MBunge When this thing finished, I was a bit flabbergasted. I had to go an look at the "making of" featurette on the DVD to try and make sense of what I just saw. During it, they spent more time talking about the soundtrack than they did about the story. They spent more time talking about the set design than they did about the story. They spent more time talking about the camera they used to shoot Juncture than they did the story. And that helped me to understand this movie. A lot of reasonably talented filmmakers and performers made a great deal of effort, but all their work was undermined by a horribly conceived and terribly executed script.Anna Carter (Kristine Blackport) is a pretty young woman who runs the multi-million dollar charity of business tycoon Jonathan Lamont (John Hutton). Anna has a beautiful home, a best friend named Chloe (Elizabeth Rose) who works as a legal secretary in the district attorney's office and flies around the country in a private jet for meetings related to the work of the Lamont Foundation. She also has a brain tumor and takes time out on her business trips to murder people she feels haven't been punished for their sins.Let me stop right here and ask a question. Based on what I've described, what is the most important and interesting question you have about the character of Anna Carter? Isn't it, why did she decide to start killing people? And maybe some secondary questions also leap to mind, like how does she decide who to kill or how does she actually kill them? Those sorts of things are the most important things to know about this woman, right? The answers to those kind of questions will more clearly and more powerfully define Anna's character than anything else, won't they?Well, those questions are never answered in Juncture. Those questions are never even asked. We join Anna already well into her deadly spree with how and why she got to that point left almost totally unexplored. I say almost, because there's a point toward the end when Anna explains herself to her newly acquired boyfriend (Bill LeVasseur). Just as she starts, though, the dialog is muted and the soundtrack rises up so we can only see Anna talking and can't hear anything she says. That either shows off an astounding lack of awareness, or that director James Seale knew he was leaving out the most significant part of his story, did it for a particular reason and filmed Anna's explanation that way to thumb his nose at anyone in the audience who didn't understand why he left it out. Well, I don't understand it. I know I'm not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but I think Seale's the one who doesn't know what the heck's he was doing.In addition to leaving out the best part, this film is riddled with other bad writing. There are too many characters. Anna's boyfriend is almost totally superfluous. He's only necessary so the movie can have a sex scene and to introduce another character who turns out to be vital at the end. Of course, the character that's vital for the end doesn't get introduced until Juncture is almost two-thirds over. I mean, come on! That's basic stuff. If something is going to be important for the conclusion of your tale, you establish it at the beginning. You don't chuck it into the mix when the film's more than halfway over. The dialog is also utterly unexceptional and the whole thing ends on a cliffhanger that leaves Anna's internal and external conflicts unresolved. It's like this is a long, boring prologue and the real movie should start just as the closing credits role.All of which is a shame, because this is a very nice looking motion picture. It's not all that flashy, but it covers an amazing number of locations for an indy flick and there's a real breadth and depth to a lot of the imagery. The cast also do fine work, though they're often dragged down by sketchily drawn roles and badly thought out scenarios.There's also an oddly dated quality to some of Juncture. A dinner party monologue by Anna sounds like a deleted scene from a 1970s vigilante movie. Anna also has files on all of her targets. However, they're not computer files. She has manila folders full of sheets of paper and newspaper clippings, like they came straight out of the office a private investigator from the year 1982.The people behind Juncture look like they could make a pretty good film. This is a fairly bad one, but there's enough evident talent to give you some hope for the future. As long as that future isn't an interminable sequel to this movie.

refdan A lot is said these days about the so-called "independent films" and film makers. These are the guys and gals who look forlorn and studious and take their "art" very seriously. Some of us consider anything not made by MGM to be not serious film.This film is a case in point. What separates the mediocre movie from the memorable one is ACTING. Great actors, be they from Hollywood or Hoboken, captivate you and bring you into the world they inhabit on screen. Some independent films have great acting, as do many Hollywood mainstream features. This particular film does not.The lead actress, Kristine Blackport, was simply annoying. Her "little girl" voice and expressionless delivery was inadequate and did not suit the character she plays. Her supporting actors were equally wooden, particularly the earnest,caring boyfriend/psychiatrist and the naive and sugar-sweet best girlfriend.The plot was well worn-the wronged female goes on a revenge spree with her 9mm semi-automatic handgun. All of this carefully planned out without missing a beat at her job. Oh, and she must make sure that the "bad guys" don't leave the earthly realm without knowing why. She makes sure that they hear her case against them with appropriate sneers and tears.A new wrinkle: the killer/protagonist has an inoperable brain tumor and has 3-4 months to live. This, of course, makes everything all right. She's now a murderer for whom we MUST feel sympathy.Unless you're really into revenge/vigilante flicks, I would give this one a pass. How many ways can you do the revenge plot and still keep it interesting and thought provoking?

john_twigger-1 It's a pretty simple plot that doesn't require much attention to follow but nevertheless makes for a reasonable background film. I definitely would have been disappointed to see this in a cinema, but as a DVD movie it was passable. The filming is pretty good while the acting is only so-so. The lead role actress was particularly uninspiring in her delivery.There were a few goofs, e.g.: SPOILER: where the lead lady gets whacked a few times with an iron poker across the back hard enough to leave severe bruising, but within seconds recovers enough to leap across the room. END SPOILER. Silly little things like that spoil what would otherwise have been an OK film, but as I said it's an acceptable film to have on in the background while chatting with a few friends.

film_fan10 Beautifully shot, well performed film. Definitely worth watching.I saw this movie at the Mill Valley Film Festival. I had no idea what to expect but I was pleasantly surprised. The lead character, upon learning of her terminal diagnosis, systematically kills people who she thinks are "monsters": child molesters and the like. The story follows her deteriorating health and mental state as she tries to complete her kills before her time runs out. There were a couple of really great surprises and I loved the ending.The filmmakers were at the screening and they took questions from the audience. Despite its large commercial feel, this is a truly independent movie (you wouldn't believe the budget if I told you) and it has a great message: What would you do if you only had three months to live?