Some things I liked some I did not.

Load of rubbish!!

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Well...this was one of the major disappointments I ever crossed my eyes with...The movie can be "summarized" in one sentence: "The fight of two preachers, who are "god-wannabes" And that's it.the movie is almost every second blah-blah-blah...the "action" parts of the movie are only in the beginning when Charles wife and son are murdered...and in the last 10 or 15 minutes beginning when Charles is taken to the woods, to be shot...The acting is not awful, but, hell, the dialogs are so.............stupid...this movie is truly dispensable...unfortunately almost every movie that comes from Hollywood, nowadays, is dispensable.........even the majority of the B class movies like this one...Don't waste your time

The premise of this film was more than adequate. The actors were adequate.The body of writing was not. At all.He stands there, his back faced to her. She runs a monologue about how jealous she was of his wife. Not only is the whole long-monologue-to-a- person's-back thing REALLY teenage-soap-opera corny, but every single one of her lines in the speech was forced. It sounded like she was reading a script, not saying it from her heart - and it wasn't the fault of the actress. I was actually impressed by her delivery, because the lines were just really, really bad.And it's like that throughout every important part of this film.When the brother is preaching to his communion of teenagers? YIKES. Just wow.Screenwriter needs to go back to the drawing board with how he writes dialogue. He sucks. Bad.Everything else about this film was alright. Actually, everything else was way above average for a small-budget film.4/10

I caught this in Stockholm and it's stayed with me for a number of reasons. Firstly, the setting was stunning, cinematographer Michael Hardwick deserves credit for making the most of the Alaskan backdrop. The score was beautiful, and it fit the story, something low budget films often get wrong.I liked the plot and the way it's been handled, in that Charlie doesn't become some sort of vengeance seeking hysterical as he may in a more mainstream movie. Instead, the captivating Joseph McKelheer takes Charlie to a hollow place, tortured yes...but hollow. The physical transformation McKelheer makes during the movie, combined with his superb acting, tell us all we need to know about Charlie's state of mind. Cory Knauf, at times, is unbearable to watch, and I mean this as a compliment as that's exactly what Luke needs to be, yet he still leaves enough room to invoke moments of sympathy in the viewer.Courtney Halverson is brilliant as Sarah, embodying perfectly the vulnerable transition from girl to woman, it helps that she has the 'beautiful innocent' look about her too.Certain scenes are extremely disturbing, you'll know when you get them which ones I mean. I wouldn't presume to tell people to watch this, just as I wouldn't tell you not to watch something else....what I will say is that I'm a big indie/low budget fan and I found this to be a rare gem, disturbing, emotive, haunting, beautiful, challenging and honest.I'm excited to find McKelheer and Knauf have worked together prior to this and look forward to seeing more of their work in the future.

I've watched quite a few movies in my life, so when I say that this one was by far one of the worst I've seen (that was actually made to be good) it's not an understatement. The whole movie, I thought, was pointless unless there was some ambiguity that I didn't comprehend while gouging my eyes out every time the antagonist spoke. The end was all screwed up and I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone unless you like meaningless dramas. I know there is probably a theme, but the story had so many things going on with the main character that I couldn't tell. Don't watch.This is the half with spoilers, more like questions that I would LOVE to have answered. Like one, why on Earth did the director think that Tim deserved to get his head beat in, while Luke got the easy way out with a shot to the head by who? HIS SISTER. uhh, I'm pretty sure that Charlie was the one who's life was completely ruined when the guy killed his family, shouldn't he be the one doing the killing? And not just a headshot. The way he treated his sister/friend and Charlie, I thought he deserved at little bit more brutal of a death. Just my opinion