Star-Crossed (2003)
1/10
Did anyone else think this movie was bad?
27 January 2006
It's absolutely hysterical...how people think this movie is actually funny. What a complete waste of time. I almost fell asleep while watching this movie due to the lack of a meaningful plot. There's better writing in an Ed Wood film.

Brett Bower is definitely not a legitimate leading man. His performance is stilted and completely lacking in any worthwhile emotional content.

The usage of the 8mm camcorder was evident in the poor video quality. The director tried to justify this video quality by saying the slower shutter speed gave it a "filmish" look. When in actuality it added nothing to the overall look.

The lighting in this film was amateurish, but was easily overshadowed by the elementary style of the cinematography. The shots were basic and boring. If he wants to be a filmmaker he should try doing something different instead of doing something that any idiot with a camera could do.

Anyone who would rate this in the same category of great independent films like Requiem for a Dream and Pulp Fiction are not credible critics.

Although at first look this film seems to be a solid effort in independent film-making, there is a lot of room for improvement. Brett Bower has an extremely long way to go before he could be considered on a level with industry professionals.
11 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed