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

20160404: Drama Review--Silver Linings Playbook

Name: Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
IMDb: link to Silver Linings Playbook

Genres: Drama   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence as Tiffany, Robert De Niro as Pat Solatano Sr, Jacki Weaver as Dolores Solatano, Chris Tucker as Danny, Julia Stiles as Veronica, Dash Mihok as Officer Keogh, John Ortiz as Ronnie, Anupam Kher as Dr Cliff Patel, Paul Herman as Randy, Shea Whigham as Jake.

Directed by: David O. Russell.  Written by: David O. Russell (screenplay), Matthew Quick (novel).

image courtesy of The Movie Database

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Narcissist Pat Jr is in a mental hospital.  His keepers are nagging him that it's time to go.  He keeps putting them off.  This pattern is repeated forever: Pat won't do as he's told, or requested, or cajoled, just for the sake of thumbing his nose at whoever is bothering him.  Pat's mother Dolores signs him out and takes him home.

Pat Jr's ex-wife Nikki has a restraining order against him, in part because he beat the hell out of Nikki's lover while she was still married to Pat Jr.  In Pat Jr's defense, the adulterer was in the shower with Nikki, in Pat Jr's house, and told Pat Jr to leave his own house so that he could continue with Nikki.

Delineation of conflicts:
Pat Jr wants Nikki to come back to him.  Nikki wants him to stay the hell away from her.  Pat Sr is also nuts (wails on other fans at sports contests), and Dolores has to put up with their endless nonsense.  Senior has OCD plus, and Junior is bipolar with severe mood swings.

Tiffany enters the scene and makes things worse.  She has her own issues and does not hesitate to dump on others, definitely including Pat Jr.

Pat Jr would like to get his old teaching job back.  The administrators of the school are hardly interested in that, given Pat's proven history.

Pat Sr and Randy, both bookies, end up with a big 'parlay' double bet just past Christmas.  First, the Eagles versus the Cowboys in football, plus a bet on the dance score that Tiffany and Pat Jr achieve.  Much of the last third of the film is about this.

Resolution: Does Pat Jr. find a durable silver lining?  Does he find a strategy to stay out of explosive interactions with other people?  Will Pat Sr's OCD get the better of him?

One line summary: Vastly overrated drivel.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 3/10 Washed out, at least early on.  Bad framing that smacked of shaky cam.

Sound: 6/10 I could hear the actors speaking the dialog.  Some of the music was quite good.

Acting: 4/10 Jennifer Lawrence won Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role (Oscar) in 2013 for her portrayal of Tiffany.  So I gave this a nonzero score.  This is a very forgettable film for DeNiro and Julia Stiles, two actors whom I usually like without reservation.  I did not care for the other performances at all.

Screenplay: 0/10 The characters, as written, are irritating without being interesting.  I identified with zero of them, empathised for none of them, and did not care in the least how the characters or relationships ended up.

Early on, Pat Jr intends to go out in public wearing a trash bag with holes cut through it.  It's only by luck that he's talked out of it, if only for a short time.  Is this meant to be important, or just a good sign to stop watching?

Final rating: 4/10  OK, barely. 

Pre-emptive considerations.

1. Bradley Cooper's blatant asshole personality glares through from the beginning, just as it does in every other film the jerk is in.
2. I could do without Chris Tucker.  Of course, I think that for every single film I have watched in which Chris Tucker appears.
3. The property is loaded with sports metaphors and dialog, so I tuned out during much of the film.  If I wanted a sports show, there is plenty on HBO.
4. The cinematography looks washed out and flat, perhaps from deliberate use of measured overexposure. I suppose that was used to reflect the high entropy existence of drug-addled mental patients.

20160315: Thriller Review--The Traveler

Name: The Traveler (2010)
IMDb: link to The Traveler page

Genres: Thriller, Supernatural.   Country of origin: Canada.

Cast: Val Kilmer as Mr Nobody/Drifter, Dylan Neal as Detective Alexander Black, Paul McGillion as Deputy Jerry Pine, Camille Sullivan as Deputy Jane Hollows, Nels Lennarson as Deputy Toby Sherwood, John Cassini as Deputy Jack Hawkins, Chris Gauthier as Desk Sergeant Gulloy.

Directed by: Michael Oblowitz.  Written by: Joseph C. Muscat.

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
The film starts with a short depiction of the abduction of a young girl by an out-of-focus kidnapper.

We jump forward a year to the present day on a rainy Christmas Eve night.

Desk Sargeant Gulloy is a fussy man who is the omega male of the group at the Sheriff's station.  He  does not care for the loud, foul, disgusting speech of his coworkers at the station, or their generally inconsiderate actions, like leaving the door open for the cold and rain to flow in, cancelling the central heating.   His passive aggressive approach clashes with the classless alphas early and often.

The interactions of the four deputies are primitive and adolescent.  Evidently psych tests were not required to obtain their jobs.  Detective Black is the father of Mary, the girl abducted in the first scene.

To complete the initial scenery, Mr Nobody enters the station, and tells Gulloy that he would like to confess to murder.  The state cops come by to tell them that they are going to close down the off ramp from the Interstate due to a major accident.  The station will be more isolated than usual, and many things are not working due to the holiday.  That's where we are when the action of the story begins.

Delineation of conflicts:
The deputies and the desk sergeant despise each other.  The detective's wife is phasing into a breakup with him.  The detective is held in contempt by the deputies since he was promoted over them to detective.  The detective is in a depressed phase since he has not been able to solve his daughter's disappearance.

Mr Nobody is not especially compliant with the orders of the cops.  Clearly, he holds them in contempt, and the cops are not happy with his lack of obedience.

Have they already met Mr Nobody?  Will any of them get a bit of closure about their failed pursuit of Mary's murderer?

Resolution: The police think they have a confessed murderer.  Only late in the film do they realise that his confessions are to their detriment.

One line summary: Cops pay for guilty secret.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 6/10  The visuals were in the VHS range most of the time.  The reduced palette and the dominance of dark regions over light contributed to the overall tone of depression and hopelessness.  The lighting choices involved a great deal of fluorescent lamps, whose colour output contributed heavily to the grey-green of the interiors, where most of the film is shot.  The peeling paint, rusted metal, and flickering lighting contribute to the feeling of gloom and decay.

