Park Grove Community Church is in trouble. The executive committee is meeting to determine the future of the church, and the most powerful businessman in the congregation wants to dissolve the church. However, a long-time member wants to save her home church, so she asks a random Christian entertainment star to join the committee and revitalize the church. What ensues is a lot of conflict and healthy dialogue about the purpose of the local church.
Production Quality (2 points)
For the most part, the production of The Committee is acceptable. Video quality and audio quality are fine. However, camera work is plagued with modern sitcom tropes, like mid-shot zooms and shaky perspective camera angles. Sets, locations, and props are a bit limited due to the genre as well, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with them. Further, editing is also fine, which further contributes to the above-average score.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1 point)
The writers of this narrative raise good points about the local church being out of touch. The dry comedy therein is sometimes funny and other times cheesy. Dialogue and conversations are sometimes interesting, but much of it is overly engineered to cover certain topics and force the characters to talk about the issues in seemingly unnatural ways. As a result, the characters oscillate between being stereotypes and being realistic. There was plenty of potential in this plot, but it would have been better to either construct a more solid premise or avoid forcing so many topics into the course of the conversations. This would have allowed for better character development. In the end, a small rating is warranted here due to the potential within.
Acting Quality (2 points)
As a whole, the acting in this season is at least above the mark. Many of the cast members stay within their ranges and avoiding trying too hard. There are some moments where the acting leaves something to be desired, including emotions and line delivery. However, the performances generally improve with time, thus leading to an above-average score.
Continuity Quality (1 point)
It’s hard to understand why the first season of this series needed so many short episodes. Without the short episodes, this wouldn’t be much of a series. Elsewhere in this section, there are some good character arcs although they are a bit forced at times. Each episode is well-organized despite short length, but there just isn’t enough dynamic in this area to justify a higher score.
Conclusion
It’s evident that the creators behind this series meant well. They explore many relevant topics in their creation that can get audiences to think. However, the method of delivery was not the best. Overall, the series would have benefited from longer, more substantial episodes that included deeper character development via meaningful dialogue and conversations. As it is, this season is like an outline for an idea that needs fleshing out. Perhaps, in the future, this creative team will keep this in mind.
Mary Parsons is tired of the way her family has been torn apart by her father’s obsession with his mayoral work. To make matters worse, her father begins making governmental decisions that negatively impact Mary’s life. She’s fed up with this and decides to run against her father in the upcoming mayoral race. What she discovers is that everything is not as it seems, and she has a lot to learn about life.
Production Quality (2 points)
In this film, Corbin Bernsen and his team mostly upheld their tradition of professional productions. There are very few errors in this section as there is good video quality, camera work, and audio quality. Though the soundtrack is dumb and generic, which detracts more than it should, the sets, locations, and props are well-constructed. There are also a few slight editing concerns, but these could relate to narrative issues. In the end, this production is at least above-average.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1.5 points)
Consistent with Bernsen’s past tendencies, Mary 4 Mayor is an out-of-the-box plot idea that has good themes and relatable messaging without being too in-your-face with the Christian elements. Portraying a true-to-life family experience with authentic characters and dialogue, Bernsen finds some success with his trademark quirkiness that’s actually truly funny at times. However, other times, the comedy feels overly engineered or half-hearted. Unfortunately, the characters feel like that they could be a bit deeper, but their full development is short-circuited by extraneous content that crowds out the runtime. Sometimes, coincidences randomly happen simply to suit the needs of the story, and in other instances, the narrative aimlessly meanders to hit certain points without properly building up to these events. The first half of the screenplay contains too much wasted time, but there is a really good twist in the middle of the plot that is very thought-provoking. Nonetheless, some occurrences move too fast due to lost time, thus taking away from the chance for natural development. As a result, the climax is quite rushed and silly even though it does contain some effective payoffs. Therefore, due to all these factors, this section is a mixed bag that receives an average score.
Acting Quality (3 points)
The strongest aspect of Mary 4 Mayor is the acting, which is very professional with few, if any, errors. Each cast member seems comfortable in their respective roles. Line delivery and emotions are believable and realistic. Thus, a rare perfect score is awarded here.
Conclusion
In this movie, Corbin Bernsen successfully offered an authentic relevant message about the political problems of today. However, Bernsen continues to hover next to greatness without taking that next step into the truly meaningful. He still can’t seem to decide where he’s committed to satire and comedy in his films. He has also failed to consistently focus on central themes. Mary 4 Mayor would have benefitted from deeper characters, which would have required elimination of extraneous story elements. Character arcs needed to be more effectively developed to prevent the arcs from being too steep. These small changes would have likely given Bernsen his fist Hall of Fame screenplay. Nonetheless, we’re only left wondering what could have been.
Youth pastor Guy Sides feels like he’s stuck inside of a well-oiled ministry machine. His boss, lead pastor Skip Finney, wants to find new and outlandish ways to draw people into the church. However, Guy feels like the simple gospel is enough. Nonetheless, Skip charges ahead with zany plans for an Easter production that will have everyone talking about it. Can Guy help everyone see the true meaning of Easter before it’s too late?
Production Quality (2.5 points)
It’s evident from start to finish that Church People is well-funded, and this results in a professional production. This high quality is evidenced by top-notch video, camera, and audio elements. The sets, locations, and props are great, and it’s clear that the money has been well-spent. The only minor concerns in this section pertain to some inconsistency in editing, but overall, a high score is warranted here.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1 point)
This plot begins with a strong opening sequence that refrains from narration and establishes a basis for subtle humor that avoids being too over-the-top. Though the comedy is sometimes a bit dry, the writers were definitely trying to construct effective dialogue as they took a realistic look at the problems with the corporate church mentality. There are many relatable conversations throughout the narrative although there’s also a dose of exposition throughout the course of the conversing. However, as the story continues to develop, some comedy overstays its welcome, being used too much and coming off as too quirky. Rather than expanding as it goes, the premise remains quite thin and has little basis in reality beyond silly conventions. Montages strung together with humor take the place of deeper character development, and some oddly explained off-screen scenes only make matters more awkward. When it comes down to it, Church People is just another return-to-hometown plot, complete with forced romance-with-your-former-love tropes. Despite its promising beginning, this narrative continues its nose dive all the way to a forced conclusion that involves an eye-rolling ‘twist’ that doesn’t really work. Thus, one point is garnered here.
Acting Quality (2 points)
Although Stephen Baldwin once again positioned himself to star as a wise character in a self-produced film, he exhibits an acceptable kind of unusual in Church People. Other cast members are quite good in their performances despite a few slightly awkward moments. Some actors and actresses can be over-the-top and over-extended, but for the most part, they are all well-coached. As a whole, this section is at least above-average.
Conclusion
In the end, some audiences will enjoy this screenplay even though it travels through well-worn church comedy ruts. Unfortunately, the humor just isn’t enough to carry the entire movie: deeper characters are needed to drive the point home. The purpose of Church People is commendable (exposing corporate Christianity), but the audience isn’t left with much beyond the obvious fact that this approach to the faith is insufficient. Therefore, this film boils down to another standard comedy release that will unfortunately be forgotten in a few months.
All Slater wants to do is goof off while living a life of luxury, but when he’s suddenly forced to be the guardian of his younger siblings due to his parents’ untimely death in a car accident, Slater’s entire world is turned upside down. He desperately tries to find full-time help for his siblings while he messes around with his girlfriend, but things never work out. Then, one babysitter seems to change everything for the family, and Slater has no idea what to do.
Production Quality (.5 point)
As another ridiculous Strong Foundation production, Why Me? has uneven audio, as shown by a very loud soundtrack and loud background echoes. Despite acceptable video quality and camera work, the sets, locations, and props are cheap. Also, the editing is terrible; some scenes suddenly cut off with no warning. There are zero transitions yet very obvious continuity errors. With an overall low-quality feel, this section is another failure for this team.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
Full of ridiculously contrived situations and childishly contrived situations, this plot is incredibly juvenile. It lacks purpose and has some of the most absurdly forced comedy sequences ever. The choppy story presentation makes the movie feel like a bunch of random scenes that are poorly strung together. These problems don’t even include the incredibly awkward characters that are pariahs of millennials. The absurd message-pushing about how dumb young people are is incredibly annoying. What’s more, none of the characters seem to have appropriate emotional reactions to life crises like family deaths. Further, after tons of occurrences happen throughout the narrative that lack lead-ups or explanations, it just suddenly ends and leaves the viewer wondering why they just wasted their time on this drivel.
Acting Quality (1 points)
Per usual for the Strong Foundation team, this screenplay’s acting is just bad. Emotions are over-the-top, and line delivery seems mostly unserious. There are lots of awkward performances, and a few cast members are extremely robotic and practiced in their acting. Despite the fact that one of the lead actresses is a standout, it’s not enough to save this disaster from itself.
Conclusion
In 2020, Strong Foundation Films was still making garbage like Why Me?, thus continually making a mockery of Christian entertainment. They continually release unnecessary additions to the market like this one and contribute to the field’s damaged reputation. Thus, in 2021, we’re still saying the same things about movies like this one. Until projects like Why Me? cease being funded, things won’t change much for Christian movies.
Plot summary: Molly’s trendy fashion and beauty advice gains her a substantial social media following and an audition to host a makeover show for underprivileged youth. One problem: she has zero experience with kids in need! So she volunteers for a transitional program. Silas, the director, isn’t impressed. Can she win him over—and discover what matters most in life?
The Vargas family doesn’t want to accompany their father to a small town for one of his business trips. However, due to various school incidents, the kids are forced to come along. Despite not liking the idea, the youngest accidentally discovers a mystery along with his new friends. Thus, they race to solve it before the vacation time runs out.
Production Quality (.5 point)
This film’s production is very sub-par, including odd video quality and muted audio quality. There are also bizarre echoes, weird sound effects, and background noises that interrupt the viewing experience. Also, the soundtrack is juvenile, and there are obvious overdubs. Lighting is inconsistent throughout, and there are many tight camera shots. Sets, locations, and props are acceptable, but the editing is just pedestrian. In the end, this section only garners a meager score.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
Using heavy-handed messaging, this narrative forces obvious themes upon the audience, which spills over into the dialogue. This in-your-face approach hurts character development as they become representations of issues rather than relatable people. The plot’s premise is also contrived due to the near-propaganda methods of communication. Christian characters are portrayed as extremely perfect while other characters are magically fixed after doing what the Christians tell them to do. Every conversation is so obviously tied back to the movie’s purpose that it feels like an extended instructional video. Because there’s nothing in this storyline to save it from itself, no points can be awarded here.
Acting Quality (0 points)
As if other elements in this screenplay weren’t bad, the acting is among the worst. Line delivery is extremely accentuated and forced like it’s being printed out. Emotions aren’t any better as each cast member behaves like a programmed android. It’s very hard to believe that performances like these were even approved. Overall, this conclude a very poor effort.
Conclusion
There’s nothing more to say about The Mysterious Note that hasn’t already been said many times over. If the budget isn’t satisfactory, don’t make it. Collaborate with people who know how to write good plots. Consider how your acting is coming off. If God wants you to make a film, He’ll send the right people. Anything else is just forcing something to happen that will do more harm than good.
Amelia Pittman wanted to be independent, but trouble with her business, along with nursing home troubles, has forced her to reconnect with her father over the holidays in a most unconventional way. Believing that he has the key to finding a substantial sum of money that he stole when he was younger, Amelia drags her dementia-suffering father across the country in hopes of jogging his memory. However, what they find along the way isn’t what Amelia initially expected.
Production Quality (2.5 points)
Despite a somewhat limited budget, Christmas Wander has an overall good production. Video quality, camera work, and audio are all at or above industry standards. The soundtrack is also creative as it uses typical Christmas music in unique ways. Sets, locations, and props are realistic, and the only concerns to note are some minor editing issues, such as awkward fadeouts and lagging scenes. However, on the whole, this production warrants a high score.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1 point)
Using a creatively comedic premise, this plot stands apart from your average Christmas movie fodder. The comedy therein is actually organic as it arises from the natural flow of dialogue, which also develops good characters, including motive and personality. Flashbacks are also efficiently used to craft realistic characters who are flawed and accessible. Though most of the storyline is initiated by character choices, some some slight coincidences keep the plot alive. Although the narrative as great themes and lessons, leading to characters learning something, the vague ending and slightly cheesy conclusion put a damper on the potential that was here. As the plot comes to a close, it tends to fall flat and lose its focus as if the writers ran out of ideas. This fact, combined with the convenient turns that keep the story alive, prevents this section from getting a higher score than it could have even though this narrative was a mostly enjoyable experience.
Acting Quality (3 points)
It’s clear that this film’s strongest point is its acting. The cast members are solid and honest in their performances without committing any glaring errors. Emotions are believable, and line delivery is on point. Thus, this rounds out a very good screenplay that could have been much better.
Conclusion
Christmas Wander had a lot going for it, and it’s still a good movie to watch. However, it’s hard to overlook how it could have been much more than it is. With a better conclusion and more clear direction for the characters, this would have been a Hall of Fame film. Nonetheless, it’s still a fine holiday screenplay and one that can be learned from.
Pastor Greg randomly wins a shopping spree for Christmas Eve, but this causes him to be late for the service he has to run because he and his staff get stuck in an elevator with a pregnant woman who suddenly goes into labor! Will they be able to get back to the church in time to help those in need?
Production Quality (.5 point)
With shaky cam and terrible special effects, the production of this film leaves a lot to be desired. Although video quality is fine and the audio quality is acceptable, the soundtrack is quite generic. Sets, locations, and props are very cheap and limited. Further, the editing is very weird due to the fact that some scenes are extremely short with shocking fadeouts. Other sequences drag on for no reason, so this section can’t be award more than half a point.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
Much like Diary of a Lunatic: Trew’s Calling, Hope for Christmas brings up a lot of problems that exist within the American church establishment, but many of the satire and parody elements are bizarre and isolating. A lot of the plot elements are completely unexplainable as they either try way too hard to be funny or waste true comedic potential. The narrative lacks focus as it tries to explore an overwhelming amount of topics at once, which causes one thing to happen after another without continuity. Random instances happen for no particular reason, and there are simply too many characters and subplots. Obvious dialogue and conversations try to obsessively hammer the same concepts into the audience’s brains. However, this fact is even worse because the story is very purposeless and aimless. Hence, no points can be awarded here.
Acting Quality (1 point)
Surprisingly, the acting is the strongest aspect of this movie although it leaves much to be desired. Some cast members appear to be trying too hard in their performances. Lots of crosstalk muddles scenes; emotions and line delivery is mostly uneven across the board. However, not all is bad here, which is sufficient to warrant a point but not enough to save this screenplay from itself.
Conclusion
Greg Robbins and company always have something to offer, but their packaging is all wrong. It’s understandable and relatable to discuss the problems within the American church establishment. However, doing so in a such an offbeat way delegitimizes the message. This doesn’t even mention the fact that low quality films continually undermine the reputation of Christian entertainment. We’ve said this all before, and there’s nothing new this holiday season.
Belle Winters is a model who’s been told that she’s aging out of the business. Thus, she decides to revisit a place from her childhood to find the secret to true beauty, which she believes was found on a bracelet she left behind. However, when she returns, she once again crosses paths with the pen pal she thought forgot about her. In seeing him again, what Belle finds is unexpected.
