Producer(s): Brad Allen, Jeremy Boz, Chuck Howard, Martin Michael, Kevan Otto, Tom Sanders, Tim Warren
Starring: Casper Van Dien, Catherine Oxenberg, Tom Schanley, Jaci Velasquez, Monte Markham, Angela Kerecz, Callie Brook McClincy, Kelsey Sanders, Rusty Martin Sr., Austin Craig, Michael Joiner, Torry Martin
Plot Synopsis: Attorney Benjamin Stills is nearly sentenced to prison and finds faith in God after killing a teenage girl in an accidental car crash from texting while driving.
Producer(s): Brad Allen, Michael Criscione, Spenser Fritz, Ben Graham, Chuck Howard, Martin Michael, Lamont Roberts, Tom Sanders
Starring: Kevin Sorbo, Jenn Gotzon Chandler, Casey Fuller, Kelsey Sanders, Reegus Flenory, Allee Sutton Hethcoat, Glenn Cartwright, Marie A. Garton
Plot Synopsis: James Carter (has never amounted to anything. Stuck equally in a both a “go nowhere” job and “meaningless” relationship, he is a rudderless ship that is truly adrift, a man with no focus or purpose. The nightmare that is his life takes an even more downward spiral, when during an argument with his girlfriend a firearm is accidentally discharged striking her. James panics and goes on the run. Police eventually catch up with him and a pursuit ensues. With nowhere to go and the law hot on his trail James seeks refuge in a small church, where unknown to him, a Pastor and his two daughters, Elizabeth Jand her sister are cleaning up after the evening recital. A standoff with the pursing officers quickly escalates into a hostage situation.
Blake Truman is a hockey star at his small school, Madison College, but he is an agnostic who doubts parts of the Bible, such as the Creation Account, because his mother lies in the hospital in a cancer coma. However, Kerry Wells, a journalism student whose adviser keeps pestering her about joining the New World order, has been assigned to write a human interest piece on the star hockey player, which forces them to have awkward conversations about their beliefs and stuff they’ve done in life. Kerry’s brother Marc, a spastic Physics major, also has his doubts about the Bible because he has trouble believing the literal Six-Day Creation theory. Nevertheless, when Kerry’s father (the local pastor) tells her to read a random verse at dinner time (beef casserole night), she gets an idea of how Marc can use Quantum Physics theories to prove the essential doctrine of the literal Six-Day Creation. Along the way, a whole bunch of other stuff happens, but you can see where this plot is obviously going.
Production Quality (2 points)
With $5 million spent on this glorified docu-drama, it’s no wonder the production was at least above average. Camera work and video quality are on par with what they need to be, even if there is some poor audio throughout. The soundtrack is fairly pedestrian, but sets, locations, and props are on industry standards. There is some cheesy animation in some parts, and the editing is very choppy and disjointed, but it was likely very difficult to handle this large amount of unrelated content. Overall, this production is fine, but there are plenty of other problems to discuss.
Plot and Storyline Quality (-1 points)
Where to begin? For one thing, it was very ill-advised to attempt to make this confusing conglomerate of scientific theories and message-pushing into a film. The movie begins with lengthy sports montages and awkward conversations that showcase a total lack of proper dialogue. This stilted dialogue causes the characters to be very mindless, and it goes without saying that this ‘story’ is extremely disorganized and schizophrenic in its presentation. Trying to bundle Christmas, sports, stupid college stuff, the cancer plot, and the Christian-needs-to-use-arguments-to-convert-skeptic-characters storyline all into one film is just cutting yourself off at the knees before you even start. Besides this, the “woe-is-us-we-have-first-world-persecution” complex that is evident throughout the film is grating and obnoxious. The characters ride a ridiculous string of coincidences to lead them to “solve” the non-essential doctrine of Young-Earth Creationism by using deceptive theories masked as fact to attempt to reconcile the alleged divide between science and the Bible. In doing so, a large portion of the movie is spent on quantum physics lectures that utilize flimsy comparisons and childish object lessons to drive home a questionable theory that does not need to be presented as scientific fact. If this wasn’t bad enough, the cast of characters is replete with strawman non-Christian characters that possess the most absurd and ridiculous worldview-pushing lines. It goes without saying that the predictable romantic and disease subplots run their expected course as they are padded with forced-humor filler scenes and useless flashbacks to things that just happened in the movie. It all crashes to a predictable yet head-scratching conclusion that does very little to accomplish its goals of converting more people.
