Reviews

It was difficult to sit through the entirety of this film. Never have I seen so many tropes crammed into this 90 minute slogging, plodding, witless "story".

It is, essentially, The Dirty Dozen in space. That is as far as the comparison goes, because in terms of quality, it doesn't even approach that far superior film.

There is no real story, the dialogue is god-awful, and the action pieces are aimless, pointless, and incompetently directed. It's as if all of the money was spent on as much CGI as they could afford, and the remaining dollars were spent on script, sets, actors, and direction.

No time was taken to format and produce a proper script.

I mean, who has time for a script when there's pewpewpew to make? Why focus on plot development when they have to get the exact number of lights correct on a comm panel no one will see for more than 2 seconds? It seems to be an issue with many fan film productions. The demand is for bigger and better, but it almost always turns out tedious and mediocre. Don't get me wrong, I like big stories, with big action/adventure sequences, but that's the key: Big stories! For example, why do I like Raiders of the Lost Ark? Because it's the story of an archaeology professor being handed the greatest assignment he could ever receive. Who hasn't dreamed of such things? Granted, the government wants him to keep Hitler from acquiring its purported powers, but that isn't why he's doing it (at least not until much later). Indiana Jones is a man who treasures knowledge over profit, to seek out the tangible history, and enshrine it for everyone's benefit, and this is the chance to gain the ultimate knowledge.

This is the real motivation! It's clear, easy to understand, and we can sympathize with it. We're already in Indy's corner before we've even left for the grand adventure.

Renegades doesn't even have a strong motivation. Oh, they're out to save the galaxy, or something like that, but I never feel like anything is really at stake. Who is Lexxa Singh? Why is she willing to do this? What is her personal motivation behind all of it? Hell if I know. I mean, I pieced it together over the course of the film, but I never had a clear picture. Quite frankly, I found her character flat and uninteresting.

I didn't even bother learning the names of most of the characters, because I had no interest in any of them beyond a momentary curiosity. They weren't people, they were cardboard cutouts of what some writer thought people were like in the future. The characterization (lack of) doesn't take the cake for me. No, that belongs to the script.

It's awful. How many revisions did the script get? The correct answer, regardless of number, is "not enough." Everything seemed slapped together. The sentences that were used could have been put in random order, and they would have made about as much sense as they did in the film.

The dialogue was unnatural, stilted, uninspiring, unemotional, uncaring, ineffective, and inconsequential to its own surroundings. There was this artificial separation between what I saw happening on screen, and what I heard coming from the actors. The dialogue sounded like something wrestlers say to one another when they're standing in the middle of the ring, preparing to face off against one another.

If this was an honest attempt at producing a series for television, it failed miserably. Ultimately, I don't care about the visual effects, or about the sets. I want a strong story. I want natural, intelligent, flowing dialogue. I want motivations that make sense. Those are the least expensive aspects of any production, and yet here they failed on every level.

If CBS had greenlit the series, it would have burst into flame in less than a season, because there wasn't enough here to get it off the launching pad. This Star Dreck has banally gone where every fan production has gone before, but they tripped over their own feet and have a face full of mud as a result. Avoid this film unless you like flaming car wrecks.

Just my opinion, of course, but I found it to be pretty bad. There are some bright spots, primarily Nicholas Cage and Chad Michael Murray, but for the most part, the dialogue feels hackneyed and forced, the soundtrack is just awful. I mean, Christian pop? Really? We can't do orchestral music to heighten tension? It's just full of smarm, and sanctimoniousness. The few breakout moments were decent, and I'm glad they gave the female actors in this movie more to do than panic or worry about their men, but it was produced by Paul Lalonde, so no matter how appetizing the rest of the sandwich, there's a big turd slapped on it right there. The Cloud Ten pictures guys just aren't up to the task of producing a high quality film. They belong on the Hallmark channel, not in the theater.

I admit, I wanted to like it, I really did. I like a good disaster/apocalypse film, but this was just awful. Nothing even happened for the first half of the film. Of course, for me the greatest sin (heh) was the use of Christian pop for the movie's soundtrack. In fact, this whole film felt more like a made for TV Hallmark movie of the week.

