James Robinson started out with a pretty good idea although I was hoping for a character based more on the comic book guy from "The Simpsons". He had enough money to make a technically solid feature out of his material, and he did a fairly good job of casting (except for Cary Elwes). I won't bother to summarize the plot but will just address what went wrong. And enough is wrong to render this thing genuinely terrible.
It appears that Robinson was inspired to totally change his original ending late in the game, but was not inspired enough to rewrite the first half of his screenplay (very lazy). Which means there is a HUGE disconnection between the first and the second halves of the movie. This is not a good thing because in the first half Robinson provides film language elements (signs and syntax) that point in an entirely different direction from the way the film ends up going. This 180 degree change of direction can work if the writer/director plants subtle clues in the first half that only register with the viewer at the end of the film, or when thinking about it the next day. Robinson planted no such clues and did no foreshadowing.
The whole idea of film is to effectively tell a story; bottom line is that writers and directors who do this well are considered talented. Robinson should either learn his craft or find another profession.
As I was watching it I gave it more credit than it deserved. I was waiting for them to reveal that the mother and the robber had just set up the store-owners to teach them a lesson. After a point I had to abandon this idea and began to wonder if it was a parody without any humor. If that's the idea then someone should explain to Robinson that to be successful a parody should be funny.
There were some very good shots in this movie. Natasha Lyonne gave a particularly good performance even if it was a grown-up version of her "American Pie" character. So a lot of good work was totally wasted on something that doesn't work on any level which is very sad.
It appears that Robinson was inspired to totally change his original ending late in the game, but was not inspired enough to rewrite the first half of his screenplay (very lazy). Which means there is a HUGE disconnection between the first and the second halves of the movie. This is not a good thing because in the first half Robinson provides film language elements (signs and syntax) that point in an entirely different direction from the way the film ends up going. This 180 degree change of direction can work if the writer/director plants subtle clues in the first half that only register with the viewer at the end of the film, or when thinking about it the next day. Robinson planted no such clues and did no foreshadowing.
The whole idea of film is to effectively tell a story; bottom line is that writers and directors who do this well are considered talented. Robinson should either learn his craft or find another profession.
As I was watching it I gave it more credit than it deserved. I was waiting for them to reveal that the mother and the robber had just set up the store-owners to teach them a lesson. After a point I had to abandon this idea and began to wonder if it was a parody without any humor. If that's the idea then someone should explain to Robinson that to be successful a parody should be funny.
There were some very good shots in this movie. Natasha Lyonne gave a particularly good performance even if it was a grown-up version of her "American Pie" character. So a lot of good work was totally wasted on something that doesn't work on any level which is very sad.