Acting Quality (0 points)
Logan Bartholomew and Kelsey Sanders post very weak lead performances, and a majority of the acting is very very dry, empty, mindless, awkward, and forced. Line delivery is disjointed, and emotions are overly practiced. Humor is extremely forced and annoying. Overall, there is very little good to say about this disaster of a film.
The Genesis Code gets the honor of received a -1 X Factor Point just for being especially ridiculous. This is a lesson that it is better to shy away from movie titles involving the word “code” coupled with the name of a book of the Bible (or a Bible-ish concept like The Omega Code). Also, the important lesson that can be learned from this train wreck is that the God’s Not Dead-style of preaching to the choir and pretending to want to convert people with arguments is a dead end road. Movies like Genesis Code expose the deeper problem among most Christian circles: a lack of understanding about real people. People matter more than scientific theories, well-crafted arguments, or polished theology, no matter how true they may be. Thus, it is extremely important to give audiences real and relatable characters that have realistic and accessible lives, choices, and motivations. Until this happens on a consistent basis, Christian film (and Christian culture as a whole) will still be stuck in neutral.
First Church has been robbed by an unknown culprit! $20,000 is missing! However, the pastor wants to keep it all under wraps, so he can control the investigation without going to the police. That’s why he decides to hire a private investigator who’s an atheist to track down the criminal by interviewing everybody in the church. Though this investigator is skeptical of the faith, he decides he needs to make himself the personal bodyguard of the church secretary, who is having her own family struggles. Will everyone be able to learn the lesson of stealing?
Production Quality (1.5 points)
Kevan Otto’s production models are fairly standardized, and Grace of God is another example of this. Video quality and camera work are fine, even if lighting is a bit inconsistent at times. Audio quality is mostly acceptable, even if the soundtrack is sometimes too loud; there are also some unnecessary background\outside noises that come through. Sets, locations, and props are passable, but they are fairly limited. Further, the editing is average at best as many scenes drag on far too long and do not hold the attention well. Overall, this is just another average production with nothing special to write home about.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
In conjunction with In the Name of God, Grace of God was intended to be a part of a series about the Ten Commandments. Undoubtedly, we would have been gifted with awkward iterations and proclamations from John Ratzenberger at the beginning of each film. Grace of God is shockingly about ‘You Shall Not Steal’ (notice the creative original title), and it’s also somehow supposed to be about Easter (there is no way to derive this concept from the plot at all). Regardless, this plot is as awful as can be expected from such a limited idea. Characters are totally blank, and most of the film is filled up with them awkwardly standing around and talking without saying anything substantial. Dialogue is mostly empty and mindless since it is so full of message-pushing and forceful ideas. A lot of the plot points and story arcs really lack basis in reality and feel very manufactured. In the end, the storyline lacks any real impact and falls flat on its face. It’s doubtful that many audiences will make it through the second half of the film–even though that stand-up-in-church scene is pretty hilarious.
Acting Quality (.5 point)
Though there is slight potential in this acting, most of the cast members therein seem lost and struggling without any assistance. Line delivery is choppy, and emotions come off as forced. There is no clear presence of acting coaching, and Erin Bethea actually exhibits some of the best acting skills, if you can believe it. Overall, most acting performances are just too robotic and unnatural to warrant any higher ratings.
Thank heavens there weren’t more of these films made. I can just imagine the halting, sermonizing grunts of John Ratzenberger on keeping the Sabbath day and not coveting. Hardly any Christian film makers make ten films period, so beginning with this sort of plan was certainly ambitious. By now, Kevan Otto has made about ten films, so he could have forced them all to be in this ‘series.’ Online fits perfectly with the adultery commandment. Lukewarm or Decision could be about honoring your parents or something. A Question of Faith could reference…organ donation? Regardless, movies that force messages down your throat in the form of sermons rarely have any real impact, so it’s best that this method is avoided altogether.
Luke Harris and his friend Casey have one thing on their mind as they finish up their last year of high school: surf! But Luke’s parents are constantly pressuring him to grow up and choose a college for him to further his education. Luke is focused on making the local surf team and beating out a new ‘popular’ guy—not to mention getting the attention of the girl he likes—but little does Luke know that despite his own plans, God has plans for him that he could never imagine.
