User Reviews

At the beginning of the movie I found it moved slowly and I was confused. After a while however I became fascinated with the relationship between the two men. It had a father-son/older brother-younger brother quality to it with a sexual/emotional eroticism, which I found captivating and interesting. It was never clearly shown what came to the surface of their relationship. It appears they each went their own way and nothing was ever said about it again. The Altmanesque use of the movie-in-a-movie was well used and by the end of the movie my confusion lifted. I was left with a sense of curiosity as to what may have happened in the future.

This is a weird film about artists in art school, but for a low-budget film it's very solid. If you manage to make it through the first twenty minutes, which are a little hard to follow, what comes of it is very interesting. It's kind of a recipe book/film about how to make a good low-budget film as you watch.

The script and story for the film was very good. At the end of the film you first think it's a story they could've made up as they went along, but when you go back you realize everyone was kind of "in" on the script from the start. It really is a "real" movie. It was very clever the way it all fit together.

Hardcore film fans may not like the film because of it's digital look, but I hardly noticed it at all. This film is supposed to be a real documentary, and what you see in the film feels very real - Almost perfect. Some of the "movie parts" are a little slow, but overall it's a fun, interesting film.

It's probably better the second time you watch it because you know what to look for. Overall, worth watching. Good acting. Good storytelling with lots of funny details and some awesome photography.

Thought this film was a great art school film. Wasn't bogged down by lots of mainstream stereotypes of artists getting high or spouting off lots of pretentious philosophy. Parts of it were obviously meant to me funny, or ironic in a ha-ha way, but those parts were very self-aware, and were designed to make fun of real movies that try to pull that stuff off as "serious" art. As a documentary/drama, or philospohical movie about the role of artists in society, or movie-making as an art form, I thought the ideas in the movie were very smart and beret well presented. The film jumped back and forth between these two different "dramatic" worlds, and that use of film-making technique was very well done. I wish there were more art school films like this, and just more films like this, in general. I wish there had been some behind-the-scenes features with the film because I'm sure they would've been really funny. Nevertheless, the film was completely cool.

A dupe of this film—which I gather isn't terrifically easy to locate in your local video store— got passed to me through a friend of a friend of a friend (along with, somewhat incongruously, "Cocksucker Blues"), and though I admit I didn't get around to watching it until I was home sick with the flu and had watched all the other DVDs I had on hand, when I did, I found myself totally sucked in—or suckered, depending on how you want to look at it. Because this is a movie with a twist, though the *real* twist which is masked by the one hiding out of sight (that is, the one that is hiding in *plain* sight) might be that you never really know what you've seen, even after you think you've been told what you didn't think you saw in the first place. Make sense? Probably not, and neither, really, does this movie until you start to let it not make sense and achieve its own musicality, or at least let yourself decide that the making sense scarcely matters. It seems maybe to have descended from Zak Penn's film "Incident at Loch Ness," with definitely one crucial difference: while Penn's film, eschewing the blockbuster tendencies which he's known for, certainly has the spirit of an independent, it mostly relies on in-jokes linked to its star, the director Werner Herzog, for its entertainment value. That film, then, cannot help but be forever pointing out to a wider world beyond itself, or at least to the mediated representations which act as portals to it. "Grodmin," on the other hand, manages to be both ultimately more charming and a more severe viewing experience, because in its unfolding, it consistently points only within, imploding a little more with each frame that passes. More so than most of the familiar film- within-a-films out there, the total illegibility of these actors—or individuals, as it may not be right to call them actors at all—to any but the people who must have been around when the filming took place makes this an almost purely formal exercise. But while if I were to call a film with recognizable actors and a director or producer with a known history behind them a "formal exercise," it should be rightly taken as damning with the faintest of praise, the manner in which "Grodmin" is cut adrift from the normal media universe that most of us dwell in actually hearkens back to the excitement that marked, say, those cheeky "formal experiments" in literature in the first half of the 20th century. That is, it manages to be predominantly joyful in its delivery, its tendency to fold back in on itself *actually* suggesting something about the non-movie world outside, as opposed to those grim Hollywood films which reflect themselves and typically only suggest something about the not-so-riveting egos of their makers. Not a movie that would captivate the majority of people, perhaps, but could be considered a quiet masterpiece for folks who live for those moments when they find themselves captivated by a grainy, home-recording-sounding song playing off a college radio station while driving around at 3am, even if they never find out who it is that's behind it because the DJ seems to have fallen asleep at the switch. Also, the actor (?) John Wiedherholt bears an eerie resemblance to Keir Dullea, which can only bode well for him in future endeavors.

