RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
On the Lam
Premiering this Saturday at 4:00pm
$5 tickets
Hello! I am here today to tell you about a very special movie. The name of this very special movie is On the Lam, and I am excited to be talking about a movie of this caliber of specialness.
There are two very good reasons that this movie is special. Well, three, if you count the third reason.
The first is that it was made in Columbus, by local Columbus filmmakers!
The second is that it’s a movie that everyone reading this should see!
And the third is that the director of the movie actually approached me personally about reviewing his movie!
Now, I know what you’re thinking. I am, indeed, a person who lists “being the most dick (1984-Present)” on his CV. I am the man who made fun of the Bourbon Street Cafe’s bouncer for being on crutches, I am the man who spent two weeks and $185 to make a young Chinese woman cry, and I am the man who photoshopped Peter Jackson to make it look like he was smoking a bong with the word “trenchcoat” written on the side. So why would any director in his right mind come to me for a review?
The answer, folks, is that the filmmakers are desperate. Not for your money, or your love, but simply for you to see what they have wrought.
They have spent almost three years working on this movie, on a nonexistant budget. Their supposed reason for making the movie dried up years ago. Their wives have left them (I presume), and their girlfriends have cheated on them to such an extent that they’re now seen as permanent fixtures in Victorian’s Midnight Cafe (again, I’m just guessing here). Their friends and relations have all left this planet having evolved beyond their corporeal forms, to colonize the cosmos with their utopian societies.
And yet these brave filmmakers continued to work on the movie, because it is a labor of love. Mothers out there, these fine people have gone through three years of labor.
And now, after three years, the movie that they worked so hard to finish is finally making its big-screen debut at the much-loved Studio 35. This Saturday, at 4 PM, their first-ever movie will be playing in an honest-to-God theatre.
And all they ask of you is that you come and share in their celebration.
Could they ask for any less?
Now that’s dedication. Should there be a crash mat there? Pillow? Something?
They only ask two hours of your time, and five of your American dollars, after they gave so much of theirs.
What, you’re still not convinced?? You people are savages! Philistines! Parasites, tearing down the very fabric of Columbus’ independent art scene to your preferred level of “the kind of stuff that hangs on the wall at Applebee’s.”
Well, fine then. Fortunately for you, writer/director/producer/editor Corey Aumiller thought of this, and asked me if I would consider whipping you fools until you took your medicine–whether you want to or not!
Of course I will, Corey. Of course I will.
INTRO II
But of course, I’m not going to just lie down and give a movie a good review because it’s local, or the director stroked my ego. Ho ho! No sir.
I will, however, consider giving the movie a slightly better review given mitigating circumstances. Like, for example, if the director knows my real name and address and what my car kind of looks like. Which he does.
Shockingly enough, though, I still have some kind of integrity. I came to this movie with the same doubtful and irresponsibly jaded eye that I bring to everything I review. I mean, come on. It has a $7,000 budget, and started out as a student film. I figured I was going to have to savage it at least a little. I was honestly afraid that I’d have to turn it off, and tell Corey I had the “DVD flu” (which directors always seem to fall for, oddly enough).
And, yeah, the movie is a little rough in the areas that I expected. But about halfway through, I noticed that I didn’t care. The story had engaged me, the locations were pretty and fitting, the dialogue sensible, and the charactors strong enough to carry the actors’ sometimes-fumbling delivery.
Caption: Ahhh, yes… the old “microphone taped to a skipole to create a boom.”
Here is the most important thing you should take away from this section:
I would not, in good conscience, advocate a film that I thought was awful. If I didn’t think this movie was worth your $5 and two hours on a Saturday afternoon, I wouldn’t have even posted this. I’ve sat on reviews before–started them, got stopped by my conscience, tried to pull an end-run on my conscience by getting fabulously drunk, and finally given up. Walker also falls for the “DVD flu” lie, by the way.
So please read this review keeping in mind that every bit of praise, every criticism, is true to my eyes. I’m not holding anything back, I’m not adding anything in.
This movie is worth your $5, it is worth your two hours this Saturday, and it is worth my writing about at 12:45am 14 hours past my deadline.
With no further ado, here comes the breakdown.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
The cinematography of this movie surprised and delighted me. Student films and first-ever films tend to fall into one of two categories; One, they plant the camera on a tripod, or a table in the corner, and have the actors walk in and out of frame. This can be exceedingly boring–especially since it often indicates that the actors are unable to hit their marks.
