Shirkers

I saw this documentary on some “best of 2018” lists and for the life of me I can’t figure out why.  Is the central story somewhat interesting?  Sure.   I think there is a great irony in the statement that the director/star made towards the end of the doc.  She acknowledged that she was awful in Shirkers the movie as she was also the worst thing about Shirkers the documentary.  It’s almost as if the 18 year old version of herself wrote the over-dramatic dialog that is prevalent towards the end of the film.

  1. In the scene driving around New Orleans it felt like it was happening real-time.  Why was any of it necessary?
  2. Towards the end her friend Jasmine essentially tells her to move on and stop taking this all so seriously (seemingly because everyone else had moved on).  I felt the same way.  Was this really a story that needed to be told?
  3. I get wanting it back but it isn’t like she was chasing a copy of The Godfather.  It was a film made by 18 year olds that looked like a film made by 18 year olds.
  4. The grand conclusion about the antagonist was waaaaay too dramatic.  He very much seemed like a person that received way too much satisfaction in partially completely projects (which is probably why he held on to the stuff his whole life).  I don’t think he was necessarily preying on younger people – it was probably just easier to do so.
IHATEBadMovies.com reviews Shirkers
Poster for the movie "Shirkers"

Movie title: Shirkers

Movie description: In 1992, teenager Sandi Tan shot Singapore's first indie road movie with her enigmatic American mentor Georges – who then vanished with all the footage. Twenty years later, the 16mm film is recovered, sending Tan, now a novelist in Los Angeles, on a personal odyssey in search of Georges' vanishing footprints.

Date published: 2019-05-12

Director(s): Sandi Tan

Actor(s): Sandi Tan, Sophia Siddique Harvey, Georges Cardona, Philip Cheah, Jasmine Ng Kin Kia, Stephen Tyler

Genre: Documentary

My Review

I saw this documentary on some “best of 2018” lists and for the life of me I can’t figure out why.  Is the central story somewhat interesting?  Sure.   I think there is a great irony in the statement that the director/star made towards the end of the doc.  She acknowledged that she was awful in Shirkers the movie as she was also the worst thing about Shirkers the documentary.  It’s almost as if the 18 year old version of herself wrote the over-dramatic dialog that is prevalent towards the end of the film.

  1. In the scene driving around New Orleans it felt like it was happening real-time.  Why was any of it necessary?
  2. Towards the end her friend Jasmine essentially tells her to move on and stop taking this all so seriously (seemingly because everyone else had moved on).  I felt the same way.  Was this really a story that needed to be told?
  3. I get wanting it back but it isn’t like she was chasing a copy of The Godfather.  It was a film made by 18 year olds that looked like a film made by 18 year olds.
  4. The grand conclusion about the antagonist was waaaaay too dramatic.  He very much seemed like a person that received way too much satisfaction in partially completely projects (which is probably why he held on to the stuff his whole life).  I don’t think he was necessarily preying on younger people – it was probably just easier to do so.
  • My Review - 6/10
    6/10
Overall
6/10
6/10
Sending
User Review
0/10 (0 votes)

Leave a Reply