Production Quality (1.5 points)
Despite being average, The Farmer and the Belle isn’t quite good enough for a 2020 production. Video and audio quality are good, and sets, locations, and props are acceptable. However, camera work is randomly shaky at times. The generic soundtrack is sometimes too obvious for the situations it’s played in. Editing is quite choppy as some scenes cut off prematurely. Nonetheless, there’s some improvement as the film goes on, but it’s still just run-of-the-mill.
Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)
Surprisingly, this plot begins with good attempts to develop character motive via a flashback prologue. Though the often-expository dialogue leaves a lot to be desired, there’s actually a basic narrative focus, including obvious themes albeit slightly juvenile ones. The tongue-in-cheek comedy is sometimes funny and sometimes not. At times, things happen simply because the writers want them to, and convenient turns transpire simply to suit the story’s purposes. The middle of the plot wastes a lot of time, seemingly kicking the can down the road, and a few sequences seem too staged and forced to exist. Overall, there is some potential in this section, but the contrived nature of the narrative and the lack of strong characters holds it back from being all that it could be.
Acting Quality (1.5 points)
Due to the back and forth nature of this section, the final score comes out as average. At times, the acting is professional while other times, it isn’t. Line delivery and emotions are overall inconsistent. Some scenes are more dramatic than others, but it’s not all bad. In the end, this mixed bag caps off an mostly underwhelming effort.
Conclusion
Movies like Saving Santaland are neither bad enough to be remembered nor good enough to be upheld. In the end, this screenplay is likely to fall into the same bin with other forgettable Christmas offerings that clamor for the attention of audiences. It’s definitely possible that holiday films are more likely to be viewed, so why not give the watchers something to remember rather than forget?
Daniel Rainwater had everything going for him in life: a good job, a nice house, and the family he always wanted. However, when things suddenly take a turn for the worst, Daniel is unsure what to do. Some people tell him to turn to God, but Daniel isn’t too sure about the Christian faith. Little does he know that he’ll have to face what he doesn’t want to talk about before it’s too late.
Production Quality (1.5 points)
In some respects, this production seems to have good effort behind it. For instance, video quality is acceptable, and the sets, locations, and props are at least above average. Audio quality is also fine, including an okay soundtrack. However, the camera work is quite inconsistent, sometimes involving odd camera angles that disorient the audience. Additionally, by far the worst aspect of this section is the severely choppy and confusing editing that nearly negates any good there was in other production elements. It makes for a very difficult viewing experience and overall reduces this rating to middle-of-the-road.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
Much like the disorganized editing, the scenes of this narrative jump from one thing to the next, going by so fast that it’s difficult to know what’s going on. Offscreen content makes things confusing, and the characters are simply pawns in the plot’s manufactured circumstances. Despite some slightly meaningful attempts at dialogue, it’s simply not enough to keep the characters from being distant and abstract cardboard cutouts. The protagonist goes from being a downtrodden victim to being a perfect Christian as the writers assert that nothing can’t be easily fixed by a Christianese speech and a musical montage. Because of this, the real issue explored in this story are portrayed in very trite and shallow ways. Further, strangely forced humor is framed in weird contexts. In the end, Trust is a wasted effort due to its childish handling of otherwise heavy topics, vaguely inaccessible characters, and spastic plot presentation.
Acting Quality (1 point)
Though there are some good performances, awkward and forced acting is another pitfall in this movie. Emotions seem very forced throughout, including a lot of yelling and screaming. Also, line delivery is quick, choppy, and stilted. Thus, the negative outweighs the positive here, giving this section a below-average rating.
Conclusion
Screenplays like Trust start out with possibly good intentions but easily go off the rails due to poor planning and lack of collaboration. This film has the potential to offer a meaningful message to viewers, but it’s extremely jumbled in the delivery. Without vital components and clear direction from God, movies like these will unfortunately always come up short.
R. Scott Cooper is a struggling documentary film maker, but he gets a big break when an investor pays him to move his family to Georgia and go undercover as a local church member. While in disguise, Scott is supposed to record everything he sees using a special pair of glasses. However, halfway through the assignment, Scott and his wife begin to change their minds about the scheme as things in the small group aren’t what they thought. Will they have the courage to do what’s right before it’s too late?
Production Quality (2.5 points)
As a 2020 production, Small Group‘s is nearly flawless. Video quality, audio quality, and camera work are all on point. The sets, locations, and props are well-funded and well-utilized. There are no lighting problems, and the soundtrack is acceptable. The only thing keeping this section from being perfect is the poor editing, but this is likely a byproduct of a bloated plot. Hence, this section receives a high score.
Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)
Despite a somewhat forced premise, this narrative has a surprising amount of potential, starting with the mostly realistic portrayals of people in churches. Some comedic scenes are actually funny due to pretty good dialogue, and the writers raise a lot of legitimate points about institutionalized churches. Nonetheless, the storylines struggles with being more than just a collection of funny sequences that are strung together without specific focus. The ‘villain’ is a total strawman, and certain things happen because the plot requires them to, causing the characters to be swept away in the circumstances and hitting on all the expected points. Although there are too many characters and subplots to adequately focus on in one film, some scenes occur for no reason at all except to fill time. Trying to do everything at once causes the narrative to leave behind a lot of unfinished ideas; it feels more like a series than a movie as some elements come completely out of left field and don’t fit with the overall purpose (if there is one). The sheer amount of content in this story is overwhelming for the audience, and some humor is just ridiculously obnoxious. However, though the ending sequence is rushed and tends to magically fix its problems via unrealistic coincidences, the conclusion is better than the beginning if you make it there. Therefore, this sliver of potential, in addition to pretty good characters, keeps this section from being zero.
Acting Quality (2.5 points)
Much like its production, Small Group‘s acting is actually quite good. Though some cast members tend to have overdone lines and emotions, all performances get better as they go. As a whole, this section exhibits a lot of professionalism and rounds out a big mixed bag.
Conclusion
This screenplay’s central problem is that it can’t decide if it’s about hidden problems within the American church, quirks of American churchgoers, ministries and corruption in Central America, and people doing silly stuff together. Surprisingly, despite the jumbled plot, there’s actually hope for Small Group…in series form. There’s simply too much going on here to make a less-than-two-hour film. Had a series been made instead of a movie, this idea would have had more room to authentically develop. As it is, based on its heavy marketing push, Small Group unfortunately feels like another Christian entertainment cash grab.
DJ Miller is a spoiled movie actor who just wants to do as little as possible while still making as much money as possible. However, when DJ gets negative publicity for something he does, his agent suggests he take a vacation to let the bad press blow over. Nonetheless, on the way out of town, a bizarre mix-up forces DJ to go on a mission trip to Africa and take the place of a missionary who was supposed to be there. Will DJ be able to change his ways while he’s stuck in the wilderness?
Production Quality (0 points)
A common shortcoming of nearly every Rossetti film is low quality production, and The Accidental Missionary is no exception. From inconsistent lighting to cheap sets, locations, and props that don’t adequately represent what they’re supposed to portray, there’s little to no positive to note here. Camera angles are quite unusual, there are background echoes, and cringeworthy sound effects annoy the viewers. The soundtrack is too random to fit the mood, and there’s often stock footage included that doesn’t fit the mood. Further, the editing contains poor cuts and transitions as well as several continuity errors. Thus, no points can be awarded for this section.
Plot and Storyline Quality (-2 points)
Besides the fact that this plot’s premise is unrealistically contrived, the very obvious dialogue creates simplistic, one-dimensional characters. The narrative is based on stupid coincidences, such as the most ridiculous reason for why two people got mixed up in an airport. There’s no way anyone involved would realistically believe what happens in this story. What’s more, silly and off-putting conversations between the characters patronizes local African cultures and comes close to making fun of them. It’s all wrapped up in a save-the-mission-camp agenda and packaged with a forced romance that nobody can take seriously. Further, there seems to be a tendency to purposely create bizarre situations between some of the characters, including unnecessary levels of weirdness. Capping it off with wild character swings that lack realistic explanations, this section of the movie receives negative points for its offensive elements.
Acting Quality (1 point)
Surprisingly, the acting is the “best” aspect of The Accidental Missionary inasmuch as it’s not zero or less. This is due to somewhat average acting even though much of it seems overly practiced. Emotions tend to be wooden and too earnest. The lead actress posts the strongest performances of anyone, but other cast members don’t match the culture being portrayed. Costuming is also cheesy, and accents aren’t always correct. Further, painfully bad injury acting caps off this mediocre section.
Conclusion
Of all the past Rossetti offerings that are just bad, this one is awful. Tone deaf portrayals of cultures that obviously aren’t properly understood by the creators will almost always warrant negative points. There’s also really nothing to redeem The Accidental Missionary from this pitfall. Everything was all wrong from the get-go, so this idea was doomed from the start.
When Jack and Julie are forced into the Witness Protection Program to prevent criminals from killing them because of what they saw, the only obvious option is for them to pose as Christians in a local church. Jack is supposed to be a new associate pastor, but when the lead pastor suddenly dies, Jack has to take over the church! However, Jack isn’t even a Christian, so of course, he has to fake it! Can the couple pull the wool over the flock’s eyes and avoid henchmen who are after them?
Production Quality (1.5 points)
Although the video quality and camera work are fine, the audio quality is quite inconsistent throughout, including a cheesy soundtrack. Sets, locations, and props leave something to be desire, and special effects are quite cheap. Editing is mostly pedestrian, but there’s enough production improvement as the film goes on to warrant an average score.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
It seems like the forced premise wherein a non-Christian character is forced to be Christian has really been done before and is quite worn out. If it must be done, the characters should at least be accessible and realistic, but instead, the comedy in this narrative is extremely forced and unfunny. It’s hard to determine where this story is intended to be a parody, but the dialogue and circumstances therein are quite absurd. The characters seem purposefully over-the-top as the writers try way too hard to make sure you know how funny it’s supposed to be. Nonsensical plot turns happen just because the need to and only lead to predictable conclusion. Besides these typical pitfalls, strange crude humor and bizarre jokes make for an overall unusual experience. Thus, with no creativity or potential, this section receives zero points.
Acting Quality (1 point)
Extreme emotions accompany the movie’s overall in-your-face feel, and comedy acting is eye-rolling. Many performances are overdone, annoying, and cheesy, and the line delivery is mostly uneven. Nonetheless, there are some acceptable parts in this section that are enough to warrant at least one point.
Conclusion
What can audiences really get out of these types of quasi-Christian attention getters? Just trying to make a play for faith-based viewers is a worn-out tactic that people are becoming more and more wise to. If you’re desperate to make a Christian film or series, there’s plenty of source material from books, both fiction and non-fiction, that would be ten times more successful than more mindless comedies like Can I Get a Witness Protection?
Cassandra Evans is tired of being bullied by Katie Sharp, a popular social media figure in her school. One day, after a particularly bad episode of mistreatment, Cassandra prays that Katie will know what it’s like to walk in her shoes. Surprisingly, the next day, the two girls wake up having switched bodies with one another. The only way they’ll ever be able to get back to normal is to work together and learn how they need to change their old ways.
Production Quality (2.5 points)
As a 2020 film, Switched does what it has to do in the production category. Professionalism is showcased with great video quality, camera work, and audio quality. Despite a somewhat generic soundtrack, the sets, locations, and props are well-constructed and well-used. There are no negatives to point out in this section save for some slight editing concerns. Nonetheless, this isn’t enough to prevent a high score from being awarded.
Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)
In addition to the really worn-out concept of body switching, the heavy-handed and obvious dialogue does nothing to help matters. If you must use a derivative of this premise, the characters have to be good enough to showcase noticeable changes, but in Switched, this doesn’t happen. Although they aren’t the worst characters and actually have some potential, more time was needed prior to body switch to actually develop them as believable people. Some improvements are made to dialogue as the film goes on, and realistic high school issues are explored, albeit in slightly over-the-top ways, such as the cheesy portrayal of “bad kids.” It’s hard to see past the issues the characters are supposed to represent and relate to them as people. Also, the Christian messaging feels a bit forced and shoe-horned at times. Besides these problems, there’s an entire sub-category of errors that are created by the body switching elements, such as characters obviously acting inconsistent with their true selves without drawing suspicion from others. Some scenes defy logic when characters brush off the odd behavior of the central figures, and too many coincidences occur to make things happen that the plot wants to take place. Themes tend to get lost throughout the narrative, and a vague passage of time confuses the audience. Unfortunately, a good point made by the conclusion and a demonstration of how the two protagonists organically changed is washed over with mistakes and a convoluted story presentation. Hence, a small score is warranted here, but not much more.
Acting Quality (1.5 points)
In a body switching screenplay, if it must exist, the reverse acting has to be really good. However, in Switched, this isn’t the case as everyone seems generic and carbon-copy in the movie’s first half. Nonetheless, the acting does tend to get better, at least in the areas of emotional and line delivery. For the most part, with a few exceptions, the cast members do the best they can with what they have, which earns this section an average score.
Conclusion
Mustard Seed Entertainment is usually so close to doing something good. Switched had a lot of potential within it, but it failed to attain all that it could have. Body switching aside, there are worthwhile messages in this film that deserve a platform: the one that isn’t too confusing or cheesy. For future success, this creative team might consider bringing in more talented screenwriters so that their resources can be used on more worthwhile stories.
Trew doesn’t really like her life, but she lives with it anyway. She’s not interested in God, but when she wakes up one day to find that He wants her to do something for Him, she just wants Him to go away. However, He keeps pursuing her because He has something she wants to learn if she’ll ever listen. What Trew ultimately discovers is beyond her wildest dreams.
Production Quality (2 points)
For the most part, Trew’s Calling has a pretty good production. This is shown by good video quality and fine camera work. Sets, locations, and props are also professional. However, there are some annoying comedic zooms. Also, audio can be over-driven at times even if the soundtrack is acceptable. Further, editing tends to be choppy due to poor story structure. However, this is basically a standard production effort.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1 point)
It’s apparent that the plot of Diary of a Lunatic is meant to be purposely quirky and eccentric, which means it’s sometimes truly funny yet other times is either head-scratchingly bizarre or slightly sacrilegious. Some content seems a bit inappropriate and even somewhat blasphemous. A few aspects of the comedy and a handful of the themes are actually quite relatable and interesting, such as problems within the established church. However, there are still sequences that are extremely eyebrow-raising and appear to have no purpose or point whatsoever except to be purposely wacky and off-the-wall. The portrayal of God is odd at times but not all bad; some sequences are beyond explanation and seem totally out of place. The writers’ theology and beliefs seems to be very unusual and even borderline on new age philosophies. As a whole, the narrative is a giant mixed bag of potential combined with complete nonsense. Sometimes, the storyline pretends like it’s hiding a great secret that it never gets to. Its silly rushed conclusion and ending sequence are forced and basically fix everything without providing legitimate explanations for the stranger elements of the screenplay. In the end, if anything is to be salvaged from these ideas, they need a total rewrite in order to preserve the surprisingly worthwhile elements.
Acting Quality (2 points)
Surprisingly, the acting of this film is actually pretty good at times. However, it tends to be a bit over the top in some scenes despite some comedic elements. Emotions are forced at times yet other times are not. Line delivery is mostly even at times. As such, this section does enough to get above the average line.