The other likelihood is that the director tries to cram in every single “fancy” shot they’ve ever seen. Underwater shots, day-as-night shots, tying the camera to a rope and whipping it around like a lariat over one’s head–whatever. They’re all in there, frequently crammed in as fast as possible. Instead of supporting the storyline with the frame of vision, the camerawork tries to steal the show, and leaves the rest of the movie to crumble like an over-moist cake.
On the Lam doesn’t do either of those things. Sure, there are one or two trick shots. One or two moments of “the director is probably really proud of how this blocking worked out.” And yeah, that’s a little bit distracting. But it tones down as the movie goes on, and turns from a student film into an actual feature. And to be honest with you, I was impressed with the technical skill, whether it was showing off or not.
The locations were also well-chosen. In almost every scene, there was a wonderful opportunity for a beautiful picture to be created. And every time, that opportunity was taken to full advantage. The expansiveness of the American Southwest, the grit of an Urban core (or as urban as Columbus can look), the brown and grey shambles of small-town America. They’re all captured in scenes with shots that define the moment, the set, and the reactions of the characters to their surroundings.
I had a paragraph here talking about how wonderful the colors are, and then I realized that I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. But take it from me. The visuals in this film are basically flawless.
STORY
The movie is about the homeland consequences of extending our reach in the middle east. It takes place in an alternate 2006, where Iran’s failure to cooperate with the IAEA has led to re-deployment of American troops within Iranian borders. Because of heavy casualties, the draft is re-instated for the first time since 1973. The protagonists are two young men who find themselves in danger of being drafted into a war that is unpopular with their peers, and which goes against their ethical and pragmatic values.
So you’d naturally expect this to be a political film.
But it’s not.
Not really, anyway. The movie is a look at several people in roughly the same socioeconomic spectrum (white, lower middle class) and how their lives are changed by the fictional War in Iran, and by the newly-reinstated draft.
During the first act, a variety of characters parade before the protagonists, explaining their views on the proper way to react to being told that you may have to get killed for a war you don’t believe in. There are those who go willingly, those who go unwillingly, and those who can’t go at all, but would if they could.
For the two protagonists, the only option they can see is to flee. Not just from the threat of military service, but from their entire lives. Parents, friends, and loved ones, they decide, must all be cut off and the wound cauterized. However, the memories of these loved ones haunt the remaining scenes in the film, as we are led to believe they haunt the protagonists’ thoughts every day.
Because of the tightened security at the Canadian and Mexican borders, the protagonists decide to flee to the American southwest, living freely in the belly of the beast they are trying to outwit. Cell phones are ditched, supplies are purchased, a rough plan is drawn up.
But our protagonists are not survival experts–they’re simply two young men trying to escape an unstoppable crushing machine. And here, the writers managed to dodge a very important bullet, immediately taking the difficult path rather than the obvious one. By making their characters’ plan inherently flawed, they sidestep the romantic cliches that would normally overpower a movie with that premise. This places the over-discussed politics in the background, and allows the story to focus on the characters, who are rather interesting and well-formed.
Sadly, the narrative tends to stumble around through acts I and II, introducing characters then banishing them from the screen, forcing characters to express their feelings explicitly in wholly unlikely dialogue, and relying on the overused “they met at McGuffin’s party” method of introducing the main characters to each other.
Caption: Eric’s brother: never seen or heard from again after this scene.
But. Act III cleaned and streamlined the plot significantly, despite (or perhaps because of) a perceived slowing of pace and relaxation of dialogue. Act IV really drove it home in a convincing way, tying up most of the disparate threads and providing a logical destiny for both of the main characters.
Overall, the plot was acceptable for what it was, namely an exploration of two characters in hard circumstances of their own making. The writers rarely resorted to simple plot ploints, and the evolution of the characters was less of a linear progression and more of a natural growth.
By the end of the movie, I found myself satisfied with the story and its method of exposition, despite my earlier discomfort.
ACTING
Unfortunately, acting was one of the least-best parts of the movie. As is mentioned on the website, the original shooting location for the movie became unavailable, which caused the original actors to become unavailable, resulting in two non-actors being tapped to fill the crucial lead roles.
Honestly, you can probably stop reading this section right now. It hardly seems fair to judge a movie based on its acting, when the casting was a result of force majeure.
But it’s interesting, because the replacement actors led to a strange problem, perhaps unique to student films where the budget, timeframe, and networking ability are so low that there is no chance of organized casting. In one scene, a man (Eric) goes to consult his mutually-estranged brother. They exchange a few barbs, including one that indicates they have the same parents. However, the two look almost nothing alike. Although the words coming out of their mouths technically made their relationship clear, I found myself unintentionally wondering what their true relationship was.
