SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Madilyn Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Christopher Smith Short films can be tricky. On one hand, shorts are the perfect format for a director to show off a certain set of skills as a way of getting noticed. On the other hand, it's very easy for shorts to seem pretentious and too artsy for their own good with a director trying too hard to impress. Amelia and Michael avoids such problems by having a simple style, one that compliments the quiet and soft-spoken characters. Director Daniel Cormack does a nice job of keeping a steady pace and never allowing the film or its title characters (expertly played by Anthony Head and Natasha Powell) to go into over-the-top territory. The decision to keep the music as minimal as possible in order to have the focus to stay on the emotions is the best part of the film. Without the typical sappy music playing in the background, Cormack allows the story to seem more honest and realistic than what one might expect from a such a dramatic piece. Perhaps there could have been an ending with a bit more of a kick behind it, but for all of its short length, Amelia and Michael is a captivating watch. 9/10

Michael_Elliott Amelia and Michael (2007) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Extremely well-made short about an upper class married couple, Michael (Anthony Head) and Amelia (Natasha Powell), who appear to have everything but both are leading a secret life. When he's supposed to be on a business trip, Michael is in a hotel room with a prostitute while his wife is also with a lover except this one is in a hospital in a coma. I probably watch over two or three hundred short films a year and after a while they all pretty much bleed together so it can be hard finding one that's rather original. Back in the 20s, 30s and 40s major studios did a fantastic job with them because they were in high demand but in the past few decades it seems anyone can make a short and release it. The shocking thing about AMELIA AND MICHAEL is how incredibly well-made it is. I'm really not sure what the budget was but this every bit like an expensive studio film because the cinematography really brings everything to life. What really works so well here is the direction by Daniel Cormack because unlike so many young filmmakers he's not trying to make his film feel cool or something you'd catch on MTV but instead he really tries to tell a story and develop a couple characters. You might say big deal to that but it's very rare for so much to happen in just a 10-minute movie and I give the director credit for keeping the film at a slow pace, building up drama and most importantly building up the sadness in these two people's lives. I thought it was this overall sadness of the characters that really exploded out of the film and the slow pacing really helped this. I was very impressed with the two leads who brought a lot to their roles. Both really help bring the characters to life and it's not usual seeing such fine performances in a short like this. There's no question that the director has an eye to building up a story without feeling the need for silly fast cutting or constantly having the camera moving to try and build up some sort of style. The film certainly isn't a masterpiece but it's highly well-made and effective.

boblipton When is an eleven minute film far too long? When it doesn't go anyplace. This short subject about the masked, empty, unhappy, luxurious lives of two rich people has all of its technical issues sorted away properly -- the cinematography is excellent, although there is one mismatched shot towards the end; check the biker next to the limo -- but all we have is a brief exposition of the state of the their lives. She is having an affair. He goes to hotels and has sex with hookers, so they are even there. However, someone she cares about (a brother?) is in a coma and dies, so she wins.And that is why this film is essentially a bore. It is not a moving picture. There is no plot, no real change and nothing moves except arms and legs. It is an eleven minute portrait of two uninteresting people.When I am caught up in a movie, I don't notice the camera-work or the mismatched shots. I am not afflicted with a sense of impatience for the film makers to get on with it, nor wonder who sleeps in a hotel robe. This movie is as uninvolving as the the marriage it depicts. If they can't be bothered to care, why should I?

jotix100 The life style of yuppies is examined with an incisive eye by Director Daniel Cormack working on the intelligent screen play by Stephen Betts. This is a short film that could have been made into a full feature on the basis of the strong writing, acting and the direction given to it by Mr. Cormack, who really surprises with his approach. Like in fashion, less is more. In the case of this short, the axiom proves right in that the viewer gets to know two people in no time at all.We are taken to meet an attractive couple that seem to be in an ideal situation. The comfort of their lives is clearly apparent; Amelia and Michael seem to have it all. That is why is so surprising the turn of events that come between them. His deception is somewhat hard to accept because Amelia is a beautiful creature. On the other hand, Amelia has perhaps an inner life she shares with no one. We see her at the hospital with what could be a lover, or maybe a brother, or even a good friend who is facing death.The story has an ironic feel that kept reminding this viewer of some of the stories by O'Henry. "Amelia and Michael" is amazing little film that does justice to the effort Mr. Cormack, cast and crew put into it.