"Pendragon: Sword of His Father" — movie review

Movie: Pendragon: Sword of His Father
Length: 110 min
Rated: [Phillips family rating: PG]
Starring: Aaron Burns, Andrew Burns, Chad Burns, Marilyn Burns, Nicholas Burns, Raymond Burns (— noticing a theme, here?), Erik Dewar, Wally Patton (—hey! how'd they get in?) 
Director: Chad Burns
Producers: Ray, Chad, Marilyn, Andy, Aaron and Nick Burns
Screenplay: Burns Family Studios

Whoa. It's like... a Burns-a-palooza. Can that possibly be good?

Read on.

My dear wife pointed this movie out to me. First impression came through the trailer.  I clicked with low expectations... and for the first 30 seconds or so, thought, "Wow, this actually looks cool."

Then the first actor spoke, and I thought, "Uh-oh."

So when we made this a Burger Night movie for the whole family, I said, "This movie may be a disaster, I really don't know what to expect." Why the warning? Several factors. To wit:

• It was from an independent studio.
• IMDB had no reviews, external or internal.
• IMDB featured fewer than two dozen votes, total, for a movie made in 2008. And...
• It was direct-to-DVD.

These are often red flags. But we watched.

What is Pendragon about?

The movie is set in Britain. The year is 411 AD. Our tale generally follows the story of Britain's King Arthur, called Artos here. Artos' father is killed, Artos is held captive, and he pursues a vision of driving the Saxons from Britain. At a pivotal point, Artos meets Lailoken (played by the director, Chad Burns), which in some legends is another name for Merlin. Artos/Arthur encounters tragedy, battle, intrigue, treachery, love, and challenges to his Christian faith.

Is Pendragon a good movie?

It is a remarkable movie, particularly considering its genesis (more later). It is also an uneven movie — but if one takes the movie for what it is, the good well outweighs the not-so-good.

In fact, what is good about Pendragon is almost startlingly good. We said an appreciative "Wow!" more than once. For a low-budget independent movie put together by two homeschooling Christian families, it is clear that this was a labor of love with literally not one wasted penny.

The scenery and camera-work, for instance, is sometimes remarkably beautiful and convincing. The screenshots at the official site do not highlight this aspect of the movie as they should. I think this is a regrettable choice, since Pendragon's visual feel is worth showcasing. Every aspect of the production is crafted with evident care. The movie contains some truly beautiful images of castles, green moors, smoky villages by the light of a full moon. Again, for a low-budget movie, some CGI is employed to top-notch effect.

However, my readers deserve the best. I snagged these, just for you (click to enlarge):

 

Additionally, the camera work is often very clever. Relatively small crowds and sets are made to look large and imposing by the use of close angles and very well-conceived pans. Dramatic cuts and editing often effectively highlight the tension. Particularly for the first 2/3 or so of the movie, Pendragon has a sure and professional feel.

Yet this too is uneven. At times, the picture is out of focus or shaky, then it snaps back to clear focus. One odd shot of the random back of a head gives a "Huh?" moment. There seem to be switches to video-quality footage at arbitrary moments.

Some edits are abrupt. A couple in particular were unintentionally amusing. For example, Artos makes an impassioned plea of the lady Wenneveria, who is then abruptly seen dashing out of the room in high-speed, hands over her face. Gales of laughter from the boys and a "What th--?" from Dad.

Plus, I'd swear that Artos' beard changes configuration within the same time-frame. In fact, a number of the beards were too neatly-trimmed for the time. These were exceptions to the overall very authentic and era-appropriate feel of the production.

The music similarly ranges from adequate to really good, stirring and enhancing. The costumes are better than those in big-studio movies in the 50s, usually looking authentic and lived-in. The sets are very well-designed, and again have a gritty, real feel to them.