Sound: 5/10 I could hear the dialog.  The background music was alternately creepy and irrelevant.

Acting: 5/10 I recognise Val Kilmer from many works, of course.  Otherwise, I'm familiar only with Paul McGillion (Stargate Atlantis, 2004-2009).  The acting was OK, but not great.  Kilmer's performance was not one of his best, but he still outshone the others.

Screenplay: 3/10 The dialog was hardly sparkling, and the f-word was used to the point of numbness.  I would rate the script low on originality. The theme of supernatural retribution is hardly new, and elimination derbies are common in horror films.  The ending was a bit better than I expected.

Final rating: 4/10

Elimination order: spoiler alert

As Mr Nobody confesses, the deaths of the guilty cops happen.  Hawkins first, Gulloy second, Sherwood and Hollows third and fourth, then Pine.  The order related to the manner of violence the cops had visited on an unidentified drifter the year before while looking for Mary Black's killer.

20160227: Mystery Review--After

Name: After (2012)
IMDb: link to After page

Genres: Mystery   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Steven Strait as Freddy, Karolina Wydra as Ana.

Directed by: Ryan Smith.  Written by: Jason Parish.

The initial tableaux:
Nurse Ana and graphic novelist Freddy ride an almost deserted bus back to their common home town of Pearl.  As it turns out, both live on Canon street.  There's an accident, but both seem to wake up the next morning.  The kicker is that there is no telephone service and no other people.

Delineation of conflicts:
The protagonists have to realize that they are dead.  The two leads here are more stupid than most. Instead of being an 18 minute film, this dog lasts for 90 minutes.

This is an old horror cliche dating back at least to the Twilight Zone, the early version in black and white.  More recently, The Frozen (also 2012) did it again.

Early in their explorations of Pearl and environs, they see a storm that surrounds the town on all sides.  It moves in at 0.08 miles per hour, so they have about two or three days total.  Attempts to penetrate the slow dark storm are rebuffed soundly.

Resolution: Do they find an escape?  Be sure to watch the final 3 minutes.

One line summary: Remake of a Twilight Zone episode.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 4/10 Like The Veil (2016) which I watched recently, this film is cursed by a reduced palette.  This one consists of white (not much), green, grey, black, and occasional blue.  Ugly, but matches the stupidity of the script.  At least the framing and focus were usually pretty good.

Sound: 4/10 I could hear the two actors.  The incidental music was a touch eerie, but not all that special.

Acting: 6/10 I don't recall these actors, but I thought they were good enough for the material.

Screenplay: 2/10 Why even write this?  Well, it was green lit, so it was made, and plenty of people have never seen the Twilight Zone.  The last 3 minutes were a bit of a departure, but hardly worth the first 87 which was nothing new in the least.

Final Rating: 4/10

20160227: Drama Review---A Picture of You

Name: A Picture of You (2013)
IMDb: link to A Picture of You page

Genres: Drama   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Jo Mei as Jen, Andrew Pang as Kyle, Teyonah Parris as Mika, Lucas Dixon as Doug, Jodi Long as Judy (mother of Jen and Kyle).

Written and directed by: J. P. Chan.    Story by: Jo Mei and J. P. Chan.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Brother Kyle and sister Jen travel from New York City to clean up details in rural Pennsylvania after the death of their mother.  Kyle and Jen are estranged at best.  Nothing goes all that smoothly as they traverse the house room by room.

Delineation of conflicts:
Kyle took care of Judy as her health declined and as his divorce from Sara was in grim stages.  Jen skipped most of that.  Kyle does not forget, and Jen basically does not care.  Kyle ends up packing all the house except the library since the self-involved Jen wants to look at every page in every book, and there are hundreds of books: Judy was a local college professor in some sort of humanities discipline.

Judy was the only Asian in many square miles of only blue-eyed Northern Europeans.  Both Kyle and Jen make the joke 'Did you just racially profile me?' when the locals (who all loved Judy) easily identify them as Judy's children.  This is tiresome after a while.  Plus there was more of that hierarchy of sort of language.

Kyle is resentful of Jen's narcissism, and does not much care for her friends.

The siblings see some quite personal photos of their mother on her computer.  First they want to keep it quiet, but then Jen gets the strong urge to find out who the other party might be.

Resolution: The brother and sister patch things up a bit, and they know a bit more about their mother.

One line summary: Relentlessly boring vanity film.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 5/10 Barely better than VHS.  Throw in bad framing and odd focusing choices, and I was ready to skip this slow, slow boat to nowhere.

Sound: 5/10 I could hear the dialog, but it often sounded hollow.  Foley was largely absent.  Mood music was next to absent, and often consisted of one instrument playing for five or so bars.

Acting: 4/10 Jo Mei's acting sucked rocks; may I never see her again.  Andrew Pang was fine.  Lucas Dixon and Teyonah Parris were reasonable, anyway.

Screenplay: 4/10 Just a tad too self-aware.  By the time the boring nonsense flowed downhill into the glorification of using weed, I was done with the film.  Throw in the weed cliches to keep the flow going downhill.  As per usual, trying to keep secrets does not usually bear good fruit.

Final rating: 4/10 Jen's narcissism.  Endless.  Pointless.

20160206: Action Review--Mercenaries

Name: Mercenaries (2014)
IMDb: link to Mercenaries

Genres: Action   Country of origin: USA

Cast: Brigitte Nielsen as Ulrika, Tim Abell as Grigori Babishkov, Zoë Bell as Cassandra Clay, Kristanna Loken as Kat Morgan, Vivica A. Fox as Raven, Cynthia Rothrock as Mona, Nicole Bilderback as Mei-Lin Fong, Gerald Webb as Bobby, Edward DeRuiter as Vez, Alexis Raich as Lexi, Tiffany Panhilason as Elise, Bernard Babish as Pavel.

