Credits in 2 works
| Credits | Works | Average Rating | Plays/ Downloads |
Date Created |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actor |
DUET Philip's Test Movie (Test Movie 2) |
2.0 stars
(1)
|
31 | 09/28/11 |
| Actor |
DUET Philip's Test Movie (Test Movie 1) |
No rating
|
44 | 08/30/11 |
Anyone?
Because this is definitely new to me. Making low-budget movies isn’t new but they claim to have made it for under a thousand pounds. How? Looking at this, how can anyone justify making a movie for ten thousand pounds?
I’m not saying it’s perfect. Sometimes in outside scenes the sun is shining in one shot and not in the next. In one scene the one actor’s voice is kind of blurry. But look how ambitious it is. One character acts split-screen answering a phone saying relevant lines from Shakespeare – how original is that? And he’s saying it to a photo of himself saying it! And the blood sacrifice scene looks too real, I almost felt they really did that, though I hope they didn’t. Like it really was that guy’s heart, which was a shock because until then I thought it was just actors acting in a fun movie about a movie but that gave me a real heads-up, it was a real moment for me. Strongest moment that made it real not just a comedy, and you saw how it worked because it was real for the characters after that.
The thing is sometimes it was really funny too, like the Directory of Out of Work Actors book the girl producer consults to get actors, but a lot of the humor was the sort you kind of miss the first time – and isn’t this what makes it a good movie, because I did watch it twice and saw things I hadn’t seen the first time.
I don’t know if some people will like it because it’s about losers not winners, which most films are about, but I thought the way that the romance of the movie became real for the actors and they really became, instead of just playing, their characters was great. It was romantic. Anyway, if these guys didn’t start the royal family of Britain a couple of thousand years ago, they should have.