A Letter to Dad [2009] (Movie Review)

Plot Summary

Dan Donahue believes he has found the woman he wants to spend the rest of his life with.  But as he continues to struggle with anger issues, he can’t help but feel that they are related to his lack of a healthy relationship with his father.  Therefore, he begins to write a letter to his estranged father detailing what he missed out on.  As Dan writes, his mind drifts back to his childhood and he wonders what could have been.

 

Production Quality (0 points)

Exactly what is supposed to be happening with this production?  Is it a flashback within a flashback or a series of flashbacks?  Why are the sepia tones inconsistent?  This is possibly the cheapest looking production we have ever witnessed.  The camera work is deplorable and the video quality is from another century.  Lighting is very amateur throughout the film.  In some scenes, it is extremely hard to hear what is being said.  Some sequences are dominated by the silly soundtrack.  As for the editing, there is no way to understand what is even happening from one scene to the next.  Everything is out of context and obscure.  In summary, you can’t get any more poorly homemade than this.

Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)

The idea behind this plot—the fact that absent fatherhood affects children later in life—is highly important and must be discussed in movie form.  However, this is absolutely not the way to do it.  Much like Lukewarm, an important family systems issue is made a mockery of in A Letter to Dad.  There is no coherence in this storyline as the ‘plot’ meanders from letter writing flashbacks to other flashbacks to present day (we guess?).  Scenes are randomly strung together with no continuity between them and the viewer is left lost in translation.  Any meaning that is attempted to be conveyed goes over your head.  Dialogue is choppy and inconsistent, causing the characters to be empty shells.  There is really little else to be said—there is such little content in this plot that it barely registers any life.

Acting Quality (0 points)

Sadly, the bad news does not end.  It’s possible that this virtually unknown and tiny cast never had a chance without acting coaching.  There is literally nothing good to say here—the delivery of lines is awkward and emotions cannot be felt.  There are so few cast members that it just becomes glaringly obvious that so support is being provided to them.  Unfortunately, they likely wasted their time.

Conclusion

We sincerely believe that the motive behind this movie is pure, but the delivery is terrible.  This one would have been better off as a short film.  The good news is that it will have little to no impact in the movie industry, which means it won’t further contribute to bad publicity.  However, the bad news is that the time of the creators of this film was wasted and money was dumped down the drain.  Jesus spoke about counting the cost before undertaking a big project, and we believe it’s high time for Christian filmmakers to begin doing this.

 

Final Rating: 0 out of 10 points

Hidden Secrets [2006] (Movie Review)

Plot Summary

Following the death of a common friend, Gary, Jeremy, Michael, Harold, and Sherry all gather at his house for a long weekend of repairs and catching up on the good old days.  However, all is not well among them.  Jeremy discovers that he still love Sherry, his former girlfriend, even though his current girlfriend is staying with them.  Michael is guarding a dark secret from his past.  Gary and Harold’s wife constantly clash over his Jewish background and his atheist beliefs.  In the end, they will have to come to grips their hidden secrets in order to face the future.

 

Production Quality (0 points)

There is literally nothing good to say about this film’s production quality.  The video is grainy and the sound quality is all over the place.  The camera work is unprofessional.  Everything about the production has a very cheap identity.  The sets are severely limited, mostly taking place inside one house or on its roof (yes, seriously).  The editing is terrible, but it’s not like there was much to work with.  Roof repair scenes, standing around and talking scenes, and thrift store dress-up scenes litter the landscape.  But nothing can beat David A. R. White mouthing a Building 429 song and pretending like he’s singing it.  As previously mentioned, there is nothing positive here.

Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)

There is only one positive element to discuss from this entire film, and that is its slightly interesting exploration of the various types of secret sins many Christians harbor.  Otherwise, the remainder of this film is utter nonsense.  The dialogue is almost written purposely ridiculous.  One character is an over-the-top, obnoxious, legalistic Christian who is the only one, in her mind, who can interpret the Bible properly.  It would be funny if it wasn’t so unwatchable.  The atheist character is equally annoying.  Other dialogue is absurd and overly obvious, shoving issues down viewers’ throats.  There is also no clear plotline to this movie except for repairing a roof, hanging around talking and arguing on various controversial topics, reminiscing about the good old days, playing dress-up in a thrift store, and pretending to sing in a cheap restaurant.  Any good intentions there were in making this movie are buried beneath a mound of insanity.

Acting Quality (0 points)

No acting coaching is employed in Hidden Secrets.  Actors and actresses are allowed to basically run wild with the material with no quality control.  Line delivery is forceful—several actors and actresses are clearly trying to draw attention to themselves.  Emotions are also extreme and unbelievable.  Once again, there is nothing good to say here.

Conclusion

There is a base idea in Hidden Secrets that should have been given to another film.  Unfortunately, Carey Scott, Sean Paul Murphy, and Timothy Ratajczak have not demonstrated that they are good stewards of movie ideas.  To make this sort of movie shows one of three things—they either do not care about making quality movies, they do not fully know how to make quality movies, or they are purposely making low quality movies.  What type of audience is supposed to derive meaning from this sort of movie?  For many reasons, this movie receives a very low score.

 

Final Rating: .5 out of 10 points