20160316: Horror Review--Hangar 10

Name: Hangar 10 (2014)
IMDb: link to Hangar 10 page

Genres: Horror, SciFi.   Country of origin: UK.

Cast: Robert Curtis as Gus Mills, Abbie Salt as Sally, Danny Shayler as Jake.

Directed by: Daniel Simpson.  Written by: Adam Preston, Daniel Simpson.

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Boyfriend Gus, girlfriend Sally, and Sally's old friend Jake set out with metal detectors and the like to discover some missing gold in the Suffolk area in England.  They stop at a pub which Gus had used as a base when he found a Roman coin sometime back. Fliers at the pub note UFO activity.  Right. Just before they start the actual search, Jake mentions that a military helicopter has been circling the area near them for hours.

They start in nearby accessible plowed fields.  They find nothing, so the meandering continues.

Delineation of conflicts:
Gus is a jerk; Sally and Jake put up with him.  Jake is a jerk; Gus and Sally put up with him.

They do much of the search in the dark, and have some navigation difficulties in the woods (Rendlesham Forest).  They are in a spot of danger from hostile forces that discover them.

Resolution: Will the aliens get them?

One line summary: Look for gold, find aliens.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 0/10   For the first hour or so, the visuals were absolute bullshit, with failures aplenty: focus, depth of field, framing, sufficient light, flare, artifacts from dirty lenses and so on.  Toward the end, there were visual effects added in abundance.  The movie seemed like a bad join of two incompatible films.

Sound: 2/10 For the first hour or so, the sound was rather poor since it was captured with a handheld video camera of low quality.  Toward the end, a great deal of sound effects were added, some of which were unsettling.

Acting: 0/10 Three non-actors plus a cheap video camera.  The lines were bad, and the delivery was bad.

Screenplay: 0/10 These plotlines have been done to death: found film, bickering, getting lost in the forest at night, search for ancient relics, the bogeymen are after you, the military and their opaque motives are somehow involved.  None of them were done well here.  Add in parking on private land without permission and having one's ride stolen.  The last five minutes seemed like a borrow from an entirely different film.

Final rating: 1/10

Spoiler alert:

No one comes out alive.  The aliens depicted were not cool or interesting or even vaguely feasible.

20160227: Fantasy Review--The Taoist Wizard

Name: The Taoist Wizard [alternate title: Woo-Chi] (2009)
IMDb: link to The Taoist Wizard page

Genres: Action, Adventure, Comedy, Fantasy.   Country of origin: Republic of Korea.

Cast: Kang Dong-won as Jeon Woo-chi, Yeom Jeong-Ah as the Actress, Kim Yun-Seok as Hwa Dam, Song Young-Chang as Buddhist Monk.

Written and directed by: Dong-hun Choi.

The initial tableaux:
A short tale is told of demons being contained by a flute being played.  It was to be played for 3000 consecutive days, but the player miscounted.

So we have a comedy.

The monsters get loose and take possession of the flute.  Transfers of mastery among humans fails repeatedly.

The incomplete Tao wizard Woo-Chi causes a lot of trouble to obtain the obtain the flute.  His master saves his neck and gets the flute.  A second master, Hwa-dam, fights him for the flute, which is broken in the process.  Since it is split, perhaps the monsters will be contained.

The master of Woo-Chi is killed by Hwa-dam, but Woo-Chi is blamed for it.  He is cursed to imprisonment for 500 years, and awakens in the present.  The break occurs at 46 minutes into the 135 minute film.

We switch to current times; the monsters are present, the flute is still broken.

Delineation of conflicts:
The monsters would like to be free and remain free using the restored flute.  The guardians, or whatever, of the flute free Woo-Chi from his prison inside a painting.  He is not interested in defeating the monsters and restoring the flute.  The guardians, the Shin-shun, work on his ego, which has plenty of soft spots.  The monsters try to kill all of them to get the two pieces of the flute.

There's a subplot about a young woman whom Woo-Chi meets in the past.  He also thinks he meets her again in the present.  This was not done well at all, but got all too many minutes of screen time.

Resolution: Who cares?

One line summary: Terribly ineffective Tao wizard.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 8/10 Mostly OK.  For a relatively low-budget film, the SFX looked fine.  I wish Hollywood delivered such bang for the dollar.  The standard camera work looked good.

Sound: 8/10 The music was decidedly funnier than the dialog.

Acting: 2/10 Plus one for the actor who played Hwa-Dam; plus one for the actor who played Woo-Chi's master.  If I never see any of the others again, it will be too soon.

Screenplay: 0/10 Stealing from Naruto?  It is difficult to sustain any interest in such a story.  The tipping point for me was around 67 minutes into the film during a tremendously boring and stupidly designed fight scene.  The prolog was distressingly long, and the longer section in the present was much too long and uninteresting.

Final rating: 1/10 

20160220: Horror Review--The Diabolical

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

Genres: Horror   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Ali Larter as Madison, Merrin Dungey as Mrs. Wallace, Patrick Fischler as Austin, Arjun Gupta as Nikolai, Joe Egender as Carl, Max Rose as Jacob, Chloe Perrin as Haley, Wilmer Calderon as Miguel, Trey Holland as Nestor.

Directed by: Alistair Legrand.  Written by: Luke Harvis,  Alistair Legrand.

Madison and Jacob

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Madison reads an article on the Internet about whether or not to file for bankruptcy.  She's interrupted by an apparition.  She calls in paranormal investigators who do find something.  However, they immediately run away and recommend that she leaves as well, without further explanation.

The father Mark passed away in the somewhat recent past. Young son Jacob is under investigation for violent behaviour.  Both kids go to camp during the day.  A large company wants to buy out Madison's mortgage.

Delineation of conflicts:
Madison needs money.  Jacob needs calm and stability.  Science teacher Nikolai wants to help Jacob learn physics, but also get inside Madison's pants.  Madison and the children want the poltergeist or ghost phenomena to stop.  Whatever is behind the phenomena wants something, but what?

Resolution: What resolution?

One line summary: Bad film on all fronts.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 3/10 The main photography was OK, but the SFX were just terrible.

