Beyond the Mask

Clean, gentle and sweet movie, good afternoon movie

Beyond the Mask is a very action- packed adventure set around historical events that led up to the American Revolution.

The opening scene finds the character Will Reynolds carrying out mercenary deeds for his employer, head of the British East India Company. After delivering papers that proved to be detrimental to the newly formed American Colonies, Will is double-crossed and finds himself on the run in the American colonies.

Will is rescued by Charlotte and becomes a woman with whom he falls in love. Because he is now wearing a new mask as part of his plan to thwart his former employer, he is not truthful to his love, Charlotte. Will wants to win back trust of Charlotte and Benjamin Franklin.

I enjoyed watching the movie. It is fast moving, has very good historical points, some of which I was familiar. I grew up in Philadelphia and learned about Benjamin Franklin and the men who participated in the First Continental Congress.

One important element that is included in the film is the element of faith. One of Will's masks is that of a Vicar. He really has no real experience as a religious person and not sure of God.

The scenes look very authentic. The buildings look like Philadelphia during 1775 and 1776. The conflict interactions look real and you can feel the danger and the pain.

The actors Andrew Cheney, as Will and Kara Killmer, as Charlotte and John Rhys-Davies, Will's former employer and Charlotte's uncle portray their characters with real authenticity The ending demonstrates how important it is to have faith, love and believe.

I recommend this film for ages 12 to 18. The film meets the baseline KIDS FIRST! criteria and I rate it 5 out of 5 stars.

Reviewed by Juanita S., KIDS FIRST! juror.

After reading so many bad reviews I didn't expect much, but I was pleasantly surprised. I guess the reason for most negative reviews here is "mistargeted" audience. I see many people were expecting something similar to "Ben-Hur" or "Gone with the Wind", when in fact this movie is more like "Wild Wild West", "The Brothers Grimm", and "Van Helsing". The only difference is that it's not a blockbuster, and the only famous actor in it is John Rhys-Davis.

I was still amazed at some negative reviews, let's see what reviewers are complaining about: 1. Erratic plot. - I think the plot is simple, shallow and very predictable, but it is logical and doesn't have major loopholes. I think "Van Helsing" has more loopholes than this, but it's just my humble opinion. 2. Church theme. - Seriously, I didn't really see that. There is one place where main characters pray before execution, but that's it. There are blockbusters out there that have many more religious references than this movie. 3. Historical inaccuracies - come on! Do you expect historical references from "Sherlock Holmes" with Robert Downey Jr.? Or "National Treasure"? This movie is a fairy tale/victorian steampunk/alternative reality flick, not a historical movie. 4. Bad CGI. - blockbusters really set high expectations with people. This movie has low budget so it does OK with what it has. 5. Bad storytelling. I agree with that, storytelling is rather weak, could use more twists and be more "punchy".

I also think the issue with this movie is that main characters (William and Charlotte) are not "sparkling" enough. They should have shown more expression in both love and war. It would also help if William was more cunning, but he was too straightforward and naive instead. John Rhys-Davies was OK as a main villain.

But again, to jump from B-movie to A-movie you need to tighten up everything, from storyline, characters and special effects to budget and casting. Still, it's a nice entertaining B-movie, and if you like movies like "Van Helsing" or "The Brothers Grimm" or "Wild Wild West", and your expectations are not too high, give it a try, you might like it.

Felt like watching National Treasure. Entire family loved it

This is a low budget movie (not that $4M are to be considered as a low budget per se) with unknown to me actors with the exception of Indiana Jones's iconic actor John Rhys-Davies (who may actually look better in his 70s).

Anyway this is an uneven movie, and by that I mean that, because of its ambition, it excels in some of its aspects and fails miserably to other.

Music has an epic Zimmer-ish feeling and sets the tone right especially when the hero goes to America. It is obviously sampled orchestras but it has the volume and the feel that you would expect from a major movie.

The editing is stellar too. A couple of fights in the beginning of the film, like inside a carriage and later in a small hut, were edited superbly and mask the otherwise lame fight choreography. Usually a shaken camera and fast edits ruin any effort for a decent fight, that looks eventually fake, but in this the result is beyond expectation.

The acting though is really, really bad. Even laughable. The 2 leads Andrew Cheney and Kara Killmer give performances for the Golden Raspberry Awards. I thought for a moment that I was watching a rehearsal from "The dancing cavalier" (Singin' in the Rain (1952)). The other actors (with the exception of Davies) give abysmal performances too.

The CGI are terrible and unnatural. I understand that it was necessary to give the impression of a big film (ships of the 17th century, zoom-in aerial shots etc.) but they had the opposite result.

The plot is good enough. The costumes nice. So you end up with an uneven film... I don't hate it. I found it cute here and there but maybe it would be better to pursuit a milder less ambitious goal and make better use of their budget...