The 1980's shot-on-video boom produced some nearly unwatchable movies. Some VHS enthusiasts may have nostalgia for these homemade productions, but I do not. Nonetheless, since I watched Straight to VHS, a documentary about Act of Violence in a Young Journalist, I was curious to watch the movie that had spawned the documentary. The film is not a good one, but it is slightly more interesting than many of its shot-on-video peers.
First, Act of Violence in a Young Journalist is a psychological thriller. It is not, as was the usual, a horror movie. This was surprising. The plot follows a youngish reporter Blanca (Blanca Gimenez) in Uruguay as she researches violence in society. Blanca interviews soccer players, members of the transportation department, and executives). I have no idea if these interviews are for real or if those being interviewed are just actors. My guess is that they are probably legit. Regardless of authenticity, these interviews seem to go on and on. I get the feeling that the film's director (Manuel Lamas) was far more interested in all of this than any potential viewer would be. In addition to the interviews, the film follows the journalist as she becomes involved with a man who has left Uruguay to live internationally. The couple bicker a lot about various points, including whether one should leave their homeland. Both characters are highly opinionated, and the back and forth can become tiresome.
A viewer might be thinking okay, a documentary and a romantic drama, but when do we get to the thriller elements? In the film's last third, the crazy son of one of the reporter's friends begins stalking the reporter. There are a few killings and a climax that borrows from the ending of Friday the 13th: Part 2 (minus the gore). Then, the film ends, leaving the viewer unsure of what kind of film he or she just watched.
Is Act of Violence in a Young Journalist worth watching? I don't think so. It feels way overlong at 108 minutes. However, director Manuel Lamas is trying to make a "real" film. He does not have the means or the experience to pull it off, but he is clearly trying. Because of that, I can't bring myself to bash the film too harshly, although it is still a bad, often dull, movie.
First, Act of Violence in a Young Journalist is a psychological thriller. It is not, as was the usual, a horror movie. This was surprising. The plot follows a youngish reporter Blanca (Blanca Gimenez) in Uruguay as she researches violence in society. Blanca interviews soccer players, members of the transportation department, and executives). I have no idea if these interviews are for real or if those being interviewed are just actors. My guess is that they are probably legit. Regardless of authenticity, these interviews seem to go on and on. I get the feeling that the film's director (Manuel Lamas) was far more interested in all of this than any potential viewer would be. In addition to the interviews, the film follows the journalist as she becomes involved with a man who has left Uruguay to live internationally. The couple bicker a lot about various points, including whether one should leave their homeland. Both characters are highly opinionated, and the back and forth can become tiresome.
A viewer might be thinking okay, a documentary and a romantic drama, but when do we get to the thriller elements? In the film's last third, the crazy son of one of the reporter's friends begins stalking the reporter. There are a few killings and a climax that borrows from the ending of Friday the 13th: Part 2 (minus the gore). Then, the film ends, leaving the viewer unsure of what kind of film he or she just watched.
Is Act of Violence in a Young Journalist worth watching? I don't think so. It feels way overlong at 108 minutes. However, director Manuel Lamas is trying to make a "real" film. He does not have the means or the experience to pull it off, but he is clearly trying. Because of that, I can't bring myself to bash the film too harshly, although it is still a bad, often dull, movie.
