At Granny's House

The reason I am confused is that I can't see how this film got finance or distribution.

First off, the production is full of technical gaffs - not least in editing. In several places the film has been edited so that the dialogue does not match (or flow in any way) from one shot to another.

There are a few shots where it is obvious 'action' has been called as the actors suddenly go from their start positions into whatever interaction the shot calls for.

In some shots the actor(s) is left in one position and in the next shot the actor is in a different position or pose, even though it is supposed to flow as one.

The acting is strained at the beginning of the film - especially the actor who plays the son - although it does get slightly better as the film progresses - or perhaps I just didn't notice it anymore with so many technical issues and trying to figure out how the edits could possibly have been considered passable.

The whole film is like one big slapped together rush.

The only saving grace is Rachel Alig - who does quite a reasonable job of acting (against the odds I suspect) - and has several half naked scenes (although this seems to be something of a trademark of hers) - which in the end do nothing to alleviate the strain of watching this hacked together set of images.

At first I thought this was some king of home made video, or an experiment by first year film students, but apparently I was wrong. This was supposed to be a proper film.

Never mind. Whatever went wrong in this may be addressed by all those involved when they work on other productions. Hopefully they will see it as a learning curve - never to be repeated.

As for the story - well - it's just not worth going into.