Sound: 5/10 Nothing special.

Acting: 3/10 Ali Larter was reasonably good part of the time, but the other actors, not so much.

Screenplay: 0/10 Dull, beginning to end.

The dialog was often awkward.  The real bogeyman turned out to be more than a bit cliche.  The story does not seem to be able to decide what it is trying to be.  Paranormal scares?  Slasher film?  Science gone bad? Police procedural?  Time passage fouled up?

Those were problematic enough, but it was also difficult to figure where reality touches on the film.  The cops and paramedics show up after two deaths.  Do they have any effect inside the house? Is anyone held accountable? Apparently not.

How did it do in creating horror, or tension, or engagement, or even scares?  Not well at all.  The word 'Diabolical' in the title would suggest devil or demon, but there were none as far as I could see.  Perhaps the worst for me was that the film just ends without any particular resolution.

Final rating: 1/10 

20160216: Horror Review--Trace

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

Genres: Horror   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Nick Fink as Nick, August Roads as Duffy, Patrick Giraudi as the voice of Abigor, Samantha Lee as Rebecca, Maddie McGuire as Heather, Jesse Pepe as Parker, Sam Valentine as Jen, Jerod Meagher as Jarek, Herion Mustafaraj as Dr. Konski, Mike Capozzi as Detective Colfax, Jeremiah Benjamin as Gerold Kroft.

Directed by: Ryan Brookhart.  Written by: Jeremiah Benjamin, Mike Capozzi.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
First, the film flashes back to a Soviet research facility in the Kuril Islands, 1992.  The well-funded ongoing work concerned paranormal activity and EVP (electronic voice phenomena).  During the economic slide of the USSR, the research was officially abandoned, but a few scientists continued research while keeping to the underground parts of the facilities.  While supposedly in contact using EVP, one scientist, Victor Konski, is assailed and killed after hearing from 'Abigor.'

Second, we flash forward to Los Angeles in the current day.  Three couples plus Duffy discuss EVP after consuming a number of drinks at the audio studio run by Duffy and Nick.  They go to the basement to listen to this and that, such as the website 'Voices in Static' which mentions Abigor and Professor Konski.

Delineation of conflicts:
The fools try to recreate the calls to Abigor.  Soon enough they get a reply, plus more than they bargained for.  Can they close up this process?

Resolution:
This movie is from the 'How do I close the Hellgate?' subcategory of horror.  The resolution is about how well the remaining humans do at constructing a solution once they figure out a solution needs to be constructed.

One line summary: Open the Hellgate by EVP.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 4/10 While it is not exactly shaky cam, it does list and shimmy fairly often.  The closing credits were much better in terms of visuals than all the rest of the movie.

Sound: 4/10 In terms of voices, it was not all that good.  They seemed thin and hollow. The incidental music was not all that effective in conveying creepiness.  Again, the closing credits were better in terms of sound than all the rest of the movie.

Acting: 1/10 Abysmal.

Screenplay: 1/10 Abigor tells Nick early on "Jarek, Jen, Heather, Parker, Duffy, Nick...order of your death.  Six makes the seventh."  Well, perhaps that was a clue to stay clear, or have someone else look at the recordings, to see what was true.  That was not done.

In better films, the protagonists observe horrific events, and puzzle out their meanings.  Through the learning, they at least try to stage a successful resistance to whatever is trying to hurt or kill them.  They may fail, but at least they face their ends with greater knowledge.

In this film, there seems to be no learning.  There is only complicity with forces that are not understood, where the characters have not even tried to understand or survive.

If dying with a helpless whimper while understanding little or nothing is your thing, then this would be a great film for you.

Final rating: 1/10 

20160113: Thriller Review--Scar Tissue

Name: Scar Tissue (2013)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Thriller    Country of Origin: UK.

Cast: Danny Horn as Luke, Charity Wakefield as Sam, Mark Cameron as DI Hackman, Imogen Bain as Mo McQueen.

Written and directed by: Scott Michell.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: Luke celebrates his 21st birthday by getting drunk with his friends and perhaps laid.  He's not used to being drunk, and takes no measures to protect himself.  He wakes up from being passed out because someone phones him.  He discovers his friend dead and hacked up in his bathroom.  He gets another call that hooks him up with Sam, a suspended, unstable police sergeant.  The police soon are swarming over his flat.  Sam knows the presiding detective, Hackman; they have a prickly history.

Delineation of conflicts: The police want to question Luke; Luke wants to keep his freedom.  Sam wants to solve this case, since it involves indirectly her murdered sister Lucy.  Hackman wants Sam to get lost.  The murderer likes playing with them as well as killing people.  He kidnaps people, then forces them to do his bidding.

Resolution: The principals need to identify the kidnapper/murderer.

One line summary: Old experiment ends badly.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 3/10 Washed out appearance.  The dark passages are especially bad since the cameras were not sufficient for the low light levels.

  b. Sound: 4/10 It's a quiet sort of film, most of the time.  What music there is seemed to be electronic from cheap instruments.  The music did not help, nor did the leveling problems between voice and background.

  c. Acting: 1/10 Oh, so very bad.

  d. Screenplay: 0/10 The film was next to opaque at the beginning.  The actions of the characters were not well motivated.  The philosophising toward the end came out of nowhere.  As the philosophy changed to particulars, the film started to make a bit more sense.  The marching to the wretched conclusion was perhaps the worst part of the film.  None of the characters were worth caring about.

Final rating: 1/10

20160107: Horror Review--Nightlight

Name: Night Light (2015)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Horror    Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Shelby Young as Robin, Chloe Bridges as Nia, Taylor Murphy as Amelia,Carter Jenkins as Chris, Mitch Hewer as Ben, Kyle Fain as Ethan.

Written and directed by: Scott Beck and Bryan Woods.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: There is a short do it yourself video of Ethan, a depressed male teen, discussing his failed suicide attempt, plus his attachment to Robin.  We jump to five teens (Robin; Nia, Amelia, Chris, and Ben) starting a flashlight gaming night in the Covington Woods.  The woods has a reputation as a place where teens commit suicide, and where ghosts reside.  Plus, there is a scary church located within it.

