* * * out of * * * * *

Spade on the River opens up in a classroom, where a group of students are critiquing a story written by Keith Coleangelo, the protagonist of the film. The classmates have differing opinions on the story; one of them hates it, one of them reads too much into it, and one of them defends it. Mediating the discussion is, of course, a professor, whose head we never see. The fourth classmate is Keith, but he isn't allowed to offer criticism for obvious reasons. Instead, he generally looks repulsed during these scenes.
The movies opening line is "I thought it sucked", delivered by Classmate 1. This has to be the first time a movie has ever opened with a declaration that what the audience is about to see, does in fact suck. The classroom scenes are scattered to and fro throughout the movie in a 'Princess Bride' like manner, and provide some entertaining and original narration. The classmates each have unique personalities, if stereotypical ones, and the professor is undoubtably one of the most colorful characters. However, the movie is not about the classmates, it's about the story the classmates are critiquing.
The story is about Keith Coleangelo. He and his twin sister Kelly (who looks nothing like him) go off to college, warned by their parents not to get into trouble and to study hard. When told not to drink, Keith's response is "I know dad, Christians don't do that sort of thing." Keith is your standard judgemental Christian, only kicked into high gear. He goes to college scared, timid, insecure and brimming with hate. He has no qualities that would make anybody want to spend any amount of time with him. His sister is more laid back and ready to enjoy her newfound freedom. Keith prepares to study hard, graduate, and move on to a lustrous career of being a dentist for animals.
All Keiths plans go to waste soon after arriving, when he is taking out the trash and stumbles upon a violent game of poker. The violence is created by Calvin, a long haired guy evidently associated with a blood gang, because he wears a red bandana and shirt. Of coures he isn't (are there any blood gangs in Oregon?) but looking back on it, it seems out of place. Anyway, Calvin gives us the immediate impression that he is uncontrollable, and gives Keith the immediate impression that college won't be what he expected. Especially disconcerting is when Calvin informs Keith that they will be rooming together for the coming year.
This sets the stage for the rest of the movie, where Keith goes from trying to convert Calvin, to becoming a monster, to gaining his redemption etc... Calvin claims he is already a Christian and gets involved with Kelly, which further propels Keith to madness. I guess the movie seems to be saying 'grace not works' but comes across as saying 'do whatever you want, it's all good.' This of course goes against Romans 6:1 which says "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!" But evidently that was lost on me at the time.
Enough of plot. Does the movie work? Depends on what level. On a professional level, no way. On an amatuer level, yes. In fact, for a movie this length and on this budget, it succeeds with flying colors. It is quick paced, funny, original, creative and engaging. All good things for a movie to be. There are no scenes in the movie that drag on or get boring. There are no moments that propel the audience to sleep. No moments where you think 'the director is just trying to add on stuff to make the movie longer'. Everything happens for a reason. Plus the ending is great, all things considered.
The problem isn't in the execution, it's on the technical side. Too many times the audio is inconsistent, or the picture is overexposed. Too many times I needed to use a tripod or a light kit. This makes the movie look sloppy, and sometimes half-hearted. There are a couple scenes which obviously could have taken more care in every concievable area. A couple scenes absolutely suck.
The acting is okay, all things considered. Sami Haj is excellent as Keith, I do a passable, though inconsistent, job as Calvin. Heather does a good job replacing Cailee as Kelly, Nate Boggs does a good job as Michael - the real villain of the movie, and Brett Valenti does a great job as both the Professor and Mickey, a volatile bad guy.
There is a HUGE problem that originated once the idea even came to me. Who will watch it? Who will like it? What audience will it play to? When I wrote the script, I was embarrased to have anybody read it. The script is the best thing I have ever written though. Now that the movie is completed, I'm embarrased to have anybody watch it. See, Spade on the River is a very good movie. It's just not a particularly enjoyable one. It's funny, but it's uncomfortable. Not many people are going to like it. It makes the Christians feel like they are being poorly portrayed, and it makes the non Christians feel like religion is being forced down their throats. There is probably a small group of people who will love it, but I am not one of them. When I watch the movie now, I get the feeling I wouldn't like it if somebody else made it. Still, it's neccessary that it was made, because I learned so much about what to do and what not to do. It will probably go down as the hidden movie in my library, sort of the movie in the shadows. One day, people will say "Did you see Kyle's movie 'Entertaining Angels'? 'Yeah I saw it, did you see For the Love of the Dame?' 'Yeah it was funny. Did you see Spade on the River?' 'No, but I heard it was pretty good. Have you seen it?' 'No, but I've heard good and bad things.' It's the kind of movie you have to be really into to enjoy.
I am currently on page 67 of 'Entertaining Angels', which I absolutely adore. I can't wait to finish the script, and I can't wait to have people read it. More over, I can't wait to produce it, and I can't wait for it to be finished. "Entertaining Angels" will be the movie that will put Theophilus Productions on the map.

8/7/05:
I've changed my mind. I would LOVE Spade on the River even if I hadn't made it. It's everything I'm about. It's about freedom, imagination, action, being a man, being a Christian, everything. It's got basketball in it, poker (which I no longer play, thank God), knives, guns, girls, and most importantly, God. So forget what I said in the above review, I know I would love this movie, and there will be a few people who do. But probably not the majority. Liberatarians will enjoy it, liberals won't. Furthur more, I'm not going to hide this from the public. I'll have screenings of it in Oregon. The cast and crew deserve their work to be shown. But I won't go to great lengths to get everybody to see it. I'll do that with 'Entertaining Angels' if it's good enough.