Conclusion
With some worthwhile elements pulling Trew’s Calling in one direction and really bizarre aspects pulling it in the other direction, the movie’s score falls right in the middle of the scale. It’s very unclear what the screenwriters were going for except that they wanted to make a point about how organized Christianity often turns people away. However, this idea was packaged in such a wacky way because it feels like they just kept sticking random scenes together over time until they had a burgeoning screenplay. Also, it’s not like they just filled with vanilla content; many of the sequences are completely beyond explanation. As a whole, it feels like this movie had something going for it, but it gets completely lost in the shuffle of whatever vendetta this creative team had at the time.
Paul Campbell centers his life around making money. As a realtor, he’s always trying to make the best sales, but his life changes forever when he and his wife suddenly inherit a strange plant from her beloved uncle. This plant actually grows dollar bills on it, but after discovering this fact, Paul hides it from his wife and uses the new money for himself. However, it all comes to a head as his crazy spending finally catches up with him and forces him to come face-to-face with what he’s been running from the entire time.
Production Quality (2 points)
Root of the Problem sports a professional production, including good video quality and camera work. This involves some creatively comedic camera angles, and the sets, locations, and props are also good. However, the audio department isn’t quite enough up to par due to poor background audio, some obvious echoes, and a generic soundtrack. Also, while the editing begins as acceptable, it becomes more and more choppy as the film progresses. Nonetheless, despite these pitfalls, this section does enough to get past the average mark.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1 point)
Surprisingly, Root of the Problem has instances of slightly funny dialogue and plot elements. There are a handful of truly comedic moments, and the characters are mostly believable. However, the story sometimes relies too much on the comedy and tends to waste time on silly montages. While the main characters are fairly well-developed, a few of the minor characters seem to do random things that lack logical basis. Also, besides the obvious issues with the money tree concept that this narrative is based on, the screenplay seems to lack solid basis in reality. There are just one too many coincidences that make it feel like a far-fetched dream sequence. Nonetheless, it’s realistic that some of the characters receive real consequences for their actions, but there are some gaping plot holes that are never explained, addressed, or rectified by the conclusion. Therefore, there’s enough good here to warrant a substantial score, but it holds itself back in nonsensical ways.
Acting Quality (2 points)
For the most part, the acting in this movie is pretty good and mostly professional. Sometimes, the acting is a bit disingenuous and unnatural, especially during comedy scenes, but it’s not all bad. Emotional delivery can be a bit forced at times, and some line delivery is breathy, but the acting overall gets better as it goes. Thus, it warrants a slightly above-average score.
Conclusion
Root of the Problem goes right down the middle of the scale as a run-of-the-mill effort. It has plenty to offer, but there are some befuddling aspects that keep it from being all that it could be. These types of films are frustrating because it’s easy to see what small changes needed to be made in order for it to attain a better level. Nonetheless, they can serve as learning experiences for the creators as well as for future makers.
Ben Marcus isn’t happy with his life. He always wanted to be a comic, but he definitely doesn’t want to follow in his father’s footsteps. However, stuck in a job he doesn’t like and aloof from his family most of the time, one day, Ben suddenly stumbles upon how much money some people make on the UTOO video platform. Thus, he decides to use this as a launching pad for the comedy career he always wanted. Nonetheless, it leads him down a path he never thought he would go down.
Production Quality (2.5 points)
As a 2020 production, Selfie Dad sports a lot of pluses, including great video quality and camera work. Audio quality is also professional, and the soundtrack is acceptable. Sets, locations, and props are also good. The only minor concerns to note here relate to very cheap special effects (even though there are few of them) and some minute editing issues. However, this production is on the level we would like to see all Christian entertainment possess.
Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)
Despite some acceptable attempts at comedy, Selfie Dad is mostly full of failed humor that simply falls flat. While the character backstories are okay, the plot seems to meander around without really finding its actual point, fueled by inconsistent dialogue that mostly just forces the storyline forward. Some conversations are quite obvious with the messaging, including a lot of unnecessarily patriarchal ideals and typical gender stereotyping. A lot of the narrative’s important scenes are overly staged and spoon-fed to the audience, and most of the characters seem to say the same things over and over again just to fill time. Even with this, the passage of time is a bit vague, and things mainly happen just because they need to. With a lot of things going on at once, quite a few scenes feel unfinished and disconnected from the others, which makes it very hard to comprehend what the writing team even wanted to do besides string a bunch of cheesy asides together without a common thread to truly connect them. Further, the story’s model Christian characters are super-perfect, and all the stale conflicts are magically fixed by the film’s unearned musical conclusion, which seems to imply that the movie is much more important than it actually is. In the end, though there’s a small amount of potential in Selfie Dad, there are too many other problems that get in the way.
Acting Quality (2 points)
Another reflection of this film’s modern amenities is its professional acting. As such, there are only a handful of problems in this section, such as some overdone funny acting. However, for the most part, emotions are believable, and lines are delivered well. Unfortunately, Michael Jr. doesn’t post a particularly strong performance as the lead, but Chonda Pierce is good in her unfortunately small role. Other cast members are passable in their performances. Hence, this is an above-average aspect.
Conclusion
In Selfie Dad, one character (ironically played by Karen Abercrombie) hilariously asks another if she’s ever seen War Room. The other character says she doesn’t really like Christian movies. This exchange is absurd on a number of levels. For one, Selfie Dad‘s plot is almost synonymous with War Room: a dad is having trouble at work and never pays attention to his family. His wife is frustrated but is directed by a wise spiritual character to pray for her husband. The husband almost commits infidelity but, due to his wife’s prayers, is seemingly prevented from doing so. The dad gets fired from his job but is able to bond with his kids, including a teenage daughter, over activities they like. The parents reconcile their marriage. As added bonuses, Michael Jr. and Karen Abercrombie star in both screenplays, with Abercrombie playing the wise spiritual character in both instances. Moreover, it’s equally absurd to have a character state that they don’t like Christian films (a legitimate concern) in a movie that isn’t even that good. It’s evident that the creative team is aware of the problems in Christian entertainment, but they basically fell into the same old traps that others have also slipped into. This seems to imply a lack of understanding about the overall problems still plaguing the field. Overall, Selfie Dad is just another prime example of how good funding and marketing aren’t the automatic keys to success in Christian entertainment: the storyline is equally important.
The Reynolds family members all have many commitments and obligations, yet none of them want to see anything from the others’ perspectives. However, after asking God to change each other, they get the surprise of their lives when they suddenly switch bodies with each other. This gives each of them a chance to see what it’s like to walk in the others’ shoes, and what they find out is unexpected.
Production Quality (2 points)
Overall, the production of The Big Fix is good without many errors. This includes a great soundtrack and professional audio quality. Camera work and video quality are also up to standards. Sets, locations, and props are well-constructed and well-utilized. The only drawbacks in this section are some cheesy special effects and some choppy editing. In the end, however, this production is enough to be above average.
Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)
At times, The Big Fix offers some good dialogue and realistic looks at problems with families and businesses in American culture, but other times, the film is a bit in-your-face with obvious messaging and sermonizing. This aside, the movie’s entire basis is a bit off, to say the least, as it comes with all the expected logical problems and inconsistencies that usually accompany body-switching plots. Despite these obvious concerns, not much actual content actually transpires in this narrative apart from forced comedy, unearned silliness, wasted time, and useless montages, which all pertain to the questionable premise. Along with these errors comes inevitably unusual content and insinuations that make for awkward stop-and-start scenes and meandering sequences that lead to nowhere. In order to effectively pull off any type of character-switching idea, you have to actually have good characters to begin with rather than basic stereotypes. This storyline’s poor character development also gives rise to cheesy views of young people. In the end, the conclusion is forced and cheesy as it basically fixed everything very rapidly, and the last scene is quite bizarre in general. Therefore, not many points can be awarded to this section.
Acting Quality (2 points)
For the most part, the acting in The Big Fix is okay even though it can be too forceful at times. Other times, however, the emotional and line deliveries seem more natural. The biggest issue here is that, in order to properly execute a character switching plot, you need high-level acting. Unfortunately, these performances are just a bit above average. Nonetheless, while the acting is a bit stop-and-start at first, it tends to improve with time, which rounds out a run-of-the-mill effort.
Conclusion
This creative team is usually almost there (see Fat Chance), but a collection of things always holds them back from reaching the next level. They would greatly benefit from improved screenwriting so that they can focus their talents in other areas, like beefing up production and acting. With a more substantial plot and stronger characters, The Big Fix could have really been something. Nevertheless, perhaps we’ll see better things from this group in the coming days.
Author’s Note: This is not a paid advertisement of the AIO Club, just a friendly recommendation.
Hey all! If you’re looking for a way to entertain your kids and yourself with clean, quality content, look no further than Adventures in Odyssey! The online Adventures in Odyssey Club (AIO Club) has a free 30-day trial available that gives you access to all of their audio drama albums, exclusive bonus content, and their animated videos. The website is easy for kids and adults to navigate and has a fun layout.
Insider’s tip: Use Firefox to listen to episodes, not Google Chrome. The website acts buggy on the latter.
All you have to do to get access to loads of free, family-friendly entertainment is make an account and start listening! A pro here is that the account doesn’t require a credit card number, so an older kid could make one on their own. The avatar choices are a bit limiting, but that’s just my opinion.
We have loved listening to Adventures in Odyssey since childhood, and recently started listening again when the pandemic struck. It’s a great way to use your afternoon free time wisely! Here are some tips from a veteran Odyssey fan on the best selection of AIO episodes:
The first ten albums or so have simple plotlines, but there’s nothing really wrong with them.
Albums 11-13 are forgettable, but may appeal to some audiences.
Album 14 has some priceless comedy, especially the License to Drive episode.
Albums 19 and 21 are good.
Albums 22-25 are very good, even if Blackgaard is a strawman villian.
Pretty much everything else is very good as well after album 25 (except for Back on the Air), until you finish album 57.
The most recent albums after 57 are very politically motivated and not especially memorable.
With so many hours of clean, quality content at your fingertips, there’s something here for everyone! We hope you and your family come to love Odyssey as much as we have over the years, and that it leads to some great discussions between you and yours.
Gabby and Vince Powers are both superheroes with the same goal of saving the people around them from certain evil. However, they can’t seem to keep their marriage out of trouble. Thus, in order to be ready for their toughest assignment, the couple decides to attend marriage counseling, but it only seems to make things worse. Will they be able to settle their differences before it’s too late?!?
Production Quality (1 point)
Although not all of the production qualities of The Power Couple are bad, such as okay video and audio, there are also quite a few other concerns to note. For instance, cheap special effects are used throughout the series, and camera work is inconsistent, including some unnecessarily tight shots. Similarly, the sets, locations, and props are fairly limited, and the soundtrack and its accompanying sound effects are beyond cheesy. It also goes without saying that many scenes seem like there aren’t enough people in the shot to adequately support the number of individuals the scene is supposed to represent. Further, the editing leaves much to be desired, which, along with the other problems, overall contributes to an underwhelming performance in this category.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
Despite The Power Couple‘s childish premise, the dialogue is surprisingly not all bad as this story attempts to do something different and tries to present real issues. However, it’s simply not enough as the superficial nature of the narrative overtakes any small amount of potential there might have been. This is evidenced by too many very poor attempts to be funny and lots of surface conversations that prevent us from properly understanding who the characters are. Additionally, many biblical and possibly substantial concepts are awkwardly shoehorned into the plot; these ideas are improperly used to magically fix the characters’ problems in illogical and unrealistic ways. Then, before the viewer is prepared, the storyline abruptly ends and expects the audience to beg for another season. In short, though there was a very slight amount of potential in this idea, it wasn’t enough to rescue the narrative from triviality and lazy writing.
Acting Quality (1 point)
For the most part, the acting in The Power Couple is pedestrian and sometimes a bit worse. Emotions are usually forced in unrealistic ways even though line delivery is mostly fine. Some cast members are better than others, but all of the costuming is horrible. One positive note is that it’s good to see a husband and wife (Carlos and Alexa PenaVega) star alongside each other, but this section is overall a disappointment.
Continuity Quality (1.5 points)
While this series has a basic amount of continuity, as evidenced by continuations between episodes and consistent subplots being focused on, it’s still not as good as it could be. For one, each episode is extremely short, which raises the question of this even needing to be a series at all. Further, all character and story arcs are basically predictable and expected with no real twists and turns. Therefore, this rounds out a very underwhelming effort.
Conclusion
It’s very unclear how and why The Power Couple was made, but it’s unfortunately a squandered idea that could have been better in different hands. For one, this type of concept requires higher amounts of funding and a lot of writing collaboration to ensure cheesiness is avoided. In the end, it seems like whatever was spent on this series would have been better used in a different way, such as being saved for higher quality productions.
What Victoria mostly cares about in life is going from one relationship to the next so that she can be whoever she wants to be without having too much commitment. However, when one of her attempts to get a guy’s attention doesn’t quite go as she planned, she stubbornly decides to do whatever it takes to make him ask her out. Thus, she volunteers at the non-profit her prospect, Jason, heads up and finds herself suddenly building a house for a single mother and her family. Little does Victoria know that she’s about to gain a surprisingly new perspective on life that she never considered before.
Production Quality (2.5 points)
As a whole, Home Sweet Home is a near-perfect example of what a 2020 production should look like for freshman Christian film makers. Not only did they wisely use their budget without over-extending themselves, but they also made sure that key production elements demonstrated good quality, such as video, camera, audio, and music work. The sets, locations, and props are also efficiently used, and overall, there are really no negatives to highlight here save for some minor editing concerns. However, some of these issues can be attributed to the plot; in the end, this is a very solid production effort.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1.5 points)
From the get-go of this plot, it’s very clear that the writers were inspired by very strong and worthwhile themes of people living behind false exteriors versus being comfortable with who God created them to be. Also, Home Sweet Home isn’t afraid to shine a light on fake romantic relationships that may exist in a Hallmark view of the world as well as the ease of finding identity in “scoring” relationships in the Western world. In doing so, the creators gave a lot of attention to detail to produce a truly funny comedy based on mostly good dialogue. However, while many of the characters are spot-on, some of them, such as the male lead, leave a lot to be desired in the personality and motivation departments because it’s hard to get to know him as a person. Elsewhere, secondary characters and subplots could have been a bit deeper than they are had they been provided with more adequate screentime. To make room for them, some romantic comedy cliches, such as the returning ex-love interest, could have been cut out. In the end, even though the narrative follows a basically predictable progression toward a somewhat forced and convenient ending, Home Sweet Home demonstrates tons of potential for future projects because the writers clearly know how to properly integrate themes into their stories.
Acting Quality (2 points)
Despite the small cast, there are not many acting problems to note in this film. One of the biggest drawbacks, however, is the lack of adequate coaching for the lead actor as he seems lost a lot of the time, but then again, his role isn’t very expansive. Elsewhere, Natasha Bure posts an above-average performance while Sarah Kim is also a standout. In the end, like the movie as a whole, there are just small problems that hold this section back from taking the next step.
Conclusion
The 5×5 Productions team is clearly onto something with this unexpectedly refreshing release. With just a few minor tweaks, Home Sweet Home would have easily made the Hall of Fame. Nonetheless, the themes of this film make it worth your time and give us great hope for the future of this creative team’s work. With a bit more funding and collaboration, they could be going great places with their next project.