Delineation of conflicts:  Robin has a job as a service person at an ice cream parlor.  Nia and Amelia look down on employment.  Robin is the newbie in the group, and the rest plan to haze her.   Something in the woods does not like any of them.  The plans for hazing seem to get replaced by other plans. Robin would like to live through the night and go home with her dog, but the wood seems opposed.

Resolution: Elimination derby.

One line summary: Shaky cam elimination derby in scary woods.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 0/10 Shaky cam, poorly done, with insufficient light, odd angles, bad focus, flickering flashlights.

  b. Sound: 3/10 I could hear the dialog clearly.  Too many failed jump scares blunted my interest in the sound track.  The endless audible breathing and crunching of forest floor litter did not help either.

  c. Acting: 1/10 Poor.

  d. Screenplay: 1/10 Enough pointless swearing for 10 films.  Panicked appeals to religion and superstition about ghosts just sounded incoherent.  As per usual, no adult supervision is in evidence, and the teens are each as stupid as a bag of rocks.  They separate, they undermine each other, they panic.  The incident with the bear trap was just too much, and that was just one of many.

Final rating: 1/10

20151209: Fantasy Review--Painted Skin 2

Name: Painted Skin: the Resurrection (2012)    IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Fantasy, mystery, romance.    Country of Origin: China.   Directed by:  Wuershan.

Cast: Zhou Xun as Xiaowei (fox demon), Chen Kun as Huo Xin (warrior), Zhao Wei as Princess Jing, Mi Yang as Quer (bird demon), Morgan Benoit as the Wolf Boy of Tian Lang Kingdom, Shaofeng Feng as Pang Lang (the Monster Slayer), Kris Phillips as the Witch Doctor of Tian Lang.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: Sequel to Painted Skin (2008).  Five hundred years have passed since the fox demon Xiaowei was imprisoned in the original film.  The bird demon Quer helped Xiaowei escape, and travels with her.  Xiaowei has a habit of eating the hearts of human men whom she had seduced.  She does this to regenerate the pleasing side of her visible form.

Xiaowei rather disliked the time in the frost prison, and looks for a change to her life.  She encounters Princess Jing and Huo Xin, the warrior who was entrusted to guard Jing.  However, Jing's face was disfigured on Huo Xin's watch.  He blames himself for this; Jing had a golden mask made to cover it.

Delineation of conflicts: Xiawei comes to like Jing and Xin.  She sees a process to become mortal, but it involves bringing harm to Jing and Xin.  Jing would like her own beauty restored, but the cost might be steep indeed.  The Tian Lang state would like to make inroads in Jing's kingdom; Jing and company would rather that not happen. Tian Lang's true motives are darker.

Resolution: One might guess how the film's climax comes to pass, but difficult choices are involved.  Are the principal characters up to it?

One line summary: Poor effects, poor script, so-so actors.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 2/10 The visuals are largely spoiled by effects.  The green screen composites were many, and looked fake.  The models used are not all that well done, and looked to be perhaps 1970s quality.  The credits in the opening sequence looked bad.  Clearly a lot of money was dumped on this project, but the effect was not worth it.

Makeup and wardrobe were poor, obvious, badly done.

  b. Sound: 4/10 The background music seemed overly florid.  The spoken dialogue was irrelevant to me, since I do not understand spoken Mandarin Chinese, and will not any time soon.  The subtitles seemed adequate, and not glaringly incorrect.  The +4 is for the lovely music over the closing credits.

  c. Acting: 0/10 I've seen American directors get better results from unknown actors.  Having to watch the dreary performances of the actors who played the fox, the princess, the warrior, the bird, and the Tian Lang folk was drudgery.

  d. Screenplay: 1/10 Did I identify with any of the characters? No.  Did I empathise with any of the characters?  No.  Did I like any of the characters?  No.  Were the Tian Lang opposition members (the bad guys) interesting? No.  Was there any comic relief?  No.  Did I enjoy 30 minutes of plot being stretched over 131 minutes with this uninteresting group?  No.

Final rating: 1/10, though not that good.  I am usually a fan of Asian film, and this property received much critical praise.  For the reasons given above, I think it deserves little if any.

20151110: Horror Review--Exeter

Name: Backmask (Exeter) (2015)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Horror    Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Stephen Lang as Father Conway, Kevin Chapman as Greer, Kelly Blatz as Patrick,  Brittany Curran as Reign, Michael Ormsby as Rory, Nick Nicotera as Knowles, Brett Dier as Brad, Gage Golightly as Amber, Nick Nordella as Drew.

Directed by:  Marcus Nispel.  Written by: Kirsten McCallion.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:  We get a triple bite opening. First a drug user gets killed after shooting up.  That was quite short  Second, we get horrid archival footage of the Exeter asylum's failed history as a mental institution, where children were killed en masse.  It is rumoured to be haunted by the spirits of those slaughtered.  Third, in modern times, the Exeter asylum is being renovated by a church.  A number of strongly degenerate teens decide to have a drugs/drinks/smokes party at the asylum. Horror cliches dictate a lot of deaths later in the film.

Delineation of conflicts:  The youths vandalise the place, urinating and vomiting on the walls, dumping trash everywhere, and breaking fixtures.  So it's the youths against whatever spirits they rouse by their attempt at levitation.  Can this motley crew of useless teens manage to placate that which possesses Rory?

Resolution: Do all of the teens die horribly, or just most of them?

One line summary: Cliche elimination derby starring a possession.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 7/10 Most of the film was clearly lit and nicely shot.

  b. Sound: 6/10 Mostly an asset, except for the jump scares.

  c. Acting: 2/10 Kevin Chapman's character was killed early on.  Stephen Lang's character is absent for most of the movie, so almost all the acting is done by unknowns.  They seem good at depicting drug use, lack of planning, ignorance, stupidity, and arrogance.  Anything else, not so much.

  d. Screenplay: 2/10 All cliches, all the time.  The DIY exorcism taken from the Internet was a bit funny, but most of the film looked recycled with a new set of actors.

