20170323: Drama Review--Sicario

Name: Sicario (2015)
IMDb: link to Sicario page

Genres: Drama.   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Benicio del Toro as Alejandro.  In a sense, there are no other actors in the film.  The movie is about Alejandro.

Emily Blunt as Kate Macer, Josh Brolin as Matt Graver, Victor Garber as Dave Jennings, Jeffrey Donovan as Steve Forsing, Daniel Kaluuya as Reggie Wayne, Jon Bernthal as Ted.

Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.  Written by: Taylor Sheridan.

Emily Blunt

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
FBI agent Kate Macer and her team break kidnapping rings in the American Southwest.  After a fruitful discovery of dead kidnap victims, a booby trap kills two of her team.  The strength of the find and the horror of the bombing bring Kate to the attention of the CIA.  Her FBI boss Jennings and CIA straw boss Graver enable the transfer.

Delineation of conflicts:
Kate would like to operate within the laws of the United States.  Her ally Reggie wants her to stay alive and out of trouble.

Graver, the CIA, and various freelance special forces want to disrupt Mexican drug cartel operations regardless of the legality of their methods.

Alejandro and the CIA have a strong bond.  He supplies actionable intelligence; they let him operate on targets of his choice.  Kate considers this bovine nonsense, but is shouted down by several methods.

Resolution: Illegal operations by Mexico and by the US continue without meaningful opposition.

One line summary: Idealistic FBI agent joins covert operations.

del Toro

Statistics:

Cinematography: 7/10 Some of the camera work inspired awe (as opposed to being awesome, which means nothing) because it was both beautiful and well thought out.  Other parts were well beneath ordinary, which is common in any film that includes a large percentage of night scenes and night-vision scenes.  Shaky cam was kept to a minimum.

Sound: 5/10 IMDb lists six tunes played in the background for this film  Meh; nothing added.

Acting: 7/10 Del Toro: excellent.  Brolin: so good.  Garber, Donovan, Kaluuya, Bernthal: just fine.  Blunt: who the hell is this?  How could she be worse?

Screenplay: 6/10 The story moves right along, except when it concentrates too much on Blunt's witless pawn character.  This ruins everything else.  Still, I liked the story, despite Blunt's taint on it.  The real story was about del Toro's character.  If this had been the steady focus, I would have rated the film's screenplay at least 9/10.

Final rating: 6/10

20170322: Drama Review--Catch Me If You Can

Name: Catch Me If You Can (2002)
IMDb: link to Catch Me If You Can page

Genres: Drama.   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Abagnale, Jr, Christopher Walken as Frank Abagnale Sr, Tom Hanks as Carl Hanratty.

Directed by: Steven Spielberg.  Written by: Jeff Nathanson (screenplay), Frank Abagnale (book).

DiCaprio in Pan Am uniform

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Conman Frank Abagnale Sr has legal troubles, plus the IRS is after him.  His life is spiraling down as the justice system crushes him.  He loses his reputation.  He loses his business.  He loses his wife.  He goes to work for the Post Office.

Frank Abagnale Jr idolizes his father.  He thinks that obtaining money and access, by whatever means, might help his father and bring his parents back together.  He enjoys success for a time.

Frank shows up on FBI agent Carl Hanratty's radar as a skilled paperhanger (check forger).  Carl makes his case to his superiors that Frank needs to be stopped, and gets two agents to help him.

Delineation of conflicts:
Frank Jr wants to help his father, but everything he tries fails at that goal.  However, his efforts at getting money attract Carl's attention.  Frank is often on the run, sometimes just one step ahead of Carl.  The pursuit is long since Frank is good at narrow escapes.

Resolution: Despite Frank's talents, the law does catch up with him.  However,  the long conflict between Carl and Frank changes them, and creates a better future for both.

One line summary:
Semi-biographical rendering of Frank Abagnale's exploits.

DiCaprio as Frank, Hanks as Carl

Statistics:

Cinematography: 10/10 Well done.

Sound: 10/10 The actors were miked sufficiently. The music soundtrack was marvelous, IMDb music credits.

Acting: 10/10 The three principal actors were wonderful.

Screenplay: 10/10 Well executed: some dry humor, narrow escapes, slow burns (Mr Hanks), and a fine build to the conclusion.

Final rating: 10/10

20161120: Crime Review--The Sin Seer

Name: The Sin Seer (2015)
IMDb: link to The Sin Seer page

Genres: Crime.   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: (voice)
Lisa Arrindell as Rose Ricard, Isaiah Washington as Grant Summit, Michael Ironside as Alexander Rachet, Sally Richardson-Whitfield as Nia, C Thomas Howell as Detective Rigers, Carrie Anne Hunt as Melissa, Richard Brooks as Jake Ballard.

Directed by: Paul D. Hannah.  Written by: Paul D. Hannah.

Grant Summit

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
PI Rose and her receptionist Melissa pick up Grant Summit from prison.  Grant interviews Abagail Landers, whose boxer husband Daniel Landers has been missing for three months. She was referred to Rose by Detective Rigers, who thinks Rose has a gift.  Abagail is convinced that Daniel is still alive.

Delineation of conflicts:
The police are done with the case.  Rose decides to take the matter on.  She and Grant pursue the truth, and dig up a nest of problems.

Rose has a gift for knowing the true intentions of those whom she interviews.  This leads to a lot of disagreements about procedure.

Grant is a former boxer who trained at the same gym as Daniel Landers.  Boxing gyms always have their secrets, and Grant's probing of old problems is not appreciated by all.

Grant has a past that landed him in prison.  Have the motives driving him in the past been cleansed, or is he part of the current problem?

Resolution: There are a number of deaths before the source of the problem is neutralised.  The problem is, what exactly is the central problem?  The mob, the cops, or Grant?

One line summary: Female PI with psychic gifts.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 4/10 A narrow depth of focus follows through many scenes.  Other parts of the film are gorgeous in HD.  The mixing is strange.  The use of Dutch angles made good sense in some scenes, and not so much in others.  There were intervals of shaky cam footage, which added to the overall impression that the film was a hodgepodge, not a coherent professional effort.

Sound: 5/10 Not the best.  The dialog sounded hollow all too often.  The incidental music was atmospheric now and then, but did not add all that much.

