Security, Colorado (2001) User Reviews

Yep--that's Security, Colorado all right. Boring as hell.

[curtis-8 · 5/10 · 9 February 2006]

Karen Felber is gorgeous and should do more films. That's the positive.

On the negative side, this flick is otherwise boring as hell. Not even enough interest in what's depicted to rise to the level of depressing. It's really more of a "project" than a movie.

But I used to work in the real Security, Colorado; in fact that's why I taped this flick off of Sundance Channel in the first place. I must say, however, that if there ever was a movie that summed the place up, it's this one. Security, an unincorporated "community" just south of Colorado Springs, was boring, bordering on depressing. It was so much nothing that it's difficult to describe. This film succeeds in that, not with detail about the place itself, but through communicating a mood. A boring mood. But there was at least one hot chick living in Security. So, Boring + One Cute Chick out of Thousands= Security, Colorado--the movie and the place.

In that sense the film is a success.

Maybe too true to life...

[scree · 6/10 · 7 February 2004]

This film is as interesting as it is high-tech. Not necessarily a bad film, but it's rather boring and inconsequential. In fact, perhaps its main problem is it's too true to life, which is sometimes just not what many folks want to spend time watching on screen. Plus the fact that the dialog is simply terrible at times. These factors make it understandable why this film got zero stars in my digital cable guide. Anyway, the fact that the story and acting are pretty natural, and the lead actress is darn cute, save this film. Let's hope we see a lot more of Karen Felber! C+

Inauthentic in a different way

[mechbliss · 5/10 · 11 March 2005]

Dogme 95 and independent film-making in general often seems to stem from a rebellion against the inauthenticity of Hollywood movies. "Security, Colorado" seems to be no exception, but in intention alone. It's inauthentic in a different way, however.

Although the two lead actors are good, their improvisations are not, which could have been remedied perhaps by rehearsal and fleshing out who these characters are and why. Granted, dialogue in real life is not as eloquent as in mainstream films, but it's not always as direction less as in this movie either, especially between lovers and people trying to express themselves to each other.

The improvisation often feels forced as if the actors are trying to further a discussion whose purpose is unclear. It feels more like actors struggling to find lines rather than actors who have fully placed themselves in their characters reacting naturally. There is a difference between actors not knowing what to say to each other and real people not knowing how to talk to each other, and it shows in this film.

The way it's filmed also detracts from any attempt at making a film that feels authentic and realistic. The camera was hand-held, but the shakiness and movement seems to be more than necessary and exaggerated without any reason that serves the film. The automatic focus feature the camera seems to have had did not help either. There were also jump cuts that did not "jump" chronologically but acted as sutures between takes mid-conversation rather than using a long take approach. These seem to be technical deficiencies that did not add anything to the film itself, and they ultimately disrupted any transparency that could have existed.

And as for being a Dogme 95 film, the director blatantly violated the Vow of Chastity by introducing music during the editing process that does not occur where the film does. Usually this is not the case in the film, but it also shows that the intention of those involved in the film-making was not carried out meticulously enough even in making a Dogme film.

Although it seems like a wholly negative review, the film is not entirely without merit. It's still an interesting film, if just for being different, although flawed. We simply don't get enough information to care about any of the characters or their insecurities enough to really be involved in the film. The lead actress, Karen Felber, does save the film with a good performance. But ultimately the film's attempt at showing the complexities of human emotions and relationships falls short and ends up being a meaningless and superficial exploration of those topics and more of a cinematic exercise.

Good, and Dogme 95

[ltracy-1 · 26 February 2004]

I was drawn into this on the Sundance Channel. If you ever watch Sundance, you won't really think this movie weird. It's shot on a consumer DV camera, as are all Dogme 95 movies, but it tells its story of a young woman's identity crisis well.

Karen has graduated college and has a boyfriend of sorts, Paul. But they are not really happy. Well, Paul is happy as a clam, but Karen obviously feels trapped. Not just by Paul, but by her life, and the transition from college to the rest of her life. The movie follows Karen as she gets a job at a record store and separates from Paul and tries to get some idea of what she wants to do with her life. It's a powerful movie with a powerful ending, and I think it more powerful precisely because of the Dogme 95 and Dada elements.

Sundance's premovie description mentioned Dadaism accurately. That, and the Dogme 95 "vow of chastity" made this movie lots of fun to watch. Not only is the camera handheld, which is a Dogme 95 thing, but the handheld work is often just technically poor, which is part of the dadaesque thing, along with a lot of work close in on the faces of the actors that sets out to be as unflattering as possible. In addition, actress Karen Felber has a really haphazard hair cut that does not do her nice features justice. However, Felber is still wonderful to watch. Sure, she's pretty, in that darkeyed petite girl sorta way, but it's in her mannerisms, the way she carries herself, the way her eyes dart about when she is talking.

Yes, it's Art, but...

[sluggo5 · 6/10 · 31 December 2003]

"Security, Colorado" is an official "Dogme 95" film, but that's about all it's got going for it. The purpose of Dogme's rules of "cinematic chastity," as I understand it, is to free filmmakers from the obligations of technological wizardry and thus to enable them to concentrate on the most basic elements of cinema: a good story; strict verisimilitude; good acting. "Security" features some good acting, but that's about it. I was left somewhat confused: there didn't seem to be any reason for the main character's growing dissatisfaction with her life; her behavior seemed capricious and inexplicable. Adhering to the Dogme vows might make your film capital-a Artistic, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good film. "Security" is certainly watchable, but nothing special. Six stars out of ten.