Final rating: 1/10

20151108: Action Review--Monsters Dark Continent

Name: Monsters: Dark Continent (2014)
IMDb: link to IMDB entry

Genres: Horror, Thriller    Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Johnny Harris as Noah Frater, Sam Keeley as Michael Parkes, Joe Dempsie as Frankie Maguire, Kyle Soller as Karl Inkelaar, Nicholas Pinnoch as Sergeant Forrest.

Directed by:  Tom Green.  Written by: Tom Green and Joe Dempsie.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:  We open to a glimpse into the origins of extraterrestrial life having infected Earth, and a rapid archival news slideshow to the current state of hot war against the aliens.  We follow some recruits from Detroit who are about to ship out to the Middle East to fight the aliens.  In separate cuts, we are introduced to Noah Frater, a sniper who takes out 'insurgents.'  The film is unclear about who, if anyone, the insurgents are fighting for, but they are diagnosed as trouble.

Delineation of conflicts:  Parts of the American military are on seek and destroy missions against aliens.  Sometimes high tech, high payload ordinance takes out some of the giant aliens.  Other times the aliens (many bigger than small mountains) take out US aircraft in the air.  The aliens seem to reproduce and grow faster than they can be destroyed.  The Americans are also on missions against local 'insurgents' whatever those are.

Resolution: None.  The film under review is a sequel.  There is enough failure to resolve in this film to allow for another sequel.

One line summary: Failed fight against alien invaders in Middle East, not Africa.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 2/10 A bit better than VHS, but not by much.  Shaky cam, night vision images, bad clarity through rifle scopes, hideous overexposure.

  b. Sound: 4/10 I could hear the actors, but incidental music was either jarring or irrelevant.

  c. Acting: 0/10 There was acting? I've seen far better acting in high school plays.

  d. Screenplay: 0/10 How was this as a SciFi film? Complete failure.  Action film?  You've got to be joking: all weapons fire looked fake; nothing was convincing.  I've had enough of the eff-word, and this film was over-loaded.  Were there any characters to identify with?  No.  Were there any characters to empathise with?  No.  Were there any characters that I cared about in the least?  No.  Were there any objectives (military or cultural) that were achieved?  No.

As an anti-war film, the movie had a little virtue.  In the film, huge amounts of money and resources were spent on the war effort, but there seemed to be no lasting positive results at all.  There were plentiful negatives: dead US soldiers, dead locals, ruined houses, farms, whole chunks of cities. The US troops are clearly next to untrained, and have little chance at anything that they try.

The movie needed subtitles for the Arabic passages.

Final rating: 1/10 Wall to wall nonsense.

20150523: Horror Review--Strippers Vs. Werewolves

Strippers Vs. Werewolves

1. Fundamentals.
1. Title: Strippers Vs. Werewolves
2. IMDb: Users rated this 3.1/10 (1,456 votes)
3. Rotten Tomatoes:
   29% based on 7 critics' ratings
   14% of users liked it, from 216 viewer ratings
   Critics Consensus: No consensus yet.


4. Status: Released
5. Release date: 2012-04-27
6. Production Companies: Black & Blue Films
7. Tagline: No tagline found.


8. Budget:  Budget estimate not available at review time.
9. Revenue: Revenue figures not available at review time.
10. Runtime: 93 minutes.
11. Genres: Comedy, Horror, Foreign


12. Directed by: Jonathan Glendening.  Written by: Pat Higgins


13. Starring: Adele Silver as Justice, Barbara Nedeljakova as Raven, Billy Murray as Ferris, Martin Compston as Scott, Sarah Douglas as Jeanette, Steven Berkoff as Flett, Alan Ford as Harry, Martin Kemp as Mickey, Lucy Pinder as Vampire Bride, Robert Englund as Tapper, Lysette Anthony as Basildon Cinemagoer.


14. TMDb overview: Mickey, who happens to be a werewolf and a crime boss, gets all worked up and hairy during a private dance at a strip club. Justice, the dancer, grabs the nearest weapon and lands a fatal blow: her silver fountain pen right through Mickey's wolfed-out eye. This ignites a small-scale war between Mickey's group of werewolf mobsters and the sultry strippers of Vixens.


2. Setup and Plot


1. At first I thought I was trapped in a badly edited version of Guy Ritchie's brilliant piece, Snatch (2000).  Then I realised that the seasoned, talented cast was missing as was the fine screenplay and tight direction.  (Well, Alan Ford was in both films, as Brick Top in Snatch, as Harry in this film.) The artwork for the credits looked a little too familiar, and the props, language, and atmosphere seemed recycled.


2. Instead of the wealth of fun and wry humour of Snatch, one has a jumbled mess about a deadly feud between those who work at a strip club and a gang of criminal werewolves.  The fake blood was unconvincing, the fights were ridiculously bad, and the gratuitous full frontal female nudity (first third of the film) was 12 on a scale of 1 to 10.  The werewolf makeup was not well executed, and I could have done without the werewolves masturbating.  


3. On the positive side, Robert England's performance was good, but also quite short.  Lysette Anthony was OK in a cameo, and there were a few laughs.


3. Conclusions
1. Did I identify with any of the characters? No. Did I empathise with any? No. Were the few laughs worth the overall low quality of the film? No. Was the climactic battle interesting? Well, no.


2. One line summary: No werewolves were harmed during the making of this motion picture.


3. One of ten


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 2/10 The sets were particularly badly done.  The use of split screen was more annoying than helpful.  The injected cartoon slides really marked this film as badly done.


2. Sound: 5/10 I could hear the dialog, such as it was.  The music was irritating.


3. Acting: 3/10 Sarah Douglas, Robert Englund, and Lysette Anthony were fine, but they did not portray the main characters.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 The main failure.