Acting: 4/10 Michael Ironside's performance was pretty good, as was Isaiah Washington's.  I like Sally Richardson-Whitfield in some properties, but not so much in this one.  The rest of the cast seemed iffy at best.  C. Thomas Howell's role was rather short; one gets the feeling that he was present just to have another recognisable name.

Screenplay: 3/10 Some of the lines sounded outright stupid, which I usually don't care for.  The many biblical quotes seemed more like smoke and mirrors than statements addressing particular points.  The exposition of motivations was often murky.  There were quite a number of flashbacks. There were so many that I found some passages to be chaotic, rather than illustrative.

One also wonders how it is that Grant suffers no legal consequences for all the murders he commits during the film.  Some of these were not concealed in the least, and yet he was not arrested.

Final Rating: 4/10

20160905: Thriller Review--Silver Streak

Name: Silver Streak (1976)
IMDb: link to Silver Streak page

Genres: Action, Thriller, Crime  Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Gene Wilder as George Caldwell, Richard Pryor as Grover Muldoon, Jill Clayburgh as Hildegard ('Hilly') Burns, Scatman Crothers as Ralston, Ned Beatty as Bob Sweet, Ray Walston as Mr Whiney, Patrick McGoohan as Roger Devereaux, Clifton James as Sheriff Chauncey, Richard Kiel as Reace.

Directed by: Arthur Hiller.  Written by: Colin Higgins.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
George Caldwell (publishing) and Hilly Burns (secretary to an art historian) meet on a train trip from Los Angeles to Chicago aboard the train called the Silver Streak.  They get along swimmingly. Unfortunately, through their cabin window, George sees a dead body dropped off the train.

Delineation of conflicts:
The body was that of Hilly's boss.  When George inquires about the boss, he gets thrown off the train while it's still moving.  By luck, he catches up with the Silver Streak, and gets back on.  The rest of the film is about George trying to stay alive, to find out just what happened, and to set things right if he can.

Hilly seems to be involved.  Bob Sweet tells George about Roger Devereaux, whose 'chauffeur' Reace threw George off the train.  When George confronts Hilly and Roger about the matter, Roger has a feasible explanation.  Even better, the art professor himself shows up.  Or does he?

George gets a bit tipsy, and tells Bob Sweet about the matter.  George is confused and needs someone to talk to, after all.  So, will George be able to pass off the dead body sighting as just a drunken misperception, or will the truth win out?

Resolution: Just about the time you think you've got the film figured out, Richard Pryor's character shows up and changes everything.  The film moves to a satisfying conclusion.

One line summary: Murder mystery with Wilder & Pryor.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 9/10 Among other things, this is a travel film.  The shots of the countryside from LA to Chicago are pretty nice.  The interiors are clear, well-lit, and well-focused.

Sound: 8/10 The dialog was easy to follow.  The music was typical 1970s fare.  Some of it was a bit too florid and orchestral for my taste.  Other parts were made with those old style synthesizers which sound primitive these days.

Acting: 9/10 Gene Wilder carries the show for the first 60% or so, and did a good job as the lead.  Jill Clayburgh was good in a limited role as the secretary who knew just a bit too much.  Ned Beatty's short stint was good.  Patrick McGoohan delivered urbane menace quite well, and Ray Walston was a good grumpy henchman.  When Richard Pryor entered the fray, the afterburners kicked in.

Screenplay: 9/10 The film was engaging from beginning to end, with a few laughs thrown in.

Final Rating: 9/10 Excellent.  Nice script, good execution by the cast.

20160831: Action Review--The Gunman

Name: The Gunman (2015)
IMDb: link to The Gunman page

Genres: Action, mystery, thriller, crime.   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Sean Penn as Jim Terrier, Idris Elba as Barnes, Jasmine Trinca as Annie, Javier Bardem as Felix, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox.

Directed by: Pierre Morel.  Written by: Jean-Patrick Manchette (novel), Don MacPherson (screenplay).

Image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Terrier worked in the Congo in 2006 during their civil war as a mercenary.   His speciality is assassination, and he kills the minister of mines.  Minister of mines is a key position, due to the Congo's mineral wealth.  Terrier's being tasked with this shows his level of trust with whomever is paying him.  Jim is having an affair with Annie, who is a doctor who does humanitarian work.  Felix is in love with Annie, which she does not reciprocate at the time.

Delineation of conflicts:
Eight years later, Jim is back in the Congo, again working in parallel with a humanitarian agency, but not as an assassin.  However, someone holds a grudge, and makes an attempt on his life.  Their agents are charged with providing proof of death.  Terrier intends to keep living.  In order to do that, he needs to know the motivations of whoever wants to kill him. His adversary has no intention of that happening, so the mystery/thriller action ensues.

Terrier leaves Congo for London to confer with his former colleague Cox.  He asks about the complete list of those who knew about the assassination.  This is the springboard for the rest of the film's plot: find the true players and ask them what's what.

Just to make things more interesting, Jim's past war injuries have had a cumulative effect.  He has memory loss and passes out now and them.  Can he keep it together long enough to sort this out?

Jim's first stop is Barcelona, the last known of Felix, his first real target.  However, Felix just might have his own agenda here.

Resolution: Jim finds out some of what he needs to know, but will he find out enough?

One line summary: Sean Penn as an action hero.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 7/10 Not all that good.

Sound: 8/10 Dialog is clear.  Music is subdued but appropriate.

Acting: 7/10 Mark Rylance was fine as I expected.  Ray Winstone was an asset. Sean Penn was in good form.  Javier Bardem disappointed as usual.  The overused Idris Elba was better than I expected in a small role.  Jasmine Trinca was OK for what the script gave her to work with.

Screenplay: 6/10 Violence and threat moves the plot along, so the 115 minutes runtime does not drag. The romantic angle was bleak and sad, but did resolve somewhat well.  I'm glad I saw the film, but would not watch it again.  Checking against Box Office Mojo and IMDb, it took in 11 million domestically, against 40 million production costs, so the chances for a sequel are slim.

At the end of the film, I felt that I should have been happier for the protagonist, but just could not be.  I felt this to be a major failing of the film.

Final Rating: 7/10 I liked it better than most people did, but I would be hard pressed to say, 'you must see this one.'