Now, to be upfront, I liked the scenes with Nicolas Cage, because he's a veteran actor and usually puts in a good performance, and I think Chad Michael Murray did a far superior job as Buck Williams than Kirk Cameron. Of course, all Chad had to really do was act human, so not much of a stretch for most humans.

Still, there were some decent scenes. I liked the near collision incident in the film; otherwise, the scenes inside the plane felt like "Airplane", but without the self-awareness. I did find one or two tender moments in those scenes: Where the millionaire talks to scared blond lady about raising his own daughter, and where Buck comforts her earlier on in the film shortly after the disappearances. Both moments had flavors of human empathy, which is what this film should have shown everywhere.

Now, on to the first part of the film before I forget: Remember that first scene with the really smarmy Christian lady? Yeah, I don't like her, and if she got to heaven ahead of the kind, compassionate human beings who were left behind, then it only shows the glaring flaw in this film: be an ass, and Jesus will still take you as long as you pay him lip service. Help people, be kind, and compassionate, but without saying the magic words you're going to be left behind and you're going to face horrors which you deserve because you didn't say the magic words! Finally, there was the scene with Pastor Bruce Barnes and Chloe, and where the best line in the movie happened. I found it funny when Chloe asked Bruce where her mom and Raymie had been taken, and he replies that Jesus took them to heaven to save them. Chloe replies, "from what?!" but before he could answer, the quip shot into my own mind, which was "from himself!" Because that's the guy who is doing this. Not anyone else. The Big Man is the one setting these things in motion. It all falls to him.

Of course this isn't what Bruce says, but most people watching the film will see this connection right away.

In short, a very poor quality film based on a very poor interpretation of theology.

I finally got around to watching Man of Steel, and after watching the film, spending some time thinking on it, I've come to the conclusion that I like it. Sure, it's not "Superman (1978)", but then, it isn't trying to be, even though I can't help but compare it.

See, for me, that movie was, bar none, the best Superman movie I've ever seen. I am certain that my opinion doesn't matter to a lot of people, but if you're reading this, then at least you're giving me a chance to share mine, so I am. To each their own, I say, but I love the Superman movie from 1978.

That said, this movie can't be pushed aside as if it has no value, because it certainly does. Henry Cavill does a fine job of playing the lead role, infusing his Clark Kent/Superman with a noble spirit. He does radiate empathy, which I feel Superman must do, and he does seem to care greatly about what happens to humanity, and this, too, must emanate from Superman (all IMO, of course). It helps that he also fills out the suit rather well, and truly does look "super." Amy Adams does a solid job of playing Lois Lane, though I don't think there's a lot for her to do here, as of yet. If there is a sequel, and I'm sure there will be, I hope she gets a meatier role to chew on, because I do love Amy Adams, and I feel she's a very capable actor. Here's hoping we see more of her in the next film.

Michael Shannon was, however, my favorite in this film. I am a devotee of Terence Stamp's "General Zod," but while Stamp's Zod was deliciously over the top, there wasn't much more to his villainy. Shannon's Zod is different, in a totally unique way, in that his motivations are "good." Yeah, he advocates genocide (which we all know is bad), but he's only doing what he was made to do. He's twisted, but he believes he's doing the right thing for his people, and THAT gives him more depth, and it makes his reasons, while flawed, presentable enough that he's fleshed out a bit, which is terrific, because I feel that a summer blockbuster doesn't have to be about Big Dumb Action, and can focus on characters. I love Shannon's portrayal of Zod, and hope to see him in future projects involving scene chewing villainy.

The other actors perform quite well, with notables going to Kevin Costner, and Russell Crowe, both playing nicely rounded father figures.

The only real complaint I have is that, aside from a bit of a messy plot, the last 20-30 minutes feels like a special effects demo reel. We see building after building destroyed, and for a moment I had a flashback to Transformers, and I should NEVER have a flashback to the Transformers movie. Not because it was bad, but because it was so CGI heavy, that's all I noticed. It was a fun flick, but the first thing I think about it is CGI. A movie shouldn't make me think of just CGI right away. CGI is the whipped cream on top of a delicious sundae, it's not the sundae itself.