20150522: Adventure Review--Tales of an Ancient Empire

Abelar: Tales of an Ancient Empire

1. Fundamentals.
1. Original Title: Tales of an Ancient Empire
2. IMDb: Users rated this 3.1/10 (1,276 votes)
3. Rotten Tomatoes:
   critics rating not found number of reviews too low
   4% of users liked it from 169 recorded ratings
   Critics Consensus: none formed yet


4. Status: Rumored
5. Release date: 2010-07-31
6. Production Companies: New Tales
7. Tagline: No tagline found.


8. Budget:  1 million USD (source: IMDb)
9. Revenue: Revenue figures not available at review time.
10. Runtime: 89 minutes.
11. Genres: Action, Adventure, Fantasy, Horror, Science Fiction, Thriller


12. Directed by: Albert Pyun.  Written by: Cynthia Curnan.


13. Starring: Whitney Able as Xia, Kevin Sorbo as Aedan, Ralf Möller as General Hafez, Jennifer Siebel Newsom as Queen Ma'at, Michael Paré as Oda, Melissa Ordway as Princess Tanis, Matthew Willig as Giant Iberian, Sarah Ann Schultz as Malia, Lee Horsley as Talon, Scott Paulin as Tou-Bou Bardo, Olivier Gruner as Corsair Duguay, Sasha Mitchell as Rodrigo, Norbert Weisser as Xuxia, Victoria Maurette as Kara, Janelle Marra as Rajan, Inbar Lavi as Alana, Cazzy Golomb as Hekate.  Christopher Lambert as x?


14. TMDb overview: A princess is on a quest to unite the five greatest warriors to save her kingdom from a demon sorceress.


2. Setup and Plot


1. We start with a good 10 minutes of overview and backstory by Hekate, granddaughter of Ma'at, Queen of Abelar.  The granddaughter was portrayed as having some sort of speech impediment, or else the actress was just very badly miked.  I needed the closed captions.  This segment was largely done in sepia cartoons.  Artsy cartoons, perhaps, but still.  In any case, Ma'at's mother hired mercenaries to put down Sorcerer Xuxia and his vampire daughter Xia, before Xuxia opens a portal to the netherworld.  Duguay, Rodrigo, and Oda manage just that, but Oda introduces complications instead of completely finishing the job.


2. Twenty years later, Princess Tanis becomes the centre of the light side, and Xia, the risen Vampire Queen, the leader of the dark side.  The real core character, though, is warrior mercenary Oda, who slew the sorcerer Xuxia, reduced Xia to dust for 20 years, and fathered Princess Tanis, the mercenary Aedon, imperial assassin Rajan, and their sister Malia.  Rajan had daughter Alana, whom she trained as an assassin.  Besides those four, Oda fathered Kara by Xia, who gave birth before Oda, ah, dusted her off.


3. At the final command of Ma'at, Tanis finds her siblings.  The group goes off to find their wayward and fertile father, then put down Xia and keep the door to the netherworld closed.


4. What could possibly go wrong?


3. Conclusions
1. If the sowing wild oats aspect had been better written, the film would have been helped.  I thought it was quite humorous, but I suspect most will not appreciate the father-issue dialog.


2. One line summary: Swords and sorcery, wretched visuals, and a poor script.


3. One of ten; two black holes for cinematography and acting.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 0/10 I hate sepia.  I hate similar filtration setups that essentially crush any visual richness and natural tones.  The CGI varied between bad and very bad.  The fake vampire teeth were obviously fake and caused the Xia character to have muddled speech.


2. Sound: 5/10 I could discern words of most of the actors, but I relied watching on Netflix with captions turned on to get the dialog.  The vampire fouling of speech was prevalent.  The music in the credits was good, but was out of context with a period piece such as this.


3. Acting: 5/10 The cast includes actors whose work I enjoyed in the past: Michael Pare, Lee Horsley, Olivier Gruner, Sasha Mitchell, Christopher Lambert, and Kevin Sorbo.  Gruner, Mitchell, and Horsley were OK in very short parts.  Michael Pare looked like he was at a first read-through Monday morning after a disastrous weekend, rather than in final take.  I was on the look-out for Mr Lambert, but I failed to see him.  Kevin Sorbo, at least, convinced me he knew he was on camera, and was delivering his lines while understanding the character's motivations.  I'm not saying this was Oscar level work, merely that he was present in the professional sense.  Mr Willig was good, but his part was also short.----The women characters were central to the film, much more important than the male characters.   The actresses, though, were either inexperienced or just off.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Sigh.  This was another under capitalised project.  It shows.  The number of dead-end plot threads was too high.  Also, too much time was devoted to dreary conversations, then Hekate would narrate what should have been long action sequences in a matter of a few seconds.

20150501: Action Review--The Legend of Hercules

The Legend of Hercules

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Title: The Legend of Hercules
2. IMDb: Users rated this 4.2/10 (39,524 votes)
3. Rotten Tomatoes:
   3% of critics liked it of 72 critical reviews posted
   34% liked it from 40,714 audience ratings.
   Critics Consensus: Cheap-looking, poorly acted, and dull, The Legend of Hercules is neither fun enough to qualify as an action movie nor absorbing enough to work on a dramatic level.


4. Status: Released
5. Release date: 2014-01-10
6. Production Companies: Millennium Films
7. Tagline: Every Man Has a Destiny


8. Budget:  70 million USD
9. Revenues, in millions USD: States 18.8 (30.8%); overseas, 42.4 (69.2%).
10. Runtime: 99 minutes.
11. Genres: Action, Adventure


12. Directed by: Renny Harlin; written by Daniel Giat, Renny Harlin, Sean Hood, Giulio Steve


13. Starring: Kellan Lutz as Hercules, Liam McIntyre as Sotiris, Gaia Weiss as Hebe, Scott Adkins as King Amphitryon, Roxanne McKee as Queen Alcmene, Liam Garrigan as Iphicles, Jukka Hilden as Creon, Rade Šerbedžija as Chiron, Johnathon Schaech as Tarak, Luke Newberry as Agamemnon


2. Setup and Plot
1. Amphitryon and his army fight to the gates of Argos, Greece, circa 1200 BC.  Amphitryon challenges the incumbent king to one-on-one combat to avoid hundreds of further deaths.  Amphitryon wins and becomes king of Argos.  Queen Alcmeme is not pleased with this result, and implores the goddess Hera for relief for her city from the conqueror.  Hercules is conceived (via Zeus) in response.


