Was this prequel really necessary?
Like any fanboy of the NIGHT CRACKLING CAMPFIRE film, I was extremely excited when it was announced that the film would be getting its own prequel, EVENING CRACKLING CAMPFIRE. NIGHT, of course, was an instant cinematic masterpiece - an epitome of the new wave, modernist neorealism movement - I'm sure it even made Visconti shudder in his grave at its unflinching portrayal of the stark realities surrounding a crackling campire, at night no less.
Alas, that anticipation quickly turned to trepidation when it was realized that the prequel was being trusted not into the hands of a capable auteur but rather to the, dare I say, hack that is George Ford. Oh sure, Ford had made the all together decent LEAF BURNING THROUGH TELESCOPE and the uneven but rewarding LIT CANDLE (WHERE HAVE YE GONE ELECTRICITY?) films, but where those films were heralded for their inventiveness - the obvious micro-budgets lending a sense of cozy charm to both efforts - the massive budget awarded Ford for...
Weak plot, but nice cinematography
Well, this is pretty much exactly what you'd expect: the plot is rather thin (it can really be described in its entirety in four words: dusk turns to night), and character development is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the camera work is nice, and the cinematography is solid, which is really the main thing you're looking for in this type of movie (this film appears to be loosely based on the classic "Fireplace"). The sound design was a pleasant surprise, mixing ambient cricket and frog sounds with the crackling of the campfire and murmur of a nearby stream. The ending suggests a likely sequel, but this film can easily stand on its own.
I loved it
I definitely loved it, creates a great background atmosphere. For a night owl like me, helps me work much more efficiently.
Click to Editorial Reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment