On the Lot
On the Lot
| 22 May 2007 (USA)
Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream thousands of hit movies and TV shows

Start 30-day Free Trial
Seasons & Episodes
  • 1
  • Trailers & Images
    Reviews
    CommentsXp

    Best movie ever!

    WillSushyMedia

    This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

    View More
    Fairaher

    The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

    View More
    Jerrie

    It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

    View More
    VinnieRattolle

    I vehemently abhor reality TV, but was lured into "On the Lot" with the promise of seeing filmmakers at work. What I was treated to, however, was a slow-motion trainwreck that seemed to get worse with each passing episode... so of course, I found myself captivated by it! In the first episode, there was clearly potential in the show as filmmakers paired up and were forced to work together on a short film. However, I don't think the short they were working on was ever aired...The following week, "On the Lot" became a horrendous knock-off of "American Idol," and seemed to be retooled on an episode-to-episode basis. The new format was that filmmakers would make a short film each week (it was later leaked that the shorts were made before the show debuted), and get voted off by viewers. Although it seemed like the focus was supposed to be on the films they made, the show followed the standard reality TV format of making the contestants out to be heroes (visionary Adam Stein, family man Will Bigham, underdog Jason Epperson) and villains (tempermental Marty Martin) -- anyone who didn't get lumped into such a category stood no chance. Initial host Chelsea Handler was instantly replaced with charmless, clueless eye candy Adriana Costa, who emceed the show with all of the wit and charisma of an uncooked potato. Judge Carrie Fisher was there simply to be crazy, judge Gary Marshall came off like a sexist buffoon, and each week a different Hollywood director would sit in as guest judge -- most were obviously VERY embarrassed to be there. When ratings plummeted, the show was knocked down from two episodes a week to one, meaning viewers had to wait a full week to see who was voted off (though it was clear almost from the start who the three finalists would be). What's sad is there was obviously talent involved, and the shorts themselves were generally entertaining (I'd love to see all the shorts collected and released on DVD). The problem was that everything about the show EXCEPT the shorts was ill-conceived. And the biggest travesty is that most of the directors haven't done anything notable since the show left the air -- finalist Adam Stein, in particular, routinely turned out creative and entertaining films, yet he has no further IMDb credits.All in all, the show's most notable for being an unsightly pimple on the face of not only Hollywood, but also reality TV, which is a shame, 'cause it could've been so much more.

    View More
    fdalexander

    There is plenty good about this show and a little bad along the way that spoils the fun. Besides being formulaic in the reality show talent contest format ala Idol, there's a decent show with true content each week. While the demographic to which this appeals to is fairly small I believe it'll survive the dearth of summer original programming and do OK for Fox during the bland summer months.The directors are varied and each have a particular take, though their own efforts are hampered by frequently mediocre acting. Also at issue is the minimal information that is given about the constraints they work under, so it's hard to judge them objectively.Example "What is the theme?" "How long do their movies have to be" "What funds/equipment/time are they alloted"... it is hard for the audience to formulate an opinion when these facts are never discussed.The production values are OK but the judges are a mixed bag. No one, at home or on the show, respects Carrie Fisher's opinion, and if I have to hear the old dirty man tell another 'sweetheart' contestant how 'we need more female directors' and that while her movie sucked he 'likes her smile' I'll puke.Tune in each week for the surprisingly famous guest judge (who Fox can't ever seem to promote in advance and capitalize on) who is invariably promoting his next big flick and providing the only intelligible commentary and this show should be worth you money on Tuesday nights.

    View More
    yangstar724

    This show is actually not that bad. But I did actually expect something more original from Spielberg. On Yahoo!, in the statistics section, they said that this show only had a sixth of the viewers from American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance. Because of Hollywood's reputation, not many people are going to be interested in the reality show behind it because all they can do is pick up the nearest tabloid.However, for aspiring filmmakers or producers or editors, etc... this show actually will help a lot after you look past the drama. Things from terminology to techniques can be reaped from this show.My prediction is that On The Lot may not have the most viewers, but will have the most loyal.Anyways, about the show itself, it's not that different from American Idol or SYTYCD. The only things different I could find is that there is no English judge (though Brett Ratner is pretty much the American version of Simon), there are a lot more challenges in one show, and they skipped the audition process (for good reason, who wants to see hours upon hours of seriously crappy videos?) Watch this if you are a drama addict, or is interesting in seeing into the directing business. But don't see it if you're looking for a unique reality talent search show. (oxymoron...)

    View More
    PaddyReagan

    Whether one enjoys American Idol or not, it is a high energy, high velocity, high volume exercise with ratings credentials to match. With 30+ million viewers in its wake, it is an incredible springboard for any new programming event that the Fox Network chooses to showcase. On Tuesday evening, all of the media and promotional planets were aligned to introduce On the Lot, the new reality show purported to identify the Next Big Hollywood Director through reality show attrition.I'm not a big fan of these reality adventures. I watched the original Survivor with interest. But every similar effort in its wake (and there have been plenty) has seemed to walk the same path, in the same stale footprints. Now, use of the term "voted off" stimulates some frantic channel surfing to separate myself from THAT reality.Still, the promo spots for On the Lot seemed intriguing. One doesn't often see flying saucers over the East River. Perfect timing! We're all currently immersed in an avalanche of "mini-movies" from YouTube and MySpace, and dozens of other mega-hit web sites. Our obsession with all things video has revealed some genuine, if in-the-raw talent. This viewer mind-set and a forum such as OTL should be fertile ground, an opportunity for would-be directors to excel and viewers to enjoy their challenges. Plus, the Spielberg/Amblin name on the marquee usually suggests a quality product.Unfortunately, an hour of YouTube's best would have been sensational compared to this lot. Because, in reality, On the Lot should have been called On the Feed Lot. It smelled terrible! Take all of the worst attributes of Survivor, American Idol, and The Apprentice, mix in Inside the Actor's Studio and Dog Eat Dog and you'll have the ingredients for this misdirected melange that managed to be, at once, too cerebral, too adolescent, too devoid of any compelling video or film to please anyone.With all of opening clichés out of the way (the only reality was bits and pieces of the Universal Studio Tour) we settled down to watch a series of pitch presentations by increasingly inept wannabes. Shades of the American Idol auditions but (unless you have a sadistic streak) with no entertainment value at all.Three judges, of course, with one female but lacking the good, the bad, and the ugly that sparks the process when AI's no talent shills are sent packing. I must say, Marshall, and Ratner are talented directors and Fisher is a fine author and a pretty good actor, though she will always be Princess Leia to Star Wars fans. The people who designed my car did a fine job too but that doesn't mean I want to see them on TV telling neophytes in the auto business where to install the fuel injectors.After a quick ejection of 14 for whom Andy's 15 minutes of fame fled too quickly, the remaining candidates arranged themselves in groups of three and were given their first movie assignments with actual cameras and actors. The final quarter hour of the show vacillated between Survivor beach scene angst, midnight hour confrontations ala Apprentice, and kindergarten playgrounds on no-nap afternoons. After a few minutes of personality conflicts, glowering, and shouts of "You're blocking my shot!" only white knuckles kept me from abandoning this ship of fools.How can people who have created such stunning successes miss the mark so badly? I suspect that by the half hour break, at least 80 percent of those AI viewers were gone and, by the end, maybe 10 percent had lingered. Worse news: most will never be back. One magnificent opportunity, wasted.For those of us with film and television experience, curiosity couldn't keep us away. For everyone else, the question had to be the same—"Where's the entertainment?!!"

    View More
    Similar Movies to On the Lot