Lying

I am giving this movie a 2 because it had good set design and the make up artists did a pretty good job.

This movie was awful, my girlfriend wanted to rent it and I would not bother writing a bad review if it was just some chick flick but this is not the standard girls get together and discover themselves or learn to love each other. Nothing happens in this movie, the interaction is dry and frankly unbelievable, everyone acts like they are on some kind of hardcore anti-depressant.

Honestly the people who like this movie are the people who have never seen a good art film before. The scene with the babies was pretty funny but other than that this film cheated to get that 5.8 rating it has because no one in their right mind could rate this as a 10 unless they are trying to bump its rating up.

You will feel blue-balled after watching this movie

I just saw this film at Cannes film festival. The fact that Chloe Sevigny was in it propelled me to go, as she usually appears in above average films. However this film is so bad I can't begin to describe why. It even got booed in the screening room. Saying this, I still think this film is worth seeing, if only to provide you with a film to place at the bottom of your movie lists, or to just give you an insight into the elements of bad film.

I have to say that the cinematography is good, as are the performances, there is just no substance. Another successful part is how the film somehow made me believe something good was going to happen around every corner, even up until the credits, (but I can assure you nothing did).

Overall I simply think that this film is trying to be too arty and too out there, and it just crosses the line.

LYING is a fey and contemplative film which attempts to examine the various levels and applications of deception. Megan, played by Chloe Sevigny, is a young woman who is obsessed with control. She honestly feels that if she is allowed to dominate and dictate events, everyone will benefit from her machinations. Her behavior is certainly neurotic, but her intent is not malevolent. The story is set on a beautiful country estate in upstate New York, and on an Indian Summer weekend, Megan invites three friends to relax and work on a short film project. The entire weekend is predicated on several falsehoods which the girls must accept in order for the prevarication to become real. Megan's actual mission is to see if she can induce her guests to enter a hypothetical world of her construction. The film is paced very slowly, almost hypnotically, and information is divulged sparingly which tends to heighten the effect of never knowing exactly what to believe. This film is not for everyone, but gradually and by degrees, LYING does enable the viewer to contemplate the art of manipulation. If you liked the classic Australian art film, PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK, you will probably appreciate what M. Blash, the writer/director, has attempted in LYING.

one of the worst films seen in recent memory. meaningless long boring pretentious and badly shot.i wonder if anyone read the script before starting shooting? i guess not. for me the worst part was that it seemed to be a horror film. you are waiting for a monster to jump out and slash the (boring) girls as revenge for being so boring. but in the end, nothing happens, and it turns out the whole thing is just boring. from my perspective its hard to understand how the film got made. although probably the so called star power of chloe s. (why?) was the propelling factor. she can be good sometimes, but since she always plays the same, immoral character, it does get old. not recommended on any level.

I will try to be gentle here . . .

Have worse movies ever been created in all of known human history? Possibly, but as a sort of comparative reference, the all time "worst movie ever" classic - Plan 9 from Outer Space - could be rated as a seriously produced example of fine filmcraft.

This film Lying is so odd, completely lifeless, thrown together attempt at something possibly resembling a plot, that it deserves its own rating category.

Not only is the film itself beyond ridiculously awful, but on the DVD there is the added "interview" with the director, conducted with such serious, way over the top pretentious self absorbed pseudo importance supposedly associated with this production.

This is the extreme outer edge of unintended comedy . . . a Monty Pythonesque parody - only this was actually intended as a serious interview.

The rating category of 1 (awful) isn't low enough to actually represent the rating of this pathetic non-entity attempt of filmcraft.

I would suggest less than zero, perhaps somewhere between -3 to -5.

The one positive thing I could say for this film? It could be a good cure for insomnia . . .