Caption: Eric’s brother, with his
frienddebtorstudentbrother Eric.A minor issue with a minor character, but little things can sometimes keep you from becoming absorbed in the fiction.
In fact, I’ll give it to you straight. During the first few scenes, you may not be able to get into the movie because the acting distracts you so. Instead of enjoying the music or the dialogue, you will be having an internal dispute over how important acting is in a movie of limited means, whether or not you’ve ever been a part of such a stilted conversation, and you will feel that scenes are torpedoed by one or two forced lines.
But by the time the boys were being soaked up by the desert, at about the 1/3 mark, I suddenly realized that I was no longer being distracted. I was interested in the movie for the movie, and the characters for the characters.
It was almost as though the actors needed a few scenes to get used to “themselves.” Fortunately, by the time they’re warmed up, the plot is hitting its stride as well.
The acting, as I mentioned, is the roughest part of the movie. But I was able to stick it out, and finally gave it a free pass. I’ve certainly seen better acting, but I’ve just as certainly seen worse. Patience is the key here.
POST-PRODUCTION
This was the other area of the movie that I was consistently impressed by, and sadly the one that I can expound upon the least.
Although it is easy to float a well-acted movie with poor editing, it is much harder to do the opposite. In this case, the editing was flawless. And not just flawless like that “lightly used” coffee table I just sold on Craigslist, but so good that it silently increases the quality of the rest of the film.
There are also minor doo-dads like soundtracking and titling which add a nice polish to the whole affair.
Everything, in fact, is so tight that it’s easy to forget you’re watching what is basically an extended student film.
FINAL THOUGHTS
As you can see, the movie is clearly a mixed bag. But it’s a mix of raisins and nuts. Disappointing if you’re expecting candy, but otherwise wholesome and reasonably tasty.
I couldn’t honestly expect much more from a first-ever feature from untested, just-barely-not-student-any-longer filmmakers. However, I’m not using the film to describe the placement of judging metric! I don’t mean to say that this movie exemplifies how poor any filmmaker’s first feature will be! Rather, this movie shows how good a movie with such questionable origins, and negligible financial support, can truly be.
The amount of care and love put into this movie is phenomenal. Even during the scenes where the acting is sub-par, the problems are caused not by lazy actors who don’t care, but by engaged actors who care so much that they’re concerned they’re not doing enough. Thus the story is still brought to life with the energy and vigor it requires, if not the grace.
If the original actors had been able to perform in the film, I suspect I would have been able to call it an unqualified success. But even without the actors, I can still call it an unqualified triumph.
These young filmmakers managed to overcome the natural limitations of working with a medium that has ground up promising careers, entire successful companies and churches, and through force of will have been able to create a pretty good movie.
I reiterate again, that feat is worth $5 and two hours of this coming Saturday afternoon. And sadly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, I don’t think there are any plans for a distributor to release On the Lam to the general public. The premiere this Saturday may well be the sole chance you get to see the movie.
I can only hope that these young filmmakers continue to work the medium. If this movie is any indication, their next projects could be amazing.
For now, you can get in on the ground floor, and help support local arts by going to see this movie. Studio 35, 4pm.
And hey–Studio 35 has a bar. So if you hate the movie, you can always drink until it seems good again.
Cast and crew of On the Lam
————————
By the way–for any of you disappointed that this review didn’t live up to your expectations of “the JimL2 humor-to-content ratio,” please enjoy this video.
Imagine that I am the one with the beard.
You’re welcome.
“caliber of specialness” :D
If you plan on writing future movie reviews, please look over a grammar guide to help with your writing.
If you plan on reviewing any future movie reviews, please change your plans.
Back on topic, please. Concerns with writing technique can be address in PM or EMAIL.
Thanks,
Walker
Damn you JimL2, I cliked on that link 4 times before I realized I’m just retarded. :oops:
Also, just in case you need help arranging your Saturday, you could go see this and still have time to check out the Instant Gallery show at Sherm’s!!
I’d like to simply say I enjoyed the review…
but I also enjoyed Cutthroat Island, so what the hell do I know
jim man check out that phone! hey we’ve totally walked by that phone before! WOOOO I’M ON TV HI INTERNET!!
“And Jim’s heart grew TWO SIZES that day!”
Wow, I might actually go see this. Nice review, Jim.
Good Job!
Makes you worthy of being a member of CU Staff! :)
As always that was a beautiful piece of work. I’m hungry now, when are we gonna eat?