20160720: Action Review--The Good The Bad The Weird

Name: The Good, The Bad, The Weird (2008)
IMDb: link to The Good The Bad The Weird page

image courtesy of The Movie Database (TMDb)

Genres: Action, Crime, Comedy   Country of origin: South Korea

Cast:
Jung Woo-Sung as Park Do-won (the Good), Lee Byung-hun as Park Chang-yi (the Bad), Kang-ho Song as Yoon Tae-goo (the Weird).

Directed by: Kim Jee-woon.  Written by: Kim Jee-woon, Min-suk Kim.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
This motion picture is set in 1930s Manchuria, traditionally part of China, but occupied by Japanese armed forces at the time.  The three protagonists are Koreans who have some connection to Korean independence, however weak this connection might be.  The Good is a bounty hunter of considerable skill and experience.  The Bad is a gang leader capable of endless (and often fortuitous) violence.  The Weird appears to be a bumbling bandit who succeeds only by serendipity.

Like a typical James Bond film, the opening is a manic short in its own right, followed by a calmer, longer, deeper depiction of the issues hinted at in the short.  In this case, the film opens at the home of a rich Chinese man, who has an obligation to a man in the Japanese power structure.  The map is sent to even things up.  However, the Chinese fellow hires The Bad to steal the map back.  We jump forward in time to a speeding train.

The Weird decides to rob the train, and starts his robbery slightly ahead of The Bad.  By accident, he finds the train car with the Japanese delegation who have the map, plus various other valuables.  While rifling through luggage, the Weird barely gets to the map when The Bad's gang engages the train with its full attack.

Just about every train robbery cliche follows, as does the arrival of The Good.  The Weird gets away from The Good and The Bad, which sets up the rest of the film.

Delineation of conflicts:
The film is about the map.  It begins with the map, and ends with the map.  Everything in between is about the pursuit and acquisition of the map, plus finding the map's destination.  There is some value attached to the map, since the Japanese army wants it, as do monied interests in China and Japan, as well as bandit gangs and freelance thieves.

The Good and The Bad follow The Weird.  Alliances come and go.  Betrayals arise and damage is taken.

Resolution: The dialectic of conflicts ends late in the film.

The end sequence runs like the Keystone Kops set in the desert, only with one thousand times better production values.  The three protagonists outrun, outgun, or evade other gangs, Japanese army elements, and each other until only the three are left.  They find their target in the map, then they deal with each other.

One line summary: Fine western film set in 1930s Manchuria.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 10/10 Excellent camera work, whether it be vast expanses of desert, tight shots of fights in cityscapes, horses versus motorcycles, moving trains, or quiet interviews in a wealthy man's opulent house.

Sound: 6/10 Dialog was in Korean, Mandarin, and Japanese.  I relied on the sub-titles.  Musical accompaniment was appropriate, but not quite the asset it might have been.

Acting: 9/10 The three lead actors were quite engaging.  They (or their doubles) show considerable athletic skill, plus fine weapons expertise.  Several segments were done at breakneck speeds, and everyone seemed up to the task.  Quiet interpersonal scenes were done well.

Screenplay: 8/10 This could be considered an alternate take on the iconic film The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966).  There were parallels, but this is a very Asian film.  At 130 minutes, the film is a bit long, but the humour and the action make the minutes melt away.

Final Rating: 8/10

20151130: Drama Review--Nightcrawler

Name: Nightcrawler (2014)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Drama, Crime.    Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal as Louis Bloom, Rene Russo as Nina Romina, Bill Paxton as Joe Loder, Kevin Rahm as Frank Kruse, Riz Ahmed as Rick, Kathleen York as Jackie, Ann Cusack as Linda, Kent Shocknick as Kent Shocknick, Carolyn Gilroy as Jenny.

Written and directed by:  First time director Dan Gilroy [writer of The Bourne Legacy (2012), Real Steel (2011), Freejack (1992)]  Dan's twin John Gilroy was the editor of record for the film, and his brother Tony Gilroy was one of the producers, as was Jake Gyllenhaal.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: It's night time in Los Angeles, and Louis Bloom is out acquiring copper wire, chain link fence, and manhole covers to sell to a scrap operator.  That is, he steals these materials from insufficiently secure sites.  He also listens to audio courses on entrepreneurship as he cruises the city looking for weakness.  He's not above beating the hell out of a security guard in order to get free of him, but more to steal his pricy watch.

Louis is clearly looking for something more monetarily rewarding.  By chance he stops at a recent auto accident that might get worse if the car explodes before the CHP can get the driver out of the car.  A freelance TV film crew (Joe Loder and his assistant) show up, as if on cue, and start filming.  Louis starts the process of learning new skills.  He observes the handling of the situation that involves cops, aggressive reporters, victim(s), the excitement of jeopardy, straight up corruption, electronic surveillance, and the hungry market of TV news.  When he sees the incident on TV at home the next morning, he's hooked.

Delineation of conflicts: There is competition among the freelance film camera crews (stringers), especially those who film crime oriented events for television.  Louis enters that competition.  He catches the attention of a morning news director at an LA TV station, Nina Romina.  His relationship with her is stormy, but they both gain from it.  As his success grows (better car, better camera, better access), Louis becomes impatient for more success.  He moves incrementally from pure observer to active participant in the crime scenes.  The jostling with other stringers continues, and his self-created legal jeopardy increases.

Resolution: Character issues lead to consequences, but where do those consequences land?

One line summary: Freelance thief becomes a freelance TV cameraman.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 10/10 Well done.

  b. Sound: 9/10 Fine.

  c. Acting: 8/10 Veteran actors Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, and Bill Paxton were quite good, as expected.  I had not seen Riz Ahmed before, but I liked his performance.  Many of the other characters could have been played by cardboard cutouts.

  d. Screenplay: 7/10 As a technical exercise, this film was brilliant.  As a reviewer, I applaud it. Following the rise of a deeply flawed sociopath was executed by masterful leadership. Intellectually I'm glad such movies are still made.

On the other hand, would I recommend this film to a friend?  No, unless the friend knows how to eat bitter and knows that sometimes high quality films are difficult to watch.  What character would I identify with?  None.  What character would I empathise with?  None.