If Only the Camera were Truly Invisible

[pegr619 · 6/10 · 5 July 2005]

The story is not necessarily sad but too true to life. I got the distinct impression I was watching a real couple whose tribulations could only be distorted by the intrusion of a camera.

Karen Felber is truly beautiful. As a guy, the film is worth watching just to see her face. Watching her cry would make any man want to 'fix it' although for poor Paul, that was not to be.

There are a couple of sex scenes, I think. Fully clothed, tight shots, you didn't really know what was supposed to be happening.

Not much of a story--just the boring reality of a young couple not making it work.

Alienation in Security, Colo.

[rick260 · 1/10 · 25 July 2005]

This low-budget film about the attempts of two recent college grads to find happiness is full of painful silences, awkward dialog and trite improvisations as it attempts to be voyeuristic. Somehow Karen and Paul, the two friends, have gotten all the way through college having developed no more interpersonal skills than two nervous 13-year-olds. They have little to say to one another -- leaving the camera with little to do than dwell on the appealing, if alienated female lead character. The hand-held cameras and long, wordless closeups of alternately bored and hopeful Karen give the film a feeling of aimlessness combined with pretension. The film is ultimately unwatchable -- I failed to get through it, although I was tempted to send a letter of sympathy to the mothers of the two emotionally stunted leads.

What is emotional starvation?

[comoc · 9/10 · 8 March 2005]

Andrew Gillis' film is great for its intimate documentation of one person's struggle to understand, find, and discover the love- energy, the river that makes his protagonist feel the "rock'n'roll" of her life.

Everyone's in love with the brilliant and genuine Karen, played by Karen Felber, but who has what she needs? The means for a life of emotional energy, la vida. In time Karen finds that her own emotional depth, vitality and wealth are not balanced by her beau, Paul, played by Paul Schneider.

Karen's painful walk through frustration and split, search and development are transcendent in the casting of Karen Felber in the leading role. One can have little doubt that the life of this film is made possible by Felber's comprehension and delivery.

The things we say, struggling to grasp ourselves and our spiritual lives can be live or morbid, laughing or tearful, or just sobbing.

The emotional life that Karen needs may be perceived but not met by Paul. Does he not have the capacity or the understanding? spirit or words? gravity? or the will to accept and give freely and openly? Karen and Paul break-up and then come together in the emotional energy she needs. until she wakes to wonder if, to know that it's not the thing she needs to live.

She searches her world, looking for something, perhaps she's not sure what. She knows what she feels, and is certain in it.

I think...

[StrangeCyn · 1/10 · 30 March 2005]

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is SO bad, that I was actually motivated to log on and write my first IMDb comment. This movie is one of those rarities: everything about it is bad. Poor writing, poor directing, poor videography, and verrrrry poor acting. It is showing right now, and I watched for a full 20 minutes, before I started to wonder why I was punishing myself to keep watching. I highly suspect that this film's rating is so high (6.2 prior to me submitting my vote of "1") because cast, crew, etc., probably voted on it. No sane and self-respecting film lover would rate this steaming pile any higher than a 1.

Dogme <> amateurishness

[laughograms · 1/10 · 5 July 2005]

Trite, pretentious and banal, this attempt at Dogme-style film-making is so amateurishly directed, shot, acted and especially edited I am astounded it ranks a 6 on the IMDb scale. The director shows no understanding of even the most basic cinematic techniques and a complete inability to communicate human behavior and emotion because of his shot selection, clumsy jump-cutting (motivated, I'm guessing, by the need to cut around lousy improvisation -- there seems to be no other motivation in terms of story or character) and horrid videography. The performances are broad or otherwise miss the mark, particularly that of Paul Schneider, who seems to be making a career out of playing mumbling/stammering dimwits like the Paul character here. The improvisations especially repulse, often comprised of stammered, meaningless half-sentences, and the conclusion is contrived and meaningless. Here's a clue: making a Dogme film does not mean jettisoning all competency or basic storytelling ability. Really bad -- how this ponderous drivel got on the Sundance is beyond me.

Weird movie shot with a VHS camera

[DJAkin · 8 February 2004]

But this movie was still ok to watch. It BIG TIME appears to be a DOCUMENTARY at first, until you realize that the camera operator is in the face of the main female actress the ENTIRE TIME. There is no way she would act all crazy if this were a documentary. The best part was when the main actress kept shoplifting CD's from her own store!!

A Great Yawn and Waste of Film

[gravedigger-1 · 14 November 2005]

Security, Colorado: Attractive young women in boy hair cut drifts and droops from one scene to the next with nothing on her mind, staring off into space. Why would a person subject herself to this type of idleness in existence? Why did she move there? Was this all about the dullard she chose as her partner? One never senses that they were in-love nor even in-like. Single camera shot after single camera shot after single camera shot of in-your-face bored expressions, no direction. If it weren't for her cds (the only time Karen seems to be able to make a decision) poor Karen would have done herself in a long time ago. I especially disliked the "boyfriend's" up-close, feigned affection and scratch-and-sniff sensitivity.

Guerilla film-making at its worst

[drunewp · 20 October 2004]

You've got to respect when a fellow filmmaker goes out and completes a project. It takes commitment, skill, and imagination.

However, it also takes the ability to FOCUS! This director is extremely lucky to have his leading actress, because without her it would have no endearing quality to it whatsoever. Looks like it was shot on a consumer digital video camera that was left on auto functions the entire time. It's passionate at times, but the complete lack of technical ability almost always takes away from this. It's even got those sloppy audio cuts! Leading actress is great though. She's sexy without being lusty, and again, she's about the only thing worth watching in this train wreck.