A Boy. A Girl. A Dream. is a story about a boy(Omari Hardwick) and a girl(Megan Good) meeting on election night in 2016. Neither are living their dream.
I'm not a big fan of the title in itself, from the initial announcement of the film I thought the two would already be a couple and fighting for a dream together. But after reading the tagline the story has an interesting concept of hope.
Overall I think the story had a good idea. I love "simple" romance stories. However, I think the story hadn't yet been developed past an idea. It lacked substance. It left me wondering what was the story truly focusing on?
The film started very slow and it never gained any momentum. Although I think the tempo was intentional it could have been executed better. There's a huge difference between boring and slow.
Great actors, great chemistry, great idea. Writing could have been more developed. From a writer's standpoint, the character (Good and Hardwick) were mostly flat. I liked the dynamic of the two. But, I would have liked them to build up to a kiss longer. The bathroom scene happened too fast, there could've been more playing on the chemistry and the kiss happened at the house the characters went to instead of the bathroom at the club. Their chemistry was the most important storyline, yet it happened to be the fastest in the film.
I rated this movie a 3 out of 10 because it feels incomplete. The camera angles and movements didn't work well with the story. Even in a low budget film, quality is better than quantity. 1 hour and 30 minutes happened to be quantity. At best this film could have been told in 30 to 35 minutes if the fluff and dreadful silence were taking out.
Lastly, one of the worst things to do with a film, in my opinion, is to try to fill it with unnecessary people. The house the characters went to where it was later found out the election winner was pointless.
Having the election as an undertone on a black man's phone and even the Lyft radio could've been the main points for hearing the election. The house was filled with recognizable celebrity faces as a cheap filler for what the story lacked. I'd love to rewatch the film with a better direction (not a one-shot film) and as a fully developed written piece (not an idea).
I'm not a big fan of the title in itself, from the initial announcement of the film I thought the two would already be a couple and fighting for a dream together. But after reading the tagline the story has an interesting concept of hope.
Overall I think the story had a good idea. I love "simple" romance stories. However, I think the story hadn't yet been developed past an idea. It lacked substance. It left me wondering what was the story truly focusing on?
The film started very slow and it never gained any momentum. Although I think the tempo was intentional it could have been executed better. There's a huge difference between boring and slow.
Great actors, great chemistry, great idea. Writing could have been more developed. From a writer's standpoint, the character (Good and Hardwick) were mostly flat. I liked the dynamic of the two. But, I would have liked them to build up to a kiss longer. The bathroom scene happened too fast, there could've been more playing on the chemistry and the kiss happened at the house the characters went to instead of the bathroom at the club. Their chemistry was the most important storyline, yet it happened to be the fastest in the film.
I rated this movie a 3 out of 10 because it feels incomplete. The camera angles and movements didn't work well with the story. Even in a low budget film, quality is better than quantity. 1 hour and 30 minutes happened to be quantity. At best this film could have been told in 30 to 35 minutes if the fluff and dreadful silence were taking out.
Lastly, one of the worst things to do with a film, in my opinion, is to try to fill it with unnecessary people. The house the characters went to where it was later found out the election winner was pointless.
Having the election as an undertone on a black man's phone and even the Lyft radio could've been the main points for hearing the election. The house was filled with recognizable celebrity faces as a cheap filler for what the story lacked. I'd love to rewatch the film with a better direction (not a one-shot film) and as a fully developed written piece (not an idea).