Final rating: 8/10

20151125: Action Review--Spectre

Name: Spectre (2015)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Action, Adventure, Crime    Country of Origin: UK

Cast: Daniel Craig as James Bond, Christoph Waltz as Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Léa Seydoux as Madeleine Swann, Ralph Fiennes as Gareth Mallory/M, Monica Belucci as Lucia Sciarra, Ben Wishaw as Q/Quartermaster, Naomie Harris as Eve Moneypenny, Dave Bautista as Mr Hinx, Andrew Scott as C/Max Denbigh, Rory Kinnear as Tanner.

Directed by:  Sam Mendes.  Written by: John Logan, Neal Purvis.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: The film starts in Mexico City in a grand public Day of the Dead celebration.  Bond seems to be enjoying himself, but soon is in direct pursuit of an enemy.  When he returns to London, M lets him know that his actions were not appreciated, that he will be under observation, and that the double oh section is in danger of being shut down.

Delineation of conflicts: C (head of the new organisation Centre of National Security) wants to shut down the double oh section; M wants to keep it open.  Bond wants to honour the post-mortem wishes of the previous M.  SPECTRE wants strong control of almost all information flow in the world, so as to have more power and to make more money.  C wants that flow to be available to UK intelligence to replace older methodology, like MI6.  Q, M, Tanner, Moneypenny, and Bond would like to preserve each other as well as some traditional British approaches to civilization and intelligence.  C and SPECTRE are clearly opposed, and seem to have the upper hand during most of the film.  Bond's foster brother wants to make Bond fully aware of how much he hates him.

Resolution: Bond has an opportunity to be his better self; does he take it?

One line summary: Clearly the best Bond film ever.

Why do I call this the best Bond film ever?  Because it narrates a clear and conclusive path to the long overdue end to this excellent series.  Take the opportunity.  This film explains the entire series and shows Bond accepting a change in life path.  There is no need for continuance after this wonderful film.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 10/10 Beautiful.  Breathtaking.  Professional.  Should be 27/10, but would be cheating, I guess.

  b. Sound: 9/10 Having a man (Sam Smith) sing the theme song for the film in castrato style is just, plain, wrong.  Except for that wretched interlude, the background sound was excellent for accentuating pacing and mood.

  c. Acting: 9/10 I liked every actor except the overrated Christoph Waltz, whose performance was neither interesting nor believable, despite the richness of the role.  Dave Bautista played an excellent physical opponent to Bond: huge, powerful, quick, intelligent, determined.  Ben Wishaw was wonderful as the modern quartermaster that 007 needs in the present.  Fiennes, Kinnear, Harris, and Belucci did fine jobs.  Andrew Scott's performance was quite good as a rotten ball of snot who needed to run things no matter what the consequences.  Last but not least, I enjoyed watching Seydoux and Craig much more than I thought I would.

  d. Screenplay: 10/10 This is the best story I've ever seen in a Bond film. The introduction of a female character who was actually a good match for Bond was quite an innovation. The story threads were engaging, the tension was at a good level throughout, and the whole script led to a decisive ending. For money reasons, I'm sure there will be more Bond films.  The ending of this film, though, was beautiful and final and just and closed.  So please, folks, stop on the highest note, and don't break that lovely ending.

Final rating: 10/10

20151119: Horror Review--Last Shift

Name: Last Shift (2014)  
IMDb: link to IMDb

Officer Loren

Genres: Horror, thriller    Country of Origin: USA.
Written and directed by:  Anthony DiBlasi.

Cast: Juliana Harkavy as Officer Jessica Loren, Joshua Mikel as John Michael Paymon, J. LaRose as Patrick Black, Natalie Victoria as Marigold, Sarah Sculco as Kitty Paymon, Kathryn Kilger as Dorothea Paymon, Mary Langford Polley as Birdie, Jeremy S. Brock as Police Interrogator, Amanda Defrance as Crime Scene Girl, Matt Doman as Officer Ryan Price, Hank Stone as Sergeant Cohen.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: Officer Jessica Loren starts the night shift at a Sanford police station that is just about to be decommissioned.  The Sergeant Cohen gives her a short pep talk, then leaves her.  The 'bump in the night' phenomena show up almost immediately.  Even though the telephone number for the station has been rerouted, she gets calls from a little girl, Monica.  Doors open.  A homeless man sneaks in somehow.  The men's room is plastered with excrement.  The reports the calls from Monica to her superiors, and calls a waste cleanup service to clean the facilities.  The poltergeist action continues.  When she calls for backup against breaking and entering, her radio connection fails.

Delineation of conflicts: Officer Loren would like the nonsense to stop.  Whatever happened to trigger the supernatural activity, seems to want something, but what?  The prostitute Marigold drops by, and Officer Loren sets about to roust her from police property.  Marigold is very chatty, and relates to Loren the story of a want-to-be Manson family, the Paymons.  It just happens that Jessica's father was part of the police team that took out the Paymons.  The story Jessica heard about the Paymons while growing up was not the story that Marigold experienced in a cell near the Paymons before they died.

Resolution: The usual cliches for this generic situation seem to be in force.  What does Officer Loren have to do to end the disturbance of those causing the supernatural activity?  That is, end the psycho, beyond-the-grave actions of the dead Paymons, and the suffering of their dead victims.

One line summary: What she does not know may hurt her.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 8/10 Focus, framing, and depth were fine, but I could have done without the overexposure that was present in many scenes.

  b. Sound: 7/10 No problems, and the jump scares were not overdone. On the other hand, the background music did not contribute too much in the way of creepiness.

  c. Acting: 7/10 Juliana Harkavy is in about 95% of the scenes.  She was much better than I expected, and I can think of many actresses who would not have done as well.

  d. Screenplay: 8/10 I rather liked the story, which keeps the viewer guessing until the end.

Final rating: 8/10

20150801: Thriller Review--American Psycho 2

American Psycho 2: All American Girl

1. Fundamentals.
1. Title: American Psycho 2: All American Girl
2. IMDb: Users rated this 3.9/10 (11,673 votes)
3. Rotten Tomatoes:
   Tomatometer: 11% based on 9 reviews
   18% of viewers liked it, based on 25,215ratings
   Critics Consensus:No consensus yet.


4. Status: Released
5. Release date: 2002-04-22
6. Production Companies: Lions Gate Films
7. Tagline: Angrier. Deadlier. Sexier.