2. Hercules (called Alcide in the front end of his life) is second in line to his brother Iphicles for the throne of Argos.  Bad blood arises soon enough over Princess Hebe, whom Hercules loves and whom Amphitryon promises to Iphicles.  To separate the brothers, Amphitryon sends Hercules and soldiers to Egypt on a mission.  This does not go well for Hercules and his ally Sotiris.


3. Will Hercules extricate himself from Egypt, get back with Hebe, and fend off the challenges to their being together?


3. Conclusions
1. The RT rating is impressively bad, and the film failed to clear production costs, much less production plus distribution and marketing.  After watching this terrible film, I can only hope there is no sequel.


2. One line summary: Just as bad as the critics write.


3. One of ten.  Four black holes for acting, screenplay, set design, and direction.



4. Scores


1. Cinematography: 4/10 The set design was much worse than the camera work was good.  The use of slow motion was ridiculous.


2. Sound: 6/10 I could hear the dialog, which was nice, but the background music was rather bad.


3. Acting: 0/10 Watch it.  See for yourself.


4. Screenplay: 2/10  The words Hercules, Zeus, and Hera had a bit of similarity to common usage.  The story is nonsense, beginning to end, with little to do with any of the usual versions of the history of Hercules.

20141117: SciFi Review--Agency of Vengeance

Agency of Vengeance: Dark Rising (original title, Dark Rising 2: Summer Strikes Back!)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2011, NR, 93 minutes, SciFi, camp.
2. IMDB: 3.3/10.0 from 125 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No Tomatometer score yet...,' 'No score yet' from 7 audience ratings.
4. Written and directed by Richard Cymek.
5. Starring: Brigitte Kingsley as Summer Vale, Landy Cannon as Jason Parks, Cory Lee as Holly Wescott, Kyle Buchanan as Daniel Evans, Mike Nahrgang as Bulo, Michael Ironside as Colonel Haggerd, Matty McLean as Weeber, Richard Cymek as Kyle, Julia Schneider as Renee.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Before this sequel started, Summer Vale had been killing monsters in the 'demon dimension;' she came to our dimension through a portal with the assistance of Jason Parks, an agent of the Rising Dark Agency.  By the start of the current film, Jason and Summer had broken up, and Summer was about to marry Kyle.


2. As the second film's narrative begins, Jason, Daniel, and Holly are chasing a sandworm.  They track the worm down, but are not able to save Kyle from being eaten by it.  Summer may have lost her groom, but she dispatches the worm.


3. Back at headquarters, Colonel Haggerd advises his black ops team that there is more than usual supernatural activity near the portal.  The point of the movements is preparation for the return of Mardock to our dimension from the demon dimension.  A mysterious agent X is leading this effort.  Haggerd advises Jason separately that the Book of Shadows has been stolen, and that the thief must be apprehended as well as the Book returned.


4. X strikes rather hard, converting Holly to a demon, killing all but eight of the agency, and taking Summer back to the demon dimension.  Summer gets to meet an old acquaintance on the other side.


5. Will Jason and company be able to turn the tide, rescue Summer, return the Book, and seal off the portal?  Will we get to see the face of agent X?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Director made an art of making the actors look stupid.
2. One of ten


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Basic shooting, not so bad.  SFX, not so much.


2. Sound: 2/10 Sadly, I could hear the dialog often during breaks in the sound track, which was entirely too loud.


3. Acting: 1/10


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Poor dialog.  Well, times 1000.

20141108: Action Review--Battle of the Damned

Battle of the Damned

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 88 minutes, action, adventure, horror.
2. IMDB: 4.5/10.0 from 2,120 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No critic reviews yet,' and 14% liked it from 186 audience ratings.
4. I watched this on the SyFy channel.
5. Written and directed by Christopher Hatton.
6. Starring: Dolph Lundgren as Max Gatling, Melanie Zanetti as Jude, Matt Doran as Reese, David Field as Duke, Jen Sung as Elvis.


2. Setup and Plot
1. From IMDb and RT statistics, it seems few people saw this, and very few liked it.  Also, why is Dolph Lundgren in this mess?


2. A virus escapes from a research facility in Southeast Asia. The virus turns people into fast zombies. The surrounding city is quarantined. Max and his team are hired to rescue some rich fellow's daughter, who is alive behind zombie lines.


3. Now and then one sees robots striding down the streets.


4. Fast zombies and robots and Dolph.  How could this film miss?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Zombies, killer robots, Dolph Lundgren, but badly assembled.
2. One of ten.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 1/10 Lots of hand-held shaky photography in all its dominant weaknesses.  Stupid camera angles, hideous lens flare, bizarre framing choices, such as tight close-ups of body parts.  I suppose the restricted palette (white, grey, black, plus muted greens and blues) had some purpose.  However the palette took away much of the shock of spilled blood.  This neutralised the impact of the zombie versus human and zombie versus robot fights.


2. Sound: 2/10 The sound track seemed to be from the lower end of amateur public domain properties.


3. Acting: 2/10 I still like Dolph Lundgren, but I hope he gives up lead roles in action films.  The other actors need to keep their day jobs.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 There were lots of unconvincing zombie deaths.  Having six people holed up in a mansion that's proof against zombies seemed ridiculous.  The dialog was terrible. The Duke character and his little fiefdom were absurd.  It was dreadfully boring; the two hours (on SyFy) seemed like five.

20141108: Action Review--The Darkest Hour

The Darkest Hour

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, rated PG-13, action, adventure, scifi.
2. IMDB: 4.9/10.0 from 44,047 audience ratings. Estimated budget, 30 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 12% on the meter; 26% liked it from 29,171 audience ratings.
4. I watched this on SyFy, complete with commercials.
5. Directed by: Chris Gorak.
6. Starring: Emile Hirsch as Sean, Olivia Thirlby as Natalie, Max Minghella as Ben, Rachel Taylor as Anne, Joel Kinnaman as Skyler, Veronika Vernadskaya as Vika, Dato Bakhtadze as Sergei.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Sean and Ben fly into Moscow for a business meeting.  They are clearly unwelcome at the meeting, and have been shut out of the deal that they had anticipated closing.  Ben spent cash and time developing the proposal, but their 'partners' just stole it from them.  While commiserating at a bar, they meet Natalie and Anne.  These are the heroes?


