 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
AMPHETAMINE
Written, Directed, and Edited by Chris Grega
Director of Photography - Michael LowhornRay - Stephen J. Heffernan
Jarrod - Travis Estes
Kate - Julie Layton
Key - Derek Simmons
Mitch - Joshua BywaterWriter-Director Chris Greega is probably best known to the world of micro-budget cinema for his work as an actor in numerous Wicked Pixel productions, most notably THE UNDERTOW and INSINIAC. He makes his feature-length writing and directing debut with AMPHETAMINE, a crime drama set in the St. Louis underworld. And it's the natural flow of the dialogue in AMPHETAMINE's natural performances that earns it's the 2004 B-Independent.com Underground Film of the Year award.
In the past I've chosen films that exemplified a blend of entertainment value with a strong sense of personal vision. In recent years, keeping my attention has been an SOV director's hardest job, and the irony is that solid production values are becoming easier to afford. And when you factor in that a solid script is the cheapest of all production elements, a bad movie is almost inexcusable. Most of the releases sent and viewed couldn't even stir the desire to write a negative review. That being said, during the course of 2004, I viewed AMPHETAMINE no less than three times.
It's the lack of quality films that inspired my departure from reviewing in 2004. While I personally only screened 60 titles in 2004, at the most only 20 reviews were written by me. The pure amount of recycled dreck festering in the world of no-budget ultra-independent cinema astounds me. Over the years I've had countless discussions with other reviewers regarding the state of shot-on-video cinema. Most critics are convinced it's the flood of titles that in no way reflect the ambition of the filmmakers to produce a quality film that have turned even the most endearingly optimist reviewers into jaded cynics like myself.
My words aren't meant to discourage or condemn any moviemakers out there, but to ask them to seek out productions like AMPHETAMINE, THE HITT-MAKER, or BREAKFAST WITH THE COLONEL. I'm hoping that future filmmakers will learn from these small movies that just because a movie is low on budget doesn't mean it can't be big on heart of vision. If you want to make a good movie then you have to put forth the effort.
The being said, AMPHETAMINE might not be the most thought-compelling or personal underground movie I've seen all year, but it's the one I liked the most. In one of his recent "The Great Films" columns, Roget Ebert suggest that when a film becomes so entrenched in our society that we compare other films to it, such as Groundhog Day or Die Hard, then the movie becomes great over time. During the past year I've screened more personal movies than AMPHETAMINE, like Tim Ritter's religious drama RECONCILED and Jason Torrey's GOD IS ALONE, but I haven't loaned them out, suggested them, or compared as many movies to them as I have AMPHETAMINE. By comparison, AMPHETAMINE is as great an underground effort as anything else that won this award in years prior.
So now that I've waxed the hyperbole majestic, you might be wondering what the movie is about. At least I hope you are. Think Taratino stuck in the ghetto of St. Louis.
"4 loose friends decide to double cross their gangster boss" isn't an original logline for a movie, but original has been done. A director needs to make his film fun or fresh, and that's what Grega does. His characters resonate three-dimensionally and it's their interaction that keeps viewers interested. He blends melodrama with neo-noir and sugar coats the mixture with pitch black humor.
Grega also knows the importance of a great character introduction. Not only must an introduction relate all the audience needs to know about a character, but it should also serve the plot. Consider a scene involving 2 of the 4 disposing of a corpse. About to chainsaw the deadman, one of the pair asks the other if he truly likes his job. Without hearing the answer, the audience already knows the response, whether it's spoken truthfully by the onscreen presence or not. Watching the two men carry the body from their car to the basement where they don their medical gear, the audience learns everything they need to know about these men. They're flunkies doing the grunt work, and it's a job they've had for so long that they're numb to the immorality and repulsiveness of it. It goes without saying that they hate their work, nobody likes being on the bottom. If they liked their work then the question would never have been a point of discussion. And finally, the audience knows from this point forward why every character makes all their future choices - they're seizing whatever opportunities they can before it's too late.
The choices each character makes isn't always beneficial, or even typical of their respective archetypes: the lonely muscle, the loyal friend, the dreamer, and the hanger-on, but they are true to the characters at that particular moment in time. When one characters is confronted with his feelings for another, he knows that any action on his part could ruin the upcoming job, but he was never keen on The Job in the first place. When the final double cross occurs, it should come as no surprise. All the clues are present, viewers just have to remember that sometimes choice isn't a matter of free will. I was just as manipulated as our heroes and should have seen the end coming, but I didn't. All the clues were too subtle. Maybe that's why I like AMPHETAMINE as much as I do, it's got me...hook, line, and sinker.
At the risk of sounded ham-handed, I hope it gets you too. It's a deserving addition to the films that bare the title B-INDEPENDENT.COM'S UNDERGROUND FILM OF THE YEAR.