1

John David Garcia

Set in 1967 during the Nigerian civil war, an imprisoned Emmanuel Ifeajuna is summoned by Biafran Commander-in-Chief General Emeka for one last conversation, one last encounter.
Alright, we are off with a good start. The Encounter has the right tone down, the dialog feels very natural and the actors really know what they’re doing. It has all right the lighting, angles and grit that you could almost smell their sweat. If all of this technical stuff is done right, we have to point the finger at the director, so bravo. The script really paints a picture that the now imprisoned and near to be executed man used to be a respected figure and close friend the military personnel imprisoning him. It’s a nice touch that when Emmanuel entered General Emeka’s office they did not talk business right away but tried to talk to each other as if they were still friends. As if they are hesitant to face the present reality and are still trying to salvage something through all of this. This scene is where the title of this short came from, and it is justified. Unfortunately, this is the part I talk about negatives.
This short’s hook is the conversation of former friends who are now enemies because of differing views and are now discussing why it all came to this. Maybe in this last meeting, something will get clear. But the problem is every event discussed in their intense clash is never seen by th ... Read Full Review

Set in 1967 during the Nigerian civil war, an imprisoned Emmanuel Ifeajuna is summoned by Biafran Commander-in-Chief General Emeka for one last conversation, one last encounter.
Alright, we are off with a good start. The Encounter has the right tone down, the dialog feels very natural and the actors really know what they’re doing. It has all right the lighting, angles and grit that you could almost smell their sweat. If all of this technical stuff is done right, we have to point the finger at the director, so bravo. The script really paints a picture that the now imprisoned and near to be executed man used to be a respected figure and close friend the military personnel imprisoning him. It’s a nice touch that when Emmanuel entered General Emeka’s office they did not talk business right away but tried to talk to each other as if they were still friends. As if they are hesitant to face the present reality and are still trying to salvage something through all of this. This scene is where the title of this short came from, and it is justified. Unfortunately, this is the part I talk about negatives.
This short’s hook is the conversation of former friends who are now enemies because of differing views and are now discussing why it all came to this. Maybe in this last meeting, something will get clear. But the problem is every event discussed in their intense clash is never seen by the audience. Yeah, it’s cool that it is a complicated problem, but show us how it is a complicated problem. General Emeka says that the Biafran needs to keep fighting – I don’t know if what he said is justifiable or not. Emmanuel said he did not have a fair trial – I have no idea if that is true. He said people are dying for nothing, so show us what happened so we, the audience, can decide for ourselves. The short is asking us to side with Emmanuel only because he is the rebel underdog imprisoned, but still keeps on fighting the big political figure. But we did not see if what his fighting for is the right choice, all we have is his word. For all we know, he is as horrible as ISIS who is smart enough to stir a conversation to his favor to look like a hero. Yeah, I know there are a limited budget[sic] and time since this is only a short. But that only means I know the reasons for this flaw, it did not fix it.
I’m not African so maybe this topic is common knowledge that doesn’t need much explanation the way most World War II movies don’t even bother to explain the war. But the difference is while they did not tell, they showed. So let this be a viewpoint of someone who know nothing of the history and is learning for the first time through this film. — If I saw 2 of my brothers fighting and I have no idea what they are talking about and don’t know which one is telling an unbiased, unaltered opinion, I’m not going to take sides. I won’t have an opinion, period.
And what is up with films that specifically tell the audience that the events and characters may not be real, but then heavily imply that they are before the credits roll?
Plot/Continuity: 5.5/10 Character Development/Acting: 6.5/10 Music/Singing: 6.5/10 Directing/Editing: 8.0/10 Cinematography/Special Effects: 7.0/10 Critical Grade: 6.5
Final Word: It has solid production values but, it forgot to show the events that mattered to make a scene like 2 former friends with differing political ideals having an intense conversation feel like it has weight.

Share this!