Being an Arkansan who went to college in the writer/director/producer's hometown, I really wanted to like this movie. And for the first three-quarters, I actually did. I knew it was low-budget and independent, so looking past the horrid acting, distracting sound-mixing, and less-than-brilliant camera work wasn't too hard. Sadly, Sugar Creek has much bigger problems.
The first is pacing. I don't mind slow-moving plots, but the repetition of conversations got pretty old. Most of the dialogue is so mediocre and mindless that I guess the filmmaker felt he had to make it go on for ages in order for the audience to get a good understanding of the characters. One even gets the feeling that much of what happens in the "present" is just filler between flashbacks. Unfortunately, the slow pace kills any sense of fear the audience might have of the Horseman.
The other major problem is the moral. Throughout the film there are huge neon flashing signs that this is a movie with a message, that this rather unremarkable and kind of annoying main character has a chance at real redemption and a life-changing event. But the ending defies that. He continues to be a selfish coward, running away instead of helping Christine. The typically likable farmboy acts the hero, is unceremoniously murdered, and then, most importantly, is never mentioned again. Here's the great parallel to Adam's past self, and the filmmaker lets his sacrifice go completely ignored. I'm not saying he should have lived, but he should at least have been acknowledged as an ideal, had some kind of recognition, emphasized that his death was better than Adam's life. Instead, we just watch Adam act the coward until he's absolutely forced to do something resembling the right thing. He finally admits out loud that he was wrong for allowing what happened to happen, but we don't feel he's made any real progress. And everything Christine says at the end is just inane.
From what I understand, the message is supposed to be that we're all responsible for our action and our inaction, that doing what's right is just as important as not doing what's wrong. But what we're left with at the end is the continued well-being of characters who ran away and abandoned the helpless out of fear: the missionary and Adam. Don't be too bad, or you'll be punished like the corporal or St Claire. But don't stick your neck out for what's right, or you'll be gunned down and forgotten like the farmhand or raped like Christine. Rather, just look out for your own interests in a tepidly moral way and apologize for the atrocities you let happen, and all will be well.
The first is pacing. I don't mind slow-moving plots, but the repetition of conversations got pretty old. Most of the dialogue is so mediocre and mindless that I guess the filmmaker felt he had to make it go on for ages in order for the audience to get a good understanding of the characters. One even gets the feeling that much of what happens in the "present" is just filler between flashbacks. Unfortunately, the slow pace kills any sense of fear the audience might have of the Horseman.
The other major problem is the moral. Throughout the film there are huge neon flashing signs that this is a movie with a message, that this rather unremarkable and kind of annoying main character has a chance at real redemption and a life-changing event. But the ending defies that. He continues to be a selfish coward, running away instead of helping Christine. The typically likable farmboy acts the hero, is unceremoniously murdered, and then, most importantly, is never mentioned again. Here's the great parallel to Adam's past self, and the filmmaker lets his sacrifice go completely ignored. I'm not saying he should have lived, but he should at least have been acknowledged as an ideal, had some kind of recognition, emphasized that his death was better than Adam's life. Instead, we just watch Adam act the coward until he's absolutely forced to do something resembling the right thing. He finally admits out loud that he was wrong for allowing what happened to happen, but we don't feel he's made any real progress. And everything Christine says at the end is just inane.
From what I understand, the message is supposed to be that we're all responsible for our action and our inaction, that doing what's right is just as important as not doing what's wrong. But what we're left with at the end is the continued well-being of characters who ran away and abandoned the helpless out of fear: the missionary and Adam. Don't be too bad, or you'll be punished like the corporal or St Claire. But don't stick your neck out for what's right, or you'll be gunned down and forgotten like the farmhand or raped like Christine. Rather, just look out for your own interests in a tepidly moral way and apologize for the atrocities you let happen, and all will be well.