Amy Heckerling, a once knowing director who could describe the youth of America's feelings in just one word or creatively written scene has shown with Loser that she has lost her touch. She is clearly out of her element, showing what "real life" for students is like. Assuming she would have the same luck that she had in making two successful movies surrounding high school life in California, she figured she would be graced similarly by making a film about turbulent college life in New York. Her conjecture was wrong, to say the least. Parts in it such as interesting cameos appear, which is not characteristic of Heckerling's directing. At other times, obvious traits of hers shine through, like original catch phrases (this movie's phrases failing the pop culture test), showing she still believes she has the luck she previously had. The film is poorly set up. A touching beginning of the movie shows how Biggs' character acts kindly with his family portrays how nice of a person he is. But as the movie progresses, it begins to hurt to watch it, knowing such a decent human being is being kicked around by scum. The antagonists play too large a role in this movie, in both Bigg's central plot and Suvari's side plot of her struggles with her life in general. The film tends to follow the villains more closely than the two main characters, transforming the film into their story, which is now what it should be. The film work on the movie is slow. The action makes the camera move around it, changing angles frequently. Scattered references to using actual cinematography are used in the film, but not often. Many plainly lit interior shots and naturally lit outdoor shots leave the eyes to guess at what is to be looked at. Excited interior shots are over-hyped with party atmosphere lights. Heckerling's luck has (hopefully just momentarily) dried out and needs a refresher in the basics, namely which a story centers around: the protagonist or the antagonist. Quite plainly, "Loser" can be missed.
