ROBB C. SEWELL of EDGE BOSTON had this to say about the film I watched Tonight.It is called THE WINDY CITY ICIDENT.
"What I had hoped to be a comical and interesting movie turned out to be one of the worst films I have ever seen, an original concept ultimately destroyed by a poorly written script, sub-par acting, and amateurish, embarrassing direction and production.
At the heart of the film is Chanel Puget, a young gay man from Washington State. Plagued by strange dreams beckoning him to Chicago, Chanel abandons his handsome boyfriend and hightails it to Chicagoland where, in between moments of passion and lust, he begins to uncover the mysteries behind his dreams.
One of The Windy City Incident’s biggest flaws is its script. Simply, the dialogue is hackneyed, the plot convoluted and confusing, the conclusion unsatisfying and disappointing. The trouble was apparent from the get-go when script writers Maurice Maxwell, Jonathan Oswald, and Ruhn Andhide broke the cardinal rule of good storytelling but telling rather than showing, using a plethora of expository dialogue to fill the audience in on the facets of Chanel’s life and his disturbing dreams. The writers also resorted to the tiresome, lazy cliché of a narrator (in this case, a bag lady) to oversee the madness. The narrator pops in and out of the movie, offering insights and commentary that are supposed to be funny and witty but instead come across as stilted and annoying. Frankly, in many ways, it seems that the writers couldn’t make up their minds about what kind of film they wanted to make. A comedy? Or maybe a fantasy? Hey, how about a porno? Yep. A porno. There are lengthy sex scenes that seem as though they were excised from a porn flick on XTube, but with unimaginative direction and half-hearted acting.
..., an original concept ultimately destroyed by a poorly written script, sub-par acting, and amateurish, embarrassing direction and production.And, speaking of porn, there is no better way to describe some of the acting in The Windy City Incident than to liken it to the performances usually seen in porn. This is never more the case than with actor Shane Grey who fails miserably as Chanel. Grey shares no chemistry with any of his leading men, often avoiding eye contact with James Townsend who portrays Chanel’s beau Randy. Grey’s performance lacks passion and energy, and comes across as incredibly wooden. Jeffrey T. Weaver, in the role of the Bag Lady, gives a nice performance, even getting a funny line here or there. But his character wanders aimlessly throughout the story, serving little or no purpose, and ultimately becomes tiresome.
As for the production itself, I knew there was trouble afoot when I began snickering during the opening credits with its incredibly cheesy animation. Camera work is boring and predictable, especially during the hot and heavy sex scenes. It would have been helpful if a little more time had been invested in editing the movie. But instead we have scenes where actors try to stifle their laughter and trip up their lines, and where microphones appear beside actors. Continuity is problematic, with Chanel’s hair color changing throughout the film almost as often as Web gossip queen Perez Hilton changes his hair color. But perhaps the worst part of the film is the overuse of bizarre sound effects. For instance, a child can often be heard chuckling amidst the action and, at other times, strange banging and clicking sounds can be heard. All of these sound effects add nothing to the movie and rather distract the viewer from the action.
When all was said and done, and after the final credits had rolled, I sat on my couch, scratching my head in bewilderment, trying to make sense of what surely has to be one of the worst films ever made. Frankly, I’ve seen better-acted, better-produced, and better-written videos on YouTube. Unlike poor Chanel, who submitted to the ghosts beckoning him to traipse off on his journey, do yourself a favor and resist the urge to watch The Windy City Incident. It’s not worth your time, effort, or money.
Postscript: While wrapping up this review, I decided to watch the film-makers’ commentary feature, which provides insight into the vision behind the movie and an explanation for the continuity problems (apparently video footage was lost and scenes had to be filmed again). Nonetheless, even with those explanations, I still stand behind my earlier comments about the film’s weaknesses."
