the entire film are given a one line summary of what happened to them in the next several years after the events of Losers Lounge. These ingredients were actually quite a memorable ending for the film, even though perhaps for slightly different reasons than the filmmakers were intending.