8. Budget:  10,000,000 USD
9. Revenue: Revenue figures not available at review time.
10. Runtime: 88 minutes.
11. Genres: Horror, Thriller


12. Directed by: Morgan J. Freeman.  Written by: Alex Sanger, Karen Craig


13. Starring: Mila Kunis as Rachael, William Shatner as Starkman, Geraint Wyn Davies as Daniels, Robin Dunne as Brian, Lindy Booth as Cassandra, Charles Officer as Keith Lawson, Jenna Perry as Young Rachael, Michael Kremko as Patrick Bateman, Kim Poirier as Barbara, Boyd Banks as Jim


14. TMDb overview: Rachel is a criminology student hoping to land a position as a teacher's assistant for professor Robert Starkman. She's sure this position will pave the way to an FBI career, and she's willing to do anything to obtain it -- including killing her classmates. The school psychiatrist, Dr. Daniels, becomes aware that Rachel is insane, but Rachel is skilled at her dangerous game of death and identity theft.


2. Setup and Plot


1. There is a lot of voiceover toward the front end of the film, and voiceover later on.  This is usually a sign of not enough attention being paid to developing the screenplay.


2. Rachel has, for good reasons, more than a bit of a fixation on Patrick Bateman from the first American Psycho film.  When she reaches university, she wants to be the assistant of Robert Starkman, a former FBI profiler renowned for catching serial killers.  She wants to know everything he can possibly teach her.  The assistant position would also likely mean she would get a choice entry into training at Quantico.


3. She has some competition for the position, though.  What is the movie about?  It's about whether or not anyone catches up to the extraordinary methods that she used to eliminate the competition.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Essentially a non-sequel despite the name.


2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 The visual quality of the version that Netflix screened was not all that good.  The usage of camera was all rather pedestrian as well.


2. Sound: 6/10 I could hear the dialog.  The sound mixing strongly favoured the background music over the spoken voices, however.  The choice of background music was not the film's strong point.


3. Acting: 6/10 American Psycho II, filmed just outside Toronto, made me appreciate the cast in American Psycho I just a bit more.  I like Canadian actors William Shatner (Star Trek), Robin Dunne (Sanctuary), Geraint Wyn Davies (Forever Knight), and Lindy Booth (The Librarians, Dawn of the Dead [2004]).  However, I like them in sci-fi television for the most part.  Their performances in a psychological thriller were a bit unexpected.  Davies and Shatner were fine, but the scenes with only Dunne and Kunis were not the best.  On the other hand, the scenes with only Davies and Kunis were engaging.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 The large percentage of voiceover was not a plus. The badly written dialog featuring Kunis or Dunne was quite off-putting.  Still, the film had a beginning, a middle, and an end, with reasonable connections from scene to scene.

20150731: Drama Review--American Psycho

American Psycho

image courtesy of The Movie Database

1. Fundamentals.
1. Title: American Psycho
2. IMDb: Users rated this 7.6/10 (312,703 votes)
3. Rotten Tomatoes:
   67% of critics liked it of 142 critical reviews posted
   85% of viewers liked it from 300,623 ratings
   Critics Consensus: If it falls short of the deadly satire of Bret Easton Ellis's novel, American Psycho still finds its own blend of horror and humor, thanks in part to a fittingly creepy performance by Christian Bale.


4. Status: Released
5. Release date: 2000-04-14
6. Production Companies: Lions Gate
7. Tagline: I think my mask of sanity is about to slip.


8. Budget:  7 million USD
9. Revenue: 34 million USD
10. Runtime: 102 minutes.
11. Genres: Crime, Drama


12. Directed by: Mary Harron.  Written by: Mary Harron, Guinevere Turner


13. Starring: Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman, Reese Witherspoon as Evelyn Williams, Justin Theroux as Timothy Bryce, Josh Lucas as Craig McDermott, Bill Sage as David Van Patten, Chloë Sevigny as Jean, Samantha Mathis as Courtney Rawlinson, Matt Ross as Luis Carruthers, Jared Leto as Paul Allen, Willem Dafoe as Det. Donald Kimball


14. TMDb overview: A wealthy New York investment banking executive hides his alternate psychopathic ego from his co-workers and friends as he escalates deeper into his illogical, gratuitous fantasies.


2. Setup and Plot


1. Patrick is the protagonist, Evelyn his fiancee, and Jean his secretary.  His drinking buddies are Timothy, Craig, and David.  Luis ('the dufus') and Courtney are seen together in public, but Patrick is having an affair with her, unknown to Luis.


2. Patrick is in the banking sector in New York City. He obtained his position in Mergers and Acquisitions via nepotism.


3. So, Patrick has a job, male friends/competitors, and female bedmates. The only flaw in this picture of overabundance, privilege, and recreational drug use is that Patrick is insane. Patrick keeps his homicidal urges fairly well under control toward the beginning of the film, but less and less and the film progresses.


4. The exposition style is what I call archipelago. The movie consists of islands of film taped together. There is no mainland; there are no bridges. There are only discrete pieces separated by whim and held in place by time order. Sort of.


5. Vignettes (islands), humourous: The touchstones where Patrick notices (to the audience) how much he and Paul Allen are alike.  The passages about one upmanship, be it business cards or restaurant reservations.  Patrick trying and failing to give a homeless man some help.


6. Vignettes, horrifying:  The Paul Allen goodbye sequence strained credulity too much. The Ed Gein story was a bit of a shock, even in contrast to the unyielding misogyny just preceding it.  There are many more.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Great visuals undone by script and direction as well as inconsistent sound capture and editing.


2. Shorter summary: Exercise in self-delusion.


3. Five of ten


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Each scene is well thought out, and the shooting is wonderfully executed.


2. Sound: 7/10 The scenes with musical accompaniment are lush and rich; they have a feeling of depth.  Some of the quiet scenes involving only conversation are tinny, weak, thin, and disappointing.