Production Quality (1 point)
Cutback is different from most Skipstone films, in that it is less artistic than usual. Video and audio quality are on par, yet the soundtrack is far too loud and tends to be too ‘surf’ oriented. There is also some shaky camera work in the action scenes. Outside scenes are otherwise relatively fine, and the sets and locations are acceptable. However, the editing leaves something to be desired as it falls into the sports film trap of including too many musical sports action montages. The good news is that the Skipstone team’s production skills did improve after this effort.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1.5 points)
Though Cutback is mostly a formulaic high school sports plot, there are some interesting twists and turns in the middle of the film that we did not see coming. At first, the dialogue is far too ‘cool’ and ‘surfer-dude’, almost to the point of embarrassment, and this creates very cheesy characters. However, this subsides as the movie goes on and they actually become believable characters. As usual, Johnny Remo and team deal with realistic life circumstances that really make the viewer think. The messaging of this story is quite good. However, though everything overall improves by the middle of the film, issues tend to be resolved too easily. Yet in the end, despite some errors, Cutback becomes a somewhat meaningful film.
Acting Quality (1.5 points)
This cast is fairly professional, though sometimes they seem unsure and\or lazy. They also tend to play the whole ‘dude’ thing too much, but they are mostly fine. Emotions are believable and line delivery is average. Thus, an average score is warranted.
Like many Johnny Remo movies, we would like to see a remake of Cutback. It has the tools for success, even if they are not always applied properly. Remo always demonstrates a special creativity and ability to craft different types of films, but he is often hampered by a collection of small errors and some poor execution. We believe he and his team have great potential for the future as they continue to become better film makers. We anticipate what they have planned next.
After Jason Burkey’s heart is broken by a girl he thought he would spend the rest of his life with, he gives up a basketball scholarship (as he is frequently reminded) and does the most natural thing anyone would do: run away to live on a remote island with his reclusive father, Kevin Sorbo. But seven years later, Kevin Sorbo get tired of the island and decided to buy a sombrero and live the rest of his days on a boat. So Jason Burkey is forced to go back to the hometown he bitterly left behind and finds everything very similar to the way he left it. He’s still angry at Ben Davies and won’t talk to him, but he slowly finds that the plans he originally had may not have been the best for him—including that basketball scholarship!
Production Quality (1.5 points)
On the surface, like many productions, A Place in the Heart seems fine. Video quality and camera work are on par. Sets, locations, and props are acceptable. However, audio quality is inconsistent—sometimes too loud and other times too soft. The soundtrack is regularly too loud and is at times juvenile. As for editing, there are too many awkward transitions and there is too much choppy content as the film jumps from one thing to the next. In the end, this production is just average, but it seems like it could have been much more than this.
Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)
Loosely based on The Great Gatsby, A Place in the Heart has a mild amount of complexity, yet this complexity is detracted from by a lot of amateur elements. Narration used as a crutch to fill in the missing parts of the plot that are due to unnecessary time jumps, even though it is a stereotypical return-to-hometown style plot. Parts of the premise are forced, unrealistic, and based too much on coincidences, while there are tons of manufactured dramas and childish sequences. Dialogue is very stiff and stilted, including very unusual statements and asides, thus creating very awkward and wooden characters. However, despite all of these issues, the second half of the film is slightly better than the first half, and contains a partially interesting message and point if you make it that far. But in the end, the only reason for any plot twists is the fact that this plot is borrowed from other sources.
Acting Quality (0 points)
Any small amount of good that is accomplished in this film is totally derailed by this awful casting job. Any cast that includes Jason Burkey, Kevin Sorbo, and Ben Davies without coaching is sure to be a disaster. Every character is represented by a very awkward cast member that exhibits mumbled lines, fake emotions, and generally poor line delivery. Unfortunately, this film shows that good intentions can be greatly hurt by poor casting.
Romance is a very difficult genre to write because it can very easily become a high-school-level of cheesy. Regrettably, A Place in the Heart commits almost every common romance error all at once. On top of this, the production isn’t what it should be and the casting is deplorable. Movies like this are painful to see because they are so prominent in Christian film. This is not what the face of Christian film should look like, as we have said time and again. Yet hopefully, slowly, this trend is changing.
