The Good Thief

I talked to a few people who worked on this film, so I quickly rented the DVD when it was released. This is R.T. Herwigs's first and most like last film. He seems to lack any knowledge on how to make a good film. Others have said that Herwig has taken an artistic approach in an attempt to explain why this film is so bad.

Too many canted angles – the look of the film reminds me of the Joker's hideout on the old Batman TV series. Canted angles work if they help portray a characters mental state, but having every single scene shot at an angle waters down the effect.

The principal actors do an adequate job. But the supporting actors are poor in their craft. Christopher's mother is too young for the part.

Horrible DVD transfer is full of bad splices plus the poor DVD rendering is full of noise and artifacts. Its not even encoded for DVD wide screen mode which is the first anamorphic DVD I've come across. Other annoyances include: - The street people are unconvincing – too clean cut. - Actors give long soliloquies on how miserable they are. - Too many people have Irish accents; hey it's the year 2004 not 1850! - Lighting is half-baked; just using a single key light with no fill. The gaffer either did a poor job or perhaps it's another artistic touch! - Melodramatic acting. Can't understand why Christopher decided to take the crime job and then later refuses to go through with it. His character was inconsistent.

Christopher Doogan is dressed nicely, walking along a street in a marginal neighborhood at night in the fog. He passes a street preacher, and later goes into a church. Later he goes into a somewhat sleazy-looking bar where people are surprised to see him. Like the fog we see outside, we're not at all clear on what is going on in the early minutes of this film.

I saw this at the Camera Cinema Club in Silicon Valley, CA on 10/20/2002. The director, R.T. Herwig, was there to answer questions afterwards. He said that the film is an "emotional tone poem," and that making an understandable narrative was not his main focus. That's good, because the film was often fuzzy.

But despite the fact that the story is apparently not very important, you might still want to know about it. If you don't, you should *skip* the rest of this paragraph... Christopher has just been released from prison were he has been for a few years for his part in a robbery of some sort. Christopher loyally took the fall for a man named Banion and the rest of his gang, but Christopher isn't sure he wants back into a life of crime. He goes home, where his parents and grandmother live, and is welcomed except for by his retired-firefighter father. And later in the film, we learn, not surprisingly, that Banion has plans to use Christopher for at least one more job.

The film was shot on Super 16 and blown up to 35mm. Despite some people saying that it looked good, I thought it looked very grainy, especially in darker scenes like the church. It was shot in 14 days, and the finished film feels like it drags on nearly that long - it really needs some significant trimming. The performances by the unknown cast vary from marginal to good, but even the better actors are sometimes given very stilted lines to read. And the lead actor is way too short to plausibly be the child of the actors who play his parents.

On the positive side, the direction is more interesting than most mainstream films, probably because the director sincerely seems not to care if this film makes money or not. The camera angles are tilted more often than they are straight, which effectively conveys the subjectivity of the main character's mind, while possibly also keeping the audience more detached (one audience member's reaction). The film is made up almost entirely of long shots, both in terms of camera distance and the time between edits (one memorable shot is of a dinner, shot through the spindles of a railing, with two spindles visually keeping the three diners separate, and all done in one very long take).

I would probably give the film a slightly lower rating than I have, except that the director was very entertaining, despite his obvious discomfort at being in front of a crowd. He says he was depressed when he made the film, and it shows. He repeatedly brought up "Charlie's Angels" and Jackie Chan films, more or less saying that since his film is more original than those (which were popular), it must be good. He sited John Ford as his biggest influence, and "The Informer" as the film closest to what he was trying to make here.

I would recommend this film if the director will be there to answer questions afterwards, such as at a film festival. Frankly, I would be surprised if this film ever sees a normal distribution, but if it is (and the director is back home in the Philadelphia area), I would marginally recommend *against* seeing it.

Saint Christopher is the kind of movie that you can make too much of – or too little of. It is excellent, mind you, but having the wrong expectations will surely ruin your viewing pleasure. If you're looking for a sophisticated art film with thought-provoking ambiguities and dark psychological imagery, you'll be wanting more. If you're looking a fast-paced urban crime drama, you'll also be wanting more. St. Christopher falls between the two: It is a simple, straightforward story that is raised to the level of film art by its fully developed complex characters, extraordinary acting, and the director's eye for powerful natural imagery. I highly recommend it.