Grodmin is not only a terrific movie about the place of art in contemporary America - its panicky limbo between Romantic afflatus and capitalist commodification - it is itself a definitive monument of an art that can only exist through its self-annihilating contradictions. It's a visual essay in postmodernism, in everything "meta," and in every degree of irony from the flatly sarcastic to the mystic-transcendental. That said, it is also very funny and full of what they used to call "heart." The characters in this "movie" (one feels compelled to use the quotation marks in applying this epithet to Grodmin) are flesh and blood, filled with all the same reciprocally narcissistic and self-effacing awkwardness and unseemliness that we expect from our neo-slacker contemporaries. It will change the way you watch movies, or the way movies watch you, or the way you think about your life as a movie being watched by yourself, your friends, God, history, etc. Nabokov meets Godard meets R. Crumb.

I thought "Grodmin" was a wonderful movie. In terms of its "independent" quality, if such a thing exists, I thought it was one of the most unique films I have ever seen. Clearly, the actors and filmmakers were working under a very limited budget, or so they wanted us to think, and with it pulled off a number of very convincing tricks. First and foremost, I thought the acting in this film was first-rate. I haven't seen either of the two leads in any films before (John Weiderholt and Lucas Branum), but thought both of them did a fabulous job. The chemistry of the entire cast was excellent. Unlike most low-budget projects that just walk you through a predictable script, this film really made you think. It was very clever, and quite engaging. I would love to see it again.

I've never seen a film like this before. It completely caught me by surprise. I wish there were more independent movies this one. Hollywood could learn a thing or two from movies like this. If you can find this movie at Blockbuster or online, you should totally rent it if you're into fresh, raw film-making that forces you to think. Quirky artists or art students, in particular, would drool over this film. I was particularly interested in the dynamics presented between the eponymous character "grodmin" (a senior grad. art student who mentors a younger "chip" art student) and his younger protégé. The word, grodmin, seems to have been invented for the film, as I have tried in vain to find it anywhere else. A grodmin's rapport with his chip is at the heart of the film. The central thread through the plot line relies upon their relationship. There is also a creative twist to the film in that it has a film-within-a-film that forces viewers to constantly question their experience while watching the film. The director was clearly working to produce something new, different, and real. I have great respect for this film as it presents a helpful, unique spin on movie-making.

On the recommendation a friend I actually went through the trouble of purchasing a copy of this film online, something I seldom do, in the off chance that it would actually be as "entertaining" as said friend (and a handful of online film bloggers) have claimed it is. Call it a financial neurosis, or just plain desperation to find a new kind of film that wasn't completely awful, I actually found myself highly intrigued by the tricks, if you could call them that, of this obscure film. I thought the acting was very good, brilliant, in fact, and found many of its elements very clever. A film like this would never do well in mainstream cinema, but in terms of its cult appeal, I think Grodmin has got real teeth. I thought it was very well made and certainly did quite a bit on an obviously limited budget. The performances by the two main leads certainly deserves the highest praise. - They both turned in great performances. Would recommend it any film enthusiast who likes underground stuff.

At a time when everything coming out of Hollywood seems to be completely awful (Independent film, not included), here's a film that looks like it cost next to nothing that is, legitimately, good.

When will Hollywood learn that no one really cares about watching people fire guns while things around them explode? I mean it's really inane. What information does that convey? I would rather watch a well-acted $20 movie about a forty year old guy living in his parents' basement, than watch a film like Mission Impossible 3 that cost over $100 million and conveys absolutely nothing to its audience.

In my mind, it only takes a few key ingredients to make a good film, and "Grodman" has all of them. Great acting. A compelling story. Pathos and heart. By the end of this film, I was legitimately touched by the things I had seen on screen, and there was nothing fake, or fabricated, about it. The actors and the filmmakers in this film deserve the highest praise.

