PopGoesTheWeasel (Washington DC) | 08/28/2006 | Very bad video, waste of time :(
The Sobbing Stone was a very disappointing experience both as an actor that participated in the project and as an audience member. I had read the script and after seeing the movie I realized that something went wrong. The script was not accurately, nor properly translated into the finished product. This can only be the result of inexperienced editing and unprofessional directing. Like other posters have mentioned the technical side of the movie was very bad and this made keeping pace with the events difficult. The acting wasn't all that bad, but I can see where the frustrations of the actors hindered them in delivering the best possible performance. The director failed miserably at putting together the footage in a way that told the story. Cmon guys, why cant independent directors understand that story telling is the main goal in any movie? If you tell the story properly, the more difficult and often budget related issues such as equipment, locations and talent become a smaller issue. Mr. Christie fails in the most basic requirement with the Sobbing Stone; telling an interesting story. He failed everyone that worked with him. How do I know all of this?
I was one of the original cast members of The Sobbing Stone when it was originally filmed in it's entirety. I was shocked to find out that Robert G. Christie was feeling inferior to the director and he ended up firing the original director, Marcello "Boss" Rollando ("Another World") and trashing the hard work of great actors such as John Calvin Doyle ("Line of Fire") Ron Wells, and LaToya Patterson. To all of our amazement, Robert G. Christie decided to completely re-shoot the entire movie over again with himself as director. My fellow cast members and I were very upset that all of our hard work was trashed. Upon the re-shoot, only one of the original main actors returned for the re-shoot, Natalie Hultman and this was only because she was in a tight situation and she could not say no under the circumstances. John Calvin Doyle, LaToya Patterson and Ron Wells all refused to re-shoot again with Mr. Christie as the director. You can image just how upset we all were when after filming the whole movie, Mr. Christie throws all our hard work into the trash for no good reason. I cannot stress enough how profoundly disappointing this was to everyone in the cast and crew. To have worked so hard and it all was for nothing. We were all very upset.
When I attended the premiere at Gardel's (Hi Johhny Alonso, I miss you baby :)) I found out that Mr. Christie again re-shot the lead actor's entire performance. I was told at the premiere by Lee Holmes 'Ann' that the original actor that played Michael actually worked on the second re-shoot of movie and completed filming as per Mr. Christie's direction.
It was only a few weeks after the project wrapped that Mr. Christie decided for a 3rd time to re-shot 75% of the movie over again. I asked Ms. Holmes what happened and she told me that Mr. Christie did not pay the actor correctly and that Mr. Christie was going behind the actors's back and saying derogatory things about him on the set. This of course got back to him as many members of the cast and crew were fed up with Mr Christie's antics and they told the lead actor what Mr. Christe was saying about him. The lead actor was finally fed up when Mr Christie was providing the Screen Actor's Guild incorrect time-sheets in an effort to save money and did not pay the lead actor what he was owed. This actor was upset and made it a point to tell everyone about his experience working with Mr Christie. Mr. Christie did not like what he was saying so he decided to re-shoot for a 3rd time. This being after this actor and the entire 2nd shoot cast/crew filmed the entire movie. To prove a point, Mr. Christie turned his back on many people and put out a very bad movie.
It took the original actor over 3 months to finally be paid and finally SAG resolved the payment issues and sided with the actor, not with Mr. Christie's attempts to doctor the time-sheets in an ever present effort to not pay put monies owed. On the 3rd time, less than 5 people from the cast and crew of over 13 people of the 2nd re-shoot showed up. That is why the movie turned out to be so bad. It was a construct, a cut and paste of 3 film shoots edited into one. It was obvious to everyone that something weird was going on. The really sad part is that I was told by Ms. Holmes that the Lead actor on the second re-shoot not only was very talented, but also that he had a decent list of credits and it would have been a much better movie. She told me that she saw much of the completed footage from the 2nd re-shoot and that it was really good with the original lead actor from the 2nd re-shoot. At the premiere she told me how upset she was after watching and seeing her work and everyone else's ruined by the director cutting/pasting in a new actor.
