Reviews

I am not a rabid, convention-attending, die-hard Stargate fan, so I was not offended by the quality of this film. I found it lighthearted, as though it were deliberately written to be less "serious" than the more canonical Stargate films and TV series. It contained a lot of unsophisticated humor that I found entirely appropriate for a good late-night distraction. I enjoyed it far more than many of the over-produced sci-fi and graphic novel-derived films released of late. And I was extremely pleased to see a same-sex male relationship develop organically and with subtlety, without shoving sexual politics at the viewer. The relationship between Wasif and Motawk was both consistent with real life and quite charming.

I saw this on Netflix, which offered only the very briefest of descriptions, so I had no idea what to expect. But since Netflix had it listed in the LGBT category, I did at least expect a gay-ish theme. But the repeated and somewhat heavy-handed references early in the film to evangelical Christianity (citing of Biblical verses, the prayer at the funeral, the lyrics of the overtly evangelical hymn in the sound track) left me very confused. I am left with the impression of a screenwriter who is gay but also a devout evangelical Christian, a juxtaposition that I personally find troubling. Still, I tried to give the film some benefit of doubt. I was not successful.

The writing was uneven and at times very unrealistic, especially in the way Nick's social abilities ... as a person with Asperger's ... vacillated across a wide range. It was as though he suddenly stopped having Asperger's when the writer/director needed him to be able to emote "normally."

And the characters seemed too contrived. Wealthy family with domineering and controlling father, submissive pill-popping mother, "perfect" elder son, challenged younger son. It was all too transparent. But the composition of the boys' poker group! One wealthy white with a prestige car, one probable Latino with a mother who worked as a maid, one black guy who looked like he was channeling Pharrell, and one South Asian. It was like a little United Nations! And it seemed totally artificial.

The acting was not great, either. I love both BD Wong and Joan Chen, but neither performance impressed me. But this may be due to the limitations of the material with which they had to work. The boys (Poker Group plus Nick) were very unevenly matched, from Justin Martin's downright bad acting to Gregg Sulkin's roller-coaster of scene-by-scene good-to-bad-to-good-again.

Call me crazy, but this entire film might have worked better if a) the overt references to evangelical Christianity were removed and b) the setting were shifted from the wealthy suburbs of LA to a working class neighborhood in middle America.

Hollywood makes its money by asking audiences to suspend their disbelief. This film, however, asks us not only to suspend our disbelief, but to forget everything we may know about reality. The premise is a gathering of world leaders for a state funeral. That much is believable. But once that simple premise has been established, we are asked to believe that a non-Western arms dealer is capable of mobilizing a private army of literally thousands to infiltrate the British military and law enforcement on an absurd scale, and to then use a massive amount of arms, ammunition, and explosives (and apparently 50 or so motorcycles) to blow up multiple bridges and buildings. Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.

Gerard Butler's acting is limited to loud and angry grunts, growls, and barks, Aaron Eckhart's to tight-lipped seething.

Each of the lead actors is given at least one, and sometimes several, propagandist patriotic and kumbaya speeches, so that the entire film has an intensely artificial "can't we all just live together in peace under American domination" tone. Very melodramatic and about as subtle as a train wreck.

From a purely technical standpoint, the "Goofs" are too many and too absurd. The most irritating to me were the small civilian helicopters used to stand in for Marine One, which are like kid's toys in comparison to the Sea Kings actually used; and the obviously disused rural airstrip that stands in for suburban Stansted Airport; and the consistent use of tracer rounds in each of the firefights.

If you want lots of explosions and gunfire and do not care about plot or narrative, this is a decent film. If you want an action film that is even marginally believable, this is NOT it.

I share the opinion of other reviewers that this and its prequel are both excellent films. And if one takes into account the exceptionally low budgets on which they were made, they are both SUPERB films! And as far as that goes, I say "Bring on the third and make it a trilogy!"

Yes, the on screen chemistry in the second is different from the first. But as a couple of reviewers noted, the nature of the relationship between RJ and Chris is likewise quite different. I thought the chemistry in the sequel was precisely where it needed to be: "compulsive," as one reviewer put it. In the prequel, we experienced a degree of innocence as RJ and Chris discovered each other and themselves. In Testament, that innocence has been utterly replaced by desperation on the part of both characters as each attempts to come to terms with himself and to find the life his essential "self" must have in order to be fulfilled and happy.

Picky details:

While a viewer need not necessarily know anything about the LDS faith, I think it does help give the film a much deeper resonance if you do. Many small but very meaningful details get lost otherwise. I am thinking particularly of RJ's defiling of his temple garments, of the sign on the wall in Chris's living room "Family Is Forever," and of Chris's father's specific position in the church hierarchy. Without having checked to verify, I have the strong impression that Jon Garcia must himself be or have been an LDS. And though I am not myself LDS and never have been (I'm atheist), I do know quite a lot about it ... and that knowledge contributed to my greater understanding of the characters' journey in the film.

Chris's home: This element was hugely distracting. In the film Chris is 25 years old and a pharmaceutical sales rep. Yes, drug salesmen make pretty decent money. But come on! The set designer would have us believe that Chris went through reparative therapy (6 months?), finished a university degree (2 years at least following his mission, and pretty much a basic pre-hire requirement for any pharmaceutical sales rep), and following all that, or between roughly the ages of 22 and 25, was able to bank enough money to buy that house??? Even in Utah, that house would have a high-6-figure or low-7-figure price tag. Custom-made front door, glass walls, natural stone floors, at least 3000 square feet of living space, a custom pool, a back lawn and garden clearly done by a landscape architect. And the furniture and original artwork on the walls? Add another $100K. It beggars belief that a 25-year- old pharm rep would be able to afford all that plus a $75K Mercedes. Dial it back, set designer! Or were you given free use of someone's home and car in exchange for a screen credit?