Sparks
- 2013
- Accord parental
- 1h 37min
NOTE IMDb
4,7/10
5,9 k
MA NOTE
Un justicier masqué, Sparks, découvre le côté sombre de l'héroïsme. Après s'être dressé contre le criminel le plus connu du pays, sa vie et sa réputation vont être ruinées.Un justicier masqué, Sparks, découvre le côté sombre de l'héroïsme. Après s'être dressé contre le criminel le plus connu du pays, sa vie et sa réputation vont être ruinées.Un justicier masqué, Sparks, découvre le côté sombre de l'héroïsme. Après s'être dressé contre le criminel le plus connu du pays, sa vie et sa réputation vont être ruinées.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 1 nomination au total
Scott Rinker
- Mr. Docherty
- (as Scott Allen Rinker)
Avis à la une
Well, "Sparks" is not your typical superhero movie, and that is one of the better things about it. There is something more dark in the deeper layers of this movie. And instead of having picture perfect superheroes, then the superheroes in this movie were every day people with every day problems (more or less).
The story told here was adequate and did have some interesting aspects. But it was somehow dropped on the floor because of some questionable effects, and the entire movie had the feel of being shot in front of a green screen and not enough money was used for the effects. That really struck a terrible blow to the movie.
"Sparks" did have potential for something grander, but it wasn't properly utilized, and that was kind of a shame.
As for the acting, well I will say that they had adequate talents to portray the characters in the movie, but the heavy load of the entire movie was resting on the shoulders of Mr. Clancy Brown. And he did do a good job, just a shame that he didn't have more time on the screen. It was also nice to see William Katt on the screen again, I haven't seen him in a movie for a long, long time.
Whereas many superhero movies today are driven by CGI effects, "Sparks" is driven by the story.
However, I started to slip because of the suppressing feel of being shot in front of a green screen, and that left the movie at a below average experience for me. As such, I am rating it 4 out of 10 stars.
The story told here was adequate and did have some interesting aspects. But it was somehow dropped on the floor because of some questionable effects, and the entire movie had the feel of being shot in front of a green screen and not enough money was used for the effects. That really struck a terrible blow to the movie.
"Sparks" did have potential for something grander, but it wasn't properly utilized, and that was kind of a shame.
As for the acting, well I will say that they had adequate talents to portray the characters in the movie, but the heavy load of the entire movie was resting on the shoulders of Mr. Clancy Brown. And he did do a good job, just a shame that he didn't have more time on the screen. It was also nice to see William Katt on the screen again, I haven't seen him in a movie for a long, long time.
Whereas many superhero movies today are driven by CGI effects, "Sparks" is driven by the story.
However, I started to slip because of the suppressing feel of being shot in front of a green screen, and that left the movie at a below average experience for me. As such, I am rating it 4 out of 10 stars.
I like movies. I like a bit of cheese. I'll forego big budget effects all day long if you're ready to give me a bit of fun dialogue, a neat story, even just some good facial expressions and clever timing with the cuts.
This film is just bad. I'm sorry. It's bad.
So why did it have an IMDb rating of 7.3 when I decided to give it a whirl?
To be fair, that rating is now down to 6.7 a few days later. But there were THOUSANDS of 8, 9, and 10 reviews according to the breakdown link. For a movie with, I'm sorry, very amateur acting, a derivative storyline that's half Watchmen, half Kick-Ass, and none of the goodness of either. GLOWING user reviews written and then "found useful" by dozens of others.
I... I think the producer got all his friends and family to write nice things. :( I feel sorry for him, I know it can be hard to break out into the larger world with a small budget movie, but the first thing you need is SOME QUALITY, dude. Look at Primer. Look at Pi. Look at The Man From Earth.
This film is just bad. I'm sorry. It's bad.
So why did it have an IMDb rating of 7.3 when I decided to give it a whirl?