I myself refused to return to the 2nd re-shoot as Mr. Christie had promised me compensation for travel expenses on the first shoot and he later refused to reimburse me even though I had his verbal and written promise via email. This is the truth behind "The Sobbing Stone". The only people that sobbed are the over 30 people in all that never saw their hard work, watched a bad movie and never received promised compensation.
PopGoesTheWeaselsButt
17 out of 17 people liked this review Did you find this review helpful?
PopGoesTheWeasel (Washington DC) | 08/28/2006 | This movie stinks!
The Sobbing Stone was a very disappointing experience both as an actor that participated in the project and as an audience member. I had read the script and after seeing the movie I realized that something went wrong. The script was not accurately, nor properly translated into the finished product. This can only be the result of inexperienced editing and unprofessional directing. Like other posters have mentioned the technical side of the movie was very bad and this made keeping pace with the events difficult. The acting wasn't all that bad, but I can see where the frustrations of the actors hindered them in delivering the best possible performance. The director failed miserably at putting together the footage in a way that told the story. Cmon guys, why cant independent directors understand that story telling is the main goal in any movie? If you tell the story properly, the more difficult and often budget related issues such as equipment, locations and talent become a smaller issue. Mr. Christie fails in the most basic requirement with the Sobbing Stone; telling an interesting story. He failed everyone that worked with him. How do I know all of this?
I was one of the original cast members of The Sobbing Stone when it was originally filmed in it's entirety. I was shocked to find out that Robert G. Christie was feeling inferior to the director and he ended up firing the original director, Marcello "Boss" Rollando ("Another World") and trashing the hard work of great actors such as John Calvin Doyle ("Line of Fire") Ron Wells, and LaToya Patterson. To all of our amazement, Robert G. Christie decided to completely re-shoot the entire movie over again with himself as director. My fellow cast members and I were very upset that all of our hard work was trashed. Upon the re-shoot, only one of the original main actors returned for the re-shoot, Natalie Hultman and this was only because she was in a tight situation and she could not say no under the circumstances. John Calvin Doyle, LaToya Patterson and Ron Wells all refused to re-shoot again with Mr. Christie as the director. You can image just how upset we all were when after filming the whole movie, Mr. Christie throws all our hard work into the trash for no good reason. I cannot stress enough how profoundly disappointing this was to everyone in the cast and crew. To have worked so hard and it all was for nothing. We were all very upset.
When I attended the premiere at Gardel's (Hi Johhny Alonso, I miss you baby :)) I found out that Mr. Christie again re-shot the lead actor's entire performance. I was told at the premiere by Lee Holmes 'Ann' that the original actor that played Michael actually worked on the second re-shoot of movie and completed filming as per Mr. Christie's direction.
It was only a few weeks after the project wrapped that Mr. Christie decided for a 3rd time to re-shot 75% of the movie over again. I asked Ms. Holmes what happened and she told me that Mr. Christie did not pay the actor correctly and that Mr. Christie was going behind the actors's back and saying derogatory things about him on the set. This of course got back to him as many members of the cast and crew were fed up with Mr Christie's antics and they told the lead actor what Mr. Christe was saying about him. The lead actor was finally fed up when Mr Christie was providing the Screen Actor's Guild incorrect time-sheets in an effort to save money and did not pay the lead actor what he was owed. This actor was upset and made it a point to tell everyone about his experience working with Mr Christie. Mr. Christie did not like what he was saying so he decided to re-shoot for a 3rd time. This being after this actor and the entire 2nd shoot cast/crew filmed the entire movie. To prove a point, Mr. Christie turned his back on many people and put out a very bad movie.
It took the original actor over 3 months to finally be paid and finally SAG resolved the payment issues and sided with the actor, not with Mr. Christie's attempts to doctor the time-sheets in an ever present effort to not pay put monies owed. On the 3rd time, less than 5 people from the cast and crew of over 13 people of the 2nd re-shoot showed up. That is why the movie turned out to be so bad. It was a construct, a cut and paste of 3 film shoots edited into one. It was obvious to everyone that something weird was going on. The really sad part is that I was told by Ms. Holmes that the Lead actor on the second re-shoot not only was very talented, but also that he had a decent list of credits and it would have been a much better movie. She told me that she saw much of the completed footage from the 2nd re-shoot and that it was really good with the original lead actor from the 2nd re-shoot. At the premiere she told me how upset she was after watching and seeing her work and everyone else's ruined by the director cutting/pasting in a new actor.