3. Acting: 2/10 There were some fine actors in this motion picture.  All of them seemed to be doing what the director wanted. Bravo for their professionalism.  However, the director's vision was so worthless that the performances were of little note.  This is strongly parallel to some of the weaker Wes Anderson films, where the efforts of good actors were thrown away by the poor direction.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 The protagonist talks directly to the viewer.  This is bovine scatology. The entire film is about a delusional protagonist, so nothing is to be trusted in the plotlines, such as they are.  Just because some action is depicted on the screen does not mean that it happened outside the sour operations of this afflicted mind.  One might as well be suffering through Walter Mitty, except that the lead has bloody fantasies instead of Mitty's pleasant ones.
   
   So, since nothing of the exposition is to be trusted, what is the point of this vile mess?
   
   As one navigates through this maze of false threads, that is the central question. The hideous ending casts everything even deeper in doubt. The film is reminiscent of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) which was heaped with praise since Terry Gilliam directed it. That does not change the fact that after watching the film, one wonders whether Depp's character did any of the actions shown on screen. In American Psycho, the disappointment was much stronger because the production values were so much higher. Whereas FLiLV looked sleazy, AP looked exquisite; interspersed with the shock segments, that is.  I expected some sort of value for having suffered through the recurring horrific images, the type one expects from a slasher film or a mild gorefest, but done by someone like Hitchcock.
   
   If American Psycho is considered as a collage, bits of the film were good for witty conversation or for commentary on the 1980s and the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent. The collage as a whole, though, is just an incoherent collection of high quality materials badly assembled.
   
   The last two minutes were almost interesting, but the rest of the film did not support the message. The effect as a whole is doubled: who cares? It is all delusion and of no point at all.

20141031: Drama Review--The Best Offer

The Best Offer

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Italian live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 131 minutes, drama, crime, mystery.
2. IMDB: 7.9/10.0 from 43,079 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 13.5 million euros.  Spoken word is in English.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 56% on the meter; 75% liked it from 3,823 audience ratings.
4. I watched this on Showtime.
5. Written and directed by: Giuseppe Tornatore.  Music by Ennio Morricone.
6. Starring: Geoffrey Rush as Virgil Oldman, Jim Sturgess as Robert, Sylvia Hoeks as Claire Ibbetson, Donald Sutherland as Billy Whistler, Liya Kebede as Sarah, Philip Jackson as Fred, Dermot Crowley as Lambert.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Virgil Oldman is a top level art auctioneer.  His talent for recognising and evaluating centuries old art is impressive.  He is very rich from his legitimate commissions on sales. With Billy Whistler, he pulls cons at his auctions.  He sells paintings represented as ordinary and of small value, but are actually worth much, much more.  Billy buys these pieces at auction, then Virgil pays back Billy with interest.  Virgil keeps the painting for his private collection, which consists of portraits of beautiful women.  He likes the portraits, but has difficulty dealing with real women.


2. He starts getting calls from one Claire Ibbetson to evaluate her parents' estate.  Lambert usually fields such calls, but she insists on talking to Mr Oldman. She is evasive in the extreme due to her pronounced agoraphobia.  At first he deals with her only through Fred, the caretaker.  With some diligence, he actually meets her in person, but with a wall between them.  With more persistence, he gets to see her face-to-face.


3. In parallel, he takes parts from the basement of the estate and has Robert evaluate them.  They turn out to be pieces of a rare 18th century automaton.  Gradually Robert assembles the automaton, and advises Virgil on how to proceed with Claire.


4. Virgil and Claire grow close, or so it seems.  Virgil has the pieces restored.  When Virgil is about to go to his last auction in London, Claire decides not to sell.  Virgil is so besotted with her that he puts up no objections.  At the auction, Billy tells Virgil that he should have had more faith in him.  It seemed a bit ominous.


5. When Virgil returns, Claire is gone, Robert is gone, and Robert's friend Sarah is gone.  His large, valuable personal collection of paintings of beautiful women is gone.  One painting is left, which has a message from Billy.


6. Virgil has a lonely path to tread to discover the details of the fraud and the betrayal.  Will he find the answers that he wants?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: What goes around comes around in the art world.
2. Four stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Beautifully shot.


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems, and some of it was excellent.  I had no problems hearing the dialog.


3. Acting: 10/10 Rush, Sturgess, Hoeks, and Sutherland were quite good.


4. Screenplay: 7/10 The narrative was slow, careful, and intricate up until the end.  Then the reappraisal of everything was rapid.  For me, the ending was a major disappointment.  On the other hand, Virgil had been doing a lot of art thievery himself.

20141007: Documentary Review--Galapagos Affair

The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 120 minutes, documentary, crime.
2. IMDB: 6.8/10.0 from 259 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 82% on the meter; 72% liked it from 1,112 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.5/5.0 from 57,905 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Daniel Geller, Dayna Goldfine.
6. Starring: (voice actors all) Cate Blanchett as Dore Strauch, Sebastian Koch as Heinz Wittmer, Thomas Kretschmann as Friedrich Ritter, Diane Krueger as Margret Wittmer, Connie Nielsen as Baroness Von Wagner, Josh Radnor as John Garth.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Set in the 1930s, a small group of well-to-do Germans decide to forsake Europe and start out fresh in the Galapagos Islands to the west of South America.  The film is presented by voice actors reading the journals and letters of the individuals involved, by interviewing scholars of the islands, and by interviewing descendents of the few settlers in the early 1930s.


2. Dr. Ritter and Dore Strauch arrived in 1929, and settled on the island of Floreana, which was not populated at the time.  They were followed by the Wittmers, and later by the Baroness and her two sycophants.  There was a bit of jostling at first.  By the time the Wittmers had a new baby borne on the island, there was at least some recognition and gift-giving to mark the occasion.


3. However, by January 1933, problems had arisen.  The second visit of the Valero, a ship carrying researchers and wealthy members, brought gifts for the Ritters.  Dissension followed.  The Baroness wanted her share of the gifts, and she wanted a movie made of her outpost during the next visit of the Valero.  The Baroness had set up a sign at the dock proclaiming her 'hotel' inland, the Hacienda Paradiso.  Representatives of the Valero trekked up to see it on general principles and because a Norwegian visitor to the island had fled from the Baroness and taken refuge with Dr. Ritter.  The representatives were appalled by the lack of concern for sanitation at the Baroness' place, but did not see the problems the Norwegian described.


