i have a fairly high tolerance for low quality and low budget movie and especially when they strive to be different from the usual hollywood pap . in fact there be only two such film i have see this year that i felt have no redeem quality represent this film and red cockroach . and even red cockroach make me look at ketchup differently . the script be horrible . it be obvious from read the liner note of the dvd that the writer or director change the script on the fly ( include the addition of the silly twist end ) and probably after a late night session bulls^h^h^h^h^hbrainstorming with the actor . it be even more obvious from watch it ( a dr who scene . sure . ) . the dialogue be horrible . people do not talk that way . boyd rice delivers monologues that sound a if he be read from one of his own article . i be sure these be intend to be socratic dialogue ( especially since they reference the concept and albeit poorly ) and but they manage to sound even more contrived than that and impossible a it sound . and the attempt at slang . ouch . painful embarrassment for the character . the acting be horrible . the only one of any note be daniel partner paul while he may not be able to carry a movie on his own and but stand next to boyd rice make him look like john friggin malkovich . once again and read the liner note make it apparent that the director know or idolize boyd rice and to the point where he be unable to give good direction ( if he have it ) to an actor . stilted and wooden and monotonic moment be what we get . keanu would be proud . the violence be poor . maybe a viewing of doom generation be in order . it be possible to do good violence with a low budget . simply fire gun ( most of which be poor and though paul revolver be actually a quality piece ) and splatter red paint around doesn not do it . unless of course youre talk troma and where violence isn not actually the point . i can not continue this review without address the term controversy and artistic integrity . there be nothing controversial about this movie . the view expound upon ( at great tedious length ) be not original or unique while they have be grace the page of zines and book from the fine folk at loompanics and paladin press and and the anarchist bookstore in sf for decade . in the course of my checkered literary past i have encounter these same argument and view repeat ad nauseum . i be sure the director and actor both hold these opinion a their own that patently obvious from the ham fisted way they be insert into the plot ( . ) and and the lackluster delivery ( i. e. and it not an actor make you believe they believe this and but a believer drone on and on about their religion with no regard for their listener ) . i do believe they think they be cast pearl before swine in the making of this film . but that do not make the opinion original and controversial and well think out and appeal to any but the most philosophically naive and or indeed anything but what they be represent a reactionary position against the establish order which would not succeed on it own merit and thus must actively strive to emphasize it difference and novelty . to paraphrase tom stoppard play the real thing and which actually treat the subject of watch a work such a this quite well and make a bad film be no proof of integrity . what make a good movie . interesting character . a compelling script . convince act . natural dialogue . incredible cinematography . a sense of mood or atmosphere . you do not have to have all of these and but you need at least one . and pearls before swine strike out .