The Messenger’s Box (Movie Review)

It’s magical!

Plot Summary

Jake Casper is just a random teenager who stumbles upon a magical box while cleaning out his late grandfather’s attic.  He discovers a magic nail inside that was used to piece the hand of Jesus.  Since it’s Christmastime, Jake decides to go around and heal people with the magical power of the nail, even the most evil bully in town, who’s dying in a hospital bed.  But will Jake and his friends be able to get past the security guards to save him?

 

Production Quality (1.5 points)

The Messenger’s Box has plenty of issues, but at least the production is mostly average.  Video quality, camera work, and audio quality are all mostly fine.  However, the soundtrack is generic, and sets, locations, and props are somewhat cheap, even though there is definitely effort here.  Some flashbacks have an odd quality about them, and there are some cheesy special effects.  The most obvious error here pertains to the very abrupt scene chances and transitions, like this film was chopped together in post.  Basically, though there is effort here, it still only comes out as average.

Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)

This film has one of the dumbest magical Christmas device plots ever.  Everything about it is extremely juvenile and overly dramatic.  Even with all of this, there is still not much content to speak of as not much happens outside of the magical elements and the awkward forced comedy sequences.  Most of the dialogue is very forced and scripted, and a majority of it focuses on the magical plot device and other insignificant asides.  Thus, this creates characters that are all fixated on either the magical ‘thing’ or on the dumbest sidebar topics.  Besides this, they come off as uninspiring and flat rather than accessible and realistic.  Essentially, whoever dreamed up this stupid idea of a film needs to seriously revamp their movie making process.

Acting Quality (0 points)

To match their characters, this cast is very robotic, stiff, wooden, and empty in most of their performances.  Emotions are basically non-existent as everything is either very dramatic or very matter-of-fact.  Line delivery is overly practiced.  Unfortunately, there is very little positive to say about this extremely cheesy film.

Conclusion

Gary Bosek and his team obviously did not think this one through very well.  Using Crystal Creek people as cast members is one thing, but basing your entire plot on a stupid ‘Bible’ magical device in a Christmas context is a completely worn out idea and is so juvenile that it has no place in Christian film.  This is just all wrong as a movie and should have been scrapped from the beginning.

 

Final Rating: 1.5 out of 10 points

 

Polycarp: Destroyer of Gods (Movie Review)

Plot Summary

Polycarp was a great Christian who led the church at Smyrna in the second century just as the Roman Empire was becoming more radicalized and hostile towards Christians.  When a couple in his church rescues a young slave girl named Anna, Polycarp takes a personal interest in her, as he was also rescued as a slave boy.  As times become tumultuous for Christians, Polycarp seeks to lead his flock to always be strong in the Lord and to stand firm in the day of trouble.

 

Production Quality (2 points)

It is evident that the Henline Productions team cares about historical authenticity, as a great amount of time, effort, and resources were put into the realistic sets and props of Polycarp.  This is difficult for an independent film to pull off, yet they did it anyway.  Camera work is highly effective and professional.  Video and audio quality are also top-notch.  However, the soundtrack needs an upgrade, as it rarely can be heard.  Also, the editing needs to be worked on, since some scenes drag on too long and there are too many seemingly unnecessary or repetitive sequences.  But in the end, this is an excellent place to begin for a freshman production and gives great hope for the future.

Plot and Storyline Quality (1.5 points)

The plot of Polycarp starts out with an excellent historical idea, however, it wastes too much time getting to the point.  The first half struggles to hold the attention and we fear many viewers will give up on it halfway through.  However, once the second half of the movie begins, the real meat of the story is finally uncovered and things become interesting.  The characters are pretty good throughout, especially at the end, but we would have liked to see more development and deepening.  There is plenty of interesting and meaningful dialogue, but not all of it builds the characters as it should.  But as everything progresses, the ending sequences are very effective and drive the point home well—we hope the audience will stay until the end, because it is worth it.  In the end, though we can’t help but think what could have been, this is a formidable effort and shows potential for the future.

Acting Quality (2 points)

Though this is a largely amateur cast, most of the cast members deliver solid performances with few errors to speak of.  Line delivery is on point and emotions are believable.  The main thing that drags this score down is very over-the-top acting by one or two cast members that perhaps took their parts too seriously.  But overall, like the rest of this film, this is an excellent start to a budding career.

Conclusion

The story of Polycarp the bishop and martyr is a long and complex one, and the Henline team obviously did not have the resources to fully capture it in an epic, but it still may be worth doing in the future.  There are so many things the Henline team can do with more resources, so we pray that they are provided with what they need to take that next step into greatness.  With slight production upgrades, a more complex plot, and slightly better acting coaching, they are going to go places.  We know they have the ability to do so and can’t wait to see what comes next from their studio.

 

Final Rating: 5.5 out of 10 points

 

 

Full disclosure: We were provided by the creator with a copy of this film in exchange for a fair and honest review

 

The Screenwriters [2016] (Movie Review)

Plot Summary

When the great movie producer Chester Mayer threatens the famous screenwriter Stewart Harvey to give him a script or else, aspiring intern Chip Leninskovich steps in to help Stewart, whom he has always looked up to.  Together, they begrudgingly agree to write a script in 24 hours in order to satisfy the hard-nosed producer.  But in the midst of their furious writing, the two men discover they have more in common than they thought.

 

Production Quality (2.5 points)

It’s clear that the Advent Film Group team put their fullest effort into crafting historically authentic surroundings for this film.  Props and the few sets that there are speak to a commitment to being very authentic.  Even the black and white video is effective.  The soundtrack is also reminiscent of the era that is portrayed.  Camera work is professional as well.  There are very few errors to point out here, and they only pertain to editing, as some scenes are too long, while others are too short.  There are also too many montages that try to fill time.  But in the end, this production effort is a job well done—we can’t wait to see it applied to a bigger scale.

Plot and Storyline Quality (1 point)

Unfortunately, the simplistic plot structure of The Screenwriters holds it back from being all that it could be.  The scope of the story is too limited to one room with a handful of people coming and going from it and talking about the past and what they want to do.  Flashbacks would have been helpful to get outside of that room.  Besides this, the plot follows a predictable progression—we actually like the plot the characters were writing better than the actual plot.  We would have loved to see it replicated alongside the main storyline.  Finally, some of the characters in this film are intriguing while some are cheesy.  Effort is put into developing their backstories, but we would have liked to see more.  In short, this plot needed to be more dynamic so that this movie could be all that it could have been.

Acting Quality (2.5 points)

This casting job is surprisingly respectable, considering who the cast includes.  This is perhaps Richard Swingle’s best acting performance to date.  Jason Burkey is better than usual, and Jenn Gotzon is just herself.  The only issues to raise here is some silly emotional delivery and ‘goofy’ elements.  But in the end, this casting is a breath of fresh air.

Conclusion

Advent Film Group is on the verge of something great.  They have assembled the necessary tools to craft a high quality production.  They know how to cast a film and coach the cast members.  All that’s missing now is a dynamic plot.  Like many other almost-there film makers, once Advent solves the plot puzzle, they will be a force to be reckoned with.  We anticipate their next release.

 

Final Rating: 6 out of 10 points

 

Full disclosure: We were provided by the creator with a copy of this film in exchange for a fair and honest review