Homestead

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.

Cringe. I was pretty excited for this marketed "stand alone" movie, and I was sure it was going to develop throughout. Nope. Apparently this is a pilot, and I really wanted to convince myself that I wasn't giving it enough grace, based on what is previewed at the end. However, there is no reason to watch the rest of the series.

As a religious conservative myself, I really wanted to like this movie. But when the girl's "can I...pray for you" line was delivered awkwardly and distantly to the guy seeking comfort after his mistake (instead of her leaning in to offer a touch, hug, or even a quiet ear to listen), I laughed, then I groaned, then I lost all hope that the rest of the movie would be able to portray a good message convincingly. Sorry to say, this is Angel's first big flop, mostly due to its deceptive marketing, disjointed narrative, and failed dialogue (not to mention, the morality of message is very inconsistent).

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 ⭐

Movies from Angel Studios are definitely improving when it comes to the acting, writing, and the overall quality of the films.

Homestead takes a very scary topic, and starts us off on the day of the incident, to show how quickly things would likely collapse. There is little to no backstory on the characters or the state of the world. What you learn about the characters you get from conversations that occur. This can be both good and bad - good in them at the plot moved along at a fast pace, bad because you aren't invested in them as people.

Some of the archetypes used are a little "one note". I was initially exasperated with the usual portrayal of the veteran types and their rigidity. But, it is definitely part of a character arc to show that people can and will change through experiences, so it actually works and I expect more in depth development as the follow up series progresses.

It does definitely stick to a redemption arc through faith, and has a few very obvious allegories (like Jesus using loaves and fishes to feed the masses), but I didn't find it over the top, forced or done in an unrealistic way.

It's a flawed film in some ways, but what film isn't? The debates have dialogue that could have definitely been written better. The direction could have been more on point. The effects of the attacks could have been shown a little more. But overall, it was still a good film and we all enjoyed it.