4. The curious rich started to come more frequently to Floreana, and more so to the larger islands of Santa Cruz and San Cristobal.  Competition for gifts from the travelers and time spent on their yachts increased.  Dr. Ritter's dream of living in an unspoiled paradise fell away with each gift he accepted.  The film makes the point that this was common.


5. Dr. Ritter and the Norwegian filed charges for the Norwegian's treatment at the Hacienda Paradiso.  However, the governor of the islands was overly impressed by a person with a European title.  Instead of penalizing her, the governor gave her title to four square miles of land, while giving title to 50 acres each for the Wittmers.  So that's 2560 acres for the Baroness, 200 for the Wittmers.  He also declared the spring near the Wittmers' original settlement to be a common resource.  Toward the end of 1933, and during the beginning of 1934, a drought was steady.  Visitation almost completely dried up.  The unwelcoming environment of the island became closer to hostile with gardens not producing and animals dying.


6. So, the stage was set for bad things to happen.  In March of 1934, the Baroness said she was leaving for Tahiti, so as to better her chances with the hotel.  The Baroness and one of her paramours was gone, but no one saw her leave.  What happened?  Dr. Ritter died that November, but the accounts of it were quite dissimilar.


7. Will these competing stories ever be resolved?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Contradictory accounts of deaths in Galapagos in 1934.
2. Eight of ten.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 This was a mixed bag, which is always the case for historical documentaries.  The media pieces from the 1930s were fine for the time but terrible by current standards. The visuals and sound for the modern interviews was solid.


2. Sound: 6/10 Sometimes effective, sometimes curious.


3. Voice Acting: 9/10 This was rather good; the actors voiced writings by the long dead principals while stills or archival film was shown.


4. Screenplay: 8/10 The composition of elements was fine.

20140609: Movie Review--Evidence

Evidence

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 93 minutes, crime-thriller, drama, failure.
2. IMDB: 5.2/10.0 from 3,121 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 6% on the meter; 25% liked it from 475 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from  65,218 audience ratings.
5. Directed by Olatunde Osunsanmi; written by John Swetman.
6. Starring: Steven Moyer as Detective Reese, Radha Mitchell as Detective Burquez, Torrey DeVitto as Leanne, Caitlin Stasey as Rachel, Nolan Gerard Funk as Tyler Norris, Dale Dickey as Katrina Fleishman, Aml Ameen as Officer Jenson, Svetlana Metkina as Vicki, Barak Hardley as Gabe Wright, Harry Lennix as Ben.


2. Setup and Plot


1. The film opens to an overview of a crime scene.  The visuals are impressive, in a way; that is, a lot of effort was taken to produce an amateurish result.  In this director's approach, good visuals have to be accompanied by plodding boredom, while shaky cam, cell phone footage, and pixelated, blurred images are where the action and interest should be kept.


2. We segue to a police department, where the evidence has been collected and sorted to a degree. The personnel to evaluate the evidence gets picked.


3. The investigatory group consists of Detectives Reese and Burquez, Officer Jensen, and AV specialist Gabe Wright. They set about analysing the 'found film' from Rachel's camera, plus the visuals recorded by cell phones, plus the overviews from the beginning of the film.  Close consideration yields some clues for the Detectives to pursue.


4. Amateur director Rachel likes to film 'incredibly uncomfortable things.'  Indeed.  Leanne is in a troubled relationship with Tyler Norris, who is a mediocre singer and less than good guitar player.  Rachel decides to film Leanne 'before she was a big star.'  We also have the badness of hand-held cameras.  This includes horrible framing, rotten sound leveling, extraneous sounds, and large time gaps.


5. Rachel, Leanne, Tyler, Vicki, and a young entertainer are scheduled to take a trip to Las Vegas.  Though not on the passenger manifest, Katrina gets on the tour bus as well.  She has a huge amount of cash on her, and might be a fugitive.  When Tyler and Rachel notice that they are on a side road, Rachel goes to talk to the driver.  Things go decidedly bad after that, including the bus crashing.


6. The film progresses to the retelling of the deaths and the unveiling of the perpetrators.  How does that play out?


3. Conclusions
1. Rotten Tomatoes got the rating correct; Netflix missed by a mile.
2. One line summary: Two movies in one; neither one very good.
3. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 1/10 Shaky camera work.  Stupid framing angles.  Dropped frames, severe pixelation.  Insufficient light, heat-damaged memory chips.


2. Sound: 4/10 Speech is mostly comprehensible, but there is plenty of raw microphone noise, such as when cell phones are dragged on the floor while recording.


3. Acting: 2/10 Stephen Moyer had a couple of good moments in this film; Harry Lennix is his usual reliable self.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 After watching this, I will avoid properties directed by Olatunde Osunsanmi, or written by John Swetman.  For a better film about lesbian criminals, see Breaking the Girls (2013), Monster (2003), or Bound (1996).  The 'twist' at the end is cliche, done before and done better.

20140603: Thriller Review--20 Feet Below

20 Ft Below: Darkness Descending

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2014, rated R, 96 minutes, thriller, crime.
2. IMDB: 2.8/10.0 from 175 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' and 'no score yet.'
4. Directed by: Marc Clebanoff.  Screenplay by Frank Krueger.
5. Starring: Danny Trejo as Angel, Frank Krueger as Jake, Kinga Phillips as Chelsea, John Hennigan as Razor, Tiffany Adams as Gabriel, Kristoff St. John as Smitty, Louis Mandylor as Lockeheed.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Naive documentary film maker Chelsea goes into the underground of NYC to investigate the homeless people living in abandoned subway tunnels.  She encounters senile former military, a strange artist, teen run aways, crazed former drug addicts, a disgraced ex-cop (Jake), and a self-righteous gang (the Chosen) of violent cretins led by Angel.


2. Chelsea interviews a few of the cops (whose leaders want some action against the Chosen), Angel himself, the artist, two teen runaways, and Jake.  The Chosen have it out for Jake and the teens.


3. So, what happens in the inevitable show down?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Vanity film sinks despite Danny Trejo's presence.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Usually clear enough.


2. Sound: 3/10 Bad leveling.  The music played during intervals often seemed irrelevant.


3. Acting: 3/10 Danny Trejo showed his usual screen presence.  Louis Mandylor was competent with the few lines he was given.  The rest, not so good.


