In the Fire

This is a poorly acted and predictable story. You've seen this story plenty of times before and could probably guess the ending for yourself quite easily. The acting overall is very wooden, except when the female lead is trying way too hard to emote. Then it is second hand embarrassment for the viewer. The only good performance is from the young actor portraying Martin, Lorenzo Mc Govern Zaini. I was quite impressed with this young man and he definitely has a great future as an actor ahead of him. It's too bad his first high profile film is this turkey. But I'm sure he will find many opportunities to shine.

On the nose predictable, but bizarre in execution- Within minutes of the Lead showing up, it was clear a modern woman threw on a costume and time-warped into a period piece to demonstrate her gallantry and sexual fortitude, even though she --spoiler-- which pitched the narrative onto the pyre. Not sure what the take-away was supposed to be from this. I had no reason to buy-in, no protagonist (just an activist), and really nothing to admire or despise. This had some potential, and it seemed like some good shots and catchy sound design were present, but it fizzled more than it sizzled and ended up as a flame out for me.

For the record, this is not a Horror film. Everyone who watches it in expectation of horror will be disappointed. There are some mysterious events, and I must say, that I liked this aspect the least about the movie.

In The Fire is certainly not a bad movie. Neither are the actors doing bad, nor is the music out of place. Yes, the script may be a somewhere immature, not actually made by a master of the art of writing.

It leaves a number of things (like character backgrounds) untouched, and instead focusses on the boy and his strange mind, and how the presence of a well-meaning, understanding and caring person benefits him.

The movie tries to capture the atmosphere of a time and a place where education was mostly absent, and where superstition still could reach the minds of people, leading to cruelties.

Set and location are great, some things are weird, for instance, two priests on opposite sides, a farming "Don" with two servants, who does the work of a peasant, but can afford a personal shrink from the U. S. for his son.

Direction is ok.

I understand that the outcome of the story is somewhere unsettling, and also sad, but it is a story that is told with enough love and effort, so that I was entertained and not bored.

Six stars.

No pun intended - I reckon it is not even permitted to talk about elephants in the room. So pointing out the obvious is out the window and we'll get to the meat (again no pun intended) of the movie, instead of its players.

So the story that I would not really put into the horror category, but more into the thriller genre, is overall fine or at least decent. It is predictable, but it does work. And while the female lead may not impress everyone, it is the non English actors who are doing the heavy lifting (no pun intended - and you may know them from a lot of other stuff if you watch a lot of movies).

Hopefully this works - and as they say ... lucky number three - but back to the morality and your own moral compass that will still be important ... and your liking ... outside the story ... talking of the story: it at least looks good (no pun intended here either). So yes I do feel it is rated a bit too low (for reasons you can guess yourself), but it also is not great ... you probably will have better things to do with your time anyway .. unless you are a fan of course.

It's one matter for a film to be received so poorly that it becomes infamous, like 'North,' 'Showgirls,' or 'Ishtar.' Countless more titles are received poorly all the time, but go entirely unremarked until we somehow chance upon them. While it's true of both groups, sometimes it seems that with the latter especially there is a possibility that to sit and watch for ourselves, maybe we'll find that low esteem to be misguided; I've been surprised every now and again, hating movies that are beloved and loving movies that are hated. So what of 'In the fire,' which came and went completely unheard of last year? Could it really be so bad? Truthfully, I don't think it is. I've seen the bottom of the barrel, and this is nowhere near it. 'In the fire' is passably enjoyable on some level. It is also, however, saddled with troubles that are apparent pretty much right from the start, and as a result there was sadly never much of a chance for this to rise above "middling" or "mediocre."

Specifically, two issues readily present. The first is that this picture gives us nothing new; genre cinema overflows with fare juxtaposing science and religion, a skeptic protagonist and a conflict of supposed supernatural happenings, and an earnest search for the truth as set against ignorance, superstition, and mob violence. These eighty-seven minutes operate in a very familiar space, including themes, scenes, characters, and dynamics between characters; there are most certainly tropes at play. Mind you, this first issue is not a huge mark against this one feature; many individual filmmakers may try their hand at similar concepts - there is no rule against doing so - and setting aside that slight variations on one idea can bear equal merit, if we forsook anything and everything that wasn't concretely original, there would be very little art in the world. It's worth observing the incidence here, and reflecting on points of comparison, but this alone doesn't majorly impact the whole.

Far more concerning is the second issue of 'In the fire' - moreover aggravating the latter factor - which is distinct, pervasive heavy-handedness all throughout the length, and in far too many ways. I'm unfamiliar with filmmaker Conor Allyn, or co-writers Pascal Borno and Silvio Muraglia, or others involved; only Amber Heard and Eduardo Noriega have I encountered in some small measure in the past, and I know that they are capable. Unfortunately, this flick is flush with dire forcefulness, a lack of tact, nuance, or mindful application, that makes most everyone and everything come off with gauche, unconvincing severity, if not also bluntness. Sometimes a moment becomes almost laughable for how tawdry it is, and this may be attributed to any combination of the dialogue, scene writing, characterizations, story ideas or plot development, shot composition, cinematography, editing, lighting or color correction, music, sound, effects (practical or especially digitally produced), or even the costume design, hair, makeup, or production design or art direction. Above all, I'm quite sure that Allyn's direction is a primary factor driving the heavy-handed qualities of the proceedings, and in turn the acting is absolutely impacted, even down to facial expressions and delivery. I feel bad for young Lorenzo McGovern Zaini, because he may come across worst of all. Again, I at least know what Heard and Noriega can achieve when given the opportunity, and I can only assume that conditions here reduced them to such small corners; presumably, the same goes for their fellow contributors. One way or another, this is loaded with contentious traits that greatly diminish what this might have been.

What's most regrettable is that I see the potential it bore. Broadly speaking I actually do like Teho Teardo's score, and it just often comes across as ill-fitting as it is employed; some elements (like cinematography, or hair and makeup) are well done in and of themselves, but were guided to ill-considered ends. More than anything, the narrative can claim strong foundations in the themes and ideas on hand, thoughts that are dark, disturbing, and frankly all too despairingly relevant to modern real life as reason and patient deliberation are set against willful abandonment of critical thought and empathy. It has its rough spots, and it may work in known territory, but on paper I think the plot is enjoyable and satisfying from beginning to end. The fact is that in execution the film adopts a tone that is too forthright, and nearly every component part at some point suffers from gawky, somewhat unrefined construction. I don't dislike 'In the fire,' and I abjectly disagree with the extremity of its poor regard; at the same time, it doesn't exactly inspire enthusiastic engagement, and it's probably best left as something to check out on a lazy, quiet night. There are much, much worse ways you could spend your time; the problem is that there are countless better ones, too. When all is said and done I believe this is modestly worthwhile if you come across it, but don't go out of your way for it, and be aware that it's the sort of picture best considered as a means to pass the time, and not to particularly capture the imagination. Take that as you will.