I submitted an unfair review of this film about a week ago to IMDb. The movie's director, Aaron Howland, actually contacted me about it. I made some allegations about "false voting" because the movie's rating was about 9.0/10 (or something in that region) and featured two 10-star reviews by authors who hadn't been active on the site since submitting their comments. I said some things I shouldn't have and was corrected by Mr. Howland. It turns out that the reason the movie had so many positive votes is because people who are part of their e-mail list were notified of the movie's entry on IMDb and, as a result, came here and voted for the film as fans would typically do. And it turns out that - to the best of my knowledge - Mr. Mann didn't do much vote boosting here either. Anyway, I appreciated Mr. Howland's comments and decided to give this film another chance. I still have some reservations about it, but this time when watching it I guess I didn't have as much of a prejudice against it from the start and wasn't as hard on it. It's a low-budget independent flick so it would be stupid to criticize it on the level of a mainstream production. Its humor, as I said in my original review, is a bit basic in some portions, but that may appeal to others more so than myself - and I'll admit it was funnier the second time around.
My one complaint I still hold is that the gag reel at the end probably goes on a bit too long. Usually I enjoy a gag reel during credits of movies like "Rush Hour," but sometimes - such as the ten minute + gag reel at the end of "The Master of Disguise" - they just go on too long...especially if the movie is short to begin with. I understand that Mr. Howland probably had a good portion of material he thought was funny - outtakes from the production - but this may not appeal as much to people who were not involved with the production of the film. Of course, I could be wrong and someone else may find it completely hilarious. I suppose humor is really in the eye of the beholder...or something like that.
The acting isn't bad considering its roots as a non-mainstream picture with a mostly unrecognizable cast. There are some clever jokes - more so in the middle than the beginning or end.
I can't find it in myself to lie and say I thought this was very good - I think some jokes fall a bit flat and the general structure is a bit sloppy at times - but then again I am going to be harder on movies because I've been criticizing them on this site for a few years now.
What I appreciate is the cast and crew's apparent enthusiasm for film-making, and as an occasional filmmaker myself who has made a few short features and a documentary film I know how hard it can be to work with limited equipment and supplies.
All considered, I'd give this a slight recommendation for people who are tolerable of independent features. I see some potential and wish Mr. Howland the best of success in the future, because I think if he takes the better aspects of this movie and makes another, using them to his advantage, the result would probably be a bit more consistent.
My one complaint I still hold is that the gag reel at the end probably goes on a bit too long. Usually I enjoy a gag reel during credits of movies like "Rush Hour," but sometimes - such as the ten minute + gag reel at the end of "The Master of Disguise" - they just go on too long...especially if the movie is short to begin with. I understand that Mr. Howland probably had a good portion of material he thought was funny - outtakes from the production - but this may not appeal as much to people who were not involved with the production of the film. Of course, I could be wrong and someone else may find it completely hilarious. I suppose humor is really in the eye of the beholder...or something like that.
The acting isn't bad considering its roots as a non-mainstream picture with a mostly unrecognizable cast. There are some clever jokes - more so in the middle than the beginning or end.
I can't find it in myself to lie and say I thought this was very good - I think some jokes fall a bit flat and the general structure is a bit sloppy at times - but then again I am going to be harder on movies because I've been criticizing them on this site for a few years now.
What I appreciate is the cast and crew's apparent enthusiasm for film-making, and as an occasional filmmaker myself who has made a few short features and a documentary film I know how hard it can be to work with limited equipment and supplies.
All considered, I'd give this a slight recommendation for people who are tolerable of independent features. I see some potential and wish Mr. Howland the best of success in the future, because I think if he takes the better aspects of this movie and makes another, using them to his advantage, the result would probably be a bit more consistent.