I actually got a bit bored during the fight scene at the end. Buildings went down, parking garages went down, city things were destroyed, then we went into space, and destroyed space things, so that was... different? Seriously, it just was not engaging. Something the 1978 movie did right was that during the major villain/hero fight scenes, we were continually made aware of the people around them as it happened. This kind of happened in the movie, and to be fair, the last 5 minutes of the fight scene at the end were excellent, but all during the building tumbling, I started wondering, is there any consideration given to the destruction itself, aside from "oh look, a building has been blasted." I guess I'm just used to buildings being demolished, and no one seeming to care, at least not in the movie world. It seems commonplace, almost normal. People are smiling 5 minutes after half of New York has been ripped to shreds. I mean, I didn't see any shock from any of the characters. It seemed almost normal, so that is how I perceived it. I didn't feel that the city was in any actual danger, and I don't think that's what I was supposed to feel at that point in the film.

Still, overall, it is a good movie, and it has lots of promise. I hope to see a sequel (give Amy Adams more to do!), so I gave it 7 out of 10 points.

Let's see what else Henry can do in that suit.

**Not necessarily spoilers, but there may be some hints to future events in the movie, so I am taking precautions by saying there are spoilers in this review.** This movie tries to accomplish a great deal, but I don't think it quite made it.

Weisz and Williams were fun, and believable with their characters. Franco was right on the money sometimes, but at other times, he was way, way off the mark. I hate to say this, because I normally like her work, but Kunis was off far, far more often than she was on. She seemed less than natural, her performance was either far too demure, or way over the top. She lacked subtlety, which is generally how I feel about the movie.

So, the dialogue: It was all open mouth speechifying. There was no emotional subtext. Everyone broadcast their feelings, and so it felt over-the-top and wooden in many cases. It was too "fresh" in the sense that it didn't feel like I was watching an epic event unfold before my eyes, but instead I was watching an unpolished troupe re-enact an epic event, and I know that just can't be right, because some of the actors in this film were very polished actors.

It was way too modern, not in the sense that I could understand it easily, but in the sense that I could walk out onto the street and hear similar phrases being spoken between persons. Worse, there was no warmth to it, no inflection. It was simple recitation. Tab A into Slot B. Yell Here. Moment of Inspiration Here. Sign name on dotted line here. Initial here. It felt more like caricatures quoting lines than it did characters coming to life.

I'm not saying it was a bad movie, because it isn't. I'm not saying it was a good movie, because it isn't. It is a "reaching" movie. They were reaching for something grand in scale, but they fell short. I would consider it a mediocre movie. Not bad, not good, but okay. A way to pass the time if there's nothing else.

I'd like to leave this on a positive note, so I will say this: The first word that came to mind when I saw Oz appear in full color, and at full screen, was: "sumptuous." So for the visuals? Well done! ~j~

For those who wish to watch a Bible movie that is engaging, well acted and visually exciting, you can't do much better than Sodom and Gomorrah, starring Stewart Granger and Anouk Aimee.

Two cities, both filled with hedonism, treachery and lasciviousness, are visited upon by Abraham's nephew Lot and his people. For a price, they settle in across the river from Sodom, a city wrought with slavery, excess and drunkenness. The citizens of Sodom, long since accustomed to their lifestyles, are intrigued by these hard working, morally upright people who call themselves sons and daughters of a desert God. Sodom's ruler sees these people as an opportunity for wealth, while her brother, the King of Sodom, sees the potential for military strength. Either way, the Hebrews are in more danger than they realize, especially when, after an attack by a desert clan, the Hebrews lose everything and must move inside Sodom for protection.

From there it is a downward spiral until the people themselves become like the Sodomites, knowing good but doing evil. And Lot, too, becomes ensconced with this new life of sin and power, until he is brought down by the very ones he obeyed.

It is a powerful movie of redemption and righteous judgment, and it is a wonderful movie to see. I highly recommend "Sodom & Gomorrah". For those of us who love the Biblical epics, it's hard to top.

~John