I'm not involved in film-making in any way, but if I had a few million dollars to invest in the next "big" film, I would rather give it to the crew that made this film, than all the "acclaimed directors" in Hollywood reviewing the next ridiculous spy movie.

People aren't stupid, and they know quality and integrity when they see it. If Hollywood is beleaguered by the dwindling box office returns of recent years, tell them to start sending some of their money to real filmmakers like these guys, and just watch how things turn around.

Hats off to the actors and filmmakers of "Grodman." "Grodman" is a great film. Go rent it!

I recently watched the film "Grodmin" and thought it was just wonderful. As a filmmaker and an artist I see a lot of different kinds of interpretations of what it means to be an artist, and how artists are portrayed on film and on television, and I thought this film's treatment of its subject matter was very real and very smart. I thought the multi-layered plot of the the film was devilishly clever, and agree with most of my fellow reviewers that the acting was just outstanding. This was obviously a low-budget movie, but it didn't matter in the slightest. This film knows what it's got, and what it doesn't, and for what it is it's an "A+." I think artists and filmmakers alike could learn a lot from watching this film. It's really quite unique, and presents a very unified and distinctive, well executed vision. I give it a well deserved thumbs up...!

As a grad of two art schools, I'm jealous of the setup in the art studios of Grodmin College, and the cute students! What a great place- a perfect campus in an idyllic town- and even the scruffy students are all cleaned up and sexy. Way different from their urban counterparts. And their lives and problems are believable to the point that I still have sympathy for them, and want to buy a round of beers when they graduate. That's how perfect a blend of fantasy and reality this film is. I kept flipping between thinking it was a reality show, and then a docudrama. In the slow pace of the story, and the good acting, it's easy to get lost in Grodmin.

Lots of films spend a big budget on nothing, and many small-budget films try to make huge statements, well beyond their scope. "Grodmin" is a small film which contains and suggests some interesting ideas while staying within itself.

Like in a good novel, the characters are described through a few simple scenes, and then the audience is allowed and encouraged to make its own interpretations.

"Grodmin" plays with reality in a way few films successfully manage: with subtlety. The audience is manipulated, but not harshly. In fact, one will have to watch the film twice (at least) to realize – or start to realize – where the Real separates from the Unreal. The film doesn't flog you with a statement, but rather, if you're curious and patient, provokes you, the viewer, to ask questions.

I rate the film 8 out of 10 not because there are particular flaws, but in the hope that the filmmakers' next effort will garner a 9, or even an elusive 10.

Similar to accepting the news that one is going to die, I went through 5 emotional stages before I came to terms with what it meant to truly experience the film known as Grodmin.

Granted, after the first 75% of the film seems to fall apart amid the filmmaker's highly documented, on-screen incompetence, his last-ditch effort,"time-travel" montage to the tune of David Bowie's "Space Oddity" did provide me with some cheap movie-goer glee.

As the film progresses, I couldn't help but feel the filmmaker (who we glimpse in many scenes treating himself like God and his cast like crap) was just another failed Remy Belvaux trying to smash two worlds of film together -- documentary with fiction -- for no other reason than to make up for his own poor ability to organize a film well.

And, the worst part is, I was a sucker for sitting through it. But, alas, I was completely wrong.

Stage five of the pre-death ritual is supposed to be acceptance, and needless to say, by the end of the film, I had accepted everything.

The all-important FINAL THREE MINUTES of the film took EVERY emotion I thought I had about the film (up to that point), and completely dumped them on my face, at which point I think I went through all 5 stages of death all over again. All the previous notions I had developed about the film were spontaneously rewritten; creating an entirely new filmgoing experience from the one I had been having. Everything about the the film was miraculously transformed -- even the actor's performances, which is rare. It was unlike any other film-going experience I had ever had before.

In a conversation I had with three friends after wards, one expressed my feelings exactly, "...If I had left the film before the end, I would have never gotten to understand how genius it all really was."

And, the funny thing is, it's the absolute truth. Grodmin truly is a brilliant film.

It completely messed me up.