Directed by: Christopher Ray.  Written by: Edward DeRuiter.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: 
Ulrika kidnaps the President's daughter.  The ransom is the overthrow of Ganzar, a fictional country that Ulrika wants to rule.  Great.  Ulrika has a pathological hatred of men, and a deep disdain of women.  Even better.  The President is in a funk, so trusted aid Mona runs the op to recover the daughter.

Mona goes to prison to recruit female tough cases to make the extraction.

Delineation of conflicts:
Ulrika wants the ransom; the US does not wish to pay it.  Mona wants the prisoners to do the extraction; the prisoners are hardly interested.  Mona hopes to make the prisoners offers that they cannot refuse.  Ulrika wishes the extraction to fail; the prisoners would like to get their individual pay offs.

Cassandra was a captain in Delta Forces; she will be tactical command.  Raven was CIA, like Mona, and will handle the close in wetworks.  Mei-Lin specialises in explosives.  Kat is a talented sniper, who will be sniping.  The egos are as big as the talents here.  What are the chances that they will not kill each other instead of the enemy?

The local teenager Lexi wishes to help the team in return for passage to America.

Resolution:
This ends pretty much the way I expected it to.

One line summary: Female mercenaries versus female terrorist.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 7/10 Well-lit with good focus and depth of field.  A little shaky cam, but not too much.

Sound: 5/10 The actors were miked well.  The canned background music did not add anything good.

Acting: 4/10 Zoë Bell was fun as the protagonist.  Vivica Fox was her usual surly self.  Veteran actor Kristanna Loken was better than I expected.  Most of the cast was just terrible, though.  I thought Brigitte Nielsen would have been more engaging.  Then again, the lines written for her were poor.  Tim Abell was incredibly bad.

Screenplay: 3/10  Where does one begin?  It's clearly a low-budget operation, and that includes the script.  The anti-male bigotry is really thick, but so it goes; it's an exploitation film after all.  The likelihood of success of many of the actions in the film seemed small, and too many events were just too convenient.

Final rating: 4/10 

20160109: Action Review--April Rain

Name: April Rain (2014)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Action   Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Ming-Na Wen as Hillary Miller, Luke Goss as John Sikes, Vincent Spano as Ron Thomas, Ally Walker as Linda Sikes, Deniz Akdeniz as Tariq Akbar, Jake Lawson as Yousef, Ryan Guzman as Alex Stone, Brittany Beery as Katrina, Teresa de Fonte as Lisa, Miranda Frigon as Rita, Anne Marie Howard as Reporter, Dragos Beldie as Sammy, Jewel Christian as Agnus, Adrian L. Tudor as Mikhail Kotov, Andrew Keegan as Nick Kotov, Doug Savant as Ken Singleton.

Written and directed by: Luciano Saber.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: A transaction between crime groups goes bad quickly.  One group kills the other.  There are repercussions, like disposing of a body, and sniffing out any government spies. The local cops show up for a moment, and are eliminated.  One undercover agent calls for help, and we meet more of the local SIU (Special Investigations Unit) team.  The emphasis shifts from mob crime to terrorism.

Delineation of conflicts:  Terrorists (foreign and domestic) want to kill people and blow things up.  The SIU tries to stop this.  Local police are clueless and largely not involved.  Wives are enraged with their cheating husbands.  Tariq has a beautiful wife, a good job, a nice house, and local friends, but he hears the call of terror, which is clearly more important to him than all the other factors put together.

Resolution: Lots of people get killed, which simplifies the game going forward somewhat.  This film ended because the credits showed up.  That is, it looked like a sequel was expected to be made.

One line summary: SIU versus motley crew of terrorists.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 8/10 Clear images, well-shot, well-lit.

  b. Sound: 4/10 I could hear the actors speak their lines, but sometimes the voices were hollow or muffled.  Background foley and music are well balanced in terms of leveling.  The rousing, positive music played during one of the climactic shoot outs while people were dying left and right was jarring.

  c. Acting: 2/10 I've seen Luke Goss, Vincent Spano, Ming-Na Wen, Ally Walker, and Miranda Frigon in much better properties.  Most of the other less well-known actors were pretty bad, but Deniz Akdeniz and Jake Lawson was incredibly bad, as in never should have been hired.

  d. Screenplay: 3/10 The slow motion chase on Vespas was just ridiculous.  Many of the conversations made little to no sense.  The shifts from scenes featuring actors to those including non-actors adds some little needed chaos.  The film did not come to an end.  It just stopped narration; then the credits rolled.

Final rating: 4/10

20160108: Horror Review--The Hybrid

Name: The Hybrid [Scintilla] (2014)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Horror, Science Fiction    Country of Origin: UK.

Cast: John Lynch as Jim Powell, Morjana Alaoui as Dr Lyla Healy, Ned Dennehy as Harris,  Craig Conway as Mason, Antonia Thomas as Steinmann, Jumayn Hunter as Spencer, Beth Winslet as Dr Irvine, Perri Hanson as Goethe, Edward Dagliani as Corry.

Directed by: Billy O'Brien.   Written by: Billy O'Brien, Rob Green, and G. P. Taylor.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: Mercenaries invade a compound in a former Soviet republic.  At 36 minutes in, that was all that was accomplished.  They have some advanced intel, so they know how to penetrate deep (as in below the surface) into the compound.  It's a medical research facility of some sort.

Delineation of conflicts:  Something 'down there' is waiting for them, and is not friendly.  The mercenaries get stuck with hypodermics and gassed.

The reason for the effort was the desire on the part of the Soviets to catch up with UK-CH-US in terms of genetics.  A vastly old meteorite found on Soviet territory contained some DNA of unknown origin.  The scientific effort was to learn things about genetics using the DNA plus whatever was needed to fill in from the human genome.  Hence the title, The Hybrid.

The orders for the mercenaries from their client is to get the research and destroy the facility.  The hybrids have different ideas altogether.

Resolution: True motives and abilities show up, along with unexpected stupidity.

