Sparks (I) (2013) User Reviews

Not a bad little indie superhero film.

[Chas_Wolf · 6/10 · 1 April 2014]

Okay, if you're looking for "The Avengers", or even "Watchmen", forget it.

This is a shoestring indie film and it shows. Most of the special effects are crude, the acting is a bit wooden, and some of the props just don't fit in well (Jake Busey's mask and the like stick out, literally, being somewhat cockeyed whenever he's wearing them).

Still, for what it is, the film isn't half bad. Sure, it can seem a bit campy or schlocky. But, as Grindhouse (and its legacy films) have shown us, there is still room for that sort of thing in cinema.

If that's not your cup of tea? Go get a coffee.

This story is about a young man who's motivated to do good, but in many cases winds up making all the wrong choices, or being given false choices. He dances back and forth over the line between good and evil throughout the film deciding what he really wants, and then going for it with no remorse.

All in all, not a perfect film. But I enjoyed it.

B Movie, that's actually pretty good. 👍

[Ckn48 · 6/10 · 3 February 2021]

Shape Sifter Fire Starter Immortal

What more could you want. Supposedly an event caused several people to turn bad and get powers. This led to a bunch of wanna be's pretending they have powers but they're just vigilantes. The we meet a couple with actual powers and things get a bit more interesting.

The special effects are B The acting is B The plot is almost A The sound is ok The photography is let down by the special effects.

I would recommend this 👍

Crappy indie superhero movie

[haosstoposto · 4/10 · 9 April 2014]

I always loved noir movies and I thought that this movie will be good indie movie but sadly, it fails on many levels to create suspenseful story. I will not go into detail, but anybody who has seen a film noir knows what to expect: broken heroes, femmes fatale, murder, revenge and so on. It is a mixture between The Watchmen and Phillip Marlowe, with a city with masked vigilantes (but not so many as we expect), people with superpowers, mass murderers. The story itself is really not that bad, but executed poorly with much predictable storytelling and dialogues. Stuff already seen before, and much better. The actors are not exactly miscasted but it is no big surprise when we discover that Jake Busey and Clancy Brown play bad guys. Fist-fighting is so crappy in the movie, they could really have done much better, and the costumes! No comment! All in all, no wonder there aren't many reviews for this movie, not many people have seen it. Looks almost like a direct-to-video stuff. Watch it if you will, you will not feel too cheated for your spent time.

Like a bad stage play.

[kruizer04 · 2/10 · 23 March 2014]

It is kind of hard to write a review that would be kind to this movie. First of all, I like Noir movies, I'll give most movies a bit of thought before I decide whether I like, or don't like. Now this movie is neither an drama, an action movie nor a comedy, it's more like a bad stage play. The acting was only just above amateur (kind of), the camera work was noticeably (kind of) bad. The effects were (kind of) tacky, the dialogue was cringefully bad (not kind of), the casting was all wrong (definatly), everything, and I mean everything about this movie was kind of wrong, in fact I'll go one step further and say, it was just plain awful. There was nothing about this movie that I liked, no wait, I lie... some of the cars were pretty cool, the biscuits I had with my cup of tea were pretty good, and I liked the bit where the movies disclaimer came up at the end, yeah, that was the best bit! Hmph. I did say a few kind words about it after all.

Reviews biased

[hatman28 · 2/10 · 27 March 2014]

Take the link to see the reviews of other users who gave this film high marks and one gets the impression that they were involved in the film somehow, since it's the only movie listed in their profile.

Pamela Costa, from examiner.com called this and all star cast. That's true, if high school plays are included. This movie is a joke. It would seem that Chase Williamson must be related to the producer/director, since he couldn't get the lead in a play starring him, directed by him and produced by; you guessed it, him.

The action scenes are not action, but the camera work is passable, while not done well and the script is just plain bad. Chase looks stiff, like a deer in the headlights, and his voice over seems to have been done in one take and completely over-acted, as is most of the rest of the film.