Tommy Blaze Beverly is running out of money, and his constant hustles for quick cash aren’t yielding what he needs to fund his extravagant California lifestyle. Thus, when he sees a news story about foster girls in need, he jumps at the chance to make some extra money by becoming an instant foster parent basically overnight. Thankfully, his racially stereotyped butler and personal assistant are always there to meet Tommy’s beck and call, and the foster girls basically turn his house into a giant dance studio designed to hold daily auditions for the next Disney role. What could go wrong?
Production Quality (1 point) In keeping with PureFlix’s typical sitcom elements, the first season of The Beverlys is complete with a constant laugh track, an annoying soundtrack, and the same old sets, locations, and props. While some production elements, such as video quality, audio quality, and camera work, are fine, these limiting factors put a damper on whatever small potential it had. The editing is also littered with stock footage and corny transitions between scenes. Thus, this section only warrants a point, but this is just the tip of this season’s iceberg of problems.
Plot and Storyline Quality (-2 points) Essentially, The Beverlys appears to be designed as PureFlix’s own version of the Disney Channel. Its first season is full of mindless conversations, dance sequences, and cheesy so-called comedy routines that are all funny for the wrong reasons. This doesn’t even mention the constant stream of extremely forced comedic diatribes and painfully shoe-horned Christian messaging. What makes matters worse is that the storylines are not only pointless but that the dialogue is littered with cringe-worthy racial stereotyping, which causes this section to be negative. Besides this, the characters are very over the top and empty at the same time. The fact that stupid antidotes are forced on the viewer just after the audience sees thinly veiled racism is very disingenuous and offensive. Further, the premise of each episode is utterly pointless, and there’s nothing good going for this season, which is why the derogatory elements overcome this section to make it negative.
Acting Quality (-2 points) Tommy Blaze departs from his usual corny performances to post a collection that’s in-your-face, bombastic, and annoyingly over the top. Most of the other cast members in this tiny cast are also trying way too hard as many emotions are basically screamed (or sang) at the audience. Line delivery is also very strained and forced. There is very little good to speak of, and the bad greatly outweighs anything positive, which is why this section also warrants negative points.
Continuity Quality (0 points) The eight episodes of this first season are all literally the same thing over and over again. They all take the same page from the sitcom playbook and find different ways to package it: some silly escapade or scheme entangles the characters, and they have less than half an hour to quickly resolve it and prepare for the next round. This time, however, it’s just done with a Bible thought spin. Therefore, this copy-and-paste model of episode writing warrants no points for this section, which rounds out an overall embarrassing effort.
Conclusion
Another month, another pointless PureFlix original series. For some reason, the PureFlix executives are intent on spending their funds on throwaway concepts like The Beverlys. It’s unlikely they are getting any type of return from this kind of bizarre Blaze pet project, so why make it? It just further adds to the nonsense littering PureFlix’s checkered past and contributes to the already tenuous perception of Christian entertainment. Hopefully, however, things are beginning to look up outside of the PureFlix realm.
Elisha just wanted to get to Pittsburgh on time, and he never intended to cross paths with an eccentric character named Elijah. Elisha reluctantly decides to aid Elijah’s hitch-hiking, but he immediately regrets the choice as Elijah continually delays Elisha’s plans and hampers his progress. Thus, Elisha keeps trying to get Elijah off of his back. However, little do either of them know that they are about to both learn something valuable that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
Production Quality (.5 point)
The cheapness of The Follower‘s production is very evident from start to finish. There are loud background noises and a generic soundtrack that tend to cover up other audio, and video quality is inconsistent throughout. The camera work is randomly shaky at times, and there are some obvious overdubbed lines in some portions. In other parts, cheesy sound effects are inserted on top of the video, and there some instances of weird camera angles. Further, the sets, locations, and props are cheap-looking, and the editing has a handful of glaringly obvious cuts. Thus, while there are some slightly positive moments in this production, it’s overall quite negative, which warrants the low score.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
It’s unclear whether or not The Follower is supposed to be another modern-day Bible application, but character names like Elijah and Elisha make things very confusing. Besides this, the dialogue is full of corny attempts at comedy, and the cheesy conversations mainly waste time. This causes the middle of the film to be very aimless since it’s appearing to just kill time until the ending, but the storyline actually makes less and less sense as it progresses. The more some hidden purpose is kicked down the road, the more the narrative seems to get lost in its own mind. The story pretends to conceal some great secret, yet the whole concept is too vague to be grasped and only leads to a hollow conclusion. In the end, while there may have been some interesting ideas here, it’s all too rushed and slapped together to make any sense.
Acting Quality (1 point)
Surprisingly, the acting is actually the strongest point of The Follower as Goodwin and Sigler post their best performances to date. They seem very comfortable with their character roles and demonstrate niche talents. Even still, the few cast members that there are seem to be trying way too hard to be funny, and many emotions are quite forced. Line delivery is also uneven, and the acting overall gets worse as it goes even though it started out semi-okay. Therefore, this rounds out a very underwhelming effort.
Conclusion
In the end, The Follower is yet another example of how quantity over quality hurts the Christian entertainment world. Trying to cram more than two movies into one year is very difficult to pull off without sacrificing essentially positive elements. While we do need more Christian movies and series being made each year, we need more Christian entertainment that is not sub-standard and is capable of truly making a difference. Thus, it would be better to have fewer annual releases until the industry is able to consistently produce quality content.
Natalie McClay is a selfish businesswoman who wants what she wants when she wants it. However, when her high-dollar lifestyle demands that she get a roommate to share her rent, she has no idea what to expect. When Iris walks into her apartment, Natalie’s whole world is turned upside down. Natalie tries to do everything she can to discredit the eccentric new optimist in her life, the harder she tries, the more her friends like Iris. However, when Natalie goes too far with her mistreatment of her quirky roommate, there are far-reaching consequences, more than Natalie could have imagined.
Production Quality (2 points)
It’s clear that Laughing at the Moon had an adequate budget since the production is quite good, including great video quality and professional camera work with an artistic touch. Similarly, the audio quality and soundtrack are fine, and sets, locations, and props are well-used and well-constructed. At times, the editing is passable, but other times, it’s a bit choppy as some scenes cut off without warning, which suggests that there was a lot more content than they had space for. Also, there are some slight continuity errors between some scene, which seems like an unforced error. However, in the end, this is an above-average production that lays a good foundation for the future.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1.5 points)
Laughing at the Moon makes some good attempts at comedy that’s actually funny at times, but sometimes, it’s awkwardly forced, and there tends to be a bit too much quirkiness in some scenes. One of the best thing about this plot is its focus on the human tendency to convince oneself of one’s own superiority over others, especially those who do not fit into societal molds, and this is definitely a story that needs to be told, even if this version is a little (purposely) offbeat at times. The characters are pretty good, but they are hampered by mentions of off-screen content, which lends further credence to the possibility of a quick editing job that chopped out important scenes due to too much original content. Even still, the use of flashbacks throughout the narrative is very effective to establish one of the main characters’ traumatic memories, yet sometimes, it feels like a lot of the scenes are randomly strung together and loosely connected with musical montages that tend to waste time. However, the dialogue in the middle of the plot is pretty good at establishing some believable characters, and there are some very timely themes explored, such as being fake vs being authentic. None of the characters are perfect and each has their own unique flaws. One other weakness of the storyline is the somewhat steep character arcs that occur due to the slightly rushed ending, but there’s a very good point at the end that is worth watching. In the end, Laughing at the Moon is a mixed bag that is pretty good in and of itself; it also shows great potential for future projects.
Acting Quality (2 points)
For the most part, the cast members of Laughing at the Moon naturally and easily assume their respective roles. While emotions can be a bit overstated at times, they are mostly fine, and line delivery as a whole is on point. As a side note, this is one of Erin Bethea’s best roles to date. In summary, this is an above-average acting job that rounds out an above-average film.
Conclusion
This movie boasts a very good idea that’s presented in a fresh way, and the main thing holding it back from the Hall of Fame is its choppy presentation. Thus, Laughing at the Moon deserves some level of remake whether it be a new film about similar concepts or a series format for the original film because this creative team may be better at making Christian series. Either way, it should be interesting to see what this team produces next.
Allison has always struggled with her weight, but she doesn’t know what to do to change herself. She feels ostracized by other people, and when she feels like she might be interested in a guy from her church group, she feels like she has no chance due to her image. Thus, she decides she needs to find love on the internet…by using her roommate’s picture on her online dating profile. However, things don’t go as she originally planned them to go, and everyone learns a hard lesson about self-esteem and being themselves.
Production Quality (2 points)
For the most part, Fat Chance has a fine production, including good video and audio quality. The soundtrack is intriguing, but some of the camera angles are a bit odd at times. Similarly, lighting is good throughout even if the sets, locations, and props are a bit limited. Even still, they are mostly used well, and the editing is adequate. In the end, this is essentially an above average production.
Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)
Fat Chance definitely isn’t afraid to explore some very relevant body image issues, but this film may not have gone about it in the best way. This is a difficult topic to tastefully portray in a movie, and some of the attempts to highlight the weight of the main character are questionable at best. There are also quite a few distasteful jokes about being overweight, but there are also some other areas of comedy that are actually somewhat funny because they poke fun of silly societal trends. Elsewhere, the writers definitely had some good intentions with character development (since the characters are intended to be based on real people), yet there are also some very poorly designed “bad” characters who are basically really obvious strawmen. However, the dialogue throughout the film is pretty good despite the somewhat strong messaging, and these worldviews are agreeable since they explore important topics of how people paint themselves on social media, how some Christians act fake, and how it’s better to be yourself. In a similar vein, while Fat Chance also includes a lot of typical dating service plot elements (two characters are virtually dating and know each other in real life but don’t know that the other one is the virtual date), it does present a realistic parody of the problems these services can cause. In the end, this storyline is a mixed bag of missed opportunities and potential for the future. With deeper characters and subtler messaging, this plot could have gone a lot further.
Acting Quality (2 points)
Despite having a partially “amateur” cast, Fat Chance has a handful of bright spots among its cast members. Many of them definitely make good attempts to become the characters, and while some are a bit awkward at times, they are mostly good at exhibiting emotions and delivering lines. Thus, this rounds out a basically average effort.
Conclusion
More Christian movies and series need to explore the unpopular opinions and topics found in Fat Chance, but there are obviously better ways to go about this particular concept. Self-worth and self image are both important and sensitive issues to look at, which is why they must be done in consultation with people who have struggled with them and in conjunction with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the creators of this film demonstrated potential for the future by making Fat Chance, so it will be interesting to see how they build off of this movie in their potentially upcoming projects.
Following graduation from college, Jessica Miller and her two closest friends are forced to face the harshness of the real world that academia never prepared them for. They all have big plans, but they soon realize that no one in their respective job fields really cares about their dreams. Things don’t turn out like they’re supposed to, and the three friends are left scared and confused. However, this gives them the opportunity to realize that God sometimes has bigger plans for people than they can ever realize.
Production Quality (2 points)
As a whole, the production of Faith, Hope, & Chocolate! is fine for a creation produced from a university film school. They have their proverbial ducks in a row when it comes to video quality, audio quality, and camera work. For the most part, sets, locations, and props are professionally presented and utilized. The only major complaints to raise are some occasional backgrounds sounds and some cheesy flashback quality. Also, the editing is a bit generic, but on the whole, this is a respectable production that shows a creative team headed in the right direction.
Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)
Unfortunately, the plot detracts quite a bit from this film, mostly due to the incessant and unnecessary narration that greatly hurts the possibility of character development. As such, dialogue is fairly pedestrian but not awful; however, it doesn’t do enough to build the characters beyond their stereotypical molds and expected backstories. Also, the awkward attempts at comedy throughout the storyline don’t help matters, and the fact that some plot elements aren’t entirely rooted in reality isn’t helpful either. Since the central concept of this film is somewhat interesting yet at the same time slightly standard, this character-based story needed to depend heavily on the personalities of the characters, and this was something that wasn’t accomplished. Doing this would have added a necessary level of complexity to this otherwise straightforward idea; moreover, post-college issues need to be explored as this isn’t heavily discussed in Christian entertainment, but a more meaningful basis would have done better with driving the points home. In the end, the problems presented in the story are too easily fixed with a posthumous artifact, which seems to absolve some of the characters of realistic consequences or help them to avoid real lessons. Thus, this is a nice try that will hopefully yield better results next time.
Acting Quality (1.5 points)
Overall, the acting of Faith, Love, & Chocolate! is fine. It’s neither dynamic nor horrible–just average. At times, some emotions come off as forced and awkward, and line delivery could be a bit more meaningful, but this is the best that can be expected from presumably volunteer cast members. In this light, each cast members takes on their roles well.
Conclusion
In summary, the creative team behind this movie likely did the best they could with what they had available. The one thing we would have liked to see more of was deeper character development, which could have only been accomplished by banning narration and by spending a little more time on the dialogue. In cases like these, it’s sometimes better to base characters off of real people or to give the characters flexibility to fit the personalities of the cast members. Nevertheless, the people behind this film seem to mean well and likely have a lot of good potential for future projects.
After Betsy had a unique experience in which God allowed her to live in an alternate version of her life due to her pleadings, she was able to return to her normal life and chronicle her journey under the guise of a fictional work. Her novel made her moderately famous overnight and even attracted unexpected attention from publishers and media outlets. However, this new popularity will come at a price as Betsy will have to decide if she’s going to come clean about the true origins of her story.
Production Quality(1.5 points)
Although it’s a 2019 production and should be higher quality than this, Heavens to Betsy 2 is a mostly average one. Video quality, camera work, and audio quality are all fine and standard, but the soundtrack is generic and cheesy. The sets, locations, and props are fairly limited and come off as cheap. The editing is very basic as it presents the content at face value without any complex techniques. As a whole, it’s a very pedestrian offering that is neither good nor bad, yet it really doesn’t have a place in the current entertainment field. To top things off, silly magical elements really put the nail in the coffin for this plot that was really doomed from the start.
Plot and Storyline Quality(0 points)
After a long rehashing of the previous film many people don’t know about, this unnecessary sequel launches into expectedly cringeworthy comedic sequences very similar to the ones we saw in the first one. Much of the dialogue is trying way too hard to be funny, and many of the scenes are downright pointless. As if it doesn’t have anything better to do, this installment decides to go down a localized media persecution rabbit hole in order to keep the story on life support. However, this idea comes off all wrong as the ‘villain’ character is actually remotely funny for the right reasons. It’s commendable for a Christian creator to want to create a universe of characters, but are these the ones people really want to know better? There are too many coincidences in this story-world as everyone knows about the main character’s book, and lot of the conversations feel dragged out and inflated for runtime purposes. The storyline is overall aimless and lacks substantial themes as it just presents a random collection of scenes that don’t seem fully rooted in reality. In a somewhat bizarre concluding sequence, the screenwriters appear to address the logical problems of the first film, but the explanations only create more questions and inconsistencies.
Acting Quality(1.5 points)
Like the production, the acting of Heavens to Betsy 2 is very run-of-the-mill and expected. Some cast members tend to overdo their roles and overplay their emotions while others appear unsure of what they’re doing. In the end, with no dynamic performances or standout roles either good or bad, this section also gets an average rating.