One line summary: Losing effort against human-alien hybrids.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 8/10 Clear images, well-shot, well-lit.

  b. Sound: 4/10 The actors were adequately miked.  Background foley and music are well balanced in terms of leveling.  The electronic compositions took the sense of the alien over the top; that is, helped make sections of the film totally unbelievable.  One might as well play tunes from the Muppets.

  c. Acting: 2/10 The performances were quite variable.  John Lynch was fairly good, but most of of the cast was quite bad.

  d. Screenplay: 3/10 The action aspects were fairly strong in the front end of the movie, but the science-oriented sections were sketchy, to be generous.  Toward the end of the film, the experienced mercenaries seemed clueless about any type of survival procedures, and got picked off needlessly.  Too many things were given no explanation whatsoever.

Final rating: 4/10

20151220: SciFi Review--Automata2014

Name: Automata (2014)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: SciFi.    Country of Origin: Bulgaria, Spain.

Cast: Antonio Banderas as Jacq Vaucan, Dylan McDermott as Sean Wallace, Melanie Griffith as Dra Dupre, Robert Forster as Robert Bold, Birgitte Hjort Sorensen as Rachel Vaucan.

Directed by:  Gabe Iváñez.   Written by: Gabe Iváñez, Igor Legarreta.

duality

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: By 2044, the Earth is in severe dystopia.  Solar radiation has killed 99.7% of the human population.  Supposedly that means 21 million humans survive.  The faux savior corporation, ROC, has constructed multitudes of the Automata Pilgrim 7000 robot to help build shields against the sun and rebuild human infrastructure.

By design, robots are supposed to obey two laws.  One: do no harm to humans.  Two: do not alter or repair robots.  The longer legalise versions of the laws one can catch in the film.

In the first minutes of the film, enforcer Wallace finds a robot repairing itself.  He blows its head off.  This act has far-reaching consequences.

Delineation of conflicts:  The energy pouring from the volatile sun has already killed the vast majority of the human race.  The pitiful remnant of the human race thinks it can overcome this and survive long term. The ongoing extermination process is the central conflict of the film; everything else derives from it.

Robots were designed and built to serve humanity.  Robots have evolved somewhat, and are trying to take care of themselves.  Humans in positions of power do not like this, particularly the members of the arch-villain corporation ROC.  Other human elements are aiding the robots.

The insurance investigator Vaucan, who works for ROC, is tasked with getting to the bottom of the robot problem, or at least covering it over.  He manages to get Wallace to help him.  Unfortunately for Vaucan, he becomes interested in more than just his work orders.  This conflicts with ROC's interests.

Resolution: Discoveries are made at great cost.  Decisions have to be made because of those discoveries.  Yes, that is true of a large percentage of films, so watch the movie to know the discoveries and decisions.

One line summary: Derivative, boring, ugly, and forgettable dystopian rubbish.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 4/10 The film uses typically ugly dystopian set design and camera choices. The visuals are menage a cliche. The grunge and decay have been repeated dozens of times, from District 9 to Blade Runner to Escape from New York to The Matrix.  Those films were all better because they had sparks of originality, which this film lacks.

  b. Sound: 6/10 I could hear the dialog.

  c. Acting: 4/10 Dylan McDermott often plays a strongly masculine blunt instrument.  This is just one more instance, so ho-hum.  In the right environments, such as The Practice, McDermott has given some fine performances.   This was not one of them; it seemed more like Olympus Has Fallen, which was a pleasant enough film, but definitely not because of McDermott.

Banderas has a flair for, and a history of, playing emotive roles.  This was more of the same, but not one of his better performances.

Melanie Griffith was fine, but in an all too short role.  I liked Robert Forster's performance.

The use of robots as primary characters is a bit much.  The robots show no affect, no body English.  One might as well be watching poor animation; one is getting only the voice of a voice actor, not the full range of an actor in full blown live action.  Worse by far is that the robots appear as simple as stone slabs, but are said to be soooooooo much smarter than humans.  Bullshit.  If you must lie to me, at least try to be convincing.

  d. Screenplay: 4/10 The adaptation of Asimov's three laws for robots was weak.  Why not just use the originals wholesale?  The use of robots as surrogate slaves for the purpose of vilifying slavery one more time is just too old, too rehashed, too remade, too rebooted.

Final rating: 4/10 Drudgery to watch, and I will never watch it again.

20151112: Scat Review--Roboshark

Name: Roboshark (2015)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Horror    Country of Origin: Bulgaria, Canada.

Cast: Alexis Peterman as Trish, Matt Rippy as Rick Lanson, Vanessa Grasse as Melody, Laura Dale as Veronica, Nigel Barber as Admiral Black, Isaac Haig as Louie.

Written and directed by:  Jefferey Lando.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: A UFO targets Earth and send a probe into the Pacific Ocean.  Next, we see a shark gulping the probe whole.  The shark takes out a USN nuclear submarine with 168 personnel.

The US Navy decides to make its stand in Seattle.  Weatherwoman Trish, husband Rick (who works the city's water/sewer system), and daughter Melody prepare for a 'normal' day, but it is not to be.  Trish sees the shark take out a coffee stand, and Rick monitors multiple problems in the sewer system.  Later Melody swings back into the scene to help Trish and Louie.

Delineation of conflicts: Roboshark seems intent on damaging Seattle.  Admiral Black wants this threat to national security dealt with by whatever means necessary.  Trish wants a big story so she can get a promotion.  Melody wants to help her mother using her Internet savvy.  The parents want Melody to go to safety.

Resolution: Will anyone of the central characters figure out the intentions of the Roboshark?  If so can they communicate successfully before Seattle is destroyed or the Navy uses tactical nukes on Roboshark?

One line summary: Worst shark movie ever, but funny social commentary.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 5/10 The visuals are bimodal.  Natural scenes (ocean, landscapes, sky, people) are all nicely shot.  The frames with the shark are below amateurish.

  b. Sound: 5/10 I could hear the dialog. The background music was next to irrelevant.

  c. Acting: 4/10, from
      0/10 Acting? What acting?  (considering the film as a creature feature)
      8/10 As deadpan delivery of absurd lines, often hilarious (considering as comedy from the start)

  d. Screenplay: 0/10 The Bulgarian Uniform Film Organization certainly put together a bizarre film. As a straight SciFi/thriller/CreatureFeature, this is beneath terrible.  As a comedy, there are some fun passages about social media, the city of Seattle itself, and one of Seattle's more famous personalities.

