In the Fire

This movie is about an educated woman and doctor who came to a rural village to help a father and his son, who seemingly have some supernatural powers. Village peasants believe this kid is evil and a seed of Satan. As a scientific-thinking and rationalist woman, she is not only trying to help the boy and his father; she also has to fight the ignorance and bigotry of village peasants. On paper, this story sounds quite decent, but unfortunately, the execution is pretty flat and bad. Some scenes, such as a mother's death in a horse accident, are extremely poorly photographed; the editing is appalling; unrelated scenes blend together without making sense or cohesion; and all characters are one-dimensional and have flat personalities due to the lack of character development in this film. The lead actor's acting is stiff, unconvincing, and really bad. Amber Heard was horribly miscast in her part, and her acting was extremely poor. Eduardo Noriega, who plays the boy's father, is also quite wooden and flat. This movie project really seems to be a low-budget TV movie rather than a high-budget movie made for cinema saloons, and I wonder if Amber Heard really believed that this movie was going to be her comeback vehicle, and if she really believed that, unfortunately, she was really wrong.

This was a nice try and the story seemed interesting but the execution by the actors (other than the main young boy) all fell flat. No chemistry on the screen or believable dialogue. To say it was an underwhelming movie is being polite. The cinematography was decent but the editing and continuity was very amateur hour.

I honestly tried to enjoy this because the story was intriguing. Oh and how it was scored could have been much better. It just missed on so many levels. Unfortunately I think casting Amber Heard will make it box office fodder. Hopefully the director's next project will give them a better opportunity at success because this was definitely not a hit.

'Into the fire' had an interesing premis, was very visually engaging, and the acting was good. The plot moved a little slowly, but it became more enjoyable as the film went on. I think some aspects of the plot could have been explored a little more effectively within the run time. The 3 main characters were all fairly well developed, though I do feel that they lacked unique character traits, and there were interesting aspects of each character that were never addressed, especially with the doctor. I think more character work would have really improved the film overall, as I sometimes struggled to follow what each character was actually motivated by.

It's one matter for a film to be received so poorly that it becomes infamous, like 'North,' 'Showgirls,' or 'Ishtar.' Countless more titles are received poorly all the time, but go entirely unremarked until we somehow chance upon them. While it's true of both groups, sometimes it seems that with the latter especially there is a possibility that to sit and watch for ourselves, maybe we'll find that low esteem to be misguided; I've been surprised every now and again, hating movies that are beloved and loving movies that are hated. So what of 'In the fire,' which came and went completely unheard of last year? Could it really be so bad? Truthfully, I don't think it is. I've seen the bottom of the barrel, and this is nowhere near it. 'In the fire' is passably enjoyable on some level. It is also, however, saddled with troubles that are apparent pretty much right from the start, and as a result there was sadly never much of a chance for this to rise above "middling" or "mediocre."

Specifically, two issues readily present. The first is that this picture gives us nothing new; genre cinema overflows with fare juxtaposing science and religion, a skeptic protagonist and a conflict of supposed supernatural happenings, and an earnest search for the truth as set against ignorance, superstition, and mob violence. These eighty-seven minutes operate in a very familiar space, including themes, scenes, characters, and dynamics between characters; there are most certainly tropes at play. Mind you, this first issue is not a huge mark against this one feature; many individual filmmakers may try their hand at similar concepts - there is no rule against doing so - and setting aside that slight variations on one idea can bear equal merit, if we forsook anything and everything that wasn't concretely original, there would be very little art in the world. It's worth observing the incidence here, and reflecting on points of comparison, but this alone doesn't majorly impact the whole.

Far more concerning is the second issue of 'In the fire' - moreover aggravating the latter factor - which is distinct, pervasive heavy-handedness all throughout the length, and in far too many ways. I'm unfamiliar with filmmaker Conor Allyn, or co-writers Pascal Borno and Silvio Muraglia, or others involved; only Amber Heard and Eduardo Noriega have I encountered in some small measure in the past, and I know that they are capable. Unfortunately, this flick is flush with dire forcefulness, a lack of tact, nuance, or mindful application, that makes most everyone and everything come off with gauche, unconvincing severity, if not also bluntness. Sometimes a moment becomes almost laughable for how tawdry it is, and this may be attributed to any combination of the dialogue, scene writing, characterizations, story ideas or plot development, shot composition, cinematography, editing, lighting or color correction, music, sound, effects (practical or especially digitally produced), or even the costume design, hair, makeup, or production design or art direction. Above all, I'm quite sure that Allyn's direction is a primary factor driving the heavy-handed qualities of the proceedings, and in turn the acting is absolutely impacted, even down to facial expressions and delivery. I feel bad for young Lorenzo McGovern Zaini, because he may come across worst of all. Again, I at least know what Heard and Noriega can achieve when given the opportunity, and I can only assume that conditions here reduced them to such small corners; presumably, the same goes for their fellow contributors. One way or another, this is loaded with contentious traits that greatly diminish what this might have been.

What's most regrettable is that I see the potential it bore. Broadly speaking I actually do like Teho Teardo's score, and it just often comes across as ill-fitting as it is employed; some elements (like cinematography, or hair and makeup) are well done in and of themselves, but were guided to ill-considered ends. More than anything, the narrative can claim strong foundations in the themes and ideas on hand, thoughts that are dark, disturbing, and frankly all too despairingly relevant to modern real life as reason and patient deliberation are set against willful abandonment of critical thought and empathy. It has its rough spots, and it may work in known territory, but on paper I think the plot is enjoyable and satisfying from beginning to end. The fact is that in execution the film adopts a tone that is too forthright, and nearly every component part at some point suffers from gawky, somewhat unrefined construction. I don't dislike 'In the fire,' and I abjectly disagree with the extremity of its poor regard; at the same time, it doesn't exactly inspire enthusiastic engagement, and it's probably best left as something to check out on a lazy, quiet night. There are much, much worse ways you could spend your time; the problem is that there are countless better ones, too. When all is said and done I believe this is modestly worthwhile if you come across it, but don't go out of your way for it, and be aware that it's the sort of picture best considered as a means to pass the time, and not to particularly capture the imagination. Take that as you will.

I honestly had to Try not to nod off in my chair while watching "In The Fire". The Writers own this flat plot, it had more potential.

The characters seemed almost transparent, but not for bad acting rather not much to work with in dialog.

Actor Lorenzo McGovern Zaini is the only one who delivered anything memorable to this film.

Amber Heard will always be a "so-so" kind of "Okay" supporting actor, but leading actor is beyond her acting skill-set. It just simply isn't enough to have a pretty face you have to deliver in a Lead Role. No Excuses! Amber is always the same character in a different role, but always Amber Heard.