O Refúgio

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 ⭐

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).

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.

This movie seemed interesting based on the short synopsis that I read beforehand but I would have skipped it entirely if I knew that 1: it becomes very heavy handed on its political and religious views once it gets its foot in the door and 2: it ends in an unsatisfying way followed by a lead actor urging you to scan a QR code that lets you purchase the ending of the story after you already bought your ticket. Yes, I'm serious. This movie is not just bad, its not just borderline propaganda, its an advertisement for a streaming service that ransoms the ending of the movie. I hope this practice starts and ends with this movie because it is downright abhorrent, and the people behind the decision to paywall the ending ought to be ashamed of themselves.

I'd rate this 0/10 if I could.