Final rating: 4/10, from 0/5 as a creature feature and 4/5 as a comedy.

20151106: Comedy Review--Results

Name: Results (2015)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Comedy  Country of Origin: USA

Cast: Guy Pearce as Trevor, Cobie Smulders as Kat, Kevin Corrigan as Danny, Giovanni Ribisi as Paul, Brooklyn Decker as Erin, Anthony Michael Hall as Grigory, Constance Zimmer as Mandy, Tishuan Scott as Lorenzo, Zoe Graham as Talley, Elizabeth Berridge as Amy (Danny's ex).

Written and directed by:  Andrew Bujalski.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableau:  At his local gym, rich but out of shape Danny gets directed to the owner, Trevor.   Trevor interviews Danny, then sets up a schedule with Lorenzo for Danny.  Kat (Trevor's former lover) talks Trevor into letting Danny be her client instead.

Delineation of conflicts:  Kat and Trevor are still attracted to each other, but Trevor wants Kat at arm's length since they are so mismatched.  Danny wants to be with Kat, but Kat does not want to be with him.  Trevor wants to expand his business, but has all these chaotic elements to deal with.  Danny seems to be embracing discipline (diet and exercise, supposedly), but he shows little impulse control (giant TV, newly purchased classic guitar, huge house, weed, paying the gym a year in advance, views sample exercise videos as porn, pays a young man 300 USD to connect up his TV, and so on).  Add in some throw away characters with the attendant noise.

Resolution: Things move forward slowly in jumps, as in 'where did that come from?'

One line summary: Bland romantic comedy with chaotic script.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 6/10 Has that fuzzy, smoggy look of VHS.  The slight but noticeable shaky cam did not help.

  b. Sound: 6/10 Slightly hollow, but OK.

  c. Acting: 4/10 Despite his being in this film, I still like Guy Pearce, who gives value to the viewer no matter how wretched the rest of the film is.  On the other side of the ledger, I did not believe Ribisi's character was a lawyer, nor capable of handling business transactions reliably. Cobie Smulders did not impress me in the episodic TV series How I Met Your Mother and Agents of SHIELD; she was even less effective as an actress in this movie.  Kevin Corrigan convinced me his character liked being inebriated, but did little else.

  d. Screenplay: 4/10 There are lots of islands in the script, but firm connections between the islands are few and far between.

Final rating: 4/10  Hm, I rounded down due to Smulders' terrible effect on the film.

20141104: Horror Review--See No Evil

See No Evil

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2006, rated R. 84 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 5.1/10.0 from 19,211 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 8 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 8% on the meter; 50% liked it from 116,343 audience ratings.
4. I saw this on Showtime.
5. Directed by: Gregory Dark.
6. Starring: Glenn Jacobs (Kane) as Jacob Goodnight, Christina Vidal as Christine, Samantha Noble as Kira, Michael J. Pagan as Tye, Steven Vidler as Williams, Rachel Taylor as Zoe, Craig Horner as Richie, Penny McNamee as Melissa, Luke Pegler as Michael, Tiffany Lamb as Hannah, Cecily Polson as Margaret.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Eight delinquents (imprisoned convicts, actually) volunteer to help cleanup a remote hotel in order to get reduced sentences.  Unknown to them, there was a robbery there four years back.  Williams is a security guard who was a cop at the original robbery.  Margaret sponsored the event.


2. The groups breaks up into pairs.  Kira and Christine try to keep each other out of trouble.  Michael did some bad things to Kira in years past; Christine helps Kira avoid it happening again.  Tye and Richie look for the cash missing from the robbery.  Michael and Zoe get high.  Russell and Hannah try to get it on, then try to escape.


3. Jacob starts killing the lot.  After a kill, he takes the eyes as souvenirs.  We learn from Williams that Jacob has some fondness for religious tattoos.  Kira gets to live a bit longer because she has such tattoos.  The others tend to get pulled in by Jacob's over-sized hook and chain.


4. Does anyone get Jacob under control?  Does anyone survive the onslaught?


3. Conclusions
1. This was a WWE Films production.  Seems to be just as bad as their wrestling on television.
2. One line summary: Uninspired teen elimination derby by WWE Films.
3. Four of ten


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 The camera work seems good on the whole, but the sets are rather poor.


2. Sound: 8/10 Mostly OK.


3. Acting: 2/10 Nothing good here.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 All the screenplay seems like recycled horror cliches. There is plenty of death, eye gouging, and blood letting.  The number of characters seems high for an 84 minute movie.  We barely get a sketch of a given character before they get killed.

20140524: SciFi Review--Star Trek into Darkness

Star Trek: into Darkness

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, PG-13, 132 minutes.  Estimated budget: 190 million USD.
2. IMDB: 7.8/10.0 from 372,150 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 87% on the meter; 90% liked it from 309,428 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: JJ Abrams.
5. Starring: Chris Pine as James Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Karl Urban as McCoy, Simon Pegg as Scott, John Cho as Sulu, Anton Yelchin as Chekov, Bruce Greenwood as Admiral Pike, Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus, Alice Eve as Carol Marcus, Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan.


2. Setup and Plot
1. In this second Star Trek film of the Abrams era, Kirk and Spock are still running the Enterprise, and are still doing it in amateurish fashion.  However, there is a lot of action, excitement, and relief when difficulties are overcome.


2. While completing the mission in the opening sequence, Kirk violates the prime directive in order to save Spock who was doing the last part of saving a new species of sentient beings.  Sigh.  Kirk loses command of the Enterprise.


3. Admiral Pike finagles getting Kirk to be his First Officer just before there is an attack on a critical Starfleet installation.  The attack leads to a high level conclave of Starfleet officers.  Kirk figures this out just before the attack, and manages to blunt (but not stop) its effects.  There are heavy losses.  Kirk gets back the Enterprise, and is ordered to find and kill the perpetrator.  His crew is given special weapons to accomplish this.


4. Kirk's quarry is traced to a deserted part of Kronos, the Klingon homeworld.  The quarry's real name is Khan who is the maximal result of a eugenics experiment done many years earlier on Earth.  Admiral Marcus (Pike's superior) had hoped to use Khan against an array of future enemies, such as the Klingons.  Khan and Marcus had a falling out, though, and the whole dynamics of the film is derived from that.


