Sparks

Similar to Sin City or Watchmen it tries to utilize a film noir approach to tell the story and you can easily recognize that it could have been a great movie. Unfortunately the directors had no idea how they were going to do it. And thru the first 3/4s of the movie I could never shake the feeling that it was somewhat incoherent. It felt like scenes were filmed in a different context and spliced together randomly in the editing room, which also made the performances of the leads appear wooden and uninspired. Only the last 20 mins were not too bad and felt like they were intended to be this way. However they don't save the rest of it at least not for me. But if you can see past its flaws and you aren't bothered by them too much it's worth watching.

Take the link to see the reviews of other users who gave this film high marks and one gets the impression that they were involved in the film somehow, since it's the only movie listed in their profile.

Pamela Costa, from examiner.com called this and all star cast. That's true, if high school plays are included. This movie is a joke. It would seem that Chase Williamson must be related to the producer/director, since he couldn't get the lead in a play starring him, directed by him and produced by; you guessed it, him.

The action scenes are not action, but the camera work is passable, while not done well and the script is just plain bad. Chase looks stiff, like a deer in the headlights, and his voice over seems to have been done in one take and completely over-acted, as is most of the rest of the film.

Chase, watch a couple of boxing matches...or a couple of real movies before taking on a fight scene. Even my child knows how to make a fist, friend.

Don't wast your time on this "40s Noir Film" as one user put it. Watch grass grow instead. You'll be better off.

It is kind of hard to write a review that would be kind to this movie. First of all, I like Noir movies, I'll give most movies a bit of thought before I decide whether I like, or don't like. Now this movie is neither an drama, an action movie nor a comedy, it's more like a bad stage play. The acting was only just above amateur (kind of), the camera work was noticeably (kind of) bad. The effects were (kind of) tacky, the dialogue was cringefully bad (not kind of), the casting was all wrong (definatly), everything, and I mean everything about this movie was kind of wrong, in fact I'll go one step further and say, it was just plain awful. There was nothing about this movie that I liked, no wait, I lie... some of the cars were pretty cool, the biscuits I had with my cup of tea were pretty good, and I liked the bit where the movies disclaimer came up at the end, yeah, that was the best bit! Hmph. I did say a few kind words about it after all.

Well, "Sparks" is not your typical superhero movie, and that is one of the better things about it. There is something more dark in the deeper layers of this movie. And instead of having picture perfect superheroes, then the superheroes in this movie were every day people with every day problems (more or less).

The story told here was adequate and did have some interesting aspects. But it was somehow dropped on the floor because of some questionable effects, and the entire movie had the feel of being shot in front of a green screen and not enough money was used for the effects. That really struck a terrible blow to the movie.

"Sparks" did have potential for something grander, but it wasn't properly utilized, and that was kind of a shame.

As for the acting, well I will say that they had adequate talents to portray the characters in the movie, but the heavy load of the entire movie was resting on the shoulders of Mr. Clancy Brown. And he did do a good job, just a shame that he didn't have more time on the screen. It was also nice to see William Katt on the screen again, I haven't seen him in a movie for a long, long time.

Whereas many superhero movies today are driven by CGI effects, "Sparks" is driven by the story.

However, I started to slip because of the suppressing feel of being shot in front of a green screen, and that left the movie at a below average experience for me. As such, I am rating it 4 out of 10 stars.

I like movies. I like a bit of cheese. I'll forego big budget effects all day long if you're ready to give me a bit of fun dialogue, a neat story, even just some good facial expressions and clever timing with the cuts.

This film is just bad. I'm sorry. It's bad.

So why did it have an IMDb rating of 7.3 when I decided to give it a whirl?

To be fair, that rating is now down to 6.7 a few days later. But there were THOUSANDS of 8, 9, and 10 reviews according to the breakdown link. For a movie with, I'm sorry, very amateur acting, a derivative storyline that's half Watchmen, half Kick-Ass, and none of the goodness of either. GLOWING user reviews written and then "found useful" by dozens of others.

I... I think the producer got all his friends and family to write nice things. :( I feel sorry for him, I know it can be hard to break out into the larger world with a small budget movie, but the first thing you need is SOME QUALITY, dude. Look at Primer. Look at Pi. Look at The Man From Earth.