Why so much hype?

The Worst Film Ever

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

There is a great deal to admire in this film, and a little to forgive. First, you have to remember that this is not your grandfather's film, or your Aunt Stacy's. It's not set up in that classical Hollywood vein where we in the audience all agree beforehand that, despite the clear gap between our real lives and what we will see on the screen, we are not actually watching a fictional construction. No, this film acknowledges from the start that it is all about a message that it needs to deliver. It's a more modern piece, and although there are moments that make me think of Network, the overall mood is perhaps more the farcical landscape of Dr. Strangelove.As for the forgiveness that we must show, it's mostly towards the casting. It may be true that most of the actors are not polished gems - the lead, Marshall Allman is perfectly adequate but that is not the nicest thing one could say - but there's a good deal of craft in here, particularly from Vince Vieluf, and some fair turns,including those of Tania Raymonde and Richard Lefebvre.I'm amazed to find that David Russo has not yet had a break-out film, either as a writer or director. This film is full of bright ideas, clever characterization and exceptional images. It's a very good example of story-telling, and it gets a ton out of what must have been limited production resources. I liked it a great deal, and I have no doubt whatsoever that there are a large number of people out there who would find more here to endorse than in a bucketful of more commercial fare. Yes, it's a festivally, arthousey kind of film, but that's because it has something to say and a new-ish way of saying it. Give it the time and the attention, and it will reward you at above minimum-wage rates.

The Immaculate Conception of Little Dizzle is one of those movies that you have to watch a second, or third, time to absorb it all. No, I'm not complimenting the movie, nor calling it confusing, though it is way too complex for its own good. In fact, it's one of those movies that needs a "First Sequence" (a la Human Centipede) so that we can at least flesh out the undeveloped characters further in the sequel.Take the lead, Dory (played by what appears to be Joseph Gordon-Levitt's twin, Marshall Allman) who we immediately (as in about eight minutes in) find out:A: he religious by reading the Bible while wearing a tie B: he's burned out at work: stomps on cube-partner's cell C: he has trouble with bills: he states this D: he joins a cookie-test group immediately following a new job E: he's still searching for the answer on who's up there through multiple religionsWe're bounced all over the place in this poor lost soul while trying to absorb what else is happening on the screen. Such as these cookies have an unusual side-effect that most guys would have a problem with.And that's sad. Aside from my comparison to Gordon-Levitt, Allman certainly has potential and was just fine in his role. In fact, I've already seen and enjoyed him in both TV's Prison Break and HBO's True Blood. So, I don't blame him for the over-written role here.Skipping past what I wanted more from – if I wasn't clear: more time to flesh out the interesting character of Dory – the movie itself was enjoyable with wildly original ideas with interesting and kooky characters. And for being an "independent movie" it had remarkable special effects from the little blue "babies" to the breath taken after each cookie intake.The synopsis is a little more complex when you're watching, but when you've reached the credits, it's pretty straightforward: (already explained) Dory and his new "pals" in a janitor service consume large quantities of "stolen" experimental and HIGHLY addictive cookies with horrifying consequences. It's an all-but take on both illegal drugs and evil-corporate America when these absolute Seattleites try to figure out what's happening to their bodies and who to go up against.While on different planes, I can somewhat compare this to the (MUCH SUPERIOR) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in its strange takes, twists and turns. Had this Immaculate Conception concept been written by the great Charlie Kaufman, the results would have been much better. That said, this writer/director, David Russo still did a fine job. Especially with his cast call.From Vince Vieluf who played O.C. wonderfully to Natasha Lyonne as Tracy, who's already on my "good" list when I saw her in But, I'm a Cheerleader. Heck, even the other secondary roles from Weird William (Richard Lefebvre,) Ethyl (Tania Raymonde) and Methyl (Tygh Runyan) were all fun to watch and made their roles their own.In addition to the cast, the film was very well shot with a lot of creativity thrown in at the appropriate moments. I can see, with a little more time and budget, Russo taking a very good chunk of the Kaufman fan-base, i.e. never really mainstream, but fantastic nonetheless. Eventually, I will have to revisit this film, but in the meantime, I look forward to more films by Russo and this cast. And it's certainly not for everybody, but that's not why I watch movies. I watch them as individual pieces and to heck if the mainstream will be drawn to them or not.Side Note: Oh, and by the way, I was almost completely turned off in the opening by the announcement of American Express financing. Really? Personally, I wouldn't want people to know I got into bed with the Devil (Credit Cards) to get my film made. But, try and get past that, as for every terror MTV Films movie made, they still came up with the brilliant Election and hilarious Napoleon Dynamite.

