... that has confounded IMDb members since the inception of the site.
Namely, why does the IMDb permit a rating of only "1" if they don't intend anyone to ever choose it? The obvious answer is that, they do indeed intend for this rating to be used, but the challenge is to find a film that justifies it.
And with EVERLY I think we finally hit the jackpot.
Start with (what I am assuming to be a FORMERLY) A-List actress and put her in a film that looks like it was written and produced and directed by a bunch of high schoolers who combined their allowances to produce something that would get them an interview with the Admissions Officer at a third rate film school.
Not actually joking here. The bio of the director, as explained on the IMDb, tells us that he currently has more acting credits than directing credits (think about that for a moment) and that he started his career by taping two cameras together so he could make new films by editing other people's already-made films. Think about that too.
As one might expect from this kind of film, it uses every trick known to keep costs down. Like no dialog for the first 10 minutes. No obvious plot. People enter the scenes randomly and either try to kill the star or are killed themselves.
Strange lighting. Fast cuts. Lots of reaction shots (mainly Selma).
In other words, anything to "work around" the usual ingredients of a film. Like a plot, a story, continuity, and other actors with dialog.
A mainstream review I read (just to sure I was actually watching the finished film and not the dailies, or possibly a workprint) said that it is films like this that make us revere the genius of Tarantino.
I have no comment on that. The line speaks for itself.
I wish I could say the same about Everly.
Namely, why does the IMDb permit a rating of only "1" if they don't intend anyone to ever choose it? The obvious answer is that, they do indeed intend for this rating to be used, but the challenge is to find a film that justifies it.
And with EVERLY I think we finally hit the jackpot.
Start with (what I am assuming to be a FORMERLY) A-List actress and put her in a film that looks like it was written and produced and directed by a bunch of high schoolers who combined their allowances to produce something that would get them an interview with the Admissions Officer at a third rate film school.
Not actually joking here. The bio of the director, as explained on the IMDb, tells us that he currently has more acting credits than directing credits (think about that for a moment) and that he started his career by taping two cameras together so he could make new films by editing other people's already-made films. Think about that too.
As one might expect from this kind of film, it uses every trick known to keep costs down. Like no dialog for the first 10 minutes. No obvious plot. People enter the scenes randomly and either try to kill the star or are killed themselves.
Strange lighting. Fast cuts. Lots of reaction shots (mainly Selma).
In other words, anything to "work around" the usual ingredients of a film. Like a plot, a story, continuity, and other actors with dialog.
A mainstream review I read (just to sure I was actually watching the finished film and not the dailies, or possibly a workprint) said that it is films like this that make us revere the genius of Tarantino.
I have no comment on that. The line speaks for itself.
I wish I could say the same about Everly.