4. Screenplay: 1/10 Were there any points to this film?  Not that I saw.  Also, the clothes worn were too clean, the people looked way too clean and too healthy.  How is it that Jake has a new, spotless bottle of expensive looking booze?  How does he have brand new candles in perfectly clean holders?  One of the women in the tunnels has a new looking guitar; what are the chances that would not be stolen?  The preaching (from Angel and from the group who hang with the artist) seemed out of place, as did the spouting of statistics.

20140509: Action Review--Sushi Girl

Sushi Girl

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, 98 minutes, action, crime.
2. IMDB: 6.0/10.0 from 2,795 audience ratings.  Estimated budget: 750,000 USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 40% on the meter; 44% liked it from 459 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.5/5.0 from 75,879 audience ratings.  I saw this the first time on The Movie Channel.
5. Directed by: Kern Saxton.
6. Starring: Tony Todd as Duke, James Duvall as Francis, Noah Hathaway as Fish, Andy Mackenzie as Max, Mark Hamill as Crow, Michael Biehn as Mike, Jeff Fahey as Morris, Danny Trejo as Schlomo, Cortney Palm as Sushi Girl, Sonny Chiba as Sushi Chef, David Dastmalchian as Nelson, Cyrus Alexander as Martin.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Fish has been in jail for six years, without his comrades from a diamond heist gone bad.  He took the fall, he did the time, and now he's out.


2. Duke, Max, Francis, and Crow treat him to a sumptuous dinner in a reserved room.  The food is sushi, served off the body of a naked young woman.  The woman has been trained not to react to what the guests are doing, and this probably served her well.


3. Soon enough, the real reason for the meeting surfaces.  The robbers had a bad accident: their van and a car encountered each other at speed.  The gang's driver was killed, the other driver was dealt with by Duke, and the cops and firemen showed up quickly.  In the process, most of the gang got away, but the diamonds seem to have gone missing.  The ones who got away want Fish to tell them where the diamonds are.


4. There are many flashbacks as the details of the heist are rehashed, particularly the events surrounding the traffic crash.  When Fish refuses to tell his erstwhile partners where the diamonds are, they decide to encourage his veracity by force.


5. Will there be a falling out among thieves?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Excellent acting, but a weak plot; redeemed somewhat by the ending.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Perhaps this was done intentionally, as Tarantino sometimes does, but the visuals looked gritty and jumpy, rather sub-VHS quality.  In other segments, the visuals were of reasonable quality.


2. Sound: 9/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 10/10 Mark Hamill, Tony Todd, and Noah Hathaway were great.  In much smaller roles, Michael Biehn, Jeff Fahey, and Danny Trejo were fine.  Cortney Palm also had a limited role, but it was pivotal to the overall effect of the film.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 The last five minutes were just exquisite.  On the other hand, the characters played by Michael Biehn, Jeff Fahey, and Danny Trejo seemed to be vastly underused.  The worst part for me was the disposition of the diamonds after the accident.  It should have been abundantly clear where the diamonds were, and the whole extended torture sequence was unnecessary.

20140505: Action Review--Beyond Outrage

Beyond Outrage

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Japanese live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, 112 minutes, action, crime,
2. IMDB: 6.8/10.0 from 2,012 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 50% on the meter, but no consensus yet; 58% liked it from 537 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.6/5.0 from 21,027 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Takeshi Kitano.
6. Starring: Takeshi Kitano as Otomo, Toshiyuki Nishida as Underboss Nishino, Tomokazu Miura as Chairman Kato, Ryo Kase as Underboss Ishihara, Hideo Nakana as Kimura, Yutaka Matsushiga as Detective Shigeta, Fumiyo Kohinata as Detective Kataoka, Shigero Koyama as Fuse.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film is set five years after the action in Outrage ended.  The utterly corrupt Detective Kataoka is still in place, perhaps more entrenched than ever.  Detective Shigeta, a somewhat more straight arrow policeman, accompanies Kataoka on some of his tasks.  Kato is still the Chairman of the Sanno family.  Ishihara, formerly in Otomo's clan, is now Kato's underboss.  Sanno has grown considerably in wealth and power, partly because they absorbed Murase's drug business from the first film.  Other shifts in the Sanno family are placement of older executives by younger ones, and valuing acquiring money over muscling other families.  As the story begins, there is plenty of fuel in the powder keg: the old guard resent the younger upstarts; when one family expands, others just might feel threatened; the cops have decided to squeeze Sanno growth.


2. In the film's opening sequence, the police lift a car out of the water.  Kataoka and Shigeta arrive, so one knows there is a yakuza connection.  One of the bodies is that of a high government official, and evidence points to the Sanno family issuing the hit order.  The police see that Sanno thinks its money is sufficient to buy enough protection for them to openly order the killing of a government official.  This seems to be too much to bear.


3. Kataoka sets about riling up the yakuza against each other.  He encourages one of the old guard in the Sanno family (and two of his followers) to attempt to unseat and replace Underboss Ishihara.  He arranges a meeting with Fuse, the Chairman of the Hanabishi family.  That seems to go well, but when the trio report back to Kato, they find that Fuse had described the whole situation to Kato.  Fatalities ensue.  Resentment increases.  Kataoka gets schooled by his superior: did he not know that the Sanno and the Hanabishi were secretly allied?


4. To get the pot boiling even harder, Kataoka arranges for the release of Otomo, whom Kimura (released years before) shanked in prison.  Kataoka had misled many (such as Chairman Kato) into thinking Otomo was dead.  Now the detective brings him forth to heat things up.


5. Kataoka arranges a meeting between Kimura and Otomo, which goes surprisingly well.  Also, he nudges them toward 'helping' the alliance between Hanabishi and Sanno to fail magnificently.


6. That is most of the early context of the film.  How goes the execution?  Quite well, I would say.


3. Conclusions
1. I would recommend seeing this film to anyone who has seen all of the first one.
2. The exposition of motivations was much better.  I could see easily why the houses were at war with each other, and why individual alliances formed and broke.
3. One line summary: Growing pains in the yakuza family structures.
4. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Excellent, professional.


2. Sound: 8/10 No particular problems, but them again, I was following the sub-titles.


3. Acting: 10/10 Even better than the original.


4. Screenplay: 8/10 Nice story development.  Not as many plot points as the original, but easier to follow.