Chase, watch a couple of boxing matches...or a couple of real movies before taking on a fight scene. Even my child knows how to make a fist, friend.

Don't wast your time on this "40s Noir Film" as one user put it. Watch grass grow instead. You'll be better off.

This movie may prove some Internet conspiracy theory...

[ted-cooper · 1/10 · 10 April 2014]

I like movies. I like a bit of cheese. I'll forego big budget effects all day long if you're ready to give me a bit of fun dialogue, a neat story, even just some good facial expressions and clever timing with the cuts.

This film is just bad. I'm sorry. It's bad.

So why did it have an IMDb rating of 7.3 when I decided to give it a whirl?

To be fair, that rating is now down to 6.7 a few days later. But there were THOUSANDS of 8, 9, and 10 reviews according to the breakdown link. For a movie with, I'm sorry, very amateur acting, a derivative storyline that's half Watchmen, half Kick-Ass, and none of the goodness of either. GLOWING user reviews written and then "found useful" by dozens of others.

I... I think the producer got all his friends and family to write nice things. :( I feel sorry for him, I know it can be hard to break out into the larger world with a small budget movie, but the first thing you need is SOME QUALITY, dude. Look at Primer. Look at Pi. Look at The Man From Earth.

A dark superhero film that is misunderstood

[themadhatter76 · 7/10 · 1 May 2014]

From reading other reviews on this film, I feel a lot of people have misunderstood the film and are comparing it to the more prominent superhero films. You can't compare it to Superman, Spiderman, Batman, The Avengers, Captain America. It's dark, it's moody and it's very violent. It's a true old classic-style pulp action hero film that should be taken as such. It's similar to Kick Ass, Defendor and all those films with wannabe superheroes that have no powers whatsoever. They're everyday people armed only with self-made costumes and a passion for fighting crime. I really enjoy these dark 'superhero' films and I thought it was a great indie flick.

As for Miroslav Houdek's review on this film... you can't rate a film lower than what you actually think it's worth in order to bring the rating down so that it's closer to your actual rating. That's just nonsense, manipulative and extremely unhelpful. How is it that your opinion is more valid than all of the people that have rated the film higher than you?

Anyway, go into this film with an open mind and you'll enjoy it for what it is and not for what it isn't.

Worst movie I have seen in a long time

[rapperup · 1/10 · 11 April 2014]

This movie is just horrible. I use IMDb before i watch a movie to kinda get an idea if it's worth the time or not. 9/10 times the site is spot on and I agree with the score, but this time it was way off. The acting, the plot, and the general feel of the movie was one big letdown.

I never write reviews of movies, as I don't feel like I have anything to really contribute with, but this movie made me create an account in here just to warn other people of the horribleness of this disgrace of a movie.

Do not waste your time with this.

Surprisingly good

[harahauk · 6/10 · 29 April 2014]

This is just my two cents and not an attempt at writing a pro review. I was ready for this movie to be a piece of crap, so I got pleasantly surprised. I think the plot was great and the costumes was corny as hell - which threw me off a bit in the beginning (that and the lead up to the main storyline which was confusing as to where we we're going). But it soon became apparent to be that i had stumbled into a old school noir movie which isn't about polished superheroes, but "normal" people trying to make a difference. It still has the usual good vs evil with a hint of romance in it, with a red line that keeps you interested throughout the film. People who say this is the worst crap they have seen must be watching only the best there is. Overall a decent flick.

90 mins of eye-rape!

[mr-drewtucker · 1/10 · 10 April 2014]

First of all, please explain to me how someone decides to become a "Super," trains since childhood and somehow completely lacks ANY muscle definition. (Somehow, I doubt a grown man with the body of a 10 yr old can strike "fear" into the hearts of criminals.) The acting was awful, the storyline was scattered (at best) and the direction was non-existent. This movie was so bad, embarrassed for Clancy Brown, since he is an actor I like (but I guess we all need a paycheck). I understand the attempt at "noir," but even that failed miserably. The reviews on this board saying how "great" this movie is are quite obviously fake, as they have clearly never seen this celluloid monstrosity. I'm a little . It was possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen, and that's saying a LOT!

