Miracle at Sage Creek

This was, to put it lightly, unwatchable garbage.

My crap detector first went to orange alert when the two boys look for fire wood by sitting down and picking up the sticks in there immediate area and pile them together. This was then followed by a gun fight where people take cover behind barren shrubbery and don't get shot. Not only do they not get shot, they add in rickashay sound effects meaning that they aren't just retardedly bad shots, but the twigs are actually blocking to bullets.

Who ever directed this film should be black listed and maybe checked for Alzheimer's or blindness.

The filming locations (Arizona, standing in for Wyoming) are indisputably gorgeous, and I appreciate the set design and decoration. Fine detail went into costume design, and James Intveld demonstrates a keen eye for some artful shots. Why, hats off to cinematographer Virgil L. Harper - his contribution is very noteworthy; all we see looks fantastic. Michael Parks is a name that should be a boon for any cast, and while David Carradine's countenance doesn't necessarily guarantee value in a picture, especially in the latter years of his career (see: 'The last sect'), it's nonetheless a pleasure to see him here. With that said, I think everyone before the camera gives performances of welcome sincerity.

Would that I could say I felt 'Miracle at Sage Creek' was more remarkable, and more deserving of specific praise. I don't think it's bad. But nor is it really noteworthy. Outside of the actors, much about the movie feels a little too staged and inauthentic for its own good. The themes and story ideas, and their application, are very familiar: loss, faith, injustice, racism, interpersonal conflict, hardship, hope, and so on. Scenes of drama are a little overbearing, scenes of action are underwhelming - and yet with that said, the chief feeling I get from the picture isn't "balanced," but "middling." More than half the length had passed and still it felt like I was waiting for the movie to properly begin. No doubt there are viewers who find this very satisfying, and fulfilling; I found the experience to be about as equivalently meaningful as checking off a to-do list of household chores.

These feelings extend to the scene writing, characters, dialogue, overall narrative, and Intveld's orchestration of scenes and the guidance of his cast. Honest though all the assembled actors are in their portrayals, I don't know that I can say anyone especially impresses here; at some critical junctures their delivery appears stilted, dampening the impact a story beat should have. This seems so much like a film one can "watch" without actively engaging with it, and still see all while retaining nothing. Once more - none of this is to say 'Miracle at Sage Creek' is outright bad or wholly undeserving. Clearly there's an audience for this title, and I'm just not it. However, I plainly find it less than engrossing - unexceptional - undistinguished.

Is 'Miracle at Sage Creek' worth 90 minutes of your time? You could certainly do a lot worse. You could just surely do much better, too.

From reading previous comments it seems as though every relative, friend, and casual acquaintance of anyone even remotely connected with this movie has pulled out every superlative in the book to recommend it.

In actual fact this is a slow, plodding, uneventful film without out a single character to identify with. It has too many characters -- none of which have really been developed sufficiently for us to care about any of them -- too many stories going on at the same time, and too many clichés. Add to this continual references to God and prayer and one gets the feeling we're being not so subtly preached to.

We'd all like to see clean and wholesome family oriented movies but that doesn't mean we'll settle for substandard fare.

A fine cast is totally wasted here. Rent this film before you consider buying it. I'm betting you won't put out money to own it.

I'm watching the movie right now, so I don't know how it ends.

Um, Christmas-time in Wyoming, and there's green leaves, green grass, flowing water, shirt-sleeve attire, no breath fog.. meaning, it's not very cold in Lusk, Wyoming in December?? WHAT? The Indian woman was washing clothes outside, sleeves rolled up, in December, in Wyoming. Wyoming has long, wicked-cold, windy winters. That immediately took a lot of the reality away. It was filmed in Arizona, they should have just set the story there, as "Wyoming Territory" didn't have much to do with the story. There were homesteaders and Indians in Arizona, too. It's just too unbelievable. Maybe later it snows in the movie, but I've been to Wyoming, and seen it snow in JUNE, and I've been there in February and it was very cold and windy. Nobody went out in just light jackets.

They filmmakers must take us as people who all live in LA or NY, people who know nothing about geography and what places look like, and people who don't ever travel. I've seen some movies supposed to be Wyoming, but filmed in Canada, and you can't tell. The terrain in THIS movie didn't look at ALL like Wyoming.

Bad acting, especially the Grandfather Indian character. Unneeded choppy "Indian Accent". Words used I don't think someone new to the language would use.

Here's another: A mother and her son are sitting right by a fireplace that has a good crackling fire in it. She feels his head and determines he has a fever. How could she tell? Being a mother, I know better than to forehead-feel a kid for a fever when they're a few feet from a fire.

Snore.

You want a good western? See Lonesome Dove. See Tombstone. See Open Range. See anything else.

Wouldn't call this curious offering great, but won't call it bad either. It was a relief to see a small scale modern Western that didn't see the need to go down the Clint Eastwood trail of super nasty, so called cowboy 'art'....

This story concentrates more on the daily living standards of 'pioneers' than simply the rough oater types. It's main problems, regarding story, lie in the fact it doesn't properly introduce us to the characters. It's difficult at times to figure out who's who. The movie has the look of a show that may have been longer than it's final release.

The first signs of this come with some badly timed edits that don't gel with the general good look and flow of Virgil Harper's fine Cinematography. There are also several characters who tend to disappear when you are expecting them to feature much more than they do.

The location shots are a treat for the eye with vistas and grand horizons filled with majestic skies. The Director: James Inveld (Brother of Ricky Inveld who was Ricky Nelson's drummer, who also died in the same plane crash) has gone for a deliberately paced unfolding of the story, a bit like the classic 'Shane' used to such good advantage. There are odd bursts of violence that remind us that this is still an untamed land, but mostly it's content to follow the personal lives of settling families.

Acting is surprisingly good, especially David Carradine as the bigoted landowner. He is matched by Actor, Producer, Musician and Emmy winner: Daniel Quinn, a performer with solid acting training in the UK. Lovely Sarah Aldrich is also good as his wife. The youngsters do well and turn in quite convincing performances. Pity the usually interesting Michael Parks has so little to do (edited out perhaps?) Also good to see Wes Studi making an all too rare appearance, giving the picture a better balance to the Native American Indian side of the story.

The Music score: partly composed by the Director (with Michael Turner) adds some fine atmosphere to a film made by semi-professional independent producers. This won't please gung-ho action fans or those who lean towards being more technically aware, but should be enjoyed by seekers of undemanding family fare.

Interesting to note: The actor playing the nasty, gun happy, racist cavalry recruit: Thadd Turner, also holds writing, production and technical credits for this film, and is himself, a sharp shooting champion.