Poor reception? That's okay. I don't pay much heed to popular opinion; I've seen more than a few movies that were regarded poorly, and that I loved - and conversely, more than a few that are held in high esteem, but that didn't care for.
Low budget? That's okay, too. I've seen some movies on much the same level of production and was pleasantly surprised at how good they were, despite their limitations.
I think I tend to be open-minded and generous when it comes to movies. There's no doubting, however, that 'The yearly harvest' has problems - problems that a low budget doesn't account for.
I appreciate Matthew Lo Re's ambient score in general, but it rather lacks subtlety as it is, and there's a rough, scratchy timbre to the chords that's a little grating. Noteworthy from the very beginning, it's also plainly overemphasized in the audio mix. Factor in some bewilderingly dubious renditions of popular (traditional) Christmas songs to round out the soundtrack, and - well, this is some rather unfortunate use of film music, and I can't recall any immediate point of comparison. This picture would have benefited from solid atmosphere compositions, but that's just not what we get. Honestly, the sound design as a whole is a definitely, direly flawed - a detraction in and of itself, and frankly distracting.
Sequencing and editing is a little less than graceful. Writer-director Ryan Callaway's direction is notably unrefined and feels unremarkable at best, amateurish at worst. That includes his guidance of the cast. Some of those involved have few credits, some have many; I again recognize my cinematic magnanimity, but I tend to believe actors who seem to give poor performances are constrained more by deficient craft than by lack of ability. Admittedly, with features of production values this modest, it's plainly difficult to discern where the fault lies - but nonetheless, I perceive glimmers of skill in these players that are not allowed to truly manifest. Instead, whether by design or dearth, Callaway seems to orchestrate scenes in a way that consistently feel all too inauthentic - pacing, timing, shot composition, all other aspects, indubitably lacking. For just one glaring example among many, watch the way the character Amy holds a gun.
And that brings us to the screenplay. The premise is promising. I think there are some very good ideas here, though some are rather heavy-handed, and feel like the most blunt application possible of those elements. Characters have some measure of depth to them, surprisingly. Scene writing is passable - arguably stronger than it seems in the final cut; Callaway's direction does much to inhibit his own writing. But all these, and dialogue, follow from the narrative, and the narrative is highly questionable. Some story beats, tangential to the core, are decidedly overplayed. Some moments are altogether forced, given no meaningful opportunity to materialize, breathe, and resolve in a natural arrangement. Yet worst of all, entirely too many facets of the story are confused, unclear, sometimes apparently contradictory, and not remotely as impactful as they should be. Plot development is suspect, with the connective threads between some component parts being less than evident; if there's a through line to this tale, it's quite specious. For all the many issues that plague 'The yearly harvest,' I could forgive them if the writing at least provided a robust, complete, coherent tale. But it doesn't.
I see the possibilities and potential of what the movie could have been. I want very much to like this more than I do. But I also think I'm already perhaps too kind in my assessment. The screenplay is the linchpin on which a film rises or falls, and for whatever value it holds, Callaway's is filled with indelicacies, weaknesses, and shortcomings. What conceivable worth the picture carries with it is subsumed within the jumble of disordered words that underlie its construction. True, there are yet worse movies one could suffer through. All the same, 'The yearly harvest' is just disappointing more than anything else, rendered with far too little careful attention to bear fruit.
Arguably recommended for the open-minded and curious. That's about it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