A movie for fun and a message ! ! !

[cekadah · 10/10 · 18 May 2014]

Sparks .... an odd film .... and I understand why many people trashed it ... but I loved it !

It's like watching a 21st Century independent film noir interpretation of mid 20th Century Hollywood grade B or C studio film noir. And they did a good job of it too. If you have any experience watching the old studio police drama's or hero flicks you will understand.

All was thought out thoroughly from sets to costumes and accessories (like the hypodermic syringe) even the camera angles. What I liked most was the actors delivery of the script. Somebody did their homework on this style of movie!

And there is a distinct message at the end! Just because someone or some organization presents themselves as being an authority doesn't make them good people. We see this in the fundamentalist evangelical Christian minister who murders many and later when the policeman who tricks Sparks into committing a crime!

Do not skip this movie!

[saturasdemon · 7/10 · 5 November 2014]

Do not skip this movie!

Low budget - not very well known, but great story, acting and soundtrack.

Lets be honest the special effects are laughable at most, but i did not even care, the story and characters are interesting enough. I also loved the Noir look of this film.

If you like movies like "sin city" or "kick ass" you will like this too just give it a try and do not turn it off after 15 minutes (thats when the story becomes twisted, gory and dark).

I gave this movie a 7/10, the same I gave "sin city - a dame to kill for".

Not terrible, but not the best

[marcs-15 · 5/10 · 26 March 2014]

The previews for "Sparks" looked pretty decent, and the concept was good. My only issue is that I'm a huge fan of "Watchmen", and this would appear to be a pretty good-sized copy of that. While it doesn't have the large scale effects or Hollywood firepower, it's pretty much the same story. Using the term "supers" instead of "masks", the background narration, rough time frame -- just a few takeaways.

The acting was more than I would expect from this film. While there aren't any big names in this film, the actors themselves didn't come off as "novice". As well, the film itself didn't look like it was filmed with a WalMart video camera.

I would assume that if you're a hardcore graphic novel fan, regardless of quality -- then you could probably handle this. It was a little on the "thin" side for me.

boring

[lgargalo · 2/10 · 19 April 2014]

Not a good movie. Please don't waste your time and money thinking about making a sequel. The film does not match with the comics plot and characters. In my opinion, it was a bad attempt to create an environment close to sin city but they failed on that approach. This is only my opinion but the film is too long and the short action scenes lacks of quality, the FX effects were poor and not convincing. Not even the performers seems to be committed to the script. I believe it was the first time I have ever seen the same sequence of images repeated over and over again. How many times should we see the images of the accident to understand the point?

Lost time from my life that I'll never get back

[marc-spencer-kc · 1/10 · 21 April 2014]

My god....where do I start.

Unlike what a few reviewers have said, this movie is not brilliant, it was not an amazing story, and the acting is certainly NOT good.

The acting in this movie, especially from the lead actor, Chase Williamson, was abysmally deplorable. I think that a cat in a large paper bag could have done a better job portraying Ian Sparks. To me, it seemed that he was just cold reading from the script while delivering his lines during filming. Very few of the other actors/actresses were much better. Clancy Brown's performance was, in my opinion, the only real redeeming acting job among the entire cast. Although at the end, even his acting fell short.

Beyond the deplorable acting was the film itself. The concept of the movie was what drew me to watch it. The idea of the noir super-hero movie was intriguing, and I truly looked forward to seeing it. Wow, was I in for a surprise.

I sat through the film, hoping it would get better, but it just got worse and worse with every scene. It seemed that the writer couldn't decide if the lead character, Ian Sparks, was supposed to be a poor Batman, or a moral Comedian (Watchmen). It also seemed that the concept of the superhero story was being shoehorned into the noir detective story.

