The Mark (2012) Reviews

• Probably the worst movie I've ever watched

  nelsonalmiranti2013-05-19

  ...and I've seen a lot. A lot that were really bad. This beat them all. All those hints to Christianity and faith at the beginning should have given it away, but I had to be stubborn and go ahead. Silly me! This movie is initially presented as some sort of techno-thriller, maybe cheap, all right, but not necessarily bad. Later, some action sequences develop in the claustrophobic environment of the plane, and I usually like that kind of setting. But then. All of a sudden THE RAPTURE happens, right in the middle of the action. Yes! The freakin' rapture, proper! How about that for a plot device! Then the characters spend some 5 to 10 minutes explaining it to us. Needless to say, the formerly atheist main guy finds faith, and he's now the biggest believer of all time. But I guess if you wake up right after the rapture, you don't get to go upstairs. That would be too easy, right? And it also wouldn't allow for a HORRIBLE SEQUEL. That's pretty much all I have to say about this pile of _enter unpleasant substance here_. I wish I the willpower to watch the sequel, but I'm afraid my faith is far from strong enough. As soon as science comes up with a way to remove specific memories from the human brain, I'll call and make an appointment.

• Entertaining and Well Produced

  RDreammaker2013-04-08

  This was a surprisingly good movie that I thoroughly enjoyed watching. As a producer and director, I did find a few weak points of the film, but then again, that is part of my training. The overall story is strong, the acting is strong and the believability is strong from my perspective as a viewer who has watched and reviewed a plethora of movies while in film school and as a director and producer. THE WEAK AREAS: * The hand to hand fight sequences with the lead actor. It seemed obvious that little combat training or coaching, if any, was provided to the lead actor, Several fight sequences lacked enthusiasm, intensity, style or technique and reminded me of a horrible film pilot I worked on a few years ago, that didn't even make it through post-production. Those particular scenes were key to the conflict rise in the film and were pretty soft. It would've been better to have brought in a couple of stunt doubles for these scenes in the lower sections of the airplane cavities and made them more intense. * The airplane had no airplane noises, how is that possible? That was either an editor or director decision. Not having ambient airplane sound, even at a low volume was a really poor decision in this production, since much of the movie takes place in the plane. This was even more critical in areas of the plane where there absolutely would have been high volumes of sound. There is no excuse for poor sound design, since it does not affect the film budget or require much additional time in post-production to lay the audio track. * Everything about the story was tight, except for two areas of the film where it felt and looked like most "Faith Based Films". The story would not of suffered with a subtle approach. No one likes being pulled out at the beginning of the rising conflict to be told the motive up front. Find a way to reveal it without having to interrupt the flow with overtly obvious dialog. THE STRONG AREAS: The acting was very strong throughout almost all of the movie, Great actresses and actors, good story, very well told. However, out of the entire film, the weakest acting showed up with the lead character. Again, there is something about most faith based films when I watch them, that look almost identical from movie to movie, especially these end-time movies. I am a fan of end time stories, but to make them work, you must keep the intensity tight. I don't know if its the story, the Director interpretation of the story, the editor, or the actors inability to pull it off. It might even be all of them. There is just something undefinable that in one or two key scenes, the acting of the lead seem weak and unbelievable. I saw the same thing in the first two Left Behind series movies Kirk Cameron was in. The third Left Behind, "World At War" was the exception, with tighter acting and more believable acting. In World At War, they killed off the weak actor in the beginning which was the smartest decision that could've been made. Had they kept that weak actor, the film would've sucked, but instead it was one of the best faith based films about end time events, made to date. Conclusion: I really enjoyed this movie as a viewer and a film maker. As far as films with a faith based underlying theme, it was on the higher end of believability and entertaining. I've watched lots of higher budget films that were not as good as The Mark. If the writer, director and editor of The Mark sequel can manage to pull off the tight balance of telling the story subtly without creating a pause in the flow in its delivery of its motive, than it will be a winner. Worth watching - I think so . Movie Value - I gave it a score of 6. I would've given it a 5 1/2 if that rating was an option.

• Simply Bad Movie

  realvedmak2013-05-09

  Not everybody's acting was atrocious, but its like you can tell that actors did not enjoy themselves and just KNEW they were in bad movie during filming. Movie starts OK, like but sub-B action flick. Type of movie that probably is not meant to be taken seriously anyway. But then they start with God and Jesus and movie changes from "its OK guys we know its a joke of a movie" to "Power of God gives me strength to do the impossible", people disappearing into thin air because they were "taken by God because only He has the power to save those that believe in Him". I cant imagine even the most devoted believers in Jesus enjoying themselves with this movie. If you actually know somebody that liked this movie, get them some professional help.

• painful to watch

  a6782142012-12-12

  Some films get a bad rating I can't agree with - with this I wish there would be also a 0 available. Maybe I shouldn't write a review because I stopped watching the movie 10minutes before the ending – but it gave me physical pain to watch the storyline get worse and worse. The only reason to watch this movie up to this point or further can only be explained with a deer watching into the coming lights. The guy who pitched the story to the studio must be really a genius or the brother in law. Otherwise I can't think of a sane person that thinks that this kind of storyline could attract enough people to earn money with it. But the storyline isn't the only bad thing – also the main character wouldn't be my first choice if I would cast a person for this role. OK they didn't have much money to spend, but I'm pretty sure that there is another desperate actor that would fit much better.

• Mostly ineffective action film with spiritual overtones.

  suite922014-04-22

  Avanti Corporation creates one biometric computer chip intended to have some profound interface with a human being. If that were not strange enough, their lab was just about to implant the thing inside a chosen test subject when the lab is attacked. While the lab burns and things are still blowing up, the lab surgeon does an emergency implant into a member of the security force for Avanti, one Chad Turner. Cooper, the failed head of security for Avanti, gets Turner on a plane to a safe place. That does not work. For one thing, Joseph Pike is determined to have the chip. The plane is hijacked by three murderers and one tech accomplice. The attempt at re-taking the plane and killing all the hijackers was almost successful. The lights go out; when they come back on, some passengers are gone, with their clothes left behind. (This event was given a spiritual explanation.) There are more problems than just the departed hijackers. Will the plane land safely? -----Scores----- Cinematography: 2/10 Poor close-ups accompanied by camera shake. Stupid camera angles. Sound: 7/10 The actors are miked OK. The music is not all that effective. Acting: 2/10 Absurdly bad. The lead actor, Craig Sheffer, is perhaps the worst of them all, with Gary Daniels a close second. The pair who played the pilot and co-pilot were terrible. Screenplay: 4/10 The dialog is odd and stilted, especially where Christian beliefs are being injected. There is not much story stretched over 92 minutes. SFX: 4/10 The mock-up of a commercial passenger jet airplane is ridiculous. The animated airplane exteriors were not good.