Conclusion
One big question we have to ask about this film is why it was even made. Rarely is a sequel justified, especially when the original film was so low-key. Sequels should be about exploring new horizons with characters who are already well-developed and deserve further screentime. Unfortunately, films like Heavens to Betsy 1 and 2 don’t rally have much to offer and will easily be forgotten as time goes on. If screenwriters are interested in trying to develop characters over time, a series would likely be a better forum for this venture.
Select mainstream romantic comedies have much to teach Christian filmmakers. The truth is that the Christian romantic comedy and or comedy genre(s) are sadly sparse. The movies that do exist in these genres are usually awkward and or obnoxious. While there are a few diamonds in the rough, such as Heaven Bound, Altar Egos, and The Matchbreaker, the norm is….well….if you don’t know, then I won’t torture you with the knowledge. Today we’re going to take a look at two mainstream romantic comedies that got it right, and the lessons Christian filmmakers can learn from the same.
Leap Year (2010)
Screenwriters Harry Elfont and Deborah Kaplan gave this rom-com their all – a fact that is evidenced through many truly funny sequences and the time spent on developing a relationship between the main characters. The main characters are a purpose-driven, successful apartment stager engaged to a ‘cardiologist’, and an equally sarcastic and broody owner of a failing Irish pub. These two eccentric people drive the plot and have realistic dialogue and responses to life’s curve-balls. While the film received mixed reviews from critics, it is our belief that it is mostly misunderstood. While it cannot be classified as a Christian film – due to some language and a few scenes where characters are partially clothed – the screenplay contains some important lessons that many Christian screenwriters have yet to learn.
A true comedy is built on authenticity –real people
Audiences want authenticity. The most important step towards authenticity is creating real characters. A real character is someone who is neither an emotionless Hallmark clone nor a saintly, persecuted believer in a message-pushing Christian film. A real character is found in the messy in-between because real people are imperfect in a beautiful way. They mess up and say and do things they regret, but they are also capable of great love and good. Once this concept is implemented, the second branch of authenticity is real relationships. Real relationships don’t follow a spreadsheet – but they’re worth it. This movie establishes authenticity by paralleling an obligatory partnership and a real romantic relationship with the goal of showing the audience why the former is never worth it. As a screenwriter, whether you write the story or the screenplay, make the time to craft real people who have real relationships, the end results will be lasting.
Romantic comedies must have exceptional dialogue
This movie doesn’t waste time on ‘filler’ dialogue. Every conversation is both humorous and meaningful to the plot. The main characters go through the perils and joys of each day, reflect on their past and present, and learn to accept each other’s imperfections. What can a screenwriter learn from this? That real relationships are established through relatable dialogue. In this genre, conversations between characters should be neither high-brow nor punctuated with slang and cliches. Regular, average communication is what is needed – and a little sarcasm never hurt either. Overall, a screenwriter must remember that exceptional dialogue is paramount to building great characters.
My Fake Fiance (2009)
Howard March’s romantic comedy/parody stands out from many other mainstream RC’s because it contains truly comedic sequences. What is a truly comedic sequence? Something that is still funny the second time you watch the film. Additionally, his portrayal of self-loving opportunists and parody of dysfunctional parenting is nearly unmatched. The two main characters – a down-on-his-luck gambler on the run from the town thug and a cynical, single woman who has never quite lived up to her family’s standards – drive the simple storyline and have many truly funny conversations. March uses authenticity and exceptional dialogue to build his characters, but his screenplay contains further lessons for screenwriters in the romantic comedy genre.
Self-awareness is the key to parody
A true parody is one in which the characters are self-aware of unbelievable, ironic, or unrealistic scenarios or situations. March’s The Monkey character and his subtle trolling of Joey Lawrence through his corresponding character are examples of how to do this. Real people are self-aware, whether they admit it or not, and yes, when push comes to shove people are always looking for a way to benefit themselves. As a screenwriter, if you characters do not meet this criteria, then they can never be meaningful to the audience – they will never be real. I know that sounds like a quote from The Velveteen Rabbit, but its true.
Insecurity is the lifeblood of romance
A romantic comedy should be built around the insecurity of the characters. This may sound a little strange, so let me explain.
When two people love each other, they are forced to decide if they will open their hearts and break down walls that they have always held on to, or turn away in fear and remain in solitude. When someone is truly in love with another they are both afraid of and in awe of the sensation. They long for what they feel they cannot have or do not deserve. In the words of Emmett from the Lego Movie 2, “its easy to harden your heart, the hardest thing you can do is open it”. This is a simple, but profound truth that a screenwriter should keep in mind when writing a romantic comedy. It is the center of everything that matters. It should be the underlying message in every romantic comedy. Ok, you get it.
In light of all this, what can we conclude? Simply this: select mainstream romantic comedies are more far-reaching and influential than most Christian films in the same genre because mainstream screenwriters understand real people. If Christian movie-makers start respecting their audiences by using real people and portraying real relationships in their storylines, then they will be following Jesus’ command to, “in humility, value others above yourselves” (Philippians 2:3, New International Version).
This edition’s scenario:Let’s say that you’re a big business guru in the inspirational card-making, trinket-selling, and all around entertainment industry. Let’s say that someone who works for you is suddenly caught in the midst of a massive scandal. Someone…..someone….like this:
Who did something like this:
As a big public figure, you can’t very well condone their actions, even though you may agree with some or all of them. So, what is one to do? Oh, I don’t know, the first thing that comes to mind is to put them in a box, then put that box inside of another box, and mail it to yourself. And when it arrives:
You’re right! We must consider other options…I know! You could BANISH them from the face of the earth!
A third option, just for the sake of variety, would involve you stripping away all social/personal/any remote connections you had with said person and exposing their personal life to public criticism! HAHAHAHAHAHA….
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Her reaction: ^
However, if none of these options are appealing, you could start them on the path through a knock-down, drag-out, long, over-complicated, and never-ending court case!
But wait, I know! The best thing to do here is combine all of these ideas into one for the ultimate showdown/elimination of said person from the face of the earth.
Well, that pretty much sums up how to lose someone in 60 seconds…Hallmark-style.;)
Disclaimer: Please consult your lawyer or another legal authority before trying any of the above suggestions, we are not a legal representative and the above strategies are not to be considered as legal counsel.
It’s that time again – Funny Friday! Anyone who has spent a considerable amount of time searching for quality Christian entertainment knows that B-grade Christian movies exist in abundance…and continue to be released! We here at BOR are well aware that many filmmakers struggle to raise money to support their dreams, however, we have also observed that some movies never needed to be made. It is these movies that are parodied below. Most or all of the following films can be found in the bowels of streaming services, on Pureflix.com, or for free on various websites (if you know what I mean). Enjoy!
The Cliffs of Insanity
Two words. Love Different. No one has made a movie like this to date. Let me break it down for those of you who haven’t watched it. There’s this single ‘white’ girl see, and she has a son. She applies for a job at a ‘black’ company who only has ‘black’ employees. This leads to many new experiences for white girl. From zany grocery store trips ending in her being carried out by her new black friend, to many scenes of awkward characters dancing and singing to their bathroom mirror while balancing toiletries on various appendages, this movie has a little something for everyone. Here’s the viewing experience you can expect while watching Love Different:
Jenn Gotzon is dancing in the bathroom mirror, audience’s response:
Anthony Hackett is rapping a song about lotion while looking in the bathroom mirror, audience’s response:
Pan to Jenn Gotzon ranting about food stamps in a very awkwardly expressive manner at the grocery store, Anthony Hackett is busy laughing and making off-color racial jokes and bumps into her at the counter (panicky breaths):
But we can’t forget another big category of Christian movies – end times movies. Oh yes, we’re going there. Perhaps the most unusual one we’ve ever reviewed here to date is Sunday Morning Rapture. Basically you go from your average introduction to multiple characters to complete and utter mayhem…you guessed it, the RAPTURE. Pan to shaking furniture, explosions, car crashes, and people watching news on every possible channel available in the universal cable TV package especially made for this film. And then…the cliffs of insanity. Pan to people in church rolling in the isles (literally) and throwing themselves at the altar in some attempt to bring back those who were RAPTURED, viewer’s response:
Inconceivable
These films are easily recognized and can be identified by their zany, unusual, off-color, or just plain weird qualities. Obviously the most inconceivable movie in this category is yours truly, The Rev, we have honestly seen nothing like this film to date. Basically it goes from: Yo, three old guys are sittin’ on a bench reminiscing about the good ol’ days. Oh hey! Remember that one time…awkward thirty/forty-something white man appears on screen in a Walmart Elvis suit and eventually starts driving the movie donor’s convertible around (where is that music coming from?). Then he starts picking up random people off the road, including a suicidal has-been singer and a ‘prostitute’ in a Party City costume. Somewhere in there we have singing and dancing sequences I’ve wiped from my memory. This movie is like used chewing gum in your hair – you can cut it out, but you’ll never forget it.
Another movie that really deserves to be here is Tommy Blaze’s finest work, Me Again. If you want to watch a movie where the most insecure white manever goes on a zany psychological journey in which he becomes an old chain restaurant owner with a bad heart, this same guy’s female housekeeper, an anorexic female model addicted to drugs, (it gets better) his own wife, a female baby, a goldfish, and his daughter’s boyfriend (perhaps his most fitting role)….
…..then this one is for you.
What in the world can that be?
These movies usually feature a random appearance of an unexpected feature that in no way fits with the rest of the film.
You know when you’re watching a Christian movie that is either totes boring, mediocre, pushing an agenda, or average with some obvious production errors, when all of the sudden….is that a PEZ dispenser?
(radio silence)
If you don’t know which movie that generic gray-haired man was on, then I’ll leave it for you to search out on your own. Let’s just say he’s from a movie that is so bad it made it into two categories in this post.
As if the chicken man isn’t enough, there’s one more finalist here that we couldn’t resist featuring. The Adventures of Chris Fable . In some way, this film is trying to portray John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress….but we’re not sure how or why. You see, Chris is just a downtrodden boy….who suddenly is called to go on a journey that will change his life forever! “On their way to freedom,” he and his companions “encounter weird looking bugs, loud noises, shaking trees, a freaky CGI city, and a giant stomping robot.” (our founder, 2017). While watching, you will soon ask: “Will I ever make it out of this movie?”
Yes, you’re very smart. Shut up.
Recent evidence has shown that this category extends to both movies and series. For instance, Peculiar season 1. What in the name of wet sandwich bread is going on here? This one has it all: Oh I’m just the average Christian kid who wants to protect himself from the big bad world by going to a Christian university…but can’t get in. This sticks me with going to a secular school who….has. no. sports. Oh no, now I have a sports-related injury and an evil atheist professor out to persecute me! What do I do? Why, sing, dance, and make weird jokes of course (in-between staged debates in front of the entire class with said professor). These parts of the movie will lead anyone with sanity to ask “Are you finished?” To which the professor will respond:
And when the student finally defeats the atheist professor, a fellow college student on a campus far, far, away will suddenly turn around and say to the camera:
This post wouldn’t be complete if we didn’t take a look at the very best that B-grade Christian films have to offer: human trafficking, pro-life, and time travel films. First up, what do you get when you mix a few big-name Christian actors with an agenda-pushing storyline? Answer: Caged No More! Oh my word, this one is a real doozy. If you don’t get tired fast enough of Kevin Sorbo playing twin brothers (one with a fake British/Australian accent), trumped up action scenes, or pass out from boredom, Aggie’s voice will do the trick.
If you finish watching Caged No More, you are really committed to the cause and deserve to watch Alison’s Choice! Otherwise known as the worst pro-life film to date. Here’s what you’ve got: Bruce Marchiano playing himself a janitor with a Jesus impersonation complex, a pregnant teen who sees visions of her CGI unborn child at the touch of said janitor’s hand, off-color racial ‘comedy’, and the ‘black female’ character. This agenda-pushing plotline is frequently punctuated with the phrase “choose life!”
We’ve saved the best for last: Time Changer. If ever there were a time travel movie that would go down as the absolute worst, this is it. Let’s start out with a freeze frame from the film:
‘Nuff said. Here’s the skinny: a seminary professor writes a textbook that doesn’t align with the morals displayed by Christ. His punishment? Travel into the future and be horrified at every turn by how terrible the world has become! Women wearing provocative clothing! Teenagers flushing their lives down the toilet! Matriarchy! Immorality! Card playing! Dancing…in church!!!
Somewhere in there he jumps around from past, present, and future, and somehow gets back to the present in the pursuit of finding the end of time. How did he get here, there, and everywhere?
That pretty much sums it up!
No more rhymes, I mean it!
You know when you’re watching a Christian ‘comedy’ and it either turns out to be completely weird, funny for all the wrong reasons, or so stupid that you can’t finish it? Well, this movie takes it to a whole ‘nother level: Spent The best summation I can come up with for this film without giving too much away is this: Dad’s dying, let’s get his money (evil laugh). Oh wait, he’s not actually dying….
Ok, so since he’s not going to die naturally, time to come up with a backup plan! Hehehehehehehe. Hey Dad, guess what’s for dinner? Your favorite! Pizza pie! (waits while he eats it) Did you like it? Yeah it was (interruption) Well good, cause it was your LAST MEAL
But we haven’t even talked about Malibu Dan the Family Man Season 1 (it has two seasons!) or Hitting the Breaks! If you don’t know what this is, all you need to know is this. In the gif below, the protagonist in these absurd series is Buzz, and the audience is Woody.
To conclude, to anyone reading this who is offended in any way, please know that this post is meant in fun and is not intended to shame or humiliate anyone. Current Christian filmmakers, if God was in the movie you were making, and you were not just doing it to please someone else or yourself, the audience and us will know. See our Hall of Fame for movies fitting this criteria.:)
Eve believes her husband is going to die soon, so she and her son Lonnie are planning on inheriting his million dollar fortune, so they think. They’ve grown tired of his constantly cheap lifestyle that he forces them to go along with, and with the brain tumor advancing, they feel like their freedom is close at hand. However, when something unexpected doesn’t go quite their way, they are forced to come up with a new plan.
Production Quality (1.5 points)
For an indie film, there are several good production elements to note, such as the great video quality and the professional camera work. The sets and locations are also fine and mostly well-utilized. While the soundtrack can be intriguing and creative at times and while the audio quality is mostly fine, there are also instances where the music covers up spoken words and where background sounds can overpower the scene. Also, there is some weirdly soft lighting at times, and some scenes are randomly in black and white for no particular reason. Perhaps the oddest part of this production is the usage of cheesy props from different time periods that creates a lot of confusion as to when this film is supposed to take place. Further, some scenes are strangely drawn out in unnatural ways, which speaks to somewhat of an editing problem. As a whole, this is basically an average indie production that could have been slightly better than it was and seemed to get in its own way.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
Even more so, the plot certainly gets in its own way. In a quest to be creative and artistic (the effort is definitely noted), this story comes off in a very strange way with a weird sarcastic tone that’s not explained very well and with a collection of bizarre and slightly inappropriate scenes. It’s very difficult to discern what this film is actually going for without having the confusion about the time period. The attempts at artistic psychological elements fall flat, and a lot of the dialogue is basically cringe-worthy. It’s unfortunately a collection of odd cardboard scenes of nonsensical recitations that is very purposeless and aimless. To top it off, the ending is very strange and leaves a strange flavor in your mouth, which rounds out a section that basically confused itself along with the audience.
