Homestead

This was not a "movie" it was clearly a Series Pilot.

As a pilot there can be a lot forgiven, as a movie it was not great.

Zero character development and the "plotting" style of story development is transparent and poorly executed with characters constantly making unnatural choices to move the plot toward predetermined events.

Totally missing is any level of discovery where the characters organically develop, making natural feeling choices that grow the story.

While the highlight opening scene on the ocean was fantastic, it jumped in making it difficult to understand where they were, how they got there, and why they were on their mission. In its own this was ok, being dropped in to the story so abruptly could allow the viewer to build their own narrative about the situation.

However it got worse from here. Who is the owner of the homestead, why has he set it up, what is his background, and how was it funded, perhaps as a series this will be explored over time, but as a movie it made it difficult to understand the core foundation.

Just one of the countless examples, a city official that stops by demanding an accounting of who and what is on the homestead so they could collect taxes, just a few days after the world entered a crisis. Very awkward and unnatural, however this was clearly just a poorly executed plot setup for a later encounter.

Remember that movie a few months ago from Kevin Costner called HORIZON? It started like the makings of a great movie, but then about 1/3 the way into the running time, they decided to just slow everything down and not move the plot along anymore, because it was a miniseries pilot rather than an actual movie. Well that exact same thing happens here, and it really bummed me out because I loved the opening of the film.

Going back to THREADS in the early 80's and even the pilot episodes for such shows as "Walking Dead", "Survivors", and "Jericho", I've always felt hungry for a well-directed (and especially a well-written) realistic portrayal of society falling apart at the very opening of the apocalypse. The closer these shows and films get to full on realism, the more interesting they get, but it never seems to quite hit the threshold of believability. The closest of course would be THREADS, but that film is hampered a bit by its low budget and unrelenting bleakness, plus it's a "broad-brush" film that doesn't really focus on the personal journey of the characters with much depth. Most of these films follow characters who are essentially unprepared victims who run around like headless chickens, looting and killing each other. There's very little attention paid to the rebuilding of society unless you stick with the series.

What's fascinating about this film is that it seems to follow the world's best prepper; a billionaire who owns a large property, stockpiles many months worth of food, and hires a large staff to run the place. It's a much more fascinating concept to me than following some loner wandering around because we get the makings of a small society trying its best to function and dealing with the various crises and things they didn't plan out. I have a feeling it'll be a pretty satisfactory miniseries (assuming that there are more episodes coming), but unlike a lot of my fellow Gen-Xers, I have little patience to sit down and binge-watch or maintain some loyalty to an ongoing series. I'd much rather watch films in the form of closed-narratives, which is something that this film does not offer (nor did HORIZON) in the slightest bit. There's nothing satisfying at all in the end but a lot of unanswered questions.

The key scenes such as the incident with the hunters feels very poorly handled, and the attempt to make the killer character conflicted and then suddenly get over it rang completely false and hollow as well. The film has a lot of tough guys posing with guns but ultimately has practically no action, which is frustrating when you can spot many, many opportunities for it along the way. Ultimately, the film lacks in entertainment value unless you really are drawn toward prepper culture and want to see what sort of blind spots you may have in your own prepping strategy. There are those who are practical and those who are idealistic, and the film seems to favor the idealists without really showing the consequences of ignoring pragmatism in a doomsday situation in which it's absolutely critical. I guess that may be the downside of watching a post-apocalypse movie with an ever-so-slight religious bend to it, though this is worlds better from something more overt such as LEFT BEHIND.

One hard truth about writing reviews is that I'll watch a film now and again that I won't connect with, and "Homestead" turned out to be that next movie. However, I understand that while I may not like it, other people will, so don't let this review stop you from seeing it if you're already excited.

To begin with the positives, all the actors, including Neal McDonough, Bailey Chase, Olivia Sanabia, Kearran Giovanni, and Tyler Lofton, did nicely with the material. In particular, McDonough's performance as Ian Ross stood out for me, as he had charisma while his character assesses the end of the world in a (mostly) realistic manner.

While I didn't think the narrative was strong, I must admit that Ben Kasica, Leah Bateman, and Phillip Abraham's screenplay was well-written. It also contains a message about how, in crisis, coming together is the best option, enhanced by Ben Smallbone's beautiful direction.

There were many great scenes, specifically the opening scene, which demonstrates the events that led to the world falling apart. Scenes like that are when the film excels, showcasing how tragedy can reveal the best and worst in all of us.

