I saw this movie on a compilation collection called "A night to dismember" that I purchased from Wal-Mart. I picked it up because it had "The Bonesetter", a film made by local schlock filmmaker, Brett Kelly, and I thought it would be good for a laugh and it was. All of the films were no budget productions and by that I mean anywhere from 500 to maybe 10,000 dollars. I bet a lot of people think that they could do something pretty good with 10,000 dollars and I say: Try. Put your money where your mouth is. A lot of "reviewers", and by that I mean people who go on the net and whine about things, say this movie is horrible. They say bad acting, bad camera work, bad lighting. You have no idea what you're talking about. Have any of you actually seen bad acting? I mean, truly horrible acting . Imagine the rejects from American Idol but instead of singing they are acting. For what this movie was, a couple of guys with an idea, a camera, and few thousand dollars, it was pretty damn good. the acting wasn't bad, not great but not bad either. The story wasn't bad either. The lighting did shift from time to time but it was marginal. I've seen movies that looked like they cost at least a few million that were a lot worse than this. And what's with all these people knocking digital projects? Ever heard of Robert Rodriguez? He said he'd never use film again. Micheal Mann? Collateral was digital and that was a damn good movie. 28 days later was shot with the Canon XL1S and that was pretty successful. So give credit where credit is due. I think David Barton did a good job and I would definitely like to see what he could do with an actual budget.