2. Soon thereafter, aliens make ingress.  People are killed; vehicles and buildings destroyed.  Bullets and the like do not touch the invaders, which seem to be non-solid energy beings of some sort.   The quartet wander the city looking for allies and weapons to survive.


3. Will they find what they need?


3. Conclusions
1. Chris Gorak's resume reads art director (8 properties) more than director.  This is his second film as director, following Right at Your Door, 2006.
2. One line summary: Four twenty-something slackers versus energy beings in Moscow.
3. One of ten


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 2/10 To go along with the title, and the location, the film is either at night or in the dim daylight.  The SFX were often cartoonish, and rough around the edges.  I expected more from an art director.  Some of the cityscapes supposedly in Moscow were well done.


2. Sound: 4/10 The music is much too loud, the voices often too soft.


3. Acting: 2/10 Terrible, from the lead to the bit players.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 As the film came to its conclusion, the phrase 'too convenient' kept coming to mind.  The idea that four twenty-something losers and self-described screw-ups could survive seems unlikely.  The aliens were black boxes.  Why have they come?  What do they want?  How did they get here?

20141104: Action Review--Raze

Raze

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 92 minutes, action, horror.
2. IMDB: 5.1/10.0 from 2,910 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 44% on the meter; 33% liked it from 813 audience ratings.
4. I saw this on The Movie Channel.
5. Directed by: Josh C. Waller.
6. Starring: Zoe Bell as Sabrina, Rachel Nichols as Jamie, Tracie Thoms as Teresa, Bruce Thomas as Kurtz, Rebecca Marshall as Phoebe, Adrienne Wilkinson as Nancy, Bailey Anne Borders as Cody, Sherilyn Fenn as Elizabeth, Doug Jones as Joseph.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Joseph and Elizabeth run a facility where kidnapped women are extorted into fighting each other to the death.  (Fight to the death or we kill your close relative.)  The winner of each of their elimination derbies supposedly gets to go back to society as a free person.  Almost everyone dies though.


2. Two women fight at a time.  The others get to watch.


3. So.  Elimination derbies either proceed to the end, or the imprisoned group finds some way to fight back.  Sabrina is clearly the protagonist in this horrid situation.  Will she and her few allies break free?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Women instead of men in forced death matches.
2. One of ten; black holes for acting, sound, screenplay.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 1/10 VHS quality coupled with occasional massive pixelation.


2. Sound: 1/10 Horrible background music, and vocal sound quality was so so.


3. Acting: 0/10 There was acting?  There was some mediocre martial arts choreography, but nothing akin to acting.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Flimsy story about an absurd horrific situation.

20141006: Thriller Review--Age of Tomorrow

Age of Tomorrow

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2014, NR, 90 minutes, action, thriller, scifi.
2. IMDB: 1.9/10.0 from 1,134 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No consensus yet,' 17% liked it from 19 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.2/5.0 from 37,531 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: James Kondelik
6. Starring: Kelly Hu as Dr. Gordon, Anthony Marks as Captain James Wheeler, Robert Picardo as General Magowan, Lane Townsend as Chris Meher, Morgan West as Rick Sullivan, Mitchell Carpenter as Colonel Mac.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Many small meteors hit Earth.  One of the movie's threads is following the firemen who try to contain fires in Los Angeles.


2. Dr. Gordon is tracking a asteroid a quarter the size of the Moon that is heading fast to strike the Earth.  General Magowan coordinates the attempts to deflect/destroy the asteroid and the evacuation effort.  The General brings in Captain Wheeler, a man consumed by past problems; Colonel Mac is opposed to Wheeler being involved.


3. So we have immediate problems, long term much bigger problems, countdown to complete disaster, and some embedded personal issues.  So we've got...Armageddon (1998) again?


4. That does not sound too bad except for the following glitches: Asylum produced the film, the screenplay is weak, the people playing the heroes are clearly not actors, the unknown spacecraft introduced to provide transportation looks like a joke, and Bruce Willis is not in the film.  The space suits look ridiculous, the dialog sucks, and the Earth technology varies from steampunk to advanced beyond Star Trek.


5. Soon the five member expeditionary force discovers that the rock is a base for an invasion by an advanced alien race.  Their mighty ship is destroyed by two or three bolts from a couple of invader drones.  The film does not get better after this.  The likelihood of all actions just continues to flow down the slippery slope.


6. After the five are teleported to the alien habitat, they behave in a particularly stupid manner. It was no surprise to see their unfortunate fates.


7. Will any of these incompetent characters survive?  Will the totally irritating offspring of the fire fighter live another day? Will Earth continue?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Avoid this bad, multiply derivative effort by Asylum Films.
2. One of ten.  Three black holes for screenplay, SFX, and acting.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 2/10  The alien drones look more primitive than those in Eyeborgs (2009), but act much more powerful. The lighting and filtration sucked, and we had a good dose of shaky cam toward the end.


2. Sound: 2/10 Fairly tacky adventure music, perhaps taken from public domain sources.  The alien noises early on sounded suspiciously like Forbidden Planet (1956).


3. Acting: 2/10 Kelly Hu and Robert Picardo are obviously actors, but they are given so little to work with.  All the other actors were not so good.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Jumping back and forth between a fake rock and people in 1950s space suites to fire fighters in modern LA was jarring at best.  Hideous dialog.  Zero sense of humor.  The last 15 minutes were the worst of all.


5. SFX: 0/10 Absurdly bad.  The design of the alien invading race was poorly executed and made little sense.  The battle between the fireman and the drone was unbelievably bad, especially after what the drones showed they could do before.  The space team used a weapon to drill 50 feet into rock in 3 seconds.  When used on a naked alien, it could not penetrate the skin.  Seriously?  High-powered rifle fire on full auto cannot touch an alien, but a fire axe can? No, thanks.

