DVD lacked subtitles for the elderly, disabled, hearing impaired, and ESL viewers. Disrespectful & cheap on the part of the producers & distributor (Grasshopper Films should hop into a different field) especially when audio & enunciation were so poor. Film quality was also really bad (very grainy). Add acting to that list. Story follows (a few streets & locations in N. Y.) a struggling actress who meets an off duty government CIA type agent whose presence seems pointless. Filming is mostly talking heads.

1. I'm at nearly half "Your Review" box & still need another 150 characters (assuming a space is not a character).

2. Why add time wasting as a desirable trait both for the writer & for the reader?

3. You are forcing reviews to approach the "spoiler" stage.

4. Why reward prolonged, excessive wordiness when succinctness of thought is the desired trait. (We're not 19th century Russian writers with nothing else to do with our lives. Outside of Vodka, of course.) 5. Most importantly many movies are simply not worth the words (i.e. Time).

6. More is the desired goal? Sounds a lot like American consumerism. You're not a true American contributor unless you buy more & bigger. A true indicator of value is more?

7. To sum up (Am I at 600 yet?) I'm very disappointed.

'Slow Machine' is so clever and ambiguous and unresolving that it's snobbishly intellectual. The consequence is that few will watch it, and some will inevitably click measly stars on IMDB. This is not a movie for the casual viewer. It's that rare species, the art movie (wherein genius is sometimes found).

If you laughed during 'Barb and Star', this is not for you. Fans of 'Black Bear'', 'The Addiction', 'Another Earth', 'High Rise', 'Maggie', 'Melancholia', 'In the Earth' and their sideways brethren must pay attention (the joy of alternative cinema commands you to).

Although I watched alone, 'Slow Machine' made me nostalgic for being a Generation X teenager whose gang shared alternative music that my isolated South Africa had yet to make fashion because it was locally unavailable. It's apt to the mood of this indie movie that I pretend to subscribe to schizophrenia so that voices in my head can gush enthusiasm.

As overseas stage actors, the leads are unknown to me (my severe loss). Scott Shepherd's solidity contradicts the sad fact that he has never played a major movie role. My frustration explodes for Stephanie Hayes whom I elevate to one of my favourite actresses - she captivated me. It's cruelly impossible that the last movie she made was 15 years ago (2006) and that it's unavailable online. Chloë Sevigny's cameo reflected that reality and a theme of the movie. Sevigny's the success that Stephanie is not. And that's heightened by Stephanie's character playing her namesake.

I hope that her departure from the USA finds her embraced by her native Sweden (which treated me to 'Let the Right In', 'Border', 'Then We Danced' and 'A Pigeon').

Stephanie Hayes' ability to handle weighty and lengthy dialogue was masterfully rhythmic (compare her Texan scene to her later singing a Swedish song, and you will know her bipolarity to be astounding). Writer Paul Felten also deserves applause, an intellectual uneasiness that stimulated me. He deserves a big budget to make any movie he wants. His words and Stephanie's acting made me anxious without me knowing why. That struck a chord of unsettlement within me.

This is a mood movie, so I recommend that you watch at night in silence with a wide-awake brain. With initial dedication, you will travel past the "slow" and into the "machine" that minced me.