This was a surprisingly good movie that I thoroughly enjoyed watching. As a producer and director, I did find a few weak points of the film, but then again, that is part of my training.
The overall story is strong, the acting is strong and the believability is strong from my perspective as a viewer who has watched and reviewed a plethora of movies while in film school and as a director and producer.
THE WEAK AREAS:
* The hand to hand fight sequences with the lead actor.
It seemed obvious that little combat training or coaching, if any, was provided to the lead actor,
Several fight sequences lacked enthusiasm, intensity, style or technique and reminded me of a horrible film pilot I worked on a few years ago, that didn't even make it through post-production.
Those particular scenes were key to the conflict rise in the film and were pretty soft. It would've been better to have brought in a couple of stunt doubles for these scenes in the lower sections of the airplane cavities and made them more intense.
* The airplane had no airplane noises, how is that possible?
That was either an editor or director decision. Not having ambient airplane sound, even at a low volume was a really poor decision in this production, since much of the movie takes place in the plane.
This was even more critical in areas of the plane where there absolutely would have been high volumes of sound.
There is no excuse for poor sound design, since it does not affect the film budget or require much additional time in post-production to lay the audio track.
* Everything about the story was tight, except for two areas of the film where it felt and looked like most "Faith Based Films". The story would not of suffered with a subtle approach. No one likes being pulled out at the beginning of the rising conflict to be told the motive up front. Find a way to reveal it without having to interrupt the flow with overtly obvious dialog.
THE STRONG AREAS:
The acting was very strong throughout almost all of the movie, Great actresses and actors, good story, very well told. However, out of the entire film, the weakest acting showed up with the lead character.
Again, there is something about most faith based films when I watch them, that look almost identical from movie to movie, especially these end-time movies. I am a fan of end time stories, but to make them work, you must keep the intensity tight.
I don't know if its the story, the Director interpretation of the story, the editor, or the actors inability to pull it off. It might even be all of them. There is just something undefinable that in one or two key scenes, the acting of the lead seem weak and unbelievable.
I saw the same thing in the first two Left Behind series movies Kirk Cameron was in. The third Left Behind, "World At War" was the exception, with tighter acting and more believable acting. In World At War, they killed off the weak actor in the beginning which was the smartest decision that could've been made. Had they kept that weak actor, the film would've sucked, but instead it was one of the best faith based films about end time events, made to date.
Conclusion:
I really enjoyed this movie as a viewer and a film maker. As far as films with a faith based underlying theme, it was on the higher end of believability and entertaining.
I've watched lots of higher budget films that were not as good as The Mark. If the writer, director and editor of The Mark sequel can manage to pull off the tight balance of telling the story subtly without creating a pause in the flow in its delivery of its motive, than it will be a winner.
Worth watching - I think so . Movie Value - I gave it a score of 6. I would've given it a 5 1/2 if that rating was an option.
The overall story is strong, the acting is strong and the believability is strong from my perspective as a viewer who has watched and reviewed a plethora of movies while in film school and as a director and producer.
THE WEAK AREAS:
* The hand to hand fight sequences with the lead actor.
It seemed obvious that little combat training or coaching, if any, was provided to the lead actor,
Several fight sequences lacked enthusiasm, intensity, style or technique and reminded me of a horrible film pilot I worked on a few years ago, that didn't even make it through post-production.
Those particular scenes were key to the conflict rise in the film and were pretty soft. It would've been better to have brought in a couple of stunt doubles for these scenes in the lower sections of the airplane cavities and made them more intense.
* The airplane had no airplane noises, how is that possible?
That was either an editor or director decision. Not having ambient airplane sound, even at a low volume was a really poor decision in this production, since much of the movie takes place in the plane.
This was even more critical in areas of the plane where there absolutely would have been high volumes of sound.
There is no excuse for poor sound design, since it does not affect the film budget or require much additional time in post-production to lay the audio track.
* Everything about the story was tight, except for two areas of the film where it felt and looked like most "Faith Based Films". The story would not of suffered with a subtle approach. No one likes being pulled out at the beginning of the rising conflict to be told the motive up front. Find a way to reveal it without having to interrupt the flow with overtly obvious dialog.
THE STRONG AREAS:
The acting was very strong throughout almost all of the movie, Great actresses and actors, good story, very well told. However, out of the entire film, the weakest acting showed up with the lead character.
Again, there is something about most faith based films when I watch them, that look almost identical from movie to movie, especially these end-time movies. I am a fan of end time stories, but to make them work, you must keep the intensity tight.
I don't know if its the story, the Director interpretation of the story, the editor, or the actors inability to pull it off. It might even be all of them. There is just something undefinable that in one or two key scenes, the acting of the lead seem weak and unbelievable.
I saw the same thing in the first two Left Behind series movies Kirk Cameron was in. The third Left Behind, "World At War" was the exception, with tighter acting and more believable acting. In World At War, they killed off the weak actor in the beginning which was the smartest decision that could've been made. Had they kept that weak actor, the film would've sucked, but instead it was one of the best faith based films about end time events, made to date.
Conclusion:
I really enjoyed this movie as a viewer and a film maker. As far as films with a faith based underlying theme, it was on the higher end of believability and entertaining.
I've watched lots of higher budget films that were not as good as The Mark. If the writer, director and editor of The Mark sequel can manage to pull off the tight balance of telling the story subtly without creating a pause in the flow in its delivery of its motive, than it will be a winner.
Worth watching - I think so . Movie Value - I gave it a score of 6. I would've given it a 5 1/2 if that rating was an option.