Acting Quality (.5 acting)
Indie film acting is fairly difficult to pull off, and while there was a slight amount of potential with this cast, a lot of it is very awkward and forced. The eccentric portions would work better if that’s what these characters were intended to be, but again, it’s very unclear what the film is even going for. This fact is also reflected in the weirdly inconsistent costuming efforts. As a whole, line and emotional delivery are stilted, which doesn’t leave much positive to state about this indie effort.
Conclusion
It’s great to want to try to create an original indie film, but Spent either takes things a step too far or a step too short. It’s a mystery what sort of Christian message is meant to be conveyed by this ‘dark comedy,’ and it’s unfortunately a waste of time due to its jumbled and confusing elements. The best an indie film maker with a small budget can do is to present a masterful plot, but this was unfortunately not done in this film.
Tom has worked hard to become a regional manager, which is why he’s so disappointed when his self-absorbed boss lets him know that he needs a four-year college degree to achieve this position. Frustrated, Tom quits on the spot and decides to look into the property he inherited from his recently deceased father. His wife convinces him to take on his father’s old gas station business as their new source of income. Will they be able to handle the new business while patching up hidden family issues?
Production Quality (2.5 points)
One thing that can be said for newer Christian films, especially those in the last few years: no matter how forgettable or lame the plot is, the productions are absolutely getting better. Shifting Gears has a fine production without many issues, as evidenced by good video quality and camera work. For the most part, audio quality is fine, even though there are some loud portions of the soundtrack and some annoying sound effects, but these are the only issues with the production. It’s clear that time is spent on all aspects of the production, especially the sets, props, and locations that make this movie better than it would be without it. Overall, since the editing is also respectable, this is a high-quality production that unfortunately went wasted.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
As such, it’s very hard to understand the actual purpose of this plot as it meanders around peppered with head-scratching cliches and under-developed characters. It borrows a lot of elements from a typical sports underdog plot combined with a return to hometown plot, which implies that there’s nothing creative going on here. The forced and cringe-worthy comedy elements and asides waste valuable time that could have been used to craft better dialogue, but we are only left with cheesy half-measures. The story is based on too many coincidences, and the Christian message comes off as plastic and manufactured. As many of the scenes are downright eye-rolling and funny for all the wrong reasons, it goes without saying that there is little to no point in making this movie with a plot this bad.
Acting Quality (1.5 points)
While some cast members are fairly over the top with their performances, they aren’t all bad since some of them are somewhat professional and seasoned in their work. However, some of the cast members are trying way too hard to be funny most of the time, and many emotions come off as painfully forced. Even so, despite the awkward and unsure moments, there are also plenty of good moments that make up for these, and this overall makes this an average section, which rounds out a below-average film.
Conclusion
It’s difficult to see all this good production go to waste when films that have better plots have worse productions. This is the plague of independent Christian film: if one thing works, another thing doesn’t. The cause of this is obviously a lack of proper collaboration. The writers need to be the writers, and the directors need to be the directors. Until creative-minded Christians lay down their differences and begin working together more, nothing much will change, unfortunately.
Just in case you didn’t get enough stereotypical PureFlix stupidity from the first season of Malibu Dan, the old gang is back with a new ‘season’ that they refuse to call a season for no reason. This collection of new episodes (totally not a season) offers more of the same stick-your-finger-down-your-throat humor we had from Season 1, only with an even cheaper production setup and a smaller cast. It’s basically like the second season of Hilton Head Island: nobody asked for it and nobody cares that it’s here.
Production Quality (1 point)
Now that we’re on the topic of Hilton Head Island, the Whites and company borrowed their horrible green screens that make everyone and everything have an obvious outline, like they’re cardboard cutouts. Oh wait… But I digress. As previously mentioned, this non-season of Malibu Dan has even fewer sets than the first and even more reuses of the same old ones. This gives it an overall cheap feel, and it goes without saying that the ‘blooper episode’ is virtually indistinguishable from one of the other episodes because it merely depicts the cast acting like idiots, which is what the other episodes are all about anyway. Did we mention that this new non-season of no one’s favorite sitcom contains another endless and obnoxious laugh track that cues every five seconds whether the scene is supposed to be funny or not? Basically, the only thing keeping this entire mess from 0 points or less is the fine video and camera quality, in conjunction with professional audio work. But that theme song gets annoying over and over again. As a whole, there isn’t much good to say here.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
What could be done in a new non-season that wasn’t done in the first season? This new batch of episodes that’s totally not a season is virtually indiscernible from the other season, but it’s actually possibly worse due to the painfully-forced so-called comedy that contains nothing funny whatsoever. Basically, this collection of fingernails-in-the-chalkboard creations is just as mindless and ridiculous as regular TV shows that PureFlix and their audience would complain about. Malibu Dan no better than something typical you would see passing by on cable TV as it has just as little potential and just as little hope for any.
Acting Quality (0 points)
Whenever the old PureFlix gang gets together (see Hitting the Breaks, Holyman Undercover, and Me Again), they are content to act like imbeciles. The only consolations this second season cast provides to us is that Jennifer Lyons makes a long-overdue cameo to continually make a fool of herself and that Carey Scott reprises his insultingly fake European accent from Holyman. Steered by the comedic anti-genius of David A. R. White and the sadistic mind of Tommy Blaze, Malibu Dan offers more of the same absurd and zany acting from the expertise of Brad Heller. What’s surprising is that Kevin Downes still puts up with this nauseating experience when he has much better things to do. The constant funding of this insanity is beyond us.
Continuity Quality (0 points)
The second season of Malibu Dan takes on the typical mistakes of sitcoms, besides not developing characters properly, by repeating the same thing over and over again in each episode with no continuity between them. Episodes exist in its own isolated universes as each one appears to have no bearing on another. It seems like they were all filmed in one day with no story-boarding, which is a likely method that has been employed by PureFlix in the past.
Conclusion
With not much else to say, it’s time to address the obviously elephant in the room (no, it’s not David A. R. White dressed up again). What’s the point of randomly pretending that this collection of new episodes isn’t a new season? It’s a very common practice to release an entire season at once with streaming series like this one. Nevertheless, one must take a step back from this mess that’s so easy to make fun of in order to examine what the true state of Christian series is. What are we really accomplishing? Is there any true inspirational or culture-changing value to things like Malibu Dan? I can’t even foresee a monetary gain in it. This begs the question “What is it even for?!?!?” The only answer we can discern is that it’s just another outlet for the twisted comedy desires of White and Blaze, which further goes to show the true darkness behind the PureFlix giant. Needless to say, let’s hope Kevin Downes wipes this from his memory (again) and is able to help the Erwins produce a truly good TV series next year.
Faith High is a seemingly ordinary private Christian high school with all the typical high school issues, but one student is intent on forcing the daily events she sees unfold around her into some kind of Biblical parallel so that she can have an interesting end-of-the-semester school project to talk about. A new kid comes to town as the backup quarterback and falls in love with a mostly silent ballet dancer, so this is naturally the stories of David and Esther mashed together. The vain and self-impressed starting quarterback is obviously Saul, and you can see how this keeps going. With this movie in the works for so long, you would think some better content was created.
Production Quality (1.5 points)
Ever since 2nd Greatest, Kingdom Sight Studios has been committed to crafting more professional productions than A Perfect Chord. Thus, A High School Story has a mostly average production that’s fueled mainly by good video quality, find audio quality, and professional sets, locations, and props. However, the soundtrack is sometimes too loud, and there are some odd camera angles and wild camera work, especially in the poorly filmed sports action scenes that feel like nothing is really happening even though you’re supposed to think there’s an actual game going on. Scenes like these show the true genius of Facing the Giants in the independent film world (A High School Story even has a discount version of Bobby Lee Duke). Elsewhere in A High School Story, there are too many stupid slow-motion scenes, as well as self-serving product placements and unwarranted self-love for A Perfect Chord. In the end, this is a mostly average production that could have done better.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
From start to finish, annoying narration decides to explain things to us that we should be about to figure out on our own if the dialogue was any good at all. We apparently have to be told who the characters are instead of letting them develop on their own through actual conversations. There are also plenty of weird attempts at cringe-worthy bad comedy as ‘bad’ characters are over the top bad while ‘good’ characters are too perfect. As is commonplace in cheap sports films, training montages displace opportunities for plot and character growth, as do ridiculous high school nonsense and predictable love triangle stupidity. There are too many cheesy attempts at ‘young people’ dialogue, and we mention the beyond-cheesy attempts to force Bible stories into this modern-day plot? This seriously needs to stop. In the end, this plot contributes nothing to the film’s score.
Acting Quality (1.5 points)
With mainstay Kingdom Sight cast members, this acting job is another average one as there are some fine moments that are cancelled out by other moments of awkward and forced acting. When some cast members attempt their own brand of comedy, it’s quite bad. It goes without saying that some cast members seem desperate to advertise their horrid local comedy act throughout the film. Essentially, while these often-used Kingdom Sight cast members are definitely gaining experience with each film, there’s just not enough coaching present here to sustain a higher score.
Conclusion
There’s one thing Kingdom Sight is getting right: releasing films directly to PureFlix On Demand and Amazon Prime in order to get them out there rather than to waste time and money on limited screenings no one will go see and DVD’s that will end up in the $5 Walmart bin. However, 3 points is basically the ‘best of the worst’ score according to our review scale. After 2nd Greatest, Kingdom Sight likely hit their ceiling of potential with their current model, so it’s time for them to take the next step in movie making. They seem committed to trying different things, and their production model is mostly fine. Thus, with their next film, they need to take a bigger step towards greatness by employing a better screen writer and a better acting coach (plus maybe some new cast members).
Author’s Note: We were provided with free copies of the books in this series in exchange for a fair and honest review.
Plot & Storyline Quality (2.5 points)
Stephen Bly’s distinctive writing style really comes to life in this eccentric, yet charming series. While it is not perfect, it is above average, and as always it is not your typical Western novel. In all three books Bly demonstrates a keen understanding of everyday people and an openness to other cultures that is rarely seen in his generation. The first novel, Memories of a Dirt Road Town, is a little bit slow to get started, and the first half will likely leave the reader scratching their head. However, it all comes together in the end to create a unique and humorous beginning to the story of Develyn Worrell. Develyn, or Dev as she prefers, is a middle-aged divorcee/schoolteacher who is unhappy with her life. She is weary of trying to mend fences with her daughter, and still upset with her husband for having an affair with a high school student. Dev is desperate for a change, which is why she decides to clear her summer calendar and travel to the Wyoming back-country – namely, her hometown. Leaving her best friend in charge of her home and spoiled cats, she packs everything she thinks she’ll need in the back of her Jeep Cherokee and sets off. Several noisy hotels and one midnight heart-to-heart in a diner later, Dev arrives in Wyoming to find that she is much more of a city girl than when she left. She makes friends with a rather unlikely candidate, a multiracial woman named Cree-Ryder who claims to have at least four different cultures in her family heritage. It takes Dev a little while to get used to Cree-Ryder’s rough and tumble ways, but not quite as long to get used to a gaggle of cowboys drooling over her at every turn. As one thing leads to another, Dev finds herself questioning her life choices in the silence of the open country, and gaining friendships she never expected. The plot in the first book is a bit slow to develop, but the well-placed humor and wit found in the second half, along with the simple yet well-crafted plotline, make up for this minor flaw. The second book starts a bit abruptly, but is quicker to gain the reader’s attention than the first novel. Furthermore, Bly delves into deeper and more meaningful content in this one. This novel is arguably the best in the series. Finally, the third book is equally predictable and unpredictable, but has good character arcs. All of this rounds out to a book series that is above average and worth reading. The Horse Dreams Series has been and will be loved by fans of Western fiction for years to come.
Character Development (3.5 points)
Stephen Bly was always known for his unique and multifaceted character models. This series is no different. His ability to portray male and female leads with equal pathos is a rare quality indeed to find in an author of Western action plots. Dev is well-developed through the creation of a raw and well-made backstory. Quint (her eventual love interest) is also realistic, however, in the end the reader is left wanting a little more from his character. Additionally, Dev’s daughter is well-crafted and relatable, however, she is barely existent in the first novel. Finally, Cree-Ryder is tied with Dev for the best character of the series. Her brutal honesty and natural humor add much to all three of the books, and her backstory is quite good. As always, Bly’s strength is character development. For this reason, he earns an almost perfect score in this section.
Creativity & Originality (1 points)
Finally, Bly earns a full point in originality for proving that all Westerns do not have to follow the same template. He manages to establish a sub-genre, so to speak, within Western fiction. Not only does he find subtle ways to include the message of the Gospel, but he also proves that female leads have a place in this genre. For this reason and others, I believe this book series would make a great TV series. The characters need no altering, the screenwriter should stick with what is there. The plot could use a few twists and smoke screens, but this is optional depending on what direction the filmmakers want to take. I feel that these characters could be brought to life on the big screen, and that the message of the story could be better communicated through this tool. To conclude, this was another job well done by Stephen Bly.
Katherine likes her safe life of working at a local library and hanging out with her few friends. She doesn’t want anything out of the ordinary to happen, so she seeks to live a seemingly controlled existence. However, this existence is shattered one day when she finds out that she has a long-lost half-sister whom she is now the guardian of. She will have to come to grips with this new reality and face the past she is running from in order to move forward in life.
Production Quality (1.5 points)
Similar to the production of the first film from Proverb Films, No Lost Cause, The Hepburn Girls is a mostly average production with plenty of potential. Though the audio quality is a bit cheap at times, including some obvious overdubs and some unnaturally inserted background sounds, the video quality is fine, as is the camera work. The sets, props, and locations are realistic and appropriate for the situations, and there is a general feel with the film that the creators were trying to do the right thing. The editing is mostly average mainly due to a lot of quick cuts and some scenes that appear to be cut too short. However, as a whole, The Hepburn Girls is an honest indie film.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1 point)
When production can’t be at its best, it is always good to maximize the plot potential. For the most part, Ashley Raymer-Brown and her team do their best to build realistic and relatable characters through witty and funny dialogue. Though it seems like they are sometimes trying too hard to be funny, there are plenty of truly comedic moments based on character development. While the plot tends to meander without clear direction at times, there are admirable attempts to build character motive by establishing believable back stories. As a whole, this simple comedy form of a plot is a good idea for an indie film because it shows off a potential to build characters that can be used in later, more well-funded projects.
Acting Quality (2 points)
For the most part, the cast members of The Hepburn Girls, though someone amateurish at times, appear to be comfortable in their roles, which makes this section above average. Sometimes performances are a bit overplayed and sometimes line delivery is a bit too quick, but emotions are believable, and the roles seem appropriate for each actor and actress as they appear to be playing themselves. It is encouraging that this section is the highest rated out of the others.
Conclusion
The Proverb Films team has always shown potential in their films, so it will be intriguing to see what happens once they are able to achieve a higher amount of production funding. If they stay the course and make sure to always craft accessible characters played by natural-acting cast members, they will definitely be on the right track. With a better budget and bit more production consultation, as well as deeper plot concepts, they could be on their way to the Hall of Fame one day.
