Security, Colorado

Dogme 95 and independent film-making in general often seems to stem from a rebellion against the inauthenticity of Hollywood movies. "Security, Colorado" seems to be no exception, but in intention alone. It's inauthentic in a different way, however.

Although the two lead actors are good, their improvisations are not, which could have been remedied perhaps by rehearsal and fleshing out who these characters are and why. Granted, dialogue in real life is not as eloquent as in mainstream films, but it's not always as direction less as in this movie either, especially between lovers and people trying to express themselves to each other.

The improvisation often feels forced as if the actors are trying to further a discussion whose purpose is unclear. It feels more like actors struggling to find lines rather than actors who have fully placed themselves in their characters reacting naturally. There is a difference between actors not knowing what to say to each other and real people not knowing how to talk to each other, and it shows in this film.

The way it's filmed also detracts from any attempt at making a film that feels authentic and realistic. The camera was hand-held, but the shakiness and movement seems to be more than necessary and exaggerated without any reason that serves the film. The automatic focus feature the camera seems to have had did not help either. There were also jump cuts that did not "jump" chronologically but acted as sutures between takes mid-conversation rather than using a long take approach. These seem to be technical deficiencies that did not add anything to the film itself, and they ultimately disrupted any transparency that could have existed.

And as for being a Dogme 95 film, the director blatantly violated the Vow of Chastity by introducing music during the editing process that does not occur where the film does. Usually this is not the case in the film, but it also shows that the intention of those involved in the film-making was not carried out meticulously enough even in making a Dogme film.

Although it seems like a wholly negative review, the film is not entirely without merit. It's still an interesting film, if just for being different, although flawed. We simply don't get enough information to care about any of the characters or their insecurities enough to really be involved in the film. The lead actress, Karen Felber, does save the film with a good performance. But ultimately the film's attempt at showing the complexities of human emotions and relationships falls short and ends up being a meaningless and superficial exploration of those topics and more of a cinematic exercise.

The story is not necessarily sad but too true to life. I got the distinct impression I was watching a real couple whose tribulations could only be distorted by the intrusion of a camera.

Karen Felber is truly beautiful. As a guy, the film is worth watching just to see her face. Watching her cry would make any man want to 'fix it' although for poor Paul, that was not to be.

There are a couple of sex scenes, I think. Fully clothed, tight shots, you didn't really know what was supposed to be happening.

Not much of a story--just the boring reality of a young couple not making it work.

"Security, Colorado" is an official "Dogme 95" film, but that's about all it's got going for it. The purpose of Dogme's rules of "cinematic chastity," as I understand it, is to free filmmakers from the obligations of technological wizardry and thus to enable them to concentrate on the most basic elements of cinema: a good story; strict verisimilitude; good acting. "Security" features some good acting, but that's about it. I was left somewhat confused: there didn't seem to be any reason for the main character's growing dissatisfaction with her life; her behavior seemed capricious and inexplicable. Adhering to the Dogme vows might make your film capital-a Artistic, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good film. "Security" is certainly watchable, but nothing special. Six stars out of ten.

This film is as interesting as it is high-tech. Not necessarily a bad film, but it's rather boring and inconsequential. In fact, perhaps its main problem is it's too true to life, which is sometimes just not what many folks want to spend time watching on screen. Plus the fact that the dialog is simply terrible at times. These factors make it understandable why this film got zero stars in my digital cable guide. Anyway, the fact that the story and acting are pretty natural, and the lead actress is darn cute, save this film. Let's hope we see a lot more of Karen Felber! C+

Karen Felber is gorgeous and should do more films. That's the positive.

On the negative side, this flick is otherwise boring as hell. Not even enough interest in what's depicted to rise to the level of depressing. It's really more of a "project" than a movie.

But I used to work in the real Security, Colorado; in fact that's why I taped this flick off of Sundance Channel in the first place. I must say, however, that if there ever was a movie that summed the place up, it's this one. Security, an unincorporated "community" just south of Colorado Springs, was boring, bordering on depressing. It was so much nothing that it's difficult to describe. This film succeeds in that, not with detail about the place itself, but through communicating a mood. A boring mood. But there was at least one hot chick living in Security. So, Boring + One Cute Chick out of Thousands= Security, Colorado--the movie and the place.

In that sense the film is a success.