SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

FairyWings This movie dragged on for the first hour and then disappointed for the next hour! I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, expect someone on death row who wanted time to go a little slower as it was their final hours or something.This movie lacked direction, and at times it seemed like the set was a modern day house filled with antiques and some guys in cowboy outfits. The movie at times was like b grade and then at other times, more like d grade, I was drinking champagne at the time of my viewing and I still really hated it! It's nothing like the village but this is definitely the movie which I will not speak of.

K-burg Being an Arkansan who went to college in the writer/director/producer's hometown, I really wanted to like this movie. And for the first three-quarters, I actually did. I knew it was low-budget and independent, so looking past the horrid acting, distracting sound-mixing, and less-than-brilliant camera work wasn't too hard. Sadly, Sugar Creek has much bigger problems.The first is pacing. I don't mind slow-moving plots, but the repetition of conversations got pretty old. Most of the dialogue is so mediocre and mindless that I guess the filmmaker felt he had to make it go on for ages in order for the audience to get a good understanding of the characters. One even gets the feeling that much of what happens in the "present" is just filler between flashbacks. Unfortunately, the slow pace kills any sense of fear the audience might have of the Horseman.The other major problem is the moral. Throughout the film there are huge neon flashing signs that this is a movie with a message, that this rather unremarkable and kind of annoying main character has a chance at real redemption and a life-changing event. But the ending defies that. He continues to be a selfish coward, running away instead of helping Christine. The typically likable farmboy acts the hero, is unceremoniously murdered, and then, most importantly, is never mentioned again. Here's the great parallel to Adam's past self, and the filmmaker lets his sacrifice go completely ignored. I'm not saying he should have lived, but he should at least have been acknowledged as an ideal, had some kind of recognition, emphasized that his death was better than Adam's life. Instead, we just watch Adam act the coward until he's absolutely forced to do something resembling the right thing. He finally admits out loud that he was wrong for allowing what happened to happen, but we don't feel he's made any real progress. And everything Christine says at the end is just inane.From what I understand, the message is supposed to be that we're all responsible for our action and our inaction, that doing what's right is just as important as not doing what's wrong. But what we're left with at the end is the continued well-being of characters who ran away and abandoned the helpless out of fear: the missionary and Adam. Don't be too bad, or you'll be punished like the corporal or St Claire. But don't stick your neck out for what's right, or you'll be gunned down and forgotten like the farmhand or raped like Christine. Rather, just look out for your own interests in a tepidly moral way and apologize for the atrocities you let happen, and all will be well.

angelkitcat I think most people are wrong....this movie is a film you have to participate with in your mind and follow properly. I found it a quite good morality tale of sorts. There is symbolism throughout the show and these are one of the ways the writer has kept the story interwoven. The acting in some instances was very good but unfortunately not all the players did quite as good a job in their parts as others. On the whole I enjoyed it. This is definitely is not a movie for those people who can't follow more than one set of flash backs. There was one main plot taking place in past and present. The three subplots were necessary to flesh in each of the characters. It is extremely important for people to be engrossed in a story for it to be believable for them and this film accomplished this for me.

bobh-26 I don't know if it was the writer or the director but this movie made no sense. What I saw was a bunch of stories that were not tied together and had no ending. Whoever is responsible must be a genius who makes movies for other geniuses but the average person will be very disappointed. These stories were interesting enough but each one led to nowhere. Some narration might have helped but to leave the viewer with his own imagination with the clues that were offered was a total waste of anyones imagination. What I saw made no sense to me as one who likes to watch varied movies. The actors were not at fault as each one of them did what was required and each was convince-able. Any one who would make a movie that has no discernible story line should be barred from the movie industry. This was undoubtedly one of the worse movies I have ever had the unfortunate experience of watching.