Faith Scott and her uncle Donny live in the struggling small town of Clifton, Tennessee. Everything’s closing down in town, and people are either strapped for cash or leaving the area. Thus, the theater that has been in their family for years is on the brink of foreclosure, which is the delight of the evil local businessman Peter Marsh. Thus, Faith and Donny decide to schedule a desperation attempt to save the theater: a Christmas in June show featuring big names in Christian music. Will it be enough to save the theater and even the town from extinction?
Production Quality (2 points)
The good thing for Chip Rossetti is that he has shown great production improvement over his movie career. This fact is also evident in Saving Faith, as evidenced by great video quality and camera work. Sets, locations, and props are mostly fine, if not a little quaint. However, the soundtrack can be too loud at times, and there are a handful of unnecessary background sounds, as well as some cheesy sound effects and special effects. Moreover, the editing is pretty good, thus rounding out a slightly above-average production.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
Unfortunately, there is little to nothing creative about the plot of Saving Faith as it follows a stereotypical save the _____ with a holiday show plotline. The progression of the story is very predictable, as are the characters involved. A good portion of the characters are also cheesy and generally eccentric, such as the head-scratching Elvis character (no, it’s not The Rev). The villain is also ridiculous and over the top; each character fits into a predetermined small-town mold: the local eccentric, the local business owner, and the local evil bank guy. While there are some attempts to have a good Christian message, all the problems are very easily solved in the end. The romantic subplot is also awkwardly predictable. In short, there aren’t many positives to note here.
Acting Quality (1 point)
For the most part, the acting of this film is awkward and overplayed. It is at least good to see Jenn Gotzon and Jim Chandler star opposite each other as a couple. There are some good moments in this cast, but for the most part, unfortunately, it is mostly bland or silly. Thus, this rounds out an unfortunately disappointing and pedestrian film.
Conclusion
There truly is little point in constantly perpetuating this same small-town narrative over and over and over again. If we need more of that, we can always watch Hallmark. There is no creativity or authenticity in this concept, unless a film maker wants to explore some legitimate reasons behind collapsing small towns. Constantly making movies about the ‘good old days’ in the name of Christian film is disingenuous and worn out.
In keeping with most Worldwide Pictures films, Road to Redemption has a high-quality production, especially for the time period it was made in. There are no issues to point out here except for the use of cheesy special effects that try to accompany the eccentric genre of the film. However, if these small issues had been eliminated, then Road to Redemption would have had a perfect production.
Plot and Storyline Improvements
Road to Redemption is clearly a comedy, and it’s a pretty good one at that. It’s also quite a departure for a typical Worldwide Pictures film, which is great. However, sometimes the comedy is a bit cheesy, unless it is read in the context of satire, which is unfortunately unclear. Some parts seem to be included just to be eccentric, and thus the satire is not clear enough. For example, what’s up with the mafia subplot? It’s funny, but is this supposed to be serious or not? Also, character development is a bit lacking in some areas, and this is a needed element in any comedy. We need some more back story from the main characters beyond their representing of typical family issues. Finally, the ending too easily resolves the conflicts in unrealistic ways. Thus, had comedy been more rooted in reality, had the satire been clearer, had the characters been developed better through personality-building dialogue, and had the ending been less unrealistically patched up, then Road to Redemption could have been a Hall of Fame film.
Acting Improvements
Much like the commitment to high-quality productions, Worldwide Pictures also always demonstrated a commitment to high-quality casts. They were one of the few independent Christian film groups who seemed to employ acting coaching. However, there were some opportunities for improvement in Road to Redemption, such as Jay Underwood in general, who plays Alan. His delivery and emotions are annoying and whiny. If his character was written like that, then it needed to be changed. Also, the mafia cast members are a bit cheesy at times.
Conclusion
In the end, there were just a few minor issues that held Road to Redemption back from being all that it could be. With minor production errors eliminated, with a clearer comedy premise more based in reality, with a more effective use of satire, with deeper characters, and with a slightly better cast, Road to Redemption could have found itself on the Hall of Fame. However, perhaps someone can use the feedback here to make a better version one day.
Sam, Jamal, and Frankie are usually up to no good as they wander around the country, hopping from one money-making scheme to another. However, they end up stuck in a small town in the Midwest when they get on the wrong side of the local law enforcement. When they are about to be sentenced by the local judge, the local powerful businessman steps in to save them—in exchange for their services as his puppet pastors of the local church. All they have to do is please the congregation and collect enough money for a month, and then they can be on their way. However, things never really work out that simply in forced comedy films.
Production Quality (2.5 points)
Surprisingly, 3 Blind Saints has a considerably good production, especially for a film with a digit in the title. It checks all the right boxes, including video quality, camera work, lighting, and audio quality. The soundtrack is as goofy as can be expected, and sets, locations, and props are mostly standard. The editing is minorly choppy, but on the whole, this is a high quality production on paper, which garners a substantial amount of points.
Plot and Storyline Quality (-1 points)
Talk abut checking all the boxes—3 Blind Saints fulfills basically every criterion of a cheesy and predictable comedy premise that involves a collection of troubled non-Christian characters who are forced to lead a church, even though they have no idea what they are doing. There is nothing new or creative about this idea, and this story rushes by so quickly that it seems like the writers are trolling. The comedy therein is very forced and zany, including off-the-wall jokes, dialogue, and displays of idiocy. As previously mentioned, the plot progression is so steep that it sometimes makes fun of itself as it hits all of the typical plot points, including a cheesy romantic subplot, an inclusion of goofy locals, and a quick turnaround of the troubled protagonists. This goes without mentioning the generally childish feel to the film, as well as the shallow Christianity and the bizarre portrayal of God. Some sequences come off like Mel Gibson’s acid trips, thus warranting some negative points for this section.
Acting Quality (1.5 points)
This cast seems to be in on the trolling as they act over the top and try way too hard to be funny. There is, however, untapped potential with some of the cast members, and there are also a handful of good moments that keep this section from being useless. However, for the most part, emotions and behaviors are overplayed and mostly annoying.
Conclusion
3 Blind Saints feels like a cheap attempt to get some attention from the Christian audience. It can almost be passed off as a big joke, but it bears too close of a resemblance to some Christian movies that are supposed to be serious. Whatever the creators of this film were going for, they mostly failed—perhaps on purpose. Either way, it’s really quite pointless.
After Jake Cooper tragically dies in a car wreck, his younger brother Bobby decides he needs to find heaven, where is brother now is. With the Cooper family in shock and grieving in all the wrong ways, Bobby and his sister Trish set out on a silly adventure to figure out where heaven is. What they find as a result helps them grow as kids, maybe?
Production Quality (-1 points)
Finding Cooper’s Heaven (whatever that really means) looks like it was filmed with a flip phone, hands down. This is among the worst productions we have ever viewed, mostly due to weird close-up shots, blurry video quality, and awful background noises, not to mention the general lack of good audio quality and the presence of overdubbed lines. The soundtrack is also loud and invasive. Camera work is also very dizzying at times, and lighting is fairly poor in most scenes. The whole experience seems very amateurish, as random, unrelated footage is included throughout, as well as weird slow-motion sequences that are off-putting. The use of cheesy sound effects and special effects also makes for an undesirable experience. Thus, the horridness of this production is enough to warrant negative points.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
Besides the extremely childish premise, message, and storyline, the Christian elements are very juvenile as well. The characters therein are empty and cardboard as they try way too hard in zany fashions to be comedic. This ‘plot’ is funny for all the wrong reasons, because you either have to laugh at it or become depressed that this sort of garbage is even made. Full of head-scratching and eye-rolling sequences, this storyline is utterly pointless and purposeless. Thus, it is not justifiable, and it generally lacks potential in every way.
Acting Quality (0 points)
As if other elements were not bad enough, the acting is basically cringeworthy as many of the cast members are extremely awkward. Line delivery is downright terrible as many lines are either mumbled or seemingly incorrect due to being done in only one take. Emotions are quite juvenile and robotic, with heavy doses of obnoxious yelling and screaming. Cast members seem generally unsure of themselves as coaching is noticeably absent. In the end, this punctuates a bad experience all around.
Conclusion
Of all the movies that don’t get made, garbage like this film gets made. How is it possible, first of all, to make a film this bad? Secondly, how it is possible to get it finished, released, and distributed? The mind boggles, but that’s the entertainment world we live in, I guess. We can just hope that no one sees garbage like this and that the prevalence of such things becomes less and less.
Lisa loves her boyfriend Bobby, but she doesn’t like the fact that he is not a Christian. Thus, she prays for him to get saved, not realizing the impact her prayers might have. Unexpectedly, Bobby gets saved one day in church, but he goes from being a drug addict (???) to being the most extremely Christian man ever. He can’t stop talking about God, and he wanted to be the best man he can be. Lisa become annoyed with Bobby and wonders why she ever prayed for him to change.
Production Quality (0 points)
Unfortunately, Too Saved is a small church film with a very limited budget, which yields a very cheap production. Because of the low funds and misuse of those there were appropriated, there are quite a few negatives to mention here, including poor video quality, shaky camera work, close-up shots, and inconsistent lighting. Audio quality is also poor, and the soundtrack is cheesy. Sets, locations, and props are severely limited and uncreative. Finally, there is no substantial editing, thus warranting zero points for this section.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
It is possible that a more juvenile storyline could be written? Is this meant to be a children’s movie? The entire premise is based on a man going from being a drug addict—who is not portrayed properly at all, mind you—to being an obnoxiously Christian person. This plot could almost be a cartoon, but it’s really not all that funny. The parts that are absurd are just plain boring. There are no attempts to write a good story here or to craft realistic characters. This movie is actually barely worth reviewing. If the writers meant well, there’s no way to know.
Acting Quality (0 points)
Ahh, small church casts—you have to love them. If a cast member is not acting over the top, then another is acting very awkward and unsure of themselves. Emotions come off as forced, and this wardrobe really needs some help. Unfortunately, there is basically nothing good to say about this fill except better luck next time.
Conclusion
Sure, the budget is tiny, but it doesn’t have to be this bad. As I’ve said a hundred times, a low budget does not affect the plot. If you have around $10,000 for a film, which is our minimum budget to garner a review, make sure to craft a very deep and complex plot with believable, accessible characters. In doing so, you will prove yourself worthy to receive a larger amount of funding. Instead, movies like Too Saved just squander what little they had.
Luke is a struggling pastor with no real congregation. Thus, inspired by the rantings of a homeless man, he decides to take his ministry to the streets. There, he crosses paths with a desperate bar owner, Simon, who’s in need of some quick cash to pay off his gambling debts. Inspired by a prosperity-preaching televangelist, Simon convinces Luke to start a church in his bar to raise the funds he needs, using a message of prosperity. However, things don’t go as planned, and Luke discovers what real ministry is about.
Production Quality (2 points)
The Holy Roller has a surprisingly fine production, including good video quality, camera work, and audio quality. The soundtrack is also fine, although there are a lot of musical montages. Sets, locations, and props are mostly realistic and appropriate. The only other issue to point out here is the choppy editing that includes too much fluff content and too many odd cuts. However, despite these issues, this is a pretty standard production that looks good on the surface.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
This obviously quirky premise is meant to be a comedy, but it really just comes off as very forced and dry. The humor is too off-the-wall and awkward to be funny. It’s really trying too hard to be something it’s not, and it seems like satire is purposely eccentric, even though it falls flat. Besides this, there is too much forced drama as the story rushes along at a breakneck pace that leaves no room for character development. This leaves the characters very shallow and empty. The fast pace of things also stunts any sense of reality and leaves the viewer disoriented and confused, without any ability to relate the struggles of the characters. Basically, this is a dramedy that skates on top of everything so quickly that it’s over before you know it. Actually, that might be a good thing.
Acting Quality (1 point)
This amateur cast seems like they are acting purposely awkward most of the time as they struggle to get their lines out. Emotions are either too dorky or too forced. However, there are some good moments here, and there would have been more if there had been better coaching. Some things just weren’t meant to be, I guess.
Conclusion
Small church films like The Holy Roller struggles for identity and specialty in a sea of a myriad small church films vying for attention and views. Unfortunately, not many of them actually make it to the next level, and most of them get stuck where The Holy Roller gets stuck: in shoulder-shrugging mediocrity. The status of these sorts of movies can only be ‘better luck next time.’
Malibu Dan and Holidae Sinclair run the southern California early morning show Good Morning Malibu. Dan is always getting himself into comedic scrapes, while Holi is always looking for a better media offer. They work with a goofy but likeable crew, but most of all, Dan considers himself to be a devout family man. What else could go wrong in Tommy Blaze’s latest zany comedic endeavors?
Production Quality (1.5 points)
Much like Hitting the Breaks, Malibu Dan the Family Man is a sitcom with an average production, which means it comes with that annoying laugh track again. There are also other sound effects used now, however. Another annoying aspect of the sitcom genre is the use of ridiculously fake backgrounds and cheaply limited sets, as well as a total lack of actual locations. Props are fine, however, as are other standard production elements, such as camera work and video quality, which keep this production from being totally worthless. However, the editing also suffers from lack of creativity as it is quite choppy. In the end, however, these few production positives are the only ones that exist in this unnecessary series.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
If Tommy Blaze and company were so desperate to make another sitcom, why not just make another season of Hitting the Breaks? Malibu Dan is really no different—just some rearranged characters and different cast members. Who would have noticed if some cast members changed for a new season of Breaks? As it is, Malibu Dan includes the same old tired and ridiculous messages Blaze and David A. R. White have been hanging out to dry for years, such as an absurdly stark gender divide, their patronizing view of Generation Y, and the endless pursuit of media fame and stardom. As usual, David A. R. White is the bemused husband\father who gets himself into a comedic venture that solves itself in twenty minutes or less. Everything is the same, and there is nothing new in PureFlix.
Acting Quality (0 points)
With the same old egotistical PureFlix cast members—the Whites, Brad Heller, Kevin Downes, Gregg Binkley—Malibu Dan throws in a few more, such as comedy staple Victoria Jackson and Erik Estrada with a few more plastic surgeries since the last time we saw him. Regardless of the changes, the zaniness and the over-the-top non-subtlety is still present and still makes for an eye-rolling experience as the leadership of Blaze continues to push ‘Christian’ comedy to the limits of absurdity. The other cast members are swept along in the wave of nonsense and must wonder how they got stuck with this crew.
Continuity Quality (0 points)
Sitcoms are not made for continuity. There are no story arcs or character arcs as each episode exists within its own twenty-minute bubble in which all conflicts introduced are promptly and easily solved in time to tack a trite Christian antidote onto the end. Thus, no points can be awarded here.
Conclusion
As long as the PureFlix faithful continue to garner funding for these frivolous projects, they will keep making them to satisfy their longings to parade themselves around like idiots in the name of Christian entertainment, ever in the pursuit of fame and stardom, just like the characters they portray. They are as shallow as the comedy they create, but as un-ignorable as David A. R. White’s bombastic displays of idiocy. They project themselves as the leaders in Christian film and the saviors in a dark world of Christian persecution, but if this is all we have to lead us, it’s no wonder so many people scoff at Christian media.
