jamesalmos

I'd call this one an above average entry into the low-budget sci-fi thriller category.

The Good: 1) Intriguing premise - not 100% original, but an interesting turn on more-common themes 2) Acting is better than expected from a low-budget film 3) Same goes for the cinematography 4) Manages not to give away the rest of the plot during exposition 5) Mathew St. Patrick (and Timothy Davis, for that matter)

The Bad: 1)Props in a couple scenes scream of high school theater 2) Obviously couldn't afford/secure better shooting locations, which hurt some scenes a bit 3) Tatyana Ali's character was flat; really wasted her presence

This isn't a movie you're going to rush to tell your friends about, but you also won't be wasting your time watching. It's a compelling enough narrative outright. You just have to be able to de-hollywood your expectations to get the most out of it.

Full disclosure: I know someone who was involved with this film, so I gave an unearned extra star here.

Viewers should know first and foremost that this film gets right at the heart of some topics that many find uncomfortable to even think of, let alone watch played out on screen for 80 mins. It is a (pleasantly) surprisingly frank depiction of sex in general, with a focus on specific inclinations/complulsions/hangups/etc relative to the addictive aspects of sex.

And that enough so that there was no future of international release or promos on late-night US tv. No chance of great stardom or adulation. But they did it anyway, and did it honestly, such that it (according to a similarly-afflicted friend) really speaks to the heart of the issue and how actual humans deal with it.

But, due praise given, the narrative was somewhat disjointed in presentation and the final cut a resultant disappointment to me. Not in the least because I think they poorly utilized the brilliant John Hawkes (and, yes, apologies for elevating the male role in a film that's not about him). For that matter, I found the equally brilliant Melissa Leo underutilized as well (also, not about her, I know).

While I endlessly applaud Ms. deGuzman's honesty and sheer courage to bring such a personal role to the screen as she did, I must be honest and say it did not, ultimately, work out that well.

Honest assessment is a 6/10, but I think such boldness and effort demands an extra star.

With any luck, Ms. deGuzman will be back soon with another film more complementary of her talents, and of the talents of those around her.

For me, the problem was story. The whole 9/11 angle seemed to muck things up far more than advance.

I'm not one of the 'it was x years ago, so stop talking about it' crowd. Lost a family member that day, as it were.

But in the ensuing years, I now live near the widower of that family member (reminder: lots of firefighters are women), and we both agreed this was enough of a stretch to make those people sound pretty rational.

Recorded his words for accuracy: "If you take 9/11 away, it's probably about the same story. Good story. Just didn't like that they used the towers like that. People only got real riled in the dinner part and that's not how it was back then. You {this writer} were only in college, but I know you remember how people popped off all the time right after."

In short, 9/11 seems more a convenient linchpin than a properly explored central theme.

That said, the direction resulted in some excellent on-screen chemistry from the leads - which I barely believe wasn't there already. Also a surprising number of beautifully shot scenes with actors present - infinitely harder than without them. And despite my thematic disagreements, some tight writing.

Film gets a 5 from me, but might have been a 7 if personal circumstance didn't prevent an objective view of the subject matter.

Scoring as the latter because: won't hurt your rating on account of personal history, and hopefully a higher rating gets this film more viewings, especially from those of us connected to the event, that it might challenge us to think differently.