Memory Lane, 2011.
Directed by Shawn Holmes.
Starring Michael Guy Allen and Meg Barrick.
SYNOPSIS:
When Nick (Allen) finds his fiancé dead, he routinely travels to the afterworld in order to find out who murdered her. He does this by stopping and starting his heart over and over again.
Okay, let’s get this out of the way so we can get to the stuff people don’t mention when they talk about this movie. Yes, it was made for $300. Yeah, I know, quite low for a film, ain’t it? It’s a little galling when the equipment you’re using to write the review cost more than the movie, but there you go. And yes, it isn’t technically brilliant by any stretch of the imagination. BUT, considering it was made for next to nothing, it’s amazing it looks as good as it does. But, we need to talk about the more important things than a budget that doesn’t stretch to a string for the shoe.
I’ll get the gushing over now as well. This movie is an example of why storytelling is more important than flash style. Most of the time the story just won’t let go of your attention. It was made by a ragtag group with things that were available to them there and then, but there’s easily enough love and care to balance out any shoddiness.
Okay, gushing over.
So, Nick Boxer (Allen) is a guy who meets a mysterious and beautiful woman Kayla M (Barrick). She dies in a bathtub, so Nick decides to kill himself over and over again with the help of his mates so he can go back in time and figure out who murdered her. I had to type that out again so I could try and figure out if we’ve seen a concept like it before (I’d read the synopsis again, but y’know… all that scrolling up and re-reading? I’m a busy guy).
That’s where the strength of this movie lies. The ideas and the way the narrative’s presented are reminiscent of a certain Christopher Nolan. Sometimes the style of direction and editing is a bit too reminiscent, but hopefully Shawn Holmes will soon move out from emulating great directors and become a fully-fledged one in his own right. The atmosphere and sense of dread and excitement as Nick commits suicide yet again is well built up.
The script itself has very well balanced drama and small comedic portions given out to the audience. Though I didn’t care as much as I suspect Holmes wanted me to. And that’s where you can look to the movie’s negatives. Anyone apart from the two main performers seems to be acting in a soap opera. At times I was sorely reminded that this was a low budget movie purely based on the delivery of lines.
The editing lets the script down at times as well. Any comedy found in the script was let down by the flow of editing and delivery. And any scene with Nick’s sister seemed superfluous. Some scenes, while probably essential when it came to the creation of the story, seemed strange in their delivery. I sometimes sat there thinking ‘Why are we bothering to go here? Why is this even happening? What is happening?’
And it took a while for me to be hooked. For a movie that’s just over an hour, I’d say it’s terrible if it takes ten minutes for the viewer to get hooked. Now that was either a narrative problem or because I was too busy thinking ‘could’ve used some Foley work there’ and ‘who lit this?’ because I’m an idiot. The technical problems are there for all to see and hear though. The images aren’t always great, and the sound sometimes flat out cuts out
But if you give this movie a chance to work, you should be in for a treat. Like in Nolan’s movie Memento, Holmes travels back and forward in time regularly with ease. You never lose where you are or what each scene means for the characters involved. And, going back to the budget and the gushing, with so little in terms of resources and budget, Shawn Holmes has crafted a wonderful film that promises a new great director could be emerging in a few years.
The rating’s I’ve given below might be a tad confusing considering all the positive things I’ve said. For fear of being banned from ever writing about a film again, I implore you. Ignore the ratings. Yes, technically it’s only a 4/10 movie/film the way it is. But it’s a good four. Okay, for those not convinced (i.e. everyone who just read that last sentence) the shortcomings of the film could’ve been detrimental (poor technical aspects, lacking in the acting department) but the story’s so good that I really only need to say one thing. Go and see this movie. I think it’s more about the potential, the promise, but it’ll give you something else to look forward to in the world of movie-films. It’s proof that a movie can look really bad and still work. It’s proof of a director who needs next to nothing to make a great movie. It’s proof that it’s the stories that matter.
Flickering Myth Rating: Film ★ ★ / Movie ★ ★
Matt Smith
Originally published May 10, 2012. Updated April 10, 2018.