20141005: Fantasy Review--Pacific Rim

Pacific Rim

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, PG13, 132 minutes, action, adventure, fantasy.  Made in Canada.  English dialog for the most part.
2. IMDB: 7.1/10.0 from 282,527 audience ratings. Estimated budget, 190 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 72% on the meter; 77% liked it from 185,401 audience ratings.
4. I saw this film on HBO.
5. Directed by: Guillermo del Toro.
6. Starring: Idris Elba as Stacker Pentecost, Charlie Hunnam as Raleigh Becket, Rinko Kikuchi as Mako Mori, Charlie Day as Dr Newton Geiszler, Burn Gorman as Gottlieb, Max Martini as Herc Hansen, Robert Kazinsky as Chuck Hansen, Ron Perlman as Hannibal Chau.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Irresponsible and poorly trained pilots fly incredibly stupid looking giant exoskeletons (Jaegers) into battle against powerful aliens (the Kaiju) from another dimension.


2. I have liked del Toro's films in the past, but this was terrible.  There was a lot of action, there was a lot of destruction, many people were killed, but this was still a bad movie.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: The worst episode of MMPR ever made.
2. Here MMPR is the acronym for "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers."
3. One of ten.  Two black holes for screenplay and SFX.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 0/10 Absurdly bad SFX.  No parts of the film looked good.


2. Sound: 2/10 So many odd choices, plus tons of irrelevant noise.


3. Acting: 3/10 Idris Elba, Max Martini, and Ron Perlman let us know that acting is still possible even in the face was such a poor story, worse writing, and laughable action.  The Gieszler/Gottlieb pair were unfunny, unconvincing, undeserving of trust, and bloody irritating.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Proof that modern films need neither a solid screenplay nor in-depth acting by all players to make lots of money.

20141002: Drama Review--Drones

Drones

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 79 minutes, drama, thriller.
2. IMDB: 4.5/10.0 from 223 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 33% on the meter; 32% liked it from 121 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.7/5.0 from 45,118 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Rick Rosenthal.  Written by Matt Witten.
6. Starring: Matt O'Leary as Jack Bowles, Eloise Mumford as Sue Lawson, Whip Hubley as Colonel Wallace, William Russ as General Lawson, Amir Khalighi as Mahmoud Khalil.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Jack Bowles flies drone missions because he is good at games and using game controllers.  He's better at it than most career military personnel.  However, his gamer attitudes and general lack of maturity leave him little likelihood of advancement in the ranks.  Sue Lawson is gung-ho military, but she has a detached retina which takes her out of being an in-the-air pilot.  So, she's paired with Jack and is his superior officer.  He's more experienced and skilled in flying remote drone missions.


2. The awkwardness of their getting to know each other is almost tangible, rather like discovering one has stepped hard on someone else's used and discarded chewing gum.  Fortunately, that phase ends while they are flying recon against a target (Mahmud Kahlil) in the Middle East.


3. The pair misidentify a civilian as the target, and alert their superiors, who alert their superiors.  When the protagonists rescind their initial assessment, they receive verbal fire in return.


4. Will the pair destroy their target and avoid killing civilians?  Will the translations from Pashto be accurate enough?  Will the moral debate ever end? Will the protagonists follow orders even if it means killing civilians?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Drone operators debate moral issues during a mission.
2. One of ten. Two black holes for sound and acting.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Ugly as anything; then again, so was the film's subject.


2. Sound: 2/10 I can usually make out the dialogue, but the music in the sound track is annoying.  Also, the sound levels are quite variable.  To keep up with the voice but avoid being blasted out by the music, one needs to be on the volume control often.


3. Acting: 0/10 The acting might have gone better with a different director.  In any case, the acting in this film was truly bad.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Will a colonel actually try to convince a lieutenant of a procedural point during a mission execution?  Sue beats up Jack?  I do not believe it.  Will the military lose chain of command this easily?  MPs were sent, but did not replace the errant pair? This seems unlikely.

20141001: Horror Review--Kill Zombies

Kill Zombie! (Zombibi)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Dutch live action feature length film, 2012, NR, 85 minutes, horror, zombies, comedy.  Spoken word is in Dutch; subtitles in English.
2. IMDB: 4.9/10.0 from 825 audience ratings. Estimated budget: 500,000 euros.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet,' and 24% liked it from 47 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Martijn Smits, Erwin van der Eshof.
5. Starring: Yahya Gaier as Aziz, Mimoun Ouled Radi as Mo, Gigi Ravelli as Kim, Sergio Hasselbaink as Jeffrey, Uriah Arnhem as Nolan, Noel Deelen as Joris.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Aziz works in a grinding office job in the Netherlands.  His boss is a pain, but tall and attractive Tess seems to like him.  Perhaps life is OK on the balance, or is this the high point for Aziz?


2. Aziz loses his job due to his brother Mo, then considers starting a new business with the same brother.  At that point, six minutes into the film, my respect for the protagonist dropped to zero.  Since the film is purportedly a comedy, I kept watching.


3. The fired Aziz goes to the party from which Mo got him fired.  Mo proceeds to anger the host of the party, a black drug dealer.  The host sets two of his lackeys on the brothers; a fight ensues and all four are arrested.  In holding cells, they witness some of Officer Kim's dexterity.


4. The next morning, the cell doors open.  The four jailed ones venture out to discover a landscape littered with the outcomes of fights between zombies and normals.  Aziz starts into his voicemail, and notes a couple of calls from Tess.  She implores him to come rescue her from the building where the space station fragment stuck that started the zombie outbreak.


5. That is the end of the setup that might be different from a few other zombie films.  The bulk of the film concerns the attempt by Aziz to rescue Tess within the zombie apocalypse.  The ending was not worth waiting for.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: A bad, unfunny zombie comedy from the Netherlands.
2. One of ten.  Two black holes for SFX and acting.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 I have seen worse.  However, the SFX were truly poor.


2. Sound: 0/10 Pointless.  The subtitles, I think, were roughly accurate.


3. Acting: 0/10


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Derivative at best.  Substitute USA (or UK) for Netherlands, and you've got any of a hundred or so other zombie films.  Also, if I am watching a comedy, I like to laugh at least once; this did not happen.