Unfortunately, the negatives weigh down the experience for me. For the first negative, the film doesn't handle its narrative the best. This drawback could be due to how uninvested I was in the character's struggles. Said characters make decisions that feel unrealistic or out-of-character based on how they previously were set up. For example, Chase's character, Jeff Erikson, feels closed off emotionally throughout the film, and his attitude only changes toward the end.

The editing was a bit messy. Time progression is all over the place, cemented by, and I'm paraphrasing, a '30 Days After the Incident' title card. It skips details that I feel the film would have benefited from showing, and I know there's a TV show following this. The choppy editing led to stagnant pacing, with the film only picking up in select moments. Kevin Costner's "Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1" had similar issues, which felt like a setup rather than a complete package. I'll give "Homestead" this: I prefer it over Horizon, and if it were between watching Chapter 2 of Costner's passion project or the TV show where I'd have to "Pay It Forward" to view, I'd go for the latter option. I'm not because a $15 minimum is too much of an ask for only the first episode, and it should have been $5. I know I'm being a hypocrite because the Angel Sponsored Screening I went to, where I saw the film for free, wouldn't happened without the "Pay It Forward" program, so thanks to everyone who helped make the screening possible.

Moving on from the show and the editing, one final point I want to bring up, a minor issue compared to the editing, is the narration. Dawn Oliveri's character, Jenna Ross, delivers the narration throughout the film, and I felt it didn't leave an impact. The narration is vital for developing her character, but it seemed like the only aspect giving her character instead of letting her actions speak for themselves. Again, it could be a symptom of my lack of character investment, but for the most part, the film could've removed the narration.

"Homestead" didn't work for me, and that's okay. I know that others will enjoy it, but I'd sooner watch its preceding TV show when it becomes free instead of "Paying It Forward." No offense to the program, but I should like the setup that shouldn't feel like a setup. While I didn't enjoy it enough, if you see and enjoy it and are interested in seeing the story continue, definitely "Pay It Forward."

Technically, the acting, directing, writing, and Matthew Rivera's cinematography make the technical score a 9/10.

For the enjoyment score, if you want to see it, then do so, but I felt it was weak. For me, the enjoyment score is a 5/10. Nonetheless, its messaging is lively, inspired, and necessary. In most cases, we all connect in a time of tragedy and peril one way or the other, and working alongside one another is the solution. I wish that message were in a better film.

The movie was pretty good for what it was, but I believe the type of scenario that played out at the beginning, with the US coming under nuclear attack and the power grid going down, would have been much better if more people could relate to the aftermath of such events. Less than 10 minutes into the movie, 98% of people who have made some sort of preparations for such events were left out of the rest of the movie, and the 2%, or less, who might know someone with such accommodations and security were the only ones left to imagine themselves in that type of situation, unless, of course, you were one of those people who were totally unprepared, standing outside the gate begging to get in. Like I said at the beginning of this review, the movie was pretty good for what it was, but unfortunately, it was unrealistic to "prepper" viewers. Maybe Angel should think about making another movie that relates more to average people in rural areas who are prepared, to one degree or another. Maybe the storyline could be about a family, or families, living through such a scenario of events from their own homes and properties; their struggles to hang on to what they have; to keep their families safe and fed, and the tuff decisions that have to be made concerning those who were un or under prepared, including friends and neighbors.

But, that's just me thinking.

Acting ~ 6 ⭐ The best performance by far came from Bailey Chase. You may know him from Longmire. The script did not give the actors much to work with, but this guy handled what he got well. The lead actor, Neal McDonough, who is supposed to help carry the film, was stiff and underwhelming. Everyone else was just, well, not that great. Bailey raised their average.

Story ~ 4 ⭐ The most important part of any film, the story was clunky and quite frankly a mess. The writers broke the first rule of writing, which is to tell the truth. This is an 'action lite' movie, it's heavy-handed and preachy, and the structure is whacky. It's two episodes of a TV series trying to be a movie but missing the mark by far.

Cinematography ~ 5 ⭐ Middle-of-the-road cinematography with bad lighting at times. Not much else to say here.

To Boot At the end of the film, there is an ask to pay the movie forward - to buy someone else's ticket who otherwise might not have the money to see it. This has been done before by Angel Studios for Sound of Freedom. It worked beautifully then, but here's why it won't work this time.

Unfortunately, Homestead is not a real film, and the studios that put it out know this. Angel Studios is using a carrot-and-stick tricky marketing to launch their TV series.

They've given movie-goers two poorly written TV episodes bolted together, and if you pay someone else's way to see it, they offer to give you more episodes to watch at home for doing so.

Summary Don't see it and tell your friends to take a hard pass and maybe we will get a truthful story instead of tricky marketing next time from the makers of Homestead.

Overall Terry Review ~ 5 ⭐