‘On The Lot,’ a show about aspiring filmmakers competing for a $1 million movie deal, may not have what it takes, at least if early indications are to be believed. You and me just may be the only two people watching. That’s a bit of a shame, because it’s one of those rare reality shows where people aren’t paraded in front of our eyes to be degraded and made fun of. Maybe that’s what the show is missing, but honestly I think the problem is no real conflict. There’s no reason for us to tune in each week, and that means this whole parade should be concluded in about a month rather than the 12 weeks promised. It’s ironic that a show about filmmaking is without conflict. But where’s the tension between Kenny and Jessica we saw last week? Watching people with big ego’s and bigger dreams clash with one another to produce something worthwhile is an hour of television I’d be devoted to watching.
Instead we have an hour of television that is highlighted by the judges and contestants drooling over host Adrianna Costa, and a few clips of mildly entertaining video. Honestly the worst parts about the Top 12 shows in ‘American Idol’ are the stupid clips, and here we have a program devoted to them. With what has to be a much bigger budget than the average reality show, it would seem that ‘On The Lot’ is about to flop at the box office. Until the ship goes down I’ll stick with it, because damn if I don’t love watching talented people do what they love most. There may be little conflict, or reason to watch, but that hasn’t stopped me from watching worse shows.
Carrie Fisher and Gary Marshall are certainly equipped to judge the show, but they did seem a bit forgiving throughout this first night. Honestly, do you think either one of these people would take something like Bus #1 seriously if it was pitched to them? Me either. This week’s rotating judge was DJ Caruso (Disturbia) and he spent most of the evening agreeing with Carrie Fisher; I hate to say it but I missed Brett Ratner. The show’s changeover to an ‘American Idol’ clone is perplexing, and quite frankly will get boring fast. The only thing it’s missing is a reference to the number of voters because saying, “4,200 people voted,” isn’t’ nearly as impressive as 38 million. You watch a 1 minute clip, hot host tells you to vote, you wonder if your friends think she’s wooden and cheesy (but still hot), and repeat…18 times. That’s like doing it 9 times, only back to back. It’s just a good thing 3 people went home tonight, that should quickly solve part of that issue. And oh the horror of the results show putting on the façade of an awards show. I about puked into my bowl of delicious Ramen noodles.
So what was the best film of the night? Jason Epperson’s Getta Rhoom was a highlight for me in terms of being good comedy. The character reminded me of Milton from Office Space. If we can laugh at a nerdy, but possibly mentally challenged, guy who wants to listen his radio at a reasonable volume, then I find it fine to laugh at a similar guy trying to fit in with the crowd. As for worst, I have to give that honor to Jessica Brillhart with her pretentious and completely retarded …To Screw In A Lightbulb. But enough of all this, let’s see what the 3 axed directors offered up.
Carolina Zorilla de San Martin: Deliver Me
Conceptually this movie was really good. The idea of cell phone’s ruling our lives is topical, and it didn’t feel too overly social commentary-esque. It’s also nice that the women start off with something they can sink their teeth into. But I think other women in the show display an ability to tackle more commonplace events in the world from a woman’s perspective better. That’s more interesting to me from a director without a penis.
Claudia La Bianca: Blind Date
What the hell happened here? The film started off strong with the main character sitting at the bar as she waited for her blind date. I thought it was going to go somewhere interesting, and instead it ends up in the toilet. A cheap joke made even cheaper by the potential offered in the first 20 seconds.
Phil Hawkins: Please Hold
The judges kept telling the directors that their film was shot well, but lacked a follow through on concept. For us average Joes at home, I think Phil’s film is the clearest indication of what that means. The camerawork was obviously great, especially the opening with the intense close-ups of the woman that heightened tension in the viewer. Yeah it was followed up by an old and simple joke, but the tension and release still worked quite well. The end seemed to stride just a tad too close to artsy stuff, which didn’t gel with the previous 50 seconds of film.
This poll is no longer available.
