If I had only read the reviews written in this forum I would have thought this movie was another Kevin Costner or John Travolta fiasco. Never have I seen so much intense negative interest in a "really bad" movie.
Before watching "Bless The Child" tonight, my only prior knowledge of it was seeing the trailer a couple of times on TV when the movie was about to be released. And then I only really noticed because the Icon label attached to it seemed to be out of place.
But the movie really wasn't that bad, though it could have used more (much more) focus and better lines and more intensity from the lead actors.
The story is classic good vrs. evil. What seems to have peeved many of the reviewers is that "good," in the form of a little girl (Holliston Coleman), was actually presented as having some real (and quiet) strength for a change. I suppose, in these reviewers jaded view of reality, this seems unrealistic. Besides, in horror movies (you know, the "realistic" kind) the evil thingamabob is always indestructible and just when good manages to triumph -- we find it really didn't. (How dare the "Bless the Child" producers have the gall not to be cliche in this respect!)
So to sum up my feelings. I liked the story (I don't suffer from anti-Catholic bigotry so the charge of being "too Catholic" wasn't a concern). I liked the little girl's acting. I thought Kim Bassinger did a credible job -- though her part lacked some intensity as did Jimmie Smits' part. I thought the Stark character (acted by Rufus Sewell) was well acted and convincingly evil. Miss Ricci's cameo was well done and the special effects were very good. Overall, taking into account my earlier criticism of lack of focus, lack of intensity and a few lines that made me wince -- it was not a bad movie. I would suggest it for those who *do* like a clear cut distinction between good and evil.
And, oh yes. No nudity. Very little profanity and violence that was intense but not overly graphic or gory. (I know -- this crew simply *doesn't* know how to make a "real" horror film, do they?)
Before watching "Bless The Child" tonight, my only prior knowledge of it was seeing the trailer a couple of times on TV when the movie was about to be released. And then I only really noticed because the Icon label attached to it seemed to be out of place.
But the movie really wasn't that bad, though it could have used more (much more) focus and better lines and more intensity from the lead actors.
The story is classic good vrs. evil. What seems to have peeved many of the reviewers is that "good," in the form of a little girl (Holliston Coleman), was actually presented as having some real (and quiet) strength for a change. I suppose, in these reviewers jaded view of reality, this seems unrealistic. Besides, in horror movies (you know, the "realistic" kind) the evil thingamabob is always indestructible and just when good manages to triumph -- we find it really didn't. (How dare the "Bless the Child" producers have the gall not to be cliche in this respect!)
So to sum up my feelings. I liked the story (I don't suffer from anti-Catholic bigotry so the charge of being "too Catholic" wasn't a concern). I liked the little girl's acting. I thought Kim Bassinger did a credible job -- though her part lacked some intensity as did Jimmie Smits' part. I thought the Stark character (acted by Rufus Sewell) was well acted and convincingly evil. Miss Ricci's cameo was well done and the special effects were very good. Overall, taking into account my earlier criticism of lack of focus, lack of intensity and a few lines that made me wince -- it was not a bad movie. I would suggest it for those who *do* like a clear cut distinction between good and evil.
And, oh yes. No nudity. Very little profanity and violence that was intense but not overly graphic or gory. (I know -- this crew simply *doesn't* know how to make a "real" horror film, do they?)