text: Someone will have to explain to me why every film that features poor people and adopts a pseudo-gritty look is somehow seen as "realistic" by some people.<br /><br />I didn't see anything realistic about the characters (although the actors did their best with really bad parts) or the situations. Instead, I saw a forced, self-conscious effort at being "edgy", "gritty" and "down and dirty".<br /><br />Sadly, it takes a lot more than hand-holding the camera without rhyme or reason and failing to light the film to achieve any of the above qualities in any significant way.<br /><br />It's a sad commentary on the state of independent film distribution that the only films that see the inside of a movie theater are nowadays all carbon copies, with bad cinematography, non-existent camera direction and a lot of swearing striving to pass themselves as "Art".<br /><br />It's little wonder that films like "In the Bedroom" or "About Schmidt" get such raves. I found them to be meandering and very average, but compared to the current slew of independent clones like "Raising victor Vargas" they are outright brilliant and inspired.<br /><br />A few years ago seeing an "independent" film meant that you would likely be treated to some originality and a lot of energy and care, and maybe a few technical glitches caused by the low budgets, nowadays, it means that chances are you'll get yet another by-the-numbers, let's-shake-the-camera-around-for-two-hours attempt at placating the lack of taste of independent distributors. And of course all that to serve characters and situations that are completely unreal and contrived.<br /><br />Is it any surprise that the independent marketplace has fewer and fewer surviving companies? Not at all when you see films like Raising Victor Vargas that do nothing but copy the worst of the films that preceded them.