Sizing up a micro-budget feature film is a tricky thing, especially when the movie in question is a directorial debut. Such is the case with "Hall of Mirrors", director Brad Osborne's first film. Obviously you ask "Is the movie worth a damn/good?" The answer: YES.
Honestly, I find most micro-budget films painful to sit through. I'm not trying to paint myself as a "snob", because the truth is whether it cost $100 or $1,000,000 to make, it still cost me $8.50. In regards to micro-budget films, I find it hard to sacrifice two hours of my time to a movie where the cast and crew has already thrown in the towel. Either they're "Zapruder film" looking pieces of trash (complete with date and time in the lower right hand corner), they're public access/community college looking turds, or they spent all of their time/focus worrying about the wrong components of the film. Most extremely low budget films seem to shoot themselves in the foot before they even get out of the gate. It's as if the writers/directors of these pictures realize that they are handcuffed financially (although creatively is more like it), embrace the concept of "underachievement", and spend way too much time figuring out how to make "really cool gore".
What I found refreshing with "Hall of Mirrors" is that Mr. Osborne (PAY ATTENTION KIDDIES!) CONCENTRATED ON MAKING A COMPELLING STORY! That's EXACTLY what us aspiring filmmakers should be doing! THE STORY IS THE FREE PART!! The writing is rock solid! I was just as hooked reading the script as I was watching the movie. Brad understands that story, lighting, and acting are the most important elements, and it shows because those are the things that stick out most in this film.
The lighting/look of the film: Interesting. Filmed with a $900 consumer grade digital, the film has a "not quite video/not quite digital" look to it. There were times that I loved the soft, almost fuzzy look of it, and there were times that it looked a bit too grainy. While I wish that it was a bit more consistent, it looks "interesting" to say the least. Some nice uses of shadow, lighting, and of the color blue in this film.
Music: The opening score reminds me of James Newton Howard's work in M. Night Shyamalan's films. Also, I wonder if Brad is a fan of radio theater...There are some musical cues that are VERY reminiscent to radio soap operas.
Acting: At it's finest - REALLY GOOD! At it's worst - SERVICEABLE. I don't mean that as a back-handed compliment, either.
Another measure of a low-budget debut is "Do I want to see another film directed by this person?" In this case, yes I do. Since HOM, Osborne has gone on to do two short films. While I haven't seen them yet, I have a feeling that his work gets better with each effort. (Another sign of a good director) As far as debuts go, Brad should be very proud of his achievements. While the film isn't flawless, it serves as a fine template of "how to approach a no-budget film". In fact, I would put this movie above "El Mariachi" in that department. It's a shame that this movie isn't available at most video stores. It's also a shame that Brad only had about five grand to spend on this picture, because I would have liked to have seen what he could have done with a bit more money. But the real shame would be if Mr. Osborne doesn't make at least 10 more films before it's all said and done. Keep your eye on this guy! He's going places! Score: 8/10
