manfred-27

This film (which was shot on video, by the way) is rather low quality. Someone should tell the director spend some money and buy a tripod. As far as I know, EVERY shot was hand held. Some at high magnification. Lots of moving back and forth. So, apart from that dread feeling when you realise within 90 seconds that your money has been wasted, and that do I or don't I walk out of the cinema, what has the film got to offer? Not much. A storyline that could be written by a teenager. The script that well, sucks. Probably penned in a day, maybe an afternoon. The acting, well some of it was OK. But some of it was useless.

When I first realised the quality of this film, I wondered whether it was a form of self-parody. Sort of like a straight-A student intentionally flunking an entry-level exam. And this may be the case, I don't know. But if it isn't, would the director be embarrassed by his creation? probably.

If you've got 90 minutes to kill, and nothing better is on television, give it a go. But please don't actually spend money on this film. It makes me sad that I could have fed a 3rd world person for a week for the money that it cost me to go.