john mayfield Well yes, once again we see that seconds do indeed count when editing a film, don't they? And more are definitely not always better. This movie could well be used in film school to illustrate exactly that point. A scene of someone lying on a couch farting and then sniffing could maybe, maybe be amusing for two or three seconds, but add just one or two or (NO!) three or four more beats and the drag factor just multiplies agonizingly. She stands on a meaningless beach, and we must sit and watch her stand on that beach. Over and over again she cries while sitting on a toilet, and there we are stuck in the airless bathroom with her, endlessly and pointlessly observing until we realize that the great thing about the old days of VHS was that the fast forward button was always right there so very close and ready in our grip. One important point I would like to make is that this is NOT a family Christmas movie, despite the title and some reviewers calling it a dark comedy. It involves death and drugs and porn and alcohol abuse and pathetically, childishly, boringly simulated sex. I have the strong suspicion that no one involved in this project has ever had an actual orgasm. And that includes the caterers and the key grips, dammit. And there's even an orgy in the movie! Don't get your hopes up about that, its about as erotic and intimate as an SNL skit, without any musical guest to look forward to. One last point for yall film school kids... dialog is a really, really good thing. And it costs nothing. Most of the conversations in this movie are three or four sentences long and the last one is usually "Me too" or "I know". And then we are left staring at a dining table or a mall or one more too long time at the reliably blank and dazed actress's face. And we certainly know just how she feels. Or rather, doesn't feel. And what oh what is the deal with so many directors feeling the need to show people throwing up? With actual material seen coming out of their mouths? Is there supposed to be something interesting or real or daring about that? Enough! I seem to see it all the time and there is simply not. Three vomits in one movie is prove that the storytellers really had nothing whatsoever better to say. A man does die unexpectedly early in this film, and as time went on I noticed myself experiencing a certain gut response to his quick exit and I just now realized what that feeling actually was... envy. NOBODY has enough time to watch this movie. Quadriplegics don't have that kind of time on their hands.

devolute What you need to know ahead of any spoilers, you can pretty much surmise the "adult nature" of some scenes from the cover of a Christmas tree made out of lines of cocaine. The plot will still surprise you, but you'll have a warning. Also, do not watch this movie with your in-laws and probably not your parents either. It's an independent movie and while the lead actress is great and the camera is close on her face for what seems like most of the movie; she carries it off. Some scenes start with that awkward pause that happens in low budget movies, like the actors are still waiting for their cue. Sets are sparsely decorated and all shot on location in small homes, etc. The pacing and transition could have been better. It seemed to jump from scene to scene and many scenes suffer from a lack of a second camera angle. If all that puts you off, then don't watch this one. If you are looking for some originality in storytelling do watch. Another strong point is the sense of place. I've lived in Northern Virginia and even Crystal City briefly and the movie captures not just the suburban nature, but the specific Southern, East Coast conservative style of the area.**SPOILERS** The lead character prefers dressing in beige, loves to shop, sells real estate, takes comfort in decorating for the holidays, and it would have been so easy to create a stereotype of a naive and uptight person. The shock value of the sex and drugs would have been even greater, but I think that would have been a much more simplistic movie. Instead we don't think of her wild behavior as a reaction to some repressed urges, but as part of whatever her grief process is. Maybe her actions are hard to understand, but not impossible. Also, I wanted more scenes with the news anchor and her husband. They were out way too soon. Overall, the originality of the lead character and the fact that the emotional focus of the story did not get lost in the craziness of the scenes overcomes its lack of production values.

Greg I have given a spoiler alert as a safety measure because just about anything about the story in this movie will be a kind of spoiler.First of all, although this is listed as a comedy, it is not. It is a drama, thoughtful and measured and at times sad, with a few funny moments.At the heart of the movie is Anna Margaret Hollyman as Suzanne Barrington, a woman living a low key but happy life, and whose life is completely turned around by a terrible event a month from Christmas. Hollyman is amazing in this role as she barely reacts to all manner of strange situations and actually delivers a great deal in the process. I thought she was absolutely sensational, and I will definitely be seeking out her other movies.All the cast is good, the story - while maybe a bit improbable - is engrossing and the whole production punches well above it's indie weight.Zack Clark has written and directed a great "little" movie here, and I hope he continues in the same vein. And watch out for Anna Margaret Hollyman, she has massive star potential.

A_Different_Drummer ***Pre-Review Warning: on the off-chance some well-meaning parent looking to entertain their children around X-Mas will, because of the title, stick this in the DVD and then disappear to go shopping, I feel compelled to point out THIS IS NOT THAT KIND OF MOVIE!! ^^^ (... review begins here...) The key to this film may be -- I am not sure -- the "thank yous" at the very end for the "kickstarters". I have seen a lot of films, perhaps more than I care to admit to, but this is unusual. Therefore (and apologies if I got this wrong) it looks to me like the Director/Writer is trying to make the jump from Editor (ie, employee) to Producer (employer) and, to accomplish this enterprise, has taken to heart the old adage, if you can't get $10,000.00 from one person, then get $1 from 10,000 people (or something similar, do the math yourself). So, bottom line, what exactly do we have here? Best I can figure, writer/director Zach Clark has taken upon himself, without any outside help (CLEARLY without outside help) the momentous task of de-constructing X-Mas. The story is about a young wife in her early thirties who is married to the weatherman for the local station. They have a superficially good marriage, adequate sex, she loves him, he has just got a job in Hawaii and her life is about to change. But unfortunately not in the way she expects. Coming home from X-Mas shopping, she finds hubby mysteriously (and graphically) dead from what looks like a robbery gone wrong, and she spends the rest of the film in a downward spiral of self-discovery (and the aforesaid X-Mas deconstruction) as a superimposed-on-screen "___ DAYS BEFORE X-MAS" timer counts down, perhaps as a teaching aid for those who may otherwise be missing the point. (A category which I suspect may include most of the "kickstarter" team). The rest of the story is taken up with the revelation that hubby had a black stripper-mistress, spending money for the sake of feeling better until there is no more; getting to know the Swingers next door; and the revelation that the wife may be pregnant. (If I got any of this wrong, write me, Tweet me, or just think really strong thoughts and I promise to pick them out of the Ether). The direction is promising, surprisingly, and with a better script and actors, might have actually resulted in a better movie. However since the Director is also the Writer, he will no doubt have to have a long talk with himself about that. The acting - well, er, except for Anna Margaret Hollyman, who comes across as genuinely fresh and interesting (and could in the Real World have carried a film similar to this entirely on her own) the rest of the cast seems to be volunteers or extras or (is this even legal?) extra-volunteers who may possibly have paid or "kickstarted" for the privilege of being in the film. Or so it seems. **Factoid: within 2 hrs of posting this review, 5 people coincidentally flagged it as "not useful," which is more people than there are actual leads in the film. X-Files anyone?**