5. For the Federation to be brought back to an even keel, Marcus' vision of endless war has to be put aside, and Khan has to be contained somehow.  Just to make things for fun, Carol Marcus, the daughter of the Admiral, stows away on the Enterprise.


6. So, will the Enterprise crew be up for it?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Abrams' second attack on Star Trek.
2. Four of ten.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 For the most part, the blending of CGI with real photography was well done.  I saw why there are so many posted complaints about lens flare, however.  Some of the sets were laughably stupid looking.


2. Sound: 4/10 The often symphonic music seemed an odd choice, and only amplified my misgivings about the film.


3. Acting: 4/10 I liked the performances of Karl Urban, John Cho, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood, and Peter Weller quite a lot.  However those six good choices were more than offset by the miscasting of the pivotal characters Khan, Spock, Kirk, and Uhura.


4. Screenplay: 3/10  Usually, I watch action films in one sitting with no breaks whatsoever.  This property took me four days to watch, since it just did not interest me that much at any stage.  The three principal characters were all drawn as emotionally childish and short of training for their chosen profession. It seemed utterly unlikely that such incompetence could produce good results in very difficult situations.

20130923: Horror Review--Tokyo Gore School

Tokyo Gore School

1. Fundamentals
1. Japanese live action feature length film, 2009, NR, 109 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 5.8/10.0 from 79 users.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' for the meter; 25% from 37 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Yohei Fukuda.  Screenplay: Kiyoshi Yamamoto and Yohei Fukuda.
5. Starring: Yusuke Yamada as Fujiwara.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Fujiwara, president at a Tokyo school, becomes a target listed on a website.  He seeks to find out why.  He has become part of a game, involuntarily, where others wish to learn his 'secret' for points and prizes.


2. Running and fighting are frequent activities.  He helps a girl named Yoko, and finds those willing to be allies. He is reluctant to join others.


3. He has a secret that he must protect, and figures that he must win the game.


4. That does not work out well.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Bad Japanese high school fighting movie, with no adult supervision in evidence.
2. Final Rating: 4/10


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Grainy, soft focus, odd filters.  Jumpy framing. Zooming errors.  Sections that are dark with low contrast.


2. Sound: 5/10 Badly recorded, irritating, industrial techno music.


3. Acting: 3/10 Running, jumping, screaming, fighting, leering, mugging.  Not much dialogue.  Much of what little there is is taunting by bullies and murderers.


4. Screenplay: 3/10 Motivations seem murky throughout the film.  The protagonist seemed dissociated from school, parents, food, a place to sleep, and shower after about twenty minutes.  The game was the thing, and the winners of the game seem to be the best bullies.  Oddly, there seem to be no interactions with police, even considering the multiple murders committed in the name of the game.

20130916: Thriller Review--American Mary

American Mary

1. Fundamentals
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, 103 minutes, horror, thriller.
2. IMDB: 6.1/10.0 from 5,740 users.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 57% on the meter; 56% from 2,717 audience ratings.
4. Written and directed by: Jen and Sylvia Soska.
5. Starring: Katharine Isabelle as Mary Mason, Antonio Cupo as Billy Barker, Tristan Risk as Beatrice Johnson, David Lovgren as Dr. Grant.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Mary is a medical student who is losing ground financially, and becoming discouraged with the field.  Her main mentor, Dr. Grant, rides her hard verbally.
2. She tries exotic dancing.  During her interview, she has the opportunity to do 'off the books surgery' for 5000 USD cash.  She opts for that instead of the dancing.
3. The initial experience is shocking, but she gets it done for the money.
4. She goes to a surgeons-only party while she's still a resident.  It turns out to be a date-rape party, and she's one of the guests of honor, so to speak.  Dr. Grant is the one who violates her.
5. She drops out of med school, and arranges to take vengeance on Grant, who disappears after her procedures are done.
6. A detective starts sniffing around, since one of Grant's colleagues suggested she might have motive.
7. Mary continues work in the body modification field, where most of the modifications are more or less illegal.
8. She makes considerable money, but the cops start to close in, and some of her underworld relationships degenerate.
9. What could possibly go wrong?


3. Conclusions
1. One sentence summary: Promising surgical student descends into an underworld of bizarre body modifications.
2. Final Rating: 4/10.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 OK, but not good.


2. Sound: 7/10 OK, but not good.


3. Acting: 4/10 The movie would have been better served without the cameo by the Soska sisters.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 The plot seems aimed only at producing shock.  The ending is dull and flat.

20130914: SFF Review--Robocroc

Robocroc

1. Fundamentals
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, science fiction, horror. Spoken language is English.
2. IMDB: 3.1/10.0 from 573 viewer ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 12% liked it from 27 viewer ratings.
4. Directed by: Arthur Sinclair.
5. Starring: Corin Nemec as zoo keeper Tim Duffy, Dee Wallace, Lisa McAllister as biologist Jane Spencer, Steven Hartley as General Montgomery.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The payload of a failed space launch falls to earth in a large zoo.  The payload contained nanobots, which are absorbed by a crocodile, and proceed to do a re-design on the croc into a completely mechanical form.
2. Anesthesia works initially, but fails later as the transformation goes to completion.
3. The cliche of a government official with rank insisting that the killing machine be preserved while it continues to kill humans is getting awfully old.  All four Alien films used it.  Too many films have some variation of the line 'we have to study it, it's unique.' This ends up with the same result: the menace is preserved by choice, which is absurd.
4. The first 65 minutes (televison time) were consumed getting to the end of this stage.
5. The usual next stage is where the official is overruled, and the remaining forces attempt to save people from the menace.  Unless the official was killed, they reassert themselves, and that happens in this film.  The robocroc menace is rebooted.
6. Why is the croc, now all metal, hungry for organics?  This makes no sense at all.  It clearly not longer has a digestive tract, for instance.  This was one more 'jump the shark' moment.
7. The heroes finally succeed using an EMP device in spite of government interference from Dee Wallace's character.
8. But of course, there is a final twist.


