I Am (2010)

Really Surprised!

Please don't spend money on this.

Don't Believe the Hype

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

As some one who does not go to or belong to a church I was mostly watching this movie as a movie and not for some kind of message confirmation. That said the movie is OK. There are no special effects, CG, nudity, graphic violence, satanic rituals, gore or glorification of illegal drugs. So anyone wanting a regular studio movie is bound to be disappointed.That said the acting, camera work, soundtrack and script are a step above a made for TV or two steps above a S2V production, surprisingly good really. I admit my expectations were exceedingly low so any show of promise was rewarding. Was the acting high quality? No. Was it good quality? Yes. Better than most movies coming out these days really. The same could go for most of the rest. The soundtrack while I think nearly all Christian Rock (not really familiar) was actually very good and the producers should be commended for that.As some have noted the movie is packed full of clichés. Not quite American Pie III clichés but the movie is based on the Ten Commandments and they have been around for a while so this should not come as a surprise to anyone. The Morgan Freeman cliché character was over the top disappointing in that he was such a direct theft that were movie a hit I would wonder about infringements.I did find it disappointing that many people would likely find the characters not genuine. I tend to agree to a point. Not because such people do not exist but because they are so rare. It is difficult to find people anywhere who decide to turn their lives around in a meaningful way and take large apparently sincere steps to go about it. Having so many in one film is badly overdone. The movie would likely have been much more believable had some of the characters had more likely outcomes in their story lines.All in all middle of the road movie with a few good points.

I saw this movie this weekend and I can honestly say that he is a very positive message. Do not think that this is merely a religious film, it's beyond that. If there is a way that I believe in God, this is how the film represents. This movie is not for anyone. You need to be open minded and focused. Despite the theme, I'm not a religious guy, but this movie made me see the things in a different way. Tomas Boykin had a very good work and I can't imagine other actor on his place. This movie will gave another idea of god, even if you are not religious. Sincerily, it's the one of the best movies that I saw in the last months.Give a chance and you will regret.

Having seen some really awful Christian films somehow along the way, I was extremely wary to even give this one a look, but got talked into it nevertheless, and was very surprised.For once, a solid, interesting story that actually might appeal to someone outside of a church audience. As a matter of fact, it really strayed from the usual modus operandi of Christian films, which is to really push the bible rather than to just tell a story.It seemed very mature in storytelling, as the plot lines were all different, but somehow intersected and worked with each-other and in the end, though all got resolved in a somewhat typical Hollywood fashion, the story itself kept me pretty involved and I found it to be, for the most part, compelling, which I can't say for any of the other Christian films I've seen.The cinematography was done fairly well, and though the lighting did seem a little forced, the camera work was solid and the editing was cohesive and focused. The acting, for the most part, was natural, though some came off better than others.All in all, this is not going to score anyone a whole lot of mainstream buzz or come out the other side with any real awards, but I found it to be, by far, the best of this genre I've seen, and I would recommend it as a rental for sure.

And here we have the reason why Christian filmmakers get such a bad rap. Not only is this an awful cliché driven Christian film, it is an awful film - period. I don't know where to begin, but I'll try.First, I'll point out the ridiculous gimmick of having what I believe to be Morgan Freeman's stand-in playing the I Am. Upon seeing him in the trailer, I knew the movie was going to stink. Relying on gimmicks to get people in the seats will only work on the first showing. After that, it's all word of mouth and the words are "stay away." Second, there was just too much going on. All of the characters were the same.They were uninteresting, bland, and forgettable. I often caught myself saying, "Now, who is that again?" The dialogue didn't mix things up either. Everything was on the nose. The message came before the method on this one in a big way.Third, the camera work was, at best, the type of footage you would get from a royalty free video library. Almost every scene was heavily painted with colorful lighting of reds, blues, golden hues, and stark whites. Cecil B. Demille forbid the DP actually just use natural lighting or have a reason for lighting the way he did. I can handle heavily lighted scenes, but only if they serve a purpose. The only purpose I suppose this DP had was that he had access to a larger grip truck he wasn't normally used to. Just because you have all of the tools doesn't mean you have to use them all, partner.Finally, I Am is a great example of what happens when you have someone with access to enough money to buy or rent the best equipment and thinks he can make a film. I can hear it now: forget story, it'll look awesome! I'm sorry to say, but you made moving pictures with sound, but a film it is not. As a writer, a filmmaker, and a Christian, I am insulted.