I myself refused to return to the 2nd re-shoot as Mr. Christie had promised me compensation for travel expenses on the first shoot and he later refused to reimburse me even though I had his verbal and written promise via email. This is the truth behind "The Sobbing Stone". The only people that sobbed are the over 30 people in all that never saw their hard work, watched a bad movie and never received promised compensation.
PopGoesTheWeaselsButt
Did you find this review helpful?
C J Doyle (Baltimore, MD) | 12/12/2005 | Awful
Outrage… I feel deep pain and anguish for the cast and crew of this video. As with his previous 2 videos, Mr. Christie has yet again ruined another movie. I don't know where to start? As before, the lighting, camera work, audio, acting, all are sub-par. To call the technical aspects of this film amateur would be in a way insulting to those yet skilled in the art of film-making. I am certain complete laymen would have done a better job just by reading a basic film-making book, or by taking a class at a local community college in film-making 101.
Natalie Hultman, Shirlethea Tanya Holmes, and Ben Irvin seemed as though they did a good job, but unfortunately the editor of this video ended up ruining their performances.
Kevin Mayberry who played Michael did not appear to even have been shot while the others were there. It seems that his scenes were shot separately and then cut in. Whenever Kevin is on screen, there is an orange hue to the lighting, then when the others are there it's a blue-like tone. Really strange. The eye-lines were completely off. The audio was very jumpy and changed in volume from scene to scene.
Robert G. Christie's performance was indeed poor. I suggest he take a class in acting for TV/Film. His exaggerated reactions, and overdone acting may be tolerated on the stage, but have no place on the screen.
I also am amazed at the make-up. There was none. The shine and bright white reflections off foreheads was hard to watch. Looked more like a wedding video, than a movie.
Plot? What plot? I have no idea what this video was really about. It was next to impossible watching this. The technical aspects are so poor that the video offered no enjoyment. I simply kept watching to see how lacking in talent the editing was.
It appears there was absolutely no budget. The sets look ridiculous. There is a scene with 10 scientists crowded, shoulder to shoulder in some old, moldy 1970's basement. Makes no sense.
There is an executive producer listed for this project. I am interested to know what the budget was. It appears it was shot for free. If there was indeed and executive producer, a refund to him/her is in order.
As with the other videos by this director, another confusing and ultimately un-enjoyable experience. I'm amazed that his movies get worse, not better. I just hope the cast and crew are not permanently discouraged from continuing in this business. It is not their fault the directing, editing and technicals ruined their efforts.
My condolences to them.
7 out of 7 people liked this review Did you find this review helpful?
Master (Ellicott City, MD) | 12/12/2005 | poopy
You should have seen the looks on the faces in the audience at the end of this premiere. They looked as though they were forced to eat poop.
Seriously... The is movie was horrible. I hesitate in even calling it a movie, when in fact it looks more like a home video shot on 8mm. Just awful. Nothing good to say about this very, very bad movie. As with the other user comments, all aspects of this movie suck. Acting, editing, everything. It felt like a 4 hour brain hemorrhage.
I just hope Gardel's restaurant has not lost any customers after they attending this movie. Gardel's is a classy, awesome place, and this movie is not reflective of what a great place it is.
Shame on the director for ever showing this piece of Blasphemy.
Did you find this review helpful?
Master (Ellicott City, MD) | 12/12/2005 | Poo-poop
You should have seen the looks on the faces in the audience at the end of this premiere. They looked as though they were forced to eat poop.
Seriously... The is movie was horrible. I hesitate in even calling it a movie, when in fact it looks more like a home video shot on 8mm. Just awful. Nothing good to say about this very, very bad movie. As with the other user comments, all aspects of this movie suck. Acting, editing, everything. It felt like a 4 hour brain hemorrhage.
I just hope Gardel's restaurant has not lost any customers after they attending this movie. Gardel's is a classy, awesome place, and this movie is not reflective of what a great place it is.
Shame on the director for ever showing this piece of Blasphemy.
Movie Database
In Theaters
PopGoesTheWeasel (Washington DC) | 08/28/2006 | 
