The film opens in black and white. Not film noir, but well-lit, high key, black and white. The very moment I was thinking, "Please don't let this be a black and white "art" film," the black-and-white turned to a sepia tone, and then color. The reason? The first of the director's secrets not to be revealed. My guess? Some editors have a difficult time avoiding the many options available for them to manipulate a film. Granted, all the magic in post couldn't have saved this film.

The onion-skin plot was introduced, quickly morphing into a low-budget, poorly acted treatment of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Pulp Dogs? The few cast members not shot or stabbed, were supporting cast members. That the "talented survive in show business," was demonstrated by those left alive. I don't think that is the meaning behind the statement. But that's okay. Meaning was something the director was hesitant to share with the audience. The lead actors performed equally as convincing when they were dead as when they were alive. At least a sequel is out of the question, unless the director hops on the zombie bandwagon.

Someone in the forums already mentioned the Pulp Fiction briefcase, which, like in the QT movie, the viewer never was privy to the contents. In Pulp Fiction, we saw a golden glow far more subtle with the hint of a metaphysical origin, providing an element of some speculation as to its content. We also saw a well-crafted, superbly edited film in Pulp Fiction. In Cost of a Soul, the first impression of the briefcase's contents was a flat panel fluorescent light. I suppose this was to signify something slightly more than another tribute to the works of Quentin Tarantino. Perhaps it was yet another secret known only to the director. That covers the cinematic expression of the film, except to mention that the Wizard of Oz like color-shifting which started the film, was also used, in reverse order, to end the film.

The story was a well-worn tale viewers have been exposed to so many times, it appeared even the actors were bored. The director attempted to bring life to his story, by employing experiments in cinematography and editing, more comfortable in first time regional film festival offerings. The plethora of continual "pull focus" shots which caused an unsettling case of vertigo, led me to believe the camera operator/focus puller had both just returned from a seminar featuring the technique. Used sparingly, pulling focus it is a common technique which has the ability to subtly move the viewer's attention from one character to another in a scene by changing focus. The constant shifting of focus became as obvious as green screen shots in low-budget 1970's horror flicks.

At nearly two hours, it was as exciting as seeing how far Silly Putty™ could be stretched before snapping in two. Three stars for the off-screen super-talent who pulled off the financing for the cost of the Cost of a Soul.

Just about the worst film ever ... made on a shoestring budget it seems, full of gory violence and non-Iraqi action ! It used to be Vietnam a few decades ago , but things have moved on it seems.

What a wasted and pointless effort in the name of art (?) ...

I really don't know why there are so many bad reviews. Sure it was Sean Kirkpatrick's first film he directed. Sure there may be a few shots or scenes rough around the edges, but in the 2nd half of the movie, what would seem like a straightforward plot takes some twists.

I've never heard of or seen Chris Kerson in anything before, but he seriously takes this movie from a 6 to an 9 for me. He does a great job at making you feel for his character (Tommy). You don't necessarily like him, but you can understand and sympathize for him.

I wish they would have spent a little more time showing how Tommy got to where he was in the military. Also great performances from Mark Borkowski (Jake) and Gregg Almquist (Bernie). Gregg portrays a pretty accurate organized crime leader for that time period and type of city.