It's hard to know what to say about this. The script feels like there was one draft. Some of the actors do any okay job with the weak script they've got, but they can't do much. The three main actresses feel like they've got good performances in them, but not for this film. A couple of the minor actors do a good job in places, but most are poorly cast and struggle in poorly-defined roles.

It all just moves too slowly and there's really very little humour in it. It relies on a certain awkwardness to be funny and that doesn't really work. Ultimately, it's boring.

The production is ultimately a one man show and that shows. It's difficult to be a good director, it's difficult to be a good producer, it's difficult to be a good writer and yet Ian Vernon spreads himself even more thinly and it shows. There's a lot of strange incompetence, like not lighting things properly, using white balance or overexposing some shots, but mostly the camera is pointing in the right direction, even if the shots could be framed better.

It's a weird film as there's an idea here that could be done well, but it just feels like Vernon was a little too sure he could write a script when he really should have got someone else. The three leads could definitely have delivered better performances if the script was there, but it just isn't. The film is also too long and I doubt anything was ever cut out.

And then I look at the other reviews. One of them gives it a 10. But has never reviewed another film - not in itself suspicious (this is the only film I've reviewed), but 10? Really? The other two reviewers give it a 9 and a 10. One of them has only reviewed two films and both are by Ian Vernon and the other has reviewed five with three of them by Vernon. What's the betting they know him?