The action and the battles are mostly very well-done, very impressive. Some vast flights of arrows and of flaming projectiles call to mind Peter Jackson's The Two Towers, which is an accomplishment. There are clashing swordfights, swinging trebuchets, crashing rams. Similarly, a couple of pivotal hand-to-hand duels are gripping — not Princess Bride nor Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, yet my wife and sons liked them a lot, and the boys will be watching them again.

The story is interesting and layered, if not always easy to follow. I had to pause a couple of times and ask if anyone understood what had just happened. Usually, someone did. But the transitions are not always smooth. Once, with no transition, Artos is suddenly — we have no idea how — conferring with his mentor Lailoken, whose presence is never explained.

Still, we all really appreciated two aspects of the story. Unlike most dramas set in this period, the Christian faith is present and robust. Artos and his family are Christian, Lailoken is Christian. A portion of an early worship service is shown. The expressions of faith may be anachronistic, but they are better than the usual Christian-Schmistian-what-Christian? approach of Hollywood. Also, Artos faces challenges to his faith, and not only sees them through but himself bears witness to Christ in the face of his enemies.

But now reluctantly I must come to the single, most consistent and glaring weakness of the whole: the acting. The impression I had of the trailer held true through the whole movie. It was as if a high school acting troop, or a small community theater, had been filmed in (relatively) high-quality — with amateurish acting intact.

As with the trailer, the very first words in the movie give one a lurch, an "Uh-oh." Artos' father may be played by a very good man, but he's not an actor; ditto Wenneveria's father, and ditto virtually every person with anything to say.

Perhaps worst of all is the actress who plays Wenneveria (Marilyn Burns). Unfortunately, hers is a major role. Pleasant to look at, lovely smile, probably a delightful person — but oh, my. Virtually expressionless. At critical, intense moments, she either displays no emotion whatever, or an inappropriate emotion, or she hides her face in her hands. I'm afraid her performance brought inappropriate mirth when it ought to have been moving us to other emotions.


Thankfully the actor in the main role (Artos; played by Aaron Burns) was adequate, though he's no Mel Gibson nor Sean Connery. The most "invested" performers may have been The Bad Guy (Caydern; played by Nicholas Burns) — a bit cartoonish, yet at least bringing his character to hateful life —; the little sister — who, however, did not age over the passage of time —; and the lead Saxon, tromping about, grabbing people, being menacing, and growling out Saxonspeak like an evil Schwarzeneggar.

See, they're all (or just about all) of them Burnses. And there's the weakness as well, I fear. Every other aspect of this movie was given such careful, devoted attention — effects, sets, costuming, music, camera-work — only to fall to the ground on distractingly amateurish acting.  This holds even after forgiving the fact that only one of the actors playing British characters attempts a British accent.

What did your family think?

Most of what I've said represents all of our impressions.

My dear wife Valerie agreed with Jonathan and Josiah that the battles were very good, very well-done. Jonathan (10) liked the movie a lot, as did Josiah (14). Josiah felt the transitions from scene to scene were sometimes hard to follow, but he really appreciated the respectful way Christian faith was presented.

Plus — two Wilhelms!

All of us found a sequence at the end jarringly ill-conceived. No way to tell you about it without a spoiler, but you'll know it when you see it. It involves the generally expressionless Wenneveria smiling fondly at a sword, then dropping it. (The boys are still laughing about this one, and re-enacting it.)

Would you recommend it?

Having set your expectations thoroughly, yes, I would. It's fun for a family to watch together: family-friendly, Christian-friendly, earnestly-made. We were all glad we saw it together.

Also, the film truly is a remarkable achievement. One is not surprised at the awards Pendragon has accumulated. It is the realization of a vision developed by two home-schooled families, helped along by an all-volunteer assemblage. A little knowledge of the background highlights the accomplishment that this epic independent Christian film represents.

I'd like to see the Burnses again, behind the lens, bringing the same commitment to excellence and earnest, family-friendly film making to telling another story.

Only this time, put talented actors in front of the lens, to adorn the Burns' otherwise earnest and artful labor of love.