Ashes of Eden

What moves me about this film is the work ethic and the dedication made by many to support an individual, who not only stepped to the edge, but JUMPED, and put his words and thoughts out there for everyone to see.

Prior to watching the film I discovered that several cast members were moved by the story line and the true meaning behind the writer/director, (Shane Hagedorn's) vision. Shane took his personal feelings and beliefs, forged them into a story, and was led to begin the journey of producing a secular based film, despite the obvious resistance.

I wasn't very familiar with the film industry in Lansing Michigan. From what I understood the city is/was in financial trouble. Obtaining support and financial security had to be almost impossible. It's very inspiring and motivating to see an individuals desires come to fruition.

From what I understand some of the actors in this film have had some pretty successful careers and some pretty recognizable roles. When I heard that these same individuals were giving their time and talent to support Shane and his beliefs, I couldn't help to be humbled. To me this is what the film industry in many levels may be lacking.

This movie shows heart, faith, desire, and imagination. This film should be a platform for ANY and ALL actors, producers, writers and directors. This film should show case the endless possibilities one can achieve with just a little bit of Faith. I can't wait to see more of Shane's visions. (The sound track is NUTS!!!!)

An urban American Graffiti? First of all American Graffiti was and urban story. They weren't exactly driving around the farm in that movie. Second, and more importantly, American Graffiti was good. This little film is absolutely horrible. The story is warmed over drivel that everyone has seen a thousand times before. Not that it matters because the acting is thoroughly uninspired and cold. Add to that they want you to believe that the lead, a very obvious twenty five to thirty year old man, is young enough to be in high school. Quite a few of the "twenty something" actors are completely unconvincing as teenagers. The whole thing comes across as something shot on a home video camera for about $500.

The tone of the film was consistent, the story was something I followed to the very end. It wasn't all over the place, it was focused. I felt emotion while watching it. You know? It makes the viewer feel something, even if at first they don't understand what. Perhaps its the underlined naivete of your lead character and the mother's love and predicament as an officer of the law. This wasn't shabby or forced in it's conception. I also appreciate your eye for camera shots. It works. I watched it to the very end. Very good scene work with Melissa Anschutz and Bello Pizzimenti. For one person to have written, co-produced, directed and edited this film its a testament to the human spirit of determination. That as well as the film, deserves applause.

I wanted to like this movie, but I just couldn't. I am all from promoting locally made movies, but this one is so hard to watch I just can't, in good conscience, recommend it. The story is predictable and weak. The acting leaves a lot to be desired. The whole thing seems sort of haphazardly assembled without any real thought. Worst of all it is so obvious that they didn't have much money to shoot it. So everything looks like it was filmed in the nearest spare room they could find. (That gives it the look of a cheap porno movie where they try to make you believe that the action takes place in a real school or a bar) The acting is stiff and completely unbelievable, which is due in part to casting quite a few "twenty somethings" as teenagers.

There are so many things wrong with this movie it is hard to know where to begin. A poorly written script, bad casting choices, and sub-par acting are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes the crappy things about this movie. But being a still photographer and a DP as well, I will key in on, what was for me, the worst part of Ashes of Eden. To begin with, the scenes are set up like a sitcom. We are often given the stock shot of the building, just to reinforce to the viewer where the scene will take place, which is incredibly cheesy and just plain awful. Granted, they felt that they needed to do this in certain cases, because the main scene was clearly not filmed where it was supposed to take place. Case in point, early on there is a scene in a church. The scene is not filmed in a church. It doesn't even look anything like a church. It looks more like a meeting room at a local hotel. So we get the obligatory opening shot of the exterior of some random church. Opening exterior shots of a church or a school do not add anything to the story and often point out, rather blatantly, that this is a very cheaply done movie. However much the stock shots detract from the movie, they are eclipsed by the horrendous camera work and lighting. The choice of camera shots shows little regard for the development of the story. The camera is often set up in the most bland and uninspired way. The cuts between shots are usually harsh and arbitrary, and they highlight the poor editing choices that comprise a scene. But by far the worst aspect of all of this is the lighting. Everything is lit completely flat. The scenes lack depth or any sort of understanding about the use of darkness and light to enhance the story. This gives the movie a sitcom or commercial look, in which everything in the scene is evenly lit. It would not surprise me to find that the DP has been primarily working in the commercial field. Couple these camera problems to a weak story and actors who are not age appropriate, you have to recipe for a extremely lackluster movie