To be fair, that rating is now down to 6.7 a few days later. But there were THOUSANDS of 8, 9, and 10 reviews according to the breakdown link. For a movie with, I'm sorry, very amateur acting, a derivative storyline that's half Watchmen, half Kick-Ass, and none of the goodness of either. GLOWING user reviews written and then "found useful" by dozens of others.
I... I think the producer got all his friends and family to write nice things. :( I feel sorry for him, I know it can be hard to break out into the larger world with a small budget movie, but the first thing you need is SOME QUALITY, dude. Look at Primer. Look at Pi. Look at The Man From Earth.
The previews for "Sparks" looked pretty decent, and the concept was good. My only issue is that I'm a huge fan of "Watchmen", and this would appear to be a pretty good-sized copy of that. While it doesn't have the large scale effects or Hollywood firepower, it's pretty much the same story. Using the term "supers" instead of "masks", the background narration, rough time frame -- just a few takeaways.
The acting was more than I would expect from this film. While there aren't any big names in this film, the actors themselves didn't come off as "novice". As well, the film itself didn't look like it was filmed with a WalMart video camera.
I would assume that if you're a hardcore graphic novel fan, regardless of quality -- then you could probably handle this. It was a little on the "thin" side for me.
The acting was more than I would expect from this film. While there aren't any big names in this film, the actors themselves didn't come off as "novice". As well, the film itself didn't look like it was filmed with a WalMart video camera.
I would assume that if you're a hardcore graphic novel fan, regardless of quality -- then you could probably handle this. It was a little on the "thin" side for me.
Take the link to see the reviews of other users who gave this film high marks and one gets the impression that they were involved in the film somehow, since it's the only movie listed in their profile.
Pamela Costa, from examiner.com called this and all star cast. That's true, if high school plays are included. This movie is a joke. It would seem that Chase Williamson must be related to the producer/director, since he couldn't get the lead in a play starring him, directed by him and produced by; you guessed it, him.
The action scenes are not action, but the camera work is passable, while not done well and the script is just plain bad. Chase looks stiff, like a deer in the headlights, and his voice over seems to have been done in one take and completely over-acted, as is most of the rest of the film.
Chase, watch a couple of boxing matches...or a couple of real movies before taking on a fight scene. Even my child knows how to make a fist, friend.
Don't wast your time on this "40s Noir Film" as one user put it. Watch grass grow instead. You'll be better off.
Pamela Costa, from examiner.com called this and all star cast. That's true, if high school plays are included. This movie is a joke. It would seem that Chase Williamson must be related to the producer/director, since he couldn't get the lead in a play starring him, directed by him and produced by; you guessed it, him.
The action scenes are not action, but the camera work is passable, while not done well and the script is just plain bad. Chase looks stiff, like a deer in the headlights, and his voice over seems to have been done in one take and completely over-acted, as is most of the rest of the film.
Chase, watch a couple of boxing matches...or a couple of real movies before taking on a fight scene. Even my child knows how to make a fist, friend.
Don't wast your time on this "40s Noir Film" as one user put it. Watch grass grow instead. You'll be better off.
This is just my two cents and not an attempt at writing a pro review. I was ready for this movie to be a piece of crap, so I got pleasantly surprised. I think the plot was great and the costumes was corny as hell - which threw me off a bit in the beginning (that and the lead up to the main storyline which was confusing as to where we we're going). But it soon became apparent to be that i had stumbled into a old school noir movie which isn't about polished superheroes, but "normal" people trying to make a difference. It still has the usual good vs evil with a hint of romance in it, with a red line that keeps you interested throughout the film. People who say this is the worst crap they have seen must be watching only the best there is. Overall a decent flick.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesWilliam Katt had his own comic book company with a character of" Sparks"
- GaffesThe railroad tank cars they use are several decades too modern for the 1940s era they're trying to depict.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Sparks?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Tia Chớp Mặt Nạ Đen
- Lieux de tournage
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant