Midnight Clear (US - DVD R1)
Troy Anderson wonders why did the religious movies get Left Behind?
Feature
Eva might want to kill herself. Mary and Jacob are visiting their brain-dead father/husband in a long-term care facility. Kirk sits alone in his convenience store, while Lefty has lost his job due to being late all the time. Mitch tries to cope with being the survivor of the car crash that placed Mary's husband into a permanent coma. Every one of these people will have their lives come together over the course of this film.

That's not to make comparisons of Altman like greatness. The film wants to use its six degrees of separation to form a loose frame to explain how Christian teachings perpetuate throughout human life. It's a dumbed down version of the interpersonal connections that help outcasts and downtrodden people to come together. The rose-tint upon this tale is unmistakable, as Director Dallas Jenkins uses the narrative to reinforce that all of these people are going to be saved by their faith in a Judeo-Christian lifestyle.
Video
The transfer is pretty forgettable, as Lionsgate doesn't spend a lot of cash to improve upon the 1.78:1 transfer. Shot as an independent movie, you get the impression that Jenkins and company were looking towards a longer life on home video and cable television to keep the film alive. The result is A/V Quality that is soft and frequently washed-out when not in the midst of an evening exterior shot.

Audio
The audio is a standard Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo track that again backs up my point about this being a film for mass television and DVD viewing. It had done the Festival circuit at one point, so I wonder how a larger theatre sound system must've been able to handle this weak audio. The front channels get all of the dialogue, but still manage to muddle and drop lines.
Outside of the weepy words, you get some ambient noise and background filler that seems to be too overpowering on the mix. I'm not sure if that was an aesthetic choice, but it's distracting and only served to take me out of the film.

Extras
Midnight Clear is really light on the extras. You get a quickie featurette that takes a looking at the making of the film. Then, there's the self-congratulatory commentary with the Jenkins Brothers. The director, screenwriter and author of the original story take their time to overly praise the actors and act like this lukewarm morality play was one of the greatest films of the last decade. Nothing new is gained about the production from what they have to add to the common knowledge. All you find out is that good intentions don't necessarily make for quality viewing material.