The Director's unique style is immediately evident in the opening sequence as "Saint" Christopher descends into dark uncertainties of his old neighborhood as ascending angelic images slip past him. R.T. Herwig displays a masterful use of light, angle, perspective and framing to evoke a primal sense of this dark, tortured world where the protagonist must return to battle his demons – and hopefully, to rise again to light. Though the Director may use a tilted screen a bit too often, there is nothing heavy-handed in the dialog or the imagery that smells of art film pretension. The shots are thoughtfully composed and enjoy a simple grace and flow. The choice of images is exquisite, yet so natural that the viewer melts entirely into its world.

The greatest flaw may be pacing. Director R.T. Herwig is generous in giving his actors the screen time for authentic emotion. Some scenes are perhaps "too realistic" in allowing encounters to occur at real world speed and by using real world silence to convey the characters' inability to articulate their regrets, alienation and loss of faith. At the same time, however, the acting in this movie is its great strength. Every main character is fully developed and convincing and the actors deliver superb performances with emotional wallop. The lead actor, for better or worse, reminds us of a young Robert DeNiro, raw and seething, fascinating to watch, and utterly compelling in evoking the viewer's sympathies. To use a tired phase, Christopher Kadish has the makings of a star. His is an auspicious performance you don't want to miss.

I worked on "The Good Thief" as a Production Assistant, which meant I got to yell out, "Rolling! Quiet please!" in some of Philadelphia's finest neighborhoods. I saw the movie last week, and let me tell you, standing outside a crack house at 2am was worth it. RT Herwig's debut was made for under $700,000, and throughout the course of the movie, it becomes obvious that they got the most out of every penny. The film looks nicer than most movies made for millions and millions of dollars. "The Good Thief" is a story about an honorable man returning home from prison and trying to reconcile his past with his future. Namely, he wants to provide for his daughter who doesn't know he's alive but doesn't want to return to crime to do so. Rather than tell a straightforward story, Herwig lays on some trippy spirituality to mix things up. There's a lot of smoke in this movie, (hence my subject line) and that's just one of the visual metaphors Herwig uses to demonstrate the protagonist's mental state. More often than not, this doesn't look like a cheaply-made movie. The film is beautifully shot, and you can tell a lot of care went into making each frame look wonderful. Some of the acting falls flat, and some scenes drag on, but there is enough strength in other scenes to redeem the film. Herwig throws in some neat clues here and there, and the soundtrack is very cool. It will be nice to see what Herwig can do with a larger budget. He's obviously a very talented filmmaker with a bright future ahead of him. People spend a lot of money on making really crappy movies. "The Good Thief" didn't cost a lot of money, and is not a really crappy movie. It's actually pretty good, and well worth checking out. Just watch out for all the smoke.

I saw some postings online about this film so I wanted to check it out. I was even more jazzed when I found it on NetFlix and all.

OK, going into it I knew it was going to be an indie, and not a studio indie film. I read the other postings. So my expectations were very indie based and I also saw that it was 114-mins, so I knew it would be long.

Length aside, I gotta tell you I was pretty impressed with the job RT Herwig did with this film. Being that it was his first film. It was very visual. And when I say that I mean it is the kind of film that you have to watch from the eyes of the characters to understand. It's more like watching them and watching their troubles. Kinda like you were friend with a kid from a dysfunctional family and they invited you over to their house for dinner and you just sat there and watched them. I get the feeling that in an RT Herwig film its all about the characters in relationship to one another and the surroundings they are in. More so then the story they are living in. I know that might not make any sense.

It was not your typical film that was held together with clever writing as is the case with most indie films. Ya know films that are directed by writers that don't have much of a screen language. You know. They have brilliant writing, but I guess they missed the classes where you actually have to have a style. These kinds of films are all about shaky-cam and fast cutting. RT's film is waaaaaaaaaay on the opposite end of this scale. It's just all visual.

This film has a visual style all its own. I'm sure RT sees his world in these emotional colors and tones.

Then to read that he had shot this film in only a week. It was a beautifully shot film. I love how RT just hangs on his actors and allows them to follow thru on a thought after a scene has played out. Brilliant. But if you are from the mindset that films need to be quick, quick, quick, and cut, cut, cut, and witty banter line after line; then you might so miss the boat on this one.