I broke one of my cardinal rules of film-watching today. And I’m glad I did.

The rule in question—and I’m sure I’m not alone here—is the twenty-minute rule. Simply stated: “one should not dismiss a film until one has given it at least twenty minutes.” If, after that point, you can’t stand the pacing, or the style, or don’t care one jot about any of the characters, then by all means turn it off... our lives are short, time is precious, and we don’t want to waste another ninety minutes we’ll never get back watching something that doesn’t enrich us in any way.

So, why did I break the rule? Why did I carry on watching this clearly terrible film? Why did I put up with amateurish scripting, wooden acting and bad pacing?

The film in question is the 2017 Japanese comedy-horror “One Cut Of The Dead”. The synopsis—“A film crew's attempts to film a low-budget zombie movie are frustrated when they are attacked by real-life zombies.”—held so much promise.

Maybe it’s because of the talk of “low-budget” that I held out? Maybe it was the interesting self-referential nature of the film... a film about film-making? Little did I know the full extent of the ride I was being taken on... and I can’t really fully explain to you, dear reader, about the ride because this film is best experienced blind, knowing as little as possible.

I can say that it is a film of three parts. I can say the three parts are very distinct from each other. And I can say that your enjoyment of the movie will very much depend on whether you make it through all three parts.

To give you a taste, the first part had me saying (literally, out loud), “This is bad. This is really bad.” I hadn’t even noticed that I was watching an incredibly ambitious half-hour act—a sub-film in its own right—filmed entirely in one take; no edits, no cuts, one single, long camera shot.

At the end of the first part, the camera pans out, the credits roll and we fade to black causing my already bewildered brain to take on notes of confusion and betrayal. Had ninety minutes passed already? No, it didn’t feel like it...

The second part of the film—set one month before the preceding action—had me asking (once again out loud), “Do you have any idea what we’re watching here?” It was like a very pedestrian version of a car crash, with none of the horror. You don’t want to look, but you also can’t look away.

But maybe I was slowly beginning to care what happened? Maybe I was beginning to buy in to how it all panned out? Or maybe I was just hoping for some kind of resolution to the deep divisions forming in my mind about what I enjoy in life, and how I spend my time, and why.

The third part is where we finally hit our payoff. It’s where the first part really makes sense. Reading a number of one- and two-star reviews it seems that almost every one of the reviewers didn’t make it to the third part of the film. This third act is where all of their grievances are explained. “The acting is amateurish”. Yes, that’s the point; the ‘director’ himself explains “I do fast, cheap and average”.

More grievances: “The dialogue has long, awkward pauses”. Yes, there’s a very good—and in my opinion, hilarious—reason for that. “Terrible improvisation”. Very true. But again, it’s all explained. Once you know the truth you become impressed even by the terrible improvisation.

I wish I could explain more but it’s genuinely best to approach this film with as little information as possible, other than knowing it’s probably worth hanging in there, even when your mind is screaming “enough!”.

As a beautiful cherry on top of the self-referential cake of this low-budget-film-making-film project, I was delighted to learn that it was, itself, completed for the miniscule sum of just twenty-five thousand dollars. That is a feat worthy of celebration – a full-length feature-film for less than the price of a family car.

For me—and I am a big fan of cult films—this is a cult-classic in the making. Maybe it hasn’t had the exposure it needs, or the gestation time required to climb to that position of honour, but it bears all the hallmarks: low budget, brave concept and probably most importantly, a strongly divided review-base calling it at once the ‘worst film ever made’ and ‘a stroke of real genius’.

Maybe that’s why I broke my rule and continued watching this terrible film after my twenty-minute deadline had expired... maybe I recognised I was watching a cult-classic unfurl in front of my eyes.