All in all, this movie was an incredibly bad, low budget, poorly acted steaming pile of horrible. Don't waste your time.

DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE.

You have been warned.

Don't expect sparks to fly out of the screen...

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 5 September 2014]

Well, "Sparks" is not your typical superhero movie, and that is one of the better things about it. There is something more dark in the deeper layers of this movie. And instead of having picture perfect superheroes, then the superheroes in this movie were every day people with every day problems (more or less).

The story told here was adequate and did have some interesting aspects. But it was somehow dropped on the floor because of some questionable effects, and the entire movie had the feel of being shot in front of a green screen and not enough money was used for the effects. That really struck a terrible blow to the movie.

"Sparks" did have potential for something grander, but it wasn't properly utilized, and that was kind of a shame.

As for the acting, well I will say that they had adequate talents to portray the characters in the movie, but the heavy load of the entire movie was resting on the shoulders of Mr. Clancy Brown. And he did do a good job, just a shame that he didn't have more time on the screen. It was also nice to see William Katt on the screen again, I haven't seen him in a movie for a long, long time.

Whereas many superhero movies today are driven by CGI effects, "Sparks" is driven by the story.

However, I started to slip because of the suppressing feel of being shot in front of a green screen, and that left the movie at a below average experience for me. As such, I am rating it 4 out of 10 stars.

Comics didn't start with Marvel

[paulthatsall · 7/10 · 21 August 2015]

Even after reading all the reviews by what I can only figure are cynical movie fans, I still chose to watch this.

Well I was surprised that more people didn't get it. I have to confess I do believe that most people are not as smart as they pretend to be or even believe themselves to be but to think that all heroes have to be superhuman "steroid freak" type characters that have been popularized by the major comic companies (Marvel, DC, etc)is limited. The TV series Heroes had normal average people as characters with little muscle definition but was still a premise.

I would urge anyone thinking about watching this flick to open their minds a little more and give it a chance; and you cynics, maybe you could read/watch something outside your comfort zone, something from outside Stsn Lee and his brethren's world.

Everyone who gave this movie a positive review should be ashamed.

[soonertoad · 1/10 · 26 January 2016]

There are lots of truly bad movies. This is one of them. It has no production values. It has terrible acting. It has a weak script. It was an obvious rush job made by incompetent filmmakers.It seems like they had heard about film noir , but had not ever actually seen anything from that genre. None of these things are a crime.

The true evil comes from the lying scumbags who gave this movie good reviews. No sane person could actually recommend this as a good film. Only someone with a malicious desire to waste other people's time would try and convince anyone to watch Sparks. You stole 97 minutes from me.I believed you and you abused me in return.

Gee Wiz

[FrankMTOrlando · 7 May 2019]

I've seen stage plays in church basements more interesting than this. Terrible just terrible. Bad acting, poor narration. below fan fiction costuming and dreadful camera work. Don't bother.

POWER, BEAUTY, AND ONE HELL OF A BACK KICK

[nogodnomasters · 7/10 · 15 July 2018]

Ian Sparks (Chase Williamson) joins with mutants to avenge the death of his parents. He discovers that not everyone is honest in this age of vigilante super heroes. The complex plot takes some nice twists in this comic book adventure set in 1948.

The film reminded me a little of the Warren Beatty "Dick Tracy" film. I would say if you couldn't stomach those sets, skip this one.

Parental Guide: No f-bombs. No nudity. Sex scenes and prostitution theme.

The worst movie I have ever seen

[ivanahudsonmaric · 1/10 · 1 May 2015]

Don't have much to say: bad acting, bad story, bad dialogs, bad costumes, bad everything. It's not making an elephant out of a fly but it really is the worst movie I have ever seen. The lead actor acts like a child in kindergarten, I haven't even payed attention to other actors because this one was more than enough for me. Costumes are legendary, I supposed they have to look amateur made but this is really, really...I'm speechless. Also we have a fake Bane in this movie, with some Mistyque powers. Overall this movie looks like bad student's project. One thing that can save this 'project' is if it has been made for making fun. I don't know what else to say. Just watch it and you'll see.

