OK...well, I'd have to say that the only previous reviewer of this film has either got to be joking or is an over-educated idiot who's reading WAY too much into this mess. True to its title, "Zero" shows about zero directorial accomplishment or talent for a first feature. Trust me, now that I've seen this, I won't be seeking out the other films by this so-called underground favorite, Fotopoulos.
The film is comprised of 2 hours and 22 minutes (yeah, that's right) of a bad actor doing one of two things: either poorly attempting improvisation, or poorly performing a handful of poorly written scenes, with the same musical clip playing over long montages of a naked woman's breasts, a burnt man's face, and a few other props. Got it? Because, that's the movie. Bad actor fumbles through bad scene (always talking about how he needs a woman while looking at pornography), then cut to 5-10 minutes of film-school-level experimentation, then back to the bad actor for another boring monologue. Back and forth, back and forth.
The cinematography is serviceable at best, with most of it either locked off or hand-held in a typical, first-year, film student sort of way, complete with bumpy pans, focus issues, hair in the gate, and under-exposures. The editing is nonexistent. There's enough material here for a 10 minute short, yet it runs as long as Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining." I still can't believe I made it through the entire thing. By the end I was furious, and not because the films was "provoking me." No, I was mad at myself for wasting most of a Friday night with such a pretentious load of bull. I kept waiting it out, giving the film the benefit of doubt in hopes it would somehow come around and surprise me. Truly, I don't think I could have made it another minute, when suddenly (typically) the film just STOPS. Of course it does! Since there's no storyline, purpose or thought driving anything, how on earth could there be any form of a satisfactory end? Oxymoron.
This is nothing more than an endurance test for people (like me) who take films seriously. "Eraserhead" and "Frownland" come straight to mind as challenging underground films that drive some "crazy." But those films are intelligent, with solid acting and very strong film-making skills apparent (and both are under 2 hours). This film, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. I really see nothing here in terms of any talent or vision on anyone's part.
The film is comprised of 2 hours and 22 minutes (yeah, that's right) of a bad actor doing one of two things: either poorly attempting improvisation, or poorly performing a handful of poorly written scenes, with the same musical clip playing over long montages of a naked woman's breasts, a burnt man's face, and a few other props. Got it? Because, that's the movie. Bad actor fumbles through bad scene (always talking about how he needs a woman while looking at pornography), then cut to 5-10 minutes of film-school-level experimentation, then back to the bad actor for another boring monologue. Back and forth, back and forth.
The cinematography is serviceable at best, with most of it either locked off or hand-held in a typical, first-year, film student sort of way, complete with bumpy pans, focus issues, hair in the gate, and under-exposures. The editing is nonexistent. There's enough material here for a 10 minute short, yet it runs as long as Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining." I still can't believe I made it through the entire thing. By the end I was furious, and not because the films was "provoking me." No, I was mad at myself for wasting most of a Friday night with such a pretentious load of bull. I kept waiting it out, giving the film the benefit of doubt in hopes it would somehow come around and surprise me. Truly, I don't think I could have made it another minute, when suddenly (typically) the film just STOPS. Of course it does! Since there's no storyline, purpose or thought driving anything, how on earth could there be any form of a satisfactory end? Oxymoron.
This is nothing more than an endurance test for people (like me) who take films seriously. "Eraserhead" and "Frownland" come straight to mind as challenging underground films that drive some "crazy." But those films are intelligent, with solid acting and very strong film-making skills apparent (and both are under 2 hours). This film, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. I really see nothing here in terms of any talent or vision on anyone's part.