Larry and Vaughn have been long time friends, but Vaughn has never felt like he was worth much of anything, especially after he gets laid off from his job. Larry, on the other hand, is overconfident in himself and has many ideas of what he should be doing, such as rescuing damsels in distress. However, neither of them could have expected to be transported back in time to a Western town in need of heroes. If Larry and Vaughn can save the town, they will have completed their quest, but if they do not, they will be trapped in history forever.
Production Quality (2 points)
Surprisingly, a lot of time and money was put into this production. This is shown in the good video quality, camera work, and audio quality. Though the soundtrack is a bit silly and is sometimes too loud, the sets, locations, and props are excellently constructed and utilized for this genre. However, there are some awkward cuts and transitions that are likely included to make the movie ‘goofy.’ However, on the whole, this is an above average production that does not fit with the rest of the film.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
From the beginning to the end, this appropriately-named film is trying way too hard to be funny with cringeworthy comedy moments and eye-rolling escapades. Not only is the premise completely absurd, but it is full of cheesy Western elements and other asides that make no sense at all. The Christian message is forced, cheesy, and empty. This ridiculous story feels like it has been made for the sake of being made, since it has basically no purpose at all. The characters are dumb due to the half-hearted dialogue, not to mention the fact that the villain concept is very stupid. Essentially, there’s really nothing good to say about this plot except that it was good when it was over.
Acting Quality (1 points)
Besides the absurd self-casting and acting (Joshua Zirger from Fenced Off should have never been cast again), the cast members over-play and overdo everything. Line delivery is drawn out, and emotions are laughable. Though there are some okay moments, most sequences from this cast are annoying as they tend to make fools of themselves. Unfortunately, there’s not much good to say about this film.
Conclusion
Basically, this movie is a debacle. Whether or not they intended it to be so appropriately named is beside the point. Making this sort of comedy that’s in your face and completely obvious is never a winning idea. Also, the childish time travel notions and cliched Western tropes are very old and worn out. The only advice that can be offered here is to try something totally different next time.
Betsy Simon is a struggling children’s author who wants more out of life. After her work is rejected again, she complains to God that He never answers the prayers she wants Him to answer. However, this complaint triggers some unforeseen and unwanted consequences as Betsy suddenly finds herself in a world where God answered every prayer she ever prayed. While it seems good at first, Betsy soon finds that not all is as it seems and quickly looks for a way out, but finds none. Will she be able to return to the life God has for her before it’s too late?
Production Quality (2 points)
As a newer production, Heavens to Betsy is an improvement over the previous effort in Angels in Our Midst. This includes good video quality and camera work. However, there are some cheesy sound effects, as well as a generic ‘silly’ soundtrack. There are also some odd background sounds in some scenes, as well as randomly cutoff audio at random times. Nonetheless, sets, locations, and props are great and appropriate. The editing is mostly okay, but this story basically writes itself, so not much effort is needed. On the whole, this is, for the most part, what a modern Christian production should look like.
Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)
In the beginning, Heavens to Betsy is a ridiculously forced comedy that is trying way too hard to be funny. This is evident in the very cheesy comedy elements and the forced dialogue that causes the characters to be one-dimensional and even mindless at times. Besides this, the premise is based on the predictable wish-comes-true-in-alternate-reality-to-remind-protaganist-they-don’t-like-that-idea-anymore storyline. This predictable convention is coupled with a cheap Christian message in the beginning, yet it becomes more meaningful as the movie progresses and even ends with a slightly interesting lesson that is based on a partially creative idea. Though this story gets better in the end due to some unexpected turns, it is still too little too late as the beginning of the film is likely to lose a lot of viewers before they get to this point. However, the effort is commendable.
Acting Quality (1.5 points)
Like the plot, the acting begins as awkward, unsure, and trying way too hard to be funny. Lines and emotions come off as overly practiced in the beginning. However, there is improvement after the middle point of the film as there are some better, more well-acted moments. Thus, this rounds out an almost-average film.
Conclusion
Believe it or not, Heavens to Betsy, especially the second half, is an idea that is worth remaking or redoing in some way. While the premise has been used before, transposing unanswered prayers into it gives it more than just a ‘Christian spin,’ even though it can come off that way at times. This is a pertinent issue that needs to be explored in a far better forum, preferably not in a comedy. Regardless, Christian film makers need to continue to shed their ‘silly’ or ‘cute’ image, and this film doesn’t really do its part on this front.
The Fairway family has three generations of people who want to serve people at Christmastime. Simon and Emily, the grandparents, live in a retirement facility, and they want to minister to those around them in the time they have left. However, their trouble-making friend Byron wants to put on a senior Olympics at the facility while the heavy-handed superior is away. Simon’s and Emily’s adopted son Walter and his wife Ruth have opened their home to foster children, and they have unique struggles to handle during the holidays as they have to deal with biological parents. Yet all of them find different ways to show the love of Christ to those around them.
Production Quality (2 points)
Although this is an ‘indie’ production, it is a clear that a lot of work went into it. This shows up in great video quality, camera work, and audio quality. The soundtrack is also engaging, although it tends to get in the way at times by covering up dialogue. Sets, locations, and props are also well-constructed and well-used. The only other issues to point are some minor editing issues, such as lagging scenes and dead sequences. However, as a whole, this is a great effort that shows great potential for the future.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1 point)
This good effort also spills over into the plot, as there are lots of good ideas in it. For the most part, the characters are realistic and believable due to well-thought-out dialogue. However, there are also too many characters and too many subplots going on here. With so much content, more organization was in order, yet not enough was given. Though there are some moments of good comedy, there are also some moments of flat humor. Also, a lot of the time, this movie plays out more like the premiere of a series rather than a film. It has a very episodic feel rather than the proper arc of a movie plot. Nonetheless, it’s good to experiment with your first film, as long as it’s not horrible, to see what you’re good at. Thus, it seems like this was accomplished in this plot.
Acting Quality (2.5 points)
Though this cast is only semi-professional and contains ‘amateurs,’ the cast members only commit minor errors. Emotions are believable, and line delivery is usually on point. The only slight drawbacks here pertain to some measured or awkward line delivery, but it’s not much to write home about. In the end, this rounds out a very good indie effort that will be something to build off of in the next project.
Conclusion
These days, freshman films seem to be getting better, especially with regards to production quality. Creative teams like this one have more resources at their fingertips than before, and this particular group did a great job with the inexperienced cast members. Though some areas of the plot were suffering, with some future tweaks, they could be dynamic story writers. In the end, it is encouraging to see indie films that give hope for the future.
Nick and Dylan have always been best friends, but they lost connection for several years. Now they have restarted their friendship after years of traveling, and they have a plan to pull off the ultimate heist to get rich. Rumor has it that a valuable diamond is hidden beneath a certain church, so Nick and Dylan decide they need to be the one to unearth it and collect the prize. However, they will have to invent a clever cover story in order to gain access to what they need to find the diamond.
Production Quality (2 points)
For a relatively small-time church film, Rogue Saints is a surprisingly efficient production. This is most notable in the interesting and well-constructed sets, locations, and props. Video quality, camera work, audio quality, and are also all what they should be. The soundtrack is unique and creative. The biggest issues to raise here pertain to some oddly unnecessary elements, such as an overuse of split screens and juvenile animation overlays throughout the production. The editing is also quite wild and sometimes schizophrenic. But on the whole, this is a one-of-a-kind production that is at least above average.
Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)
While this story is trying to be different in some ways, in others way, it is not so different. There are slight attempts at creativity, even if the premise is somewhat flimsy. The comedy is at least partially funny, even if it is somewhat formulaic and predictable. The progression of the plot is also basically predictable and contains stereotypical characters that could use some upgrading through more developed and meaningful dialogue. There aren’t really any twists as this storyline is basically linear. However, there is definitely a lot of potential here, and Rogue Saints is certainly a good start in the comedy genre for future reference.
Acting Quality (2 points)
Though this cast mostly contains ‘amateurs,’ they are actually fairly professional. They certainly have their quirky moments and can tend to overdo the comedy at times, but as a whole, this is a respectable performance. Emotions and line delivery are each what they should be. This completes an overall average effort by this freshman film effort.
Conclusion
There aren’t many films that are comparable to Rogue Saints, which is a fact that is both good and bad. It is a unique film and shows a lot of potential for the future, if they choose to go further in film making. This is where new film makers should begin rather than in the basement of Christian film. Even so, this movie is a good blueprint for how to begin in Christian movie making, but hopefully it is not where creative teams will get stuck.
Dan Reed is just a nice Christian mayor of a small Alaskan town, but when his old high school rival\friend, Mitch Bright, comes to town, Mitch just wants to mess up Christmas for everybody. Mitch is mad that Dan took his girl in high school, so Mitch decides to take it out on Dan by suing the town for having a manger scene on public property. Will the war on Christmas never end?
Production Quality (2 points)
In keeping with most PureFlix films, Christmas With a Capital C is mostly fine, including good video quality, audio quality, and camera work. The soundtrack is what one can expect from a Christmas film. Some sets are limited, but there are some good outdoor locations that redeem this. The prop choices are mostly fine, but there is a slight over-abundance of Christmas décor. Furthermore, there is one too many montages in this film, yet the editing is mostly standard. In the end, this production is just one of those assembly line PureFlix deals.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
With so many cooks in the crowded PureFlix plot kitchen, Christmas With a Capital C has a little bit of everything in it. For the most part, it contains every cheesy war-on-Christmas and fake persecution cliché you can possibly shove into one movie. The film mostly takes up arms in the religion freedom battle in a small town by using propaganda about the opposing side, but there are some surprising moments of sanity when some characters wisely suggest that maybe fighting for manger scenes on public property isn’t going to save people. However, this is quickly derailed again by cheesy and formulaic subplots, including juvenile romances, that are driven by obnoxious characters and manufactured dialogue. Unfortunately, any good that was meant in this film is covered up with madness.
Acting Quality (1.5 points)
This film has another one of those crazy PureFlix casts that is memorable for the wrong reasons, even though it doesn’t contain the usual suspects. Ted McGinley is his usual fake self, while Brad Stine takes the opportunity to adlib in over the top and unhinged ways. For some reason, Nancy Stafford allowed herself to be dragged into this nonsense, yet she is always a standout. Other cast members are also fine and make up for the loony moments that dominate the performances.
Conclusion
Why do we need to constantly roll out movies that ‘fight’ against ‘political correctness’ and try to ‘win back’ religious freedom? Since when does not being able to display a manger scene on government property persecution? What if a Muslim ideal was displayed on government property? One character points out the futility of fighting this fight in light of trying to spread the gospel to people who are hurting, and this contribution is no doubt the sanity of Andrea Nasfell. However, any good she wanted to accomplish in this movie is drowned out by the militant agenda of PureFlix. As long as Christian leaders continue to prioritize fighting for political power and influence over doing the real work of Christ, culture will continue to go in the opposite direction.
Since Pastor Randy Michaels’ inner-city church is being shuttered by the ministry organization that runs it, he and his family are being reassigned to a small town across the country in Arizona. Though reluctant to go at first, the Michaels family arrives to meet strange and eccentric characters that pique their interest in the town. They soon find that they have a greater purpose for being there than they ever thought.
Production Quality (2 points)
As one of those secular-company-tries-to-make-a-Christian-movie-to-make-some-money gigs, Fishes ‘n Loaves: Heaven Sent, one of the most awkwardly-titled films ever, has a fine production. Though there is some random shaky camera work throughout, other elements are fine, including video quality and audio quality, even though the soundtrack is silly. Though some sets and locations are slightly limited, they are not all bad, and props are realistic. The editing is a pretty standard job, but then again, most of this film was taken from the inspirational film factory. Thus, there is nothing creative to speak of here.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
This oddly-titled film rips off the old standby plot in which an offbeat pastor and his family gets reassigned to a struggling church in an eccentric small town in the middle of nowhere that’s filled with off-the-wall, goofy characters that are trying way too hard to be comedic. I’m just surprised there’s no save-the-church elements here. Basically, this so-called comedy is extremely forced and plastic, mostly due to very juvenile dialogue. There is really no conflict to speak of as the story meanders along in pointless and purposeless ways. Random things happen to check plot boxes and then the movie is mercifully over, leaving no impression whatsoever on the viewer. The Christian message that is forced in is very cheesy and unfeeling, which is no surprise considering this is a secular cash-grab. The only thing left to ponder is why this is even a movie at all.
Acting Quality (1 point)
Though there are some okay moments throughout that keep this section from being worthless, most of the time, this cast seems to be competing for who can have the most screen time. They are all very impressed with themselves, especially the lead actor, and appear to be auditioning for better roles in other films. A lot of them have questionable and weird accents and many of them look like they just got rejected from a Hallmark casting call. Again I ask, why is this a movie?
Conclusion
Whoever pitched this idea was probably rejected by Hallmark and possibly UP for total ineptitude, even by Hallmark standards. The rating does not reflect how empty this film really is. Were it not for the strangely high amount of funding, this film would be a total wash. Even so, it still takes its place in the basement of Christian film, so why bother with more money? Many audiences will see through this blatant and very poorly executed pandering to Christians.
David Weathersby has no clear direction in life, especially after being fired from his job by his hotshot boss, who is impressed with himself. He feels like he doesn’t have any purpose and decides to languish away, so his roommate decides to introduce him to a random life coach he ran into so David can find a fresh purpose for himself. But this introduction only creates a problematic love triable between David, his old boss, and the life coach. Will this silliness ever be resolved?
Production Quality (2 points)
In a change from previous Rebel Pilgrim productions, such as Hope Bridge and the awful Fenced Off, A Strange Brand of Happy at least has an above-average production. Video quality, camera work, and audio quality are all fine. The soundtrack is a bit silly, however, and there is some odd soft lighting throughout. There are also a lot of cheesy animated interludes that give the movie a juvenile feel. Also, a lot of the sets are relatively limited, as well as the props, and there are no real locations. Finally, editing is just average and contributes to a slightly above-average, but not quite all-the-way-there production.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
Full of cheesy and quirky characters, this story is just a childish romantic ‘comedy’ based on a silly and manufactured love triangle. Nearly all the humor is very forced and dry and is thus not funny. There is too much pointless goofiness throughout, including silliness for the sake of being silly. At times, this story feels like a joke, and it contains some very vague Christian themes. With no real direction or purpose, this plot is just a bunch of random content assembled in a formulaic and predictable fashion, with a side of weird edgy elements and a very strange tone throughout. Any meaning that is tried to be inserted at the end is too little too late, thus making for mostly a waste of time.
Acting Quality (1 point)
This cast is very stiff and wooden in their delivery, as well as awkward. There is definitely not enough coaching here, although there are some good moments to note. However, there is a lot of odd makeup work throughout, as well as some unnecessary yelling throughout. In the end, this rounds out an overall low-average and basically low-effort film.
Conclusion
Rebel Pilgrim certainly knows how to make a strange brand of movies. What exactly are they going for? They’ve attempted the dramatic emotional exploration in Hope Bridge and the stupid comedies in Fenced Off and A Strange Brand of Happy, but what do they really have to show for it? They also present a strange brand of Christianity in their films, so perhaps the title of this movie is not by accident. Are they actually just trolling like The Asylum to see what some money they can make off of their efforts? Your guess is as good as ours.
Box Office Revolution 