Shadowheart

Being a proud member of Amazon.com's Vine reviewers, I found myself pondering why some movies were available on occasion (usually ones I've never heard of), while others were not. I also consider myself a responsible reviewer; in other words, I'll read, sample, or watch whatever it is I get from Amazon's Vine program, regardless of what it looks like on the outside. Unfortunately, a pattern is emerging for The Vine program films. These are the seldom heard of ones I mentioned earlier. To give you an idea as to what types of films are being offered through The Vine, I'll use this one — SHADOWHEART — as an example.

First, let's take into consideration the fact that the film was produced by first-time film production company Desert Moon Pictures. Okay. So. Big deal. Now let's look at the main actor, Justin Ament. His film repertoire is not exactly stellar. He's had a lot of uncredited work (see "extra"), obviously trying to break into Hollywood's mainstream. He's written two screenplays: this one, and another for THE PATH OF EVIL. The Path of Evil, like Shadowheart, hasn't been lauded as very good cinema. But why? Well, the easy answer is that the films just aren't that well thought-out nor well put together. In Shadowheart, we see cliché after cliché, and old character after old character. It's a recycle mish-mash of seriously poor proportions. Think of just about every Italian western starring Clint Eastwood and you'll have seen every character in this film many times over.

The only exception to the poor characters is Angus Macfadyen (best known for his role as Robert the Bruce in BRAVEHEART) as the wicked — but still cliché stereotype — Will Tunney. He played (perhaps overplayed) the role of the ruthless and amoral killer and made it, at the very least, fun to watch.

Everything else in this story was completely predictable. When I saw the young protagonist with the young girl in the beginning, I knew what would befall them long before it actually happened. And when I saw the sheriff trying to take the dastardly Will Tunney to the next town for imprisonment and possible hanging, I knew they'd never make it there. And this list of obviousness goes on and on and on and on.

So, getting back to my original quandary: why are some films available on The Vine and others aren't. Well, it's becoming painfully obvious now. Those DVDs that can't sell are given away in hopes of finding a sympathetic audience. But I simply cannot sympathize with drivel such as this. I'll write my review and post it for all to condone or trash, but I simply cannot give this film a positive spin when there's simply none to be found.

The first thing I pay attention to in watching a movie is whether I care about the characters. I couldn't bring myself to care about these people, mostly because the writing and acting was not good enough. The feel of the whole thing was that it was amateurish. The story didn't flow in a way that felt real. Also, I don't like stories where there's not a good resolution or denouement, even if not a happy ending. This didn't leave me with the feeling of satisfaction. The theme seemed to be relentless evil without any real hope of the good guy winning out in the end. Without giving away the end, I'll just say that if it was meant to tie up the plot, it failed to work for me. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Justin Ament...you are not leading man material, or a producer. PLEASE, PLEASE...stop making movies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I believe you have let your ego overwhelm you good judgment. You area supporting actor at best. Clichéd, predictable and formulaic! "Not that there is anything wrong with that!" There are reasons movies are released to video, not the theaters, that go beyond being an independent production. Under the above stated circumstances, Angus MacFadyen did some exceptional work, set in an environment of simplistic or unenlightened sets, dialogue, camera angles, lighting; etc., etc., etc. Or maybe I was just in a bitchy viewing mood.

This movie could have been more fun than it was but some of the people in charge of doing it right either didn't care or lacked the knowledge to do it right.

Some of the plot was predictable and seemed amateurish. The plot lacked realism and it didn't have to do so. For example, at one point our star is seriously wounded, but recovers with amazing speed as does his brother-in-law who experiences a painful injury. Within a day or two both are up and moving around like there was nothing wrong them. The director could have shown these guys slowly recovering and show some pain from their wounds once they do get back into action. Come on. That would have been easy!

The film lacked period authenticity. There is an outdoor evening wedding dance that is illuminated by what appear to be round "Chinese lanterns." Inside can be seen light bulbs. This is suppose to be 1865 and post Civil War. The light bulb hadn't been invented yet! Who was your technical adviser on this show?

A period of time elapses from the opening scene to the later ones and yet some of the characters never aged. The sheriff looked older in the beginning of the movie than he did at the end. In the opening scene two women are seen walking down the street with dome like parasols over their heads. Amazingly these women show up walking down the street years later with the same parasols.

There was no need to make out two surveyors to be bumbling eastern hicks. They could certainly still show fear at having been threatened but surveyors in the west would not have looked, acted and been dressed like that. The costumer, Jenevieve Busseau, and Wardrobe supervisor, Fanny Mac, get low marks for authenticity in this movie.

During the early Civil War battle scenes we see Union infantrymen with bright white canteen straps. These appear to have been newly issued from the prop department. Canteen straps got dirty pretty quick during the war and the prop guys should have dirtied them up so they could hardly be seen.

In the battle scene we see the bright yellow stripe of a cavalry sergeant as he bayonets a Confederate soldier. Possible, but more believable would have been to see another Infantryman doing it. Cavalrymen didn't tend to carry rifles that had bayonets unless they were mounted Infantry and then they wouldn't be showing that yellow stripe.

Questionable authenticity is also true in the scene where a few Navajo Indians are being herded of by some Union troops and being taken to a reservation. In addition in that scene, neither the commanding officer or his subordinate officer wore shoulder straps or any kind of insignia. After the Civil War the volunteers were back in their home states. The Regular Army was back in charge and uniform regulations would have been more adhered to. It is doubtful that two officers would have been dressed like these two were in the herding scene. The subordinate's double breasted coat indicates his rank as being that of a major or higher. That means that you had a major and his superior officer, who had to be at least a colonel, leading a small band of less than a dozen Indians to a reservation. Nope. Wouldn't have happened.

In another scene, the first prisoner that our star brings in to justice doesn't have a hat. Why not? It was hot. Everyone wore and kept a hat. The prisoners face was well tanned though, as if during the day he didn't wear a hat. Maybe he was a 2009 tanned movie star and not an 1860's desperado! Take a look at today's cowboys and farmers. The tops of their foreheads are white from being shaded from the sun by their hats. Put a hat on the bad guy!

There were more but that's enough. In summary, while some scenes were well done and the actors were appropriately dressed, there were too many slip ups to let us just sit back and enjoy the movie. Let's hope the next attempt at a western or a Civil War period movie hires technical experts that will be listened to and will thus help make the film more believable.

The movie was great. The first comment was absolute trash and he needs to just enjoy movies for movies, and not "critique shots" and think that him and his child could write a better plot. It isn't always about the technical aspects. You are just looking for something to be wrong with every movie and can't enjoy a fictional tale. It's like getting upset with the Matrix because there's no way you could do any of that. So I guess what you are saying is that Tombstone sucked too eh? (No I bet you liked that one even though the good guys had a fraction of a chance. But I guess that's OK since it's Kilmer and Russell, right?) It is essentially the same story, which most westerns are. Good guy comes in to clean up town controlled by bad guys. Just GAD and learn to enjoy the stories for once.