The old saying goes, "Casting is 90% of Directing." A shame the Director hired a lightweight (primarily) TV actor for the lead in this tedious film masquerading its shortcomings under a pretty wrapper of kicky graphics, pseudo-surreal mumbo jumbo and special effects.Truth be told, I never finished the film. I surrendered at about the halfway mark and got the gist by scanning the remainder at 4X. Take this review with a grain of salt then.Honestly, one of the funniest opening scenes I've seen in a while. The lead finds a long-traveled message in a bottle. Breathless, he falls in the water retrieving the bottle, cuts himself smashing it, only to read the message, "Fuck You." It's all downhill, and fast, from there.The Writer-Director lacks confidence. There are too many disparate elements - religion, art, marketing gone awry, blind consumerism, corporate irresponsibility - failing to mesh. Taking risks is laudable. There are far too many derivative and minor films forgotten by the time one's feet hit the parking lot outside the local multiplex. But dramatic or comedic risk is not jamming many stories into one. Russo might have a fine career, but only if he recovers from this misstep.Further, janitors (who provide a vital service) will be insulted by their portrayal by elitist Writer-Director Russo. But he's safe. Neither Janitors nor anyone else will see this dog. (Wonder no more if you work in an office and your desk looks like a couple screwed on your desk.)Sundance should stop rewarding uninteresting tripe like this. It only encourages more crappy Indies lacking narrative drive and truth.The best way to view this film is in fast forward. Or not at all.

Usually I'm very wary and skeptical towards these pseudo-artistic and experimental new cult movies, but this thing played at a local film festival and was scheduled in between two other movies I really wanted to see, so I just had to hold my seat. It's not like I regret this or anything, because "The Immaculate Conception of Little Dizzle" is an occasionally very fresh and charmingly creative Indie Sci-Fi/comedy, but it's unmemorable. Writer/director David Russo clearly bursts with brilliant and innovative ideas, but so far he still lacks experience, support and craftsmanship. You can tell straight away that that Russo prefers putting time in crazy gimmicks and eccentric visual effects rather than properly developing the story and characters. The opening credits sequence for example, depicting the long journey of a message in a bottle through the seas & rivers, is truly beautiful but irrelevant. It almost feels as if David Russo had a handful of innovative and elaborated artsy scenes in his head and then just quickly built a full feature length movie around them. That's a shame, because also the main plot outline shows great potential but remains largely unexplored. Dory, a young data accountant with a strange passion for studying the different religions, has a very bad day at the office and loses his job after a verbal outburst against a female colleague. He then accepts a low-profile janitor job in the office building of a marketing research company, working with a bunch of unconventional colleagues, like the toilet-art obsessed musician OC and the nymphomaniac couple Ethyl and Methyl. They are unaware that the sneaky marketing lady Tracy and her sleazy CEO are using the janitors as guinea pigs to test a new type of addictive cookies, which they leave lying around after office closing hours. The cookies quickly cause the janitors to suffer from outrageous hallucinations and stomach pains, but for the men there's another awkward little side effect. They're "impregnated" and rectally deliver some sort of bright blue fish-critter with a very short life-expectancy. The film is at least ten times weirder than the plot sounds already, but I personally would have preferred a more detailed exploration of the interesting themes like male pregnancy and unauthorized testing. "The Immaculate Conception of Little Dizzle" is full of redundant and delirious computer effects, like accelerated images and colorful hallucinations, and although they are neatly accomplished and nice to look at, they don't form an added value and eventually just gave me a headache. It's an interesting film, and David Russo is definitely a guy to keep an eye on, but sadly this isn't the alternative festival sleeper hit it could have been. The wide variety in musical is great, however, and the cast members (including a few familiar faces like Natasha Lyonne and Vince Vieluf) give away plausible and very dedicated performances.