As Roxy, a college student, witnesses the slow but sure takeover of a one world government, she chronicles her thoughts, beliefs, and discoveries in a detailed journal that is eventually discovered by agents of the new world order. Shaw 408, the agent who discovers the journal, is unsure of his role in the takeover regime and finds himself intrigued by the journal’s contents. As Zurn, the leader of the new regime, tightens his grip on the world by ordering everyone to receive a microchip inserted under their skin, the world descends into chaos. Who will survive?
Production Quality (3 points)
It’s clear that the Bearfruit Films team has a commitment to high quality productions, as their effort on Rumors of Wars shows in every production element. Video and audio quality are error-free. The original soundtrack is effective and appropriate. The apocalyptic sets, locations and props are excellent. The action-based camera work, which is often difficult to execute, is done quite well. Finally, there are no obvious editing errors, thus making this a perfect production job. This is rarely found, so we greatly anticipate Bearfruit’s future work.
Plot and Storyline Quality (1.5 points)
Rumors of Wars is a unique brand of apocalyptic storyline that actually doesn’t bite off more than it can chew by trying to cover tons of apocalyptic high points. Instead, the story stays in a controlled atmosphere to build a good dystopian premise without jumping through time too quickly or zooming all over the world. The mixing of the past and present subplots is interesting and is done fairly well. However, this overall concept needs a little more explaining and development. The characters are most okay, but some of the villains are cheesy. Surprisingly, the antichrist character is actually different and creative. Finally, Rumors of Wars does commit a key apocalyptic error in creating a passive-aggressive this-might-be-continued-someday ending. But otherwise, there is a lot of potential here and room to grow.
Acting Quality (1.5 points)
Full of recognizable actors and actresses, this cast is a mixed bag. Sometimes they are over the top and other times they are very much on point. For example, this is not T. C. Stallings’ best performance, but Ben Davies is better than usual. It’s different from cast member to cast member, thus making this an overall average performance.
This whole idea would work so much better either as a series of films or as a miniseries. There are a lot of creative ideas and concepts hidden in here that require further development, which necessitates more time and money to do this. We hope that one day this movie concept can be continued or remade in some fashion. Regardless, Bearfruit Films has a talented team, so it will be interesting to see what they have planned next.
When John is encouraged by one of his coworkers to check out the site Social Friend Pages to see if he can find his high school girlfriend, he begins a downward spiral. Though he is already married, he begins meeting his old girlfriend just to ‘catch up’. Things get out of hand and John soon finds himself hiding from his wife and from God. Everything comes to a head and John will have to make a decision on which path he is going to take.
Production Quality (1.5 points)
Online is a surprisingly okay production with good video quality and camera work, but it is not error-free. Audio quality is fine, but the soundtrack is very stock. There are also too many scenes with poor lighting. Sets and locations are fine, but we would have liked to see more diversity. Finally, the editing is a major problem in this film as there are far too many empty scenes. Most of the runtime is filler content and wasted time. In short, this is an average production, but it doesn’t save this movie from itself.
Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)
This is perhaps one of the worst so-called plots written. Besides the ridiculous and boring premise that continually repeats the same drudging scenes over and over and again, most of the characters are total strawmen. A majority of the dialogue is obvious and designed to force the plot along. While we certainly agree that many problems can come about from the internet, this film suggests that the internet causes all problems known to man today. Thus, many issues are portrayed incorrectly, as if sin is only available in the digital age and as if these characters had no pre-existing issues before they ventured onto social media. Besides this, no depth or meaning is conveyed—struggles cannot be appreciated not only because they are out of touch with reality, but also because the characters are not believable. In the end, there was little justification for this plot being written.
Acting Quality (1 point)
While this acting is sometimes okay, the cast is overshadowed by one cast member that has a loud, ridiculous, and obviously fake French accent. Elsewhere, emotions are stiff and line delivery is sometimes strained. Though not all is bad, it’s certainly not all good.
We sincerely believe that Kevan Otto means well, but his delivery is often misguided. Non-plots like Online are unfortunately laughable because they are based on flimsy concepts that suggest that sin is worse now than it has been in the past. The characters therein are also so shallow that they can’t be understood. Also, no story has any chance when it consists of a series of scenes that repeat cyclically. Furthermore, when casting, it’s best not to have such a glaring error as a fictitious accent that draws so much attention to itself. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done for this mess.