Meet Me There (2014) Reviews

• Weird, not scary. Boring, not exciting. The acting was OK.

  chrismackey19722015-07-07

  About 9 other reviewers gave this movie 8-10 stars. I'm calling BS on their objectivity. I think the high reviews for this were made by those affiliated with the film. It's got a very weird storyline, and the very end makes no sense. Some of the other reviews said there were some jump scares and this movie goes beyond cheap scares. Even cheap scares would've been better than what this movie had, which were no scares. I started falling asleep, it was that boring. And no, not a single jump scare. Usually, low budget films, which this definitely was, gets crappy actors to go with the crappy budget. However, the acting was not bad at all for what this movie deserved. The two leads might go on to better things. There is nudity in the movie. About 6 minutes in, the lead actress shows everything. Later, they have sex in a field, and one of her breasts is shown. The cinematography was not good. It had very much of a low-budget look. The atmosphere was not interesting, neither was the scenery or directing. I gave this a 3-star rating. I do not recommend, unless you're having trouble sleeping. This will definitely cure your insomnia. ZZZZZ!!!

  More

• Out of here

  begob2015-07-13

  A hopeful couple try to figure out their mutual sex problem by retracing her repressed past on a visit to her rural hometown. Good concept, nice actress, story a bit cliché - but terrible direction/editing/writing. I assumed the latter three were down to the lead actor, and was willing to give him credit for having the dumb determination to put this mess together, but IMDb says several people were responsible. Low budget, so allowances are made. But the major problem is the director set the actors up for long, static scenes with lots of patchy dialogue - some interesting, the rest unnecessary. Sitting. Standing. Walking slowly. Focus comes and goes. There is an excellent shot early on, with the men back-to-back in the field, which gave me hope. But the story died on screen and, I guess, was already dead on the page. Music atmospheric, nothing special, and the singing was pleasant enough to outshine everything else. OK ending, but bad story telling ruined the experience well before that.

  More

• What did I just fast forward?

  gragsy2015-07-07

  Okay I did fast forward quite a bit of this movie so some might say I should have been more patient. Really though I tried to but everything about this movie was just rubbish from the storyline to the acting, to the directing to the (the list goes on....) This is only the 2nd review I have done on here but when all the other reviewers gave 8 to 10 stars I thought great, a new movie that really looks good and the fact it was supposed to be a horror with comedy mixed in made it even more promising. Anyway if you don't believe me see for yourself and it will become evident that the other reviewers must be friends or family of the actors or are from the hills where they have no TV's and have never seen a good movie before.

  More

• Don't Bother Going There

  gordon_rcvs2015-08-22

  The start of this film is so, so good and offers up the promise of a cheap but inventive psycho-horror. This proves not to be the case. Far from it, in fact. Where to begin? Everything is shoddy! The acting is stilted with the lead actress in particular failing to match her emotions with the events occurring around her. The plodding, inane dialogue becomes an endurance test in unnecessarily long scenes. The director clearly has no idea how to use a camera to tell a story - his 'style' is a perfunctory point-and-shoot approach with some bad shot choices, awkward framing etc. The audio is terrible with much of the dialogue dubbed over. Here's the perfect encapsulation of how clumsily and poorly put together this film is: you can hear the director call "Action!" at the start of one shot. How the hell do you make that sort of mistake?! How incompetent do you have to be to not catch that? I won't say much on the plot because I'm not sure what the f*** was going on. I can deconstruct and explain the likes of Lynch's 'Lost Highway' and Kaufman's 'Synedoche, New York' with the best of them but I'm clueless as to what the muddled mess of an ending was about and nothing short of a loaded gun is gonna get me to go back and watch it again. Ignore the high praise of the early reviewers. They're clearly friends and family of the film makers. Not only do many of them have the same location as the film makers (Texas) but they've also signed up just to review this film and talk it up as if it's the Second Coming of horror. It's not. It's truly awful.

  More

• Could have been so much better

  RobLazovic2015-07-07

  I only gave this film 4 out of 10 but..... This film had real potential but was let down by extremely poor audio recording, somewhat poor continuity and bad camera work. You could put this down to the fact that the vast majority of the tasks (Producer, director,cinematographer, sound editor) were all performed by Lex Lybrand. The locations were well chosen and gave added punch to the creepiness of the film, but too bad the lack of stability on the camera and focus distracted this in many ways. In saying that, the story, however, was solid though acting a little weak - this could have been the director's fault though. Even though it came across as a "C" grade (maybe "B") film, I was still captured enough to watch the whole thing - it certainly had the creep factor. I still recommend watching it as supporting micro- budget films is a gateway for these filmmakers to continue to produce more content as well as learn more as they evolve their processes and technical abilities.

  More