3. Conclusions
1. One sentence summary: Government field test of nanobots results in a rampaging mechanical crocodile.
2. Final Rating: 4/10


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Fine.


2. Sound: 10/10 Sharp.


3. Acting: 6/10 Dee Wallace and Corin Nemec were competent, as was the actor who played the general.  The rest of the cast was weak.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 Nanobots are used as some mighty strong mojo magic.  I don't believe that for a second.  There were too many minutes of teen-aged girls screaming out of desperation.  The inexcusable logic failures were just too much.  The dialog was not the best.


5. Special Effects: 5/10 The croc taking the helicopter was the highlight, but some of the earlier croc close ups were dark and low on detail.  Also, light matching was not very good in several scenes.

20130914: Review--Ragin' Cajun Redneck Gators

Ragin' Cajun Redneck Gators

1. Fundamentals
1. American live action feature length film, 2013,
2. IMDB: 3.6/10.0 from 399 users.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: no page for this movie.
4. Directed by: Griff Furst
5. Starring: Jordan Hinson as Avery Doucette, Victor Webster as Tristan, Christopher Berry as Bud, Amy Brassette as Candy.
6. Filmed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  Well, somewhere near it, perhaps.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Cajun accents?  They come, they go, they are never very good.
2. Avery comes back to the swamp, to her family, after four years in college.  She's a vegan now, which gives an extra layer of problems dealing with a hunting, carnivorous culture.
3. Pluses: the gators have red necks and spiked tails.
4. Minuses: bad banjo playing, bad accents, Avery's sudden, complete switch to 'kill them all' after she sees a giant gator kill someone she's known for years; more bad banjo playing; badly motivated clan feud, Doucette versus Robichaud; more blue tongues than were strictly needed.
5. So, bad moonshine dumped in the swamp water seems to be changing the gators.  People who eat the gator meat or get deep wound from live gators change into gators.
6. After an early success against the gators, the two clans degenerate in to drunken stupidity again.  The human-to-gator changes start.
7. Avery's father had a gold tooth; his gator form has a gold fang.  Avery catches that, just before he pulls her out of the quicksand.  The non-biological gold tooth changing shape makes about as much sense as the humans turning into gators, or the moonshine doing the first conversion.
8. One minute Avery is dead set against killing gators since they are probably her family. The next minute, she's killing three of them by blowing up a gas tank.
9. In the end, about all the remaining Doucettes are gators, while the Robichauds are out to kill them.  Avery tries to protect her father-turned-gator, but that is not to be.


3. Conclusions
1. One sentence summary: Cajuns fight gators mutated by bad moonshine in SyFy original.
2. Final Rating: 4/10.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Sharp.


2. Sound: 10/10 Fine.


3. Acting: 2/10 Mostly bad.  Lines delivered badly, accents out of kilter.  Candy was a hoot.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 There's a story to tell, and it moves from beginning to middle to end.  The gaffes mentioned above are hard to forget, however.

20130910: Horror Review--Lady Vengeance

Name: Sympathy for Lady Vengeance (2005)
IMDb: link to Sympathy for Lady Vengeance page

Genres: Horror.   Country of origin: Korea (Spoken language is Korean, with English subtitles.)

Cast: Yeong-ae Lee as Geum-ja Lee, Min-sik Choi as Mr. Baek.

Directed by: Chan Wook Park.  Written by: Seo-Gyeong Jeong, Chan Wook Park.

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Geum-ja was framed for killing a child, then served 13.5 years for the crime. Flashbacks tell how she created loyalty within her prison mates.

After she gets out, she takes a job with a baker, and takes triple advantage of his generosity.  One wonders why the baker put up with this.

She decides that she is a position, finally, to settle some scores.

Delineation of conflicts:
She has a custom gun built to deal harshly with her nemesis.

She dreams that her daughter is with her.  This is, as far as I can tell in this horrid mess, contrary to fact.  The battle in her mind rages on.

She collects real evidence, and gains real allies, against the murdering bastard who framed her.

Resolution:
Lady Vengeance lines up everything for her revenge.  Does she take it?  Does she get any lasting benefit from it?

One line summary: Badly done fractured fairy tale of tremendous ugliness.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 6/10  There is a tendency for most of the screen to be out of focus.  This does fit in with the protagonist's obsessions.  However, it is distracting and ugly for most of the screen to be meaningless.  There were also camera jerks and bad zooming, but only occasionally.

Sound: 8/10 The subtitles do the job, but the voices seemed to be miked OK. 

Incidental music: 2/10 I like harpsichord music.  The presence of horrific and disgusting passages filled with harpsichord music increases my dislike of the film.  Generally speaking, I like Vivaldi's compositions.  There are several Vivaldi pieces used in this film, which seems discordant (sound versus visual content) at best. I am most strongly reminded of A Clockwork Orange (1972).  Since I like Beethoven's music in general, I had the same sort of reaction.  The beauty and the clarity of the music being pressed into association with psychotic violent behavior was just disgusting.

Acting: 2/10 Much of narration is told from within a particular daydream or hallucination.  The high density of flashbacks contributes to the difficulty telling whether the performance is acting or just a crazy twit being herself as opposed to acting.

Screenplay: 4/10 Flashbacks, daydreams, and hallucinations are film devices that I do not care for.  They usually do not work, and they are very irritating here.  Voice-over narration is another sign of script failure.

Final Rating: 4/10  It's competent visually. It's well-miked for sound.  Otherwise it's unforgivable.  Three black holes for screenplay, acting, and incidental music.  It's difficult to believe that this film had the same director as Old Boy (2003).

Hide/Show Spoilers

1. As the film progresses (well, the clock goes forward; there is not progress), Geum-ja has an ally drug her nemesis.  They bind and gag him, then transport him to a place that they control where no one can hear them.
2. Other victims of the real killer are found, ones killed while Geum-ja was in prison.  The parents are offered to watch the last moments of their children's lives, as filmed by the killer. This seems needless infliction of additional suffering.
3. How did Geum-ja arrange this without the cops arresting her and carting her off to jail again?  This seems to be skipped over.
4. In any case, in the film, the parents decide to punish and do in the child killer themselves.
5. Then they do it.
6. Later they meet at the bakery and have cake.  Lovely.