40's Noir Comic

[photito · 10/10 · 7 August 2013]

Graphic novels are perfect source material for film making; they feel like storyboards, after all. While reading the Graphic novel this movie was based on I knew it had to become a film. The noir sensibility was spot on; dark, red and shocking dread. I needed to see it on "film". There is always some trepidation when someone translates from a comic book (or any book) to the screen. So, with my expectations deliberately held in check, I went to the screening... Boom! Man, I was so happy with what the director(s) did. No spoilers here, but if you read the novel (which I highly recommend) you won't be disappointed. Ashley Bell is beautiful and perfect for her role. Bil Katt is spot on and tough. Chase Williamson is the only person who could have balanced the title character's role. What can you say about Clancy Brown? Any movie he's in automatically jumps up several notches in my book. Note to the film's makers: Thanks for not screwing up the book! Job well done.

The ONLY thing worse than this movie...

[marcoweller · 1/10 · 23 February 2015]

...is what appears to be diabolical desperation, deception & dishonesty on the part of the filmmakers.

It has nothing to do with the wretched writing, shortsighted cinematography, poor props, bad blocking, dreadful direction, pitiful plot & absolute WORST acting in film history.

No, it had to do with the IMDb rating & review system being abused and invalidated either by those involved in this film or their friends & family.

This is NOT a 7-star film. It isn't even a 3-star film. Yet, somehow it has rating higher than most award-winning, time-tested masterpieces. Hmmm...I wonder how that would happen.

Just take a look at the reviews that are greater than 3 stars. They read like they're describing the greatest film of all time.

They also display syntax that shows the reviewers have an intimate relationship with the cast & crew.

Oh, and every one of these great reviews are created by folks who've only commented on or reviewed this one film. And all of these reviews happened in close proximity to each other.

Clearly, this movie is garbage. Clearly, the great rating & reviews are dishonest promotions by insiders of the production.

That's a pretty shady & sad thing to do. The purpose of the review/rating system is to give an as-objective-as-possible, well-rounded presentation of the viewer should expect. There should be a certain margin of accuracy into the quality of the product being consumed.

To exaggerate or downright lie to those of us who give credence to the critical eye of cinema is a really sad, pathetic, cruel, mean-spirited and crappy thing to do.

So, aside from how horrible this film is, you probably shouldn't watch it on principle.

Oddly overrated movie

[miroslav-houdek · 1/10 · 14 April 2014]

I would give the movie well deserved 3.5 for trying, but seeing as the movie is now rated at 7.2, I feel it is my duty to give it 1 star only, to lower the unjustified (and improbable score), to warn others - to save them the disappointment of thinking that this is above average or even average quality movie.

The acting is okay enough I guess, but no cigar. It was really painful to watch all actress/es try to pretend to have the physique of a superhero, while the cast was actually clearly physically challenged and couldn't kick someone with grace if their life depended on it. But the dialogs, effects, story, continuity ... the whole movie basically, was just terrible. It might be still worth watching, if you want to see indie superhero movie. The story is different enough to be worth it - but just bear in mind, that it's really 3 or 4 out of 10 - not 7 (or 6, or 5).

A bad movie plain and simple

[dennito-911-232458 · 1/10 · 21 April 2014]

I have to agree with a previous reviewer that clearly there were shenanigans with the inflated reviews on this movie. Based on this high review I watched the movie and had to turn it off around halfway through because of the horrible acting and ridiculous story line. The low budget of the movie didn't bother me greatly, as I think great things can be done with creative lighting and compelling story-telling. This movie did not do any of that.

The review score seems to be sinking rapidly and probably deserves to be in the 5 range, with an extra point knocked off for the score manipulation.

It's a terrible movie with apparently deceitful marketers behind it. Don't reward them with anything higher than a 4.