User Reviews

Review this title
4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
It was technically proficient
ginzu9825 October 2004
The Cinematography, Editing, and Sound Design was technically proficient. Yes the movie was lame. It was also the only film at the time to be self-distributed at major theaters. I can say this since I worked on it for three years Michael. But nice to know you at least checked out Seanna (not Reanna). It was not shot in a basement. Where are there basements in Houston??? It was shot almost entirely in or on the property of Bunch Mclendon Studios. Now owned by Motion Pixel an animation company. Movie geeks would appreciate all the old cameras, projectors, and editing equipment used as props. We basically recycled all the "junk" in the studio into props, such as the cameras that were used. We started writing the film in 1994, and I pointed out that movies would be put on discs and cameras would shrink down to palm size. We had a few good jokes. The main problem is that the producers were scared Rush Limbaugh would sue and so the script became really watered down- all the punches we threw were pulled. :(
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful Piece of Cinema
pmodern20004 July 2005
I was the projection supervisor for AMC Meyer Park 16 in 1996 when this came out. I was required to put the trailer on two films prior to it's release. I had people actually ask me "That's a joke, right? That's not REALLY a real movie, right?"

And even worse, when it finally did play in House #10 at Meyer Park, I think in the week we had it maybe 30 people bought a ticket to see it. And we gave countless refunds to those people.

I don't think it's available on DVD anywhere, and with luck, the 5 prints that played at the AMC chain of theatres in 1996 have been burned.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
True independent filmmakers must see this classic movie.
seanna-harrington20 April 2004
This movie is a true independent film. Every single person who worked on this movie put their best effort into the dream of creating E.L.M. The total cost including marketing only came to approximately 200K. The raw stock was purchased second hand from a broker who bought it the T.V. show coach. The pieces of film were only between one and three hundred feet. The raw stock(Kodak 5297)pieces of left over film that nobody wanted because they were too short, were more affordable. The entire cast and crew were volunteers. It was made with a great deal of love and dedicated to Rick Harrington's son who passed away before the movie was released in 1996. It was a beautiful effort and a pleasure to have been a part of such an inspiring project. I highly recommend that anyone with a true understanding of how independent films are made, see this movie.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The worst. Absolutely the worst. Oh the pain!
Puppethd6 October 1999
I had the unique opportunity to be one of the "World Premiere" theaters that this movie had played. I helped get this movie booked at the theater I worked at, because I wanted to support the Indie film scene in Houston. Boy, did I ever get it for this.

This is a sci-fi/feminist film shot in a basement or several basements about a universe where men are the weaker sex and have to wear dresses to climb the corporate ladder. The movie is saddled by heavily stilted dialogue (The characters say "K.O." instead of "O.K.". Mork and Mindy anyone?) and cheesy sets and effects. The film resembles the worst of student film, whose trite one joke concept is stretched paper thin. I dare you to watch all of it, if it ever surfaces again.

The only reason to see this movie is to the see the lucious Reanna Harrington in her bra and panties. That's it. Three minutes of watchable film.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed