Outrighteous is the kind of film whose very existence is miraculous. How did anyone agree to sign on to this when the budget is smaller than a first grader's lunch money? Why does the script shoehorn in Christianity whilst barely integrating it into the story? Why do half the characters have obnoxious Southern accents when the movie ostensibly takes place in Los Angeles? Truly, Outrighteous is a sight to see in the worst way possible.
The characters are pretty bland, with Angela's only trait being "sassy,' and Simone's only trait is "righteous," I guess. Calvin is such a blank slate it's a little funny, but his only defining characteristic (also "righteous") directly contradicts the plot of the film. I don't know what sect these people are, but I'm pretty sure that in all branches dating multiple women who don't know of each other's existence is a no-no. What's even stranger is that Simone later does something similar, but her actions are put in a much harsher light than Calvin's. Frankly, it adds a completely unasked for layer of misogyny to the film that's more than a little troubling.
The movie itself is shot so poorly, you start to wonder if the cinematographer was even out of grade school. Perhaps the worst shot in the film is when two characters shake hands, but the camera is positioned several yards away and partially behind a table. Whose idea was this?! But even if the cinemtography rivaled that of 2016 Christine, the sheer lack of a production budget would still leave the camerwork and general production in shambles. Granted, low-grade materials aren't inherently a problem; one of entries on my list of best films ever literally was filmed on a Camcorder. The problem is that the low quality of everything actively works against the film. They don't try to have a diagetic explanation for it (eg found footage), nor does it add to the atmosphere of the movie. Sometimes, the audio recording is so bad, you can barely tell what the characters are saying, since they're drowned out by the background noise. Why couldn't they of just cut the audio and dubbed it over in post? Did they even care enough to do so? I don't know the answers to any of the questions I've brought up, but I suspect nobody (including the filmmakers themselves) does either.
Overall, Outrighteous is a disaster. The film is poorly made, the acting is unrealistic, and the dialogue is laughably absurd. The film does provide a ot of unintentional hilarity, though, which saves it from the bottom of the barrel. If you aren't looking for a so-bad-it's-good movie, stay far, far away from Outrighteous.
Final Score: 27/100.
The characters are pretty bland, with Angela's only trait being "sassy,' and Simone's only trait is "righteous," I guess. Calvin is such a blank slate it's a little funny, but his only defining characteristic (also "righteous") directly contradicts the plot of the film. I don't know what sect these people are, but I'm pretty sure that in all branches dating multiple women who don't know of each other's existence is a no-no. What's even stranger is that Simone later does something similar, but her actions are put in a much harsher light than Calvin's. Frankly, it adds a completely unasked for layer of misogyny to the film that's more than a little troubling.
The movie itself is shot so poorly, you start to wonder if the cinematographer was even out of grade school. Perhaps the worst shot in the film is when two characters shake hands, but the camera is positioned several yards away and partially behind a table. Whose idea was this?! But even if the cinemtography rivaled that of 2016 Christine, the sheer lack of a production budget would still leave the camerwork and general production in shambles. Granted, low-grade materials aren't inherently a problem; one of entries on my list of best films ever literally was filmed on a Camcorder. The problem is that the low quality of everything actively works against the film. They don't try to have a diagetic explanation for it (eg found footage), nor does it add to the atmosphere of the movie. Sometimes, the audio recording is so bad, you can barely tell what the characters are saying, since they're drowned out by the background noise. Why couldn't they of just cut the audio and dubbed it over in post? Did they even care enough to do so? I don't know the answers to any of the questions I've brought up, but I suspect nobody (including the filmmakers themselves) does either.
Overall, Outrighteous is a disaster. The film is poorly made, the acting is unrealistic, and the dialogue is laughably absurd. The film does provide a ot of unintentional hilarity, though, which saves it from the bottom of the barrel. If you aren't looking for a so-bad-it's-good movie, stay far, far away from Outrighteous.
Final Score: 27/100.
