MightyTiny

So nice to see a thought provoking movie, that could easily have been made on a negligible budget (and probably was!), while still commanding the attention of the viewer better than most big budged productions.

This is because the movie was so strongly concept driven, that things you normally look for in movies (like strong acting) were of secondary importance. The religious discussion was fascinating too - in that it brought out just a few of the things about ancient mythology, and how it relates to Biblical texts, that the vast majority of people are blissfully unaware of. As such, the movie can be a bit disturbing to any Christian fundamentalist, but then again, some ideologies need a little shaking up.

I very much recommend this for anyone with a taste for philosophical speculation, or just plain old rich imagination in need of nourishment.

I've seen better dialogue in the seediest daytime soaps, and the acting didn't improve it. The combination is too contrived and stiff to take seriously, and not quite campy enough to be funny.

Sean Lawlor as Captain Nemo seems to put in the best effort, while Lorenzo Lamas and Natalie Stone seem to be competing for the worst acting ever prize; their exchanges are inane in content, and stiff in delivery.

I can't for the life of me, find anything good to say about the movie. Just blabbering on to meet the "10 lines of text" minimum; two lines could have more than sufficed for this one.

This is one movie that never should have been made.

An interesting story, with good acting, well told. Good direction, visually appealing, atmospheric.

However, scientifically, and/or historically literate viewers will find one nagging, glaring blunder; at one point in this story, which is supposed to be set in the mid 19th century, there is a reference to a person being controlled "by his genes". Come on! The term "gene" wasn't even proposed until half a century later, and additionally, around mid 19th century the mechanism of inheritance was entirely unknown; Mendel's work lay undiscovered until early 20th century, and even Mendel didn't use the word "gene" (so it couldn't have been a case of some exceptionally insightful scientist having discovered the term in some ).

That sort of a slip may not seem much, but for someone aware of this history, it does brake the illusion of an authentic world in which the events are set, making it harder to enjoy the movie. I'm surprised that anybody reviewing the script didn't pick up on it... but then again, the state of scientific literacy among filmmakers is often abysmal. In a movie set in a historical period, accuracy should be more of a priority though, I think.

The story proceeds almost languidly, punctuated by moments of violence and terror; perhaps too slow for most horror fans to appreciate, and those who do appreciate the subtlety are likely to be bothered by the "gene" mishap. The score is beautiful, and lighting is used to good effect; the combination makes for a visually and auditorily pleasing experience.

Perhaps because of how the movie is portrayed as a werewolf movie, the people who might best enjoy it, aren't likely to see it, and the people expecting a traditional supernatural horror movie might feel a bit let down.

In conclusion, Romasanta is a movie not as good as it could have been, and somewhat misleadingly advertised on the cover, but well worth seeing nonetheless. I was torn between 7 or 8 stars, and decided to be generous. :)