Girl with a Gun

There's so little action it shouldn't be catagorised as an action it should be under drama. In which case it works as a drama but as an action film it's pathetic.

It's got some really boring and disjointed editing too.

I didn't enjoy the film.

I give it a 2/10 and that's generous.

There's so little action it shouldn't be catagorised as an action it should be under drama. In which case it works as a drama but as an action film it's pathetic.

It's got some really boring and disjointed editing too.

I didn't enjoy the film.

I give it a 2/10 and that's generous.

Best avoided as it's the most boring action film of all time.

I found the soundtrack the most annoying aspect of this film - and that's saying much more than you may realize.

I can see everyone involved did their best. While it's all sub-par, the acting wasn't ludicrous, just bad. All the actors were clearly inexperienced.

Some weapon training would have helped the entire cast considerably - More than perhaps a couple hours of safety training. No one looked natural holding a weapon.. no none.

The plot is just drab.. wannabe revenge flick but just full of boring drama with bad accents. The "revenge" aspect doesn't kick in until far, far, far too late making 80% of the film just repetitive and boring.

Production was overall decent. Scenes were lit well and audio levels were generally good without wild variations. But directing was clearly also a novice attempt. Poor scene blocking much of the time - WAY too close or WAY too far drone shots.

The worst part of the film for me was the soundtrack. 10 minutes of banjo repeating.. 10 minutes of piano repeating.. 10 minutes of steel guitar repeating.. then back to the banjo repeating.... etc. And by "repeating" I mean each instrument is like a 2 minute audio clip that clearly cycles over and over. "Hey look.. here's a nice 6 note progression!" then they beat it to death on every instrument thinking it won't be noticed. Rathe rthan changing the music, they just change the instrument playing the music with slight timing variations.

Kudos to those involved, it's a noble attempt, but just not really up to snuff. I've seen much much much worse. But posting that, I'd never sit through this again for any reason. It's unremarkable, uninteresting, and entirely forgettable. It's no wonder it appears to be a free "straight to Tubi" film.

I believe that under proposed Diversity/Equity rules, I am obligated to award at least one point for actually getting this film into production. Because, as we all know, effort counts. And, to be fair, the cinematography is stunning. You can take any of the outdoor shots at random, and turn them into a screensaver, effortlessly. Wow. That said, writer/director Kevin White has produced a film that is so wrong on so many levels, it can be immediately studied in any film class anywhere as an example of what not to do. The dialog was intended to be pithy (nothing wrong with pithy) but instead comes across as if there are entire scenes missing. There is nothing wrong with using "unknown" actors -- as long as they can actually act, and sell their roles. None of that here. Every movie needs something called the "glue", something that holds your attention while the story is being developed. None of that here either. As I have explained in other reviews, one of the giveaways of an ultra-low-budget indie is a sound track so intrusive that it actually tries to compensate for everything else that is missing. Check. If effort counts, viewers who make it to the end of the reel should get points also. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

This film does well in setting up the plot relatively early and carrying the theme throughout. The sound quality, music composition and camera angles were spot on, which is not always performed effectively on lower budget features. Mr. White put a great team together and the cast was well chosen overall. Especially appealing wwere the chosen locations throughout the film with precision authenticity of the area and culture represented. Drone shots were chosen wisely but not overdone. Editing was performed to perfection in my opinion.

I am looking forward to future projects from this writer/director.

That's about it. I'll give them 3 stars for actually getting something in the can. Most don't and they waste people's time and money. Another 2 for what looks like the directors first crack at a feature.

Here is where it broke down for me. There were some good performances and some "pull you out of the film" ones. Overall it felt clunky, and had a local only feel. Some seemed to be reading off a page of paper. I wish ULB directors would get away from the "Be A Producer, Get a Role" model which in visiting credits seems to be the case for this film. It appears that it was shot only in Louisiana and I know over the last few years they've developed some good "Supporting" actors who can contribute to rounding out a cast. Several years back I worked on a project there with Egerton and Hauser and I met many local actors and their performances were really good. So, I'm confused. I'm guessing from the look of the cast their only talent draw was Jeremy London. He's just so blah and washed up and his performance was definitely far behind some of the other locals. I am sure most of the cast money went to him and frankly the director could have scratched him and filled his cast with actors who are not just phoning it in. That could have boosted the project a few points. So for cast I'm going -2 for a total project rating of 3. Truly the efforts of the crew need to be praised for their diligence and fortitude. Hoping the director finds those diamonds in the rough with actual credits next time he directs.