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.