20130905: Comedy Review--Falling for Grace

Name: Falling for Grace (2006)
IMDb: link to Falling for Grace page

Genres: Comedy, Romance, Vanity.  Country of origin: USA

Cast: Fay Ann Lee as Grace Tang, Christine Baranski (The Good Wife) as Bree Barrington, Gale Harold as Andrew Barrington Jr, Roger Rees as Andrew Barrington Sr, Lewis Black as Rob York, Margaret Cho as Janie, Laura Benanti as Alexandra, BD Wong (Law and Order SVU) as Stephen, Stephanie March (Law and Order SVU) as Kay Douglas, Sarah Rafferty (Suits) as Sydney, Ato Essandoh as Jamal, Cindy Cheung as Kari Mills, Ken Leung as Ming Tang (Grace's brother).

Directed by: Fay Ann Lee.  Written by: Fay Ann Lee and Karen Rousso.

The Three Acts

The initial tableaux:
Grace rises from lowly beginnings in NYC Chinatown to become a mergers and acquisitions mid-level executive at a bank.  She keeps in touch with her family, but clearly wants to reach for still higher social status.

At a cocktail party, Grace is mistaken for an heiress from Hong Kong who is also named Grace Tang. Despite several attempts, Grace does not disabuse this notion.  This failed identification is the center of the comedy.  Grace manages to finesse several meetings where the identification should have been corrected.

Delineation of conflicts:
A counter thread involves her work at negotiating the sale of Kari Mills' company, which uses sweatshop labor to lower prices. Andrew Jr works at the New York State Attorney General's office.  During one of their meetings, Grace gets insider knowledge about Andrew's case against Kari Mills.  Grace aims to use this knowledge to drive down the sale price of Kari Mills' company.  This does not go over well with Andrew Sr, who negotiates for Kari.

Kay Douglas and Andrew Jr are 'fated' in the corporate sense to be married, so Andrew's time with Grace seems futile.  Grace's unmasking is delayed, but not forever.

The dialectic about Kari Mills and her company continues.  Grace helps Andrew Jr counter Andrew Sr's actions.

Resolution:
Grace's mistaken identity is exposed, and she decides to leave New York. Despite everything, Andrew Jr is still interested in her.  Do they work something out?

One line summary: Comedy of film making errors; laughs in short supply.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 6/10 Way too much soft focus.

Sound: 7/10 Fine for the English speakers.  The incidental music is cloying.

Acting: 4/10 This is a mixed bag, to say the least.  BD Wong, Lewis Black, Christine Baranski, Ato Essandoh, Roger Rees, and Margaret Cho were fine. Christine Baranski was the best; her discussion with Andrew Jr about how he had to marry Kay was one of the most genuine moments in the film. On the other hand, Fay Ann Lee, Gale Harold, Stephanie March, and Ken Leung were much less satisfying, with Gale Harold being the absolute worst.

Screenplay: 4/10 There were too many cliches from the romantic comedy field.  I have nothing against cliches; even the oldest can be funny if done right.  There were only a few recognizable attempts at humor.  I found myself thinking that I should be laughing at this, but I did not laugh once.

Final Rating: 4/10

20130830: SciFi Review--Chrysalis

Name: Chrysalis (2007)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Thriller, Action.   Country of origin: France

Cast: Marthe Keller as Professor Brugen, Melanie Thierry as Manon Brugen (the Professor's daughter), Patrick Bauchau as Charles Becker, Marie Guillard as Marie Becker (Charles' niece, and David's new partner), Albert Dupontel as David Hoffman, Alain Figlarz as {Dmitri/Danis} Nicolov (killed Hoffman's partner), Smadi Wolfman as Hoffman's first partner Sarah.

Directed by: Julien LeClercq.      Written by: Julien LeClercq and Franck Philippon.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
The Professor's daughter Manon is hurt badly in a car crash.  The Professor tries with high tech help to reconstruct her daughter's life.

Europol Detective David Hoffman's partner Sarah is killed by a criminal after a fire fight.

The delineation of conflicts:
Both storylines are introduced full hilt early on.  The rest of the movie bounces back and forth between the two until they merge.

Hoffman seeks revenge after recovering from the battle, and is ordered to partner up with Charles Becker's (head of French counter-intelligence) niece Marie.

Hoffman is an incredibly incompetent detective; he has a gun and he barely apprehends his unarmed nemesis.  Then he's cut out of the case by his captain.  Manon's reconstruction looks spectacular in terms of physical reconstruction, but her mind is clearly damaged.  Looks like two failures coming up.

Nicolov, the criminal Hoffman was chasing, turns out to be Manon's mother's controller.  So Hoffman gets his brain fried.  Marie, her uncle, and her captain try to put it all together.

Resolution: The misperceptions of the protagonists are cleared up somewhat.

One line summary: Sadly misused scifi brain research.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 4/10 The focus is too soft; there is not enough light for the cameras used; contrast is often too low.  Plus, there is the jumpy camera work.  The colour palettes are consistently meager.  Is this supposed to be a tribute to earlier French films?  If so, who cares?  The film looked like hell.  Perhaps 35% of the frames in the film had every single object in the field of view out of focus.  Jumpy camera work and insufficient light for the cameras are just as bad as Blair Witch.

Sound: 4/10 The dubbing is horrible, and there were no subtitles available on Hulu+.  The sentences in the English dub script seemed to be written by children in their mid-teens.  The adults sounded ridiculous speaking such lines.  Credibility went out the window.  The incidental music was either florid and forgettable, or loud and overbearing.

Acting: 4/10 Marie Guillard was poor.  Albert Dupontel was fairly good, but the lines he had were not the best for the protagonist of the film.  The sad dubbing even made me regret listening to Patrick Bauchau's character.  I generally count on Bauchau for gravitas and a reliable performance, but not here.

Screenplay: 2/10 Defeated by fundamentals, which were so bad that I did not care what the story was.  Further the story was screwed up by the dubbing.  Some of the crucial motivational passages were botched.

Final Score: Four of ten.