Overall
Midnight Clear is a film that represents a growing media concern in the United States. Christians and their like-minded comrades have decided to take a chunk of the media space and push their message via films and other tools of the masses. While this film isn't pushy, it represents something else that is threatening to destroy the American way of pop culture.
It's a boring mess that does nothing but take up around two hours of your viewing time. That's time that you can spend watching porn, mindless violence or the delightful works of Lloyd Kaufman. If you spend any amount of personal time listening to weepy morality plays, then you deserve the rotting cerebellum that comes along with the viewing. This is a junk disposable film that's meant to inform the masses that Christ saves and all others pay cash. That's why I can't even recommend it for a rental.
Review by Troy Anderson
Advertisement
I stand by what I wrote.
Comments like that aren't acceptable ShareDaddy. By all means disagree with a review, but don't resort to insults.
TroyAnderson wrote: I stand by what I wrote.
I am not saying you should not stand by what you wrote. I stand by what I wrote also.
To quote you once more "This is a junk disposable film that's meant to inform the masses that Christ saves and all others pay cash.” I am not sure where this remark comes from. At what point in the movie is anyone saved or does anyone else pay cash for saving?
What exactly were you trying to address or communicate with this sentence? I really would like you to expound on this statement.
Tom wrote: Comments like that aren't acceptable ShareDaddy. By all means disagree with a review, but don't resort to insults. I did not mean to insult, Tom. Where exactly did I insult anyone? I listed my problems with his review, I apologize for any other takes on it.
I am not saying you should not stand by what you wrote. I stand by what I wrote also.
To quote you once more "This is a junk disposable film that's meant to inform the masses that Christ saves and all others pay cash.” I am not sure where this remark comes from. At what point in the movie is anyone saved or does anyone else pay cash for saving?
What exactly were you trying to address or communicate with this sentence? I really would like you to expound on this statement.
Tom wrote: Comments like that aren't acceptable ShareDaddy. By all means disagree with a review, but don't resort to insults. I did not mean to insult, Tom. Where exactly did I insult anyone? I listed my problems with his review, I apologize for any other takes on it.
The Jenkins model of putting out vague films that tie into their religious sentiment is well noted and documented. This film is no exception and that's what the final comment was about.
Taking offense with it doesn't do you any good.
Taking offense with it doesn't do you any good.
Curious
TroyAnderson wrote: The Jenkins model of putting out vague films that tie into their religious sentiment is well noted and documented. This film is no exception and that's what the final comment was about.
Taking offense with it doesn't do you any good.
Your last statement had nothing to do with "Jenkins or any other Modeling Concept" in my opinion.
Who is taking offense?
I will never say you cannot review a film and find fault and tilt your review accordingly, the problem I have with your review in general (especially the last statement) is two fold:
Reviewing a film will always involve your personal beliefs, likes and dislikes, you cannot help that, but you can help how others may perceive your comments. Your “Overall” comments were less about the film and more about some perceived Christian conspiracy in Hollywood.
I do not think you should ever review a film you would not have paid to see in the first place. If the "faith" or "Christian" based movies are simply a "Jenkins Model" attempt at movie making and you believe this what on Earth would make you watch then review one?
Is not your "OVERALL" section pretty much "taking offense" in its own right?
Curious.
Taking offense with it doesn't do you any good.
Your last statement had nothing to do with "Jenkins or any other Modeling Concept" in my opinion.
Who is taking offense?
I will never say you cannot review a film and find fault and tilt your review accordingly, the problem I have with your review in general (especially the last statement) is two fold:
Reviewing a film will always involve your personal beliefs, likes and dislikes, you cannot help that, but you can help how others may perceive your comments. Your “Overall” comments were less about the film and more about some perceived Christian conspiracy in Hollywood.
I do not think you should ever review a film you would not have paid to see in the first place. If the "faith" or "Christian" based movies are simply a "Jenkins Model" attempt at movie making and you believe this what on Earth would make you watch then review one?
Is not your "OVERALL" section pretty much "taking offense" in its own right?
Curious.
Well, you're wrong. I'm not going to be able to stop you from reading anything into what was written. So, have some fun with that.
This is the last thing I'm going to write about this. I've wasted enough time dealing with you today.
This is the last thing I'm going to write about this. I've wasted enough time dealing with you today.
I'm wrong, you're right kind of thing, great.
Small favors...
Small favors...
The comments section is intended for discussion and feedback, not to allow visitors to slate staff. If you disagree with a review you're quite entitled to say so, but let it end there. I don't want to see multiple posts trying to drag Troy into an argument. You have differing views, let that be an end to it.
Double Standards
Chris Gould wrote: The comments section is intended for discussion and feedback, not to allow visitors to slate staff. If you disagree with a review you're quite entitled to say so, but let it end there. I don't want to see multiple posts trying to drag Troy into an argument. You have differing views, let that be an end to it.
My issues are that I was not entitled to say I disagreed with a review. Instead I was warned to not insult anyone. If anyone was actually insulted it was me for have to read that review.
Take issue with a film not an entire religion, belief or world view. Or at least not on this site, that is my biggest issue. Review movies, I do, but heck if I am going to insult an entire group of people who believe in GOD, don't believe in GOD, etc.
Should staff be slating visitors? Current or future visitors?
My issues are that I was not entitled to say I disagreed with a review. Instead I was warned to not insult anyone. If anyone was actually insulted it was me for have to read that review.
Take issue with a film not an entire religion, belief or world view. Or at least not on this site, that is my biggest issue. Review movies, I do, but heck if I am going to insult an entire group of people who believe in GOD, don't believe in GOD, etc.
Should staff be slating visitors? Current or future visitors?
Troy's point is very obviously about the dumbing down of faith, not the faith itself.
ShareDaddy wrote: but to come away from this movie with your attitude and share it is wrong.Is this not the essence of a review - to share ones opinion of the movie watched? This is not an attack, just an observation.
<<Director Dallas Jenkins uses the narrative to reinforce that all of these people are going to be saved by their faith in a Judeo-Christian lifestyle.>>
<< This is a junk disposable film that's meant to inform the masses that Christ saves and all others pay cash.>>
Dallas Jenkins here...
Come on, man. It doesn't bother me if you don't like the film (I happen to agree with you about the sound, by the way), but it seems like you have an even stronger worldview coming through in your review than I do in my film. Nowhere in the film is anyone saved, nowhere in the film is a Christian portrayed with any more favor than a non-Christian (in fact, one of the main characters is a former churchgoer who gets better perspective from a non-Christian in the film than she does from her churgoing "friends"
, and if you paid attention to the whole commentary, you'll hear me talk often about the mistakes in the film and how I don't believe I made a "great" film. Not sure where you got the "greatest film of the last decade" line.
Like the film, don't like the film, that's your right as a critic, and I would never have a artistic argument with you, but to lump this film in with the "Christian" film genre reveals your own bias, in my opinion. Not one critic who didn't know who my Dad was or anything about my faith even used the word "Christian" in a review, whether they liked the film or not, so it seems that you're projecting onto the film what it's intentions are based not on the film itself, but on what you think I'm trying to sneak in.
All that said...I forgive you with the blood of Jesus Christ, and may God bless you with the richness of His glory as you turn your eyes closer to Him.
(Kidding)
<< This is a junk disposable film that's meant to inform the masses that Christ saves and all others pay cash.>>
Dallas Jenkins here...
Come on, man. It doesn't bother me if you don't like the film (I happen to agree with you about the sound, by the way), but it seems like you have an even stronger worldview coming through in your review than I do in my film. Nowhere in the film is anyone saved, nowhere in the film is a Christian portrayed with any more favor than a non-Christian (in fact, one of the main characters is a former churchgoer who gets better perspective from a non-Christian in the film than she does from her churgoing "friends"
Like the film, don't like the film, that's your right as a critic, and I would never have a artistic argument with you, but to lump this film in with the "Christian" film genre reveals your own bias, in my opinion. Not one critic who didn't know who my Dad was or anything about my faith even used the word "Christian" in a review, whether they liked the film or not, so it seems that you're projecting onto the film what it's intentions are based not on the film itself, but on what you think I'm trying to sneak in.
All that said...I forgive you with the blood of Jesus Christ, and may God bless you with the richness of His glory as you turn your eyes closer to Him.
(Kidding)


Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13
Disc Details
Release Date:
4th December 2007
Discs:
1
Disc Type:
Single side, dual layer
RCE:
No
Video:
NTSC
Aspect:
1.78:1
Anamorphic:
Yes
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo English
Subtitles:
English, Spanish
Extras:
'Behind the Clear' Featurette, Audio Commentary with Author Jerry B. Jenkins, Director Dallas Jenkins and Screenwriter Wes Halula
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
Dallas Jenkins
Cast:
Stephen Baldwin, K Callan, Mary Thornton, Richard Riehle, Victoria Jackson and Mitchell Jarvis
Genre:
Drama
Length:
102 minutes





Sure it is low budget, but to come away from this movie with your attitude and share it is wrong. There were several things in this movie that made it worth the watch, sure it is not going to win any academy awards.
To call a low budget Dramatic piece, that is supposed to be a somewhat convulted mess on purpose that entertwines a somewhat interesting cast of people a boring mess then that proves you did not pay enough attention to properly review it.
Shame on you.