By Admin | February 2, 2007

I can usually tell within ten minutes of a film whether I’ll like it or not, but since I’ve been reviewing short films, it takes about five, but with films about seven minutes, well, that’s a whole other story altogether.

I’m gentle on short films, basically because there are many times zero budgets, an inexperienced cast, and not much room to spread your self among the artistic platter. But with “Inverses” I found myself at a crossroads. The one part of me wanted to take into consideration the former that I explained, and the other part of me was trying to figure out the plot. Because I’ll admit, I’m not sure what the plot was, and when I was done, I couldn’t even remember my name.

From what I gathered, there’s this woman who lost her daughter, and she’s talking to a therapist, and she’s being ravaged by ghosts who want something with her. I was never sure, but George’s hasty dizzying direction never piles up to a compelling coherent story. I was never sure what the main character’s story was, I was confused as to the relationship with her daughter, and the drawn out scenes with the cooking, and I had no idea what the ghosts sought out to do.

Were they attempting to make her insane? Or corrupt the memory of her daughter? Or seek out to kidnap and or destroy the soul of her daughter? Or were they allegories of evil in the world where this woman lived a pure life with her daughter? Nothing is ever explained, and much is left up to assumptions. “Inverses” has no concept of coherency, and neither did I when I was finished.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Join our Film Threat Newsletter

Newsletter Icon