201600808: Drama Review--A Decent Arrangement

Name: A Decent Arrangement (2014)
IMDb: link to A Decent Arrangement page

image courtesy of IMDb

Genres: Drama, Romance   Country of origin: USA, India

Cast:
Adam Laupus as Ashok Khosla, Vikram Kapadia as Arun Khosla, Navneet Nishan as Gita Khosla,
Shabana Azmi as Preeti Mehta, Shreya Sharma as Suriya Mehta, Farid Currim as Bashi Mehta,
Diksha Basu as Amita Chandra, Lethia Nall as Lorie Sanders, Adhir Bhatt as Vikram Kohli.

Written, Produced, and Directed by: Sarovar Banka.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Indian American Ashok Khosla travels from the USA (where he grew up, where he lives, where he works) to India in search of an arranged marriage.  In particular, he travels to Chandigarh, as city north of New Delhi.  He stays with his older female cousin Preeti, who will be his matchmaker.

Delineation of conflicts:
Ashok has to decide what his innermost values are while a wife is being picked for him.

A number of American things have rubbed off on Ashok: he likes coffee, not tea.  He does not like cookies (biscuits) with either.  The American supermarket, the American shower, the American versions of tolerance are all things that he appears to miss.  Perhaps the biggest miss is honesty.  Ashok is honest about his aspirations during his interview with the first set of parents; Preeti is correct in that he just destroyed all hopes in that direction.

Preeti has a very methodical approach, and has a large notebook of descriptions of potential brides ready for Ashok's first day.  She asks for his input, but informs him with reasonable clarity, why his opinion is sometimes 'wrong.'  Preeti asserts that her first pick is 'homely,' which surprises Ashok, but is presented as a virtue in this circumstance.

Preeti asserts that the Indian economy is better than the American at present.  That is curious.  Most of the long sets of local footage point to abject poverty, not to sufficiency, much less abundance.  Some scenes about Preeti's circle look like lower middle class America.  The Mehtas' refrigerator looks as if it were purchased used in the 1950s, and this is a film about 2014.

Some of the parents of potential brides would rather meet with Ashok's parents directly, but not with Preeti, and not with Ashok.  Sigh.  Eventually, Ashok is more quiet during interviews, and actually gets to meet one of Preeti's candidates.

Unfortunately for Ashok's clarity of the moment, Ashok meets Lorie Sanders, an American traveling in India.  This sets him into a new quandary since he has yet to meet a potential Indian bride, and here is this living reminder of all things American.  Oddly enough, she knows more about the city of Chandigarh than he does and offers to show him around.

Shortly thereafter, Ashok meets the Chandra family, and his first Indian bride candidate, Amita Chandra.  He gets to like Amita.

By the time his parents Arun and Gita arrive in Chandigarh, Ashok has to make some decisions.

Resolution: These cultural differences resolve themselves, eventually.

One line summary: Desi man looks for arranged marriage in India.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 5/10 When the camera is steady, this film has a low budget, but still good-looking appearance.  When the camera is weaving about, nausea seems just around the corner.

Sound: 4/10 Neel Murgai is credited with the music, which added some atmosphere but not much emotional depth.

Acting: 5/10 Adam Laupus and Shabana Azmi were convincing as Ashok and Preeti.  Lethia Nall was quite good as Lorie, but the rest of the cast I could have done without.  Entirely.

Screenplay: 7/10 Slow and careful, passive and illuminating.  Ashok is a fish out of water, but this is not played for laughs.  There is no humour in this piece, and little action beyond the motion of the train in the initial sequence.  As a still and thoughtful film, it's fairly pleasant.  Unless one likes still and thoughtful, this could be a major trial.

"We all want out of this shit, and you want to get back in."  Ashok hears this at a bar in Chandigarh, from a local IT professional, and it seems to encapsulate the entire movie for me.

Final Rating: 6/10

20160318: RomCom Review--Must Love Dogs

Name: Must Love Dogs (2005)
IMDb: link to Must Love Dogs page

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

Cast: Diane Lane as Sarah Nolan, John Cusack as Jake, Elizabeth Perkins as Carol, Christopher Plummer as Bill Nolan, Dermot Mulroney as Bob, Stockard Channing as Dolly, Ali Hillis as Christine, Ben Shenkman as Charlie.

Directed by: Gary David Goldberg.  Written by: Claire Cook (novel), Gary David Goldberg (screenplay).

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Sarah Nolan is recently divorced, and she gets advice and possible setups from sisters Carol and Christine, her brother, and her father Bill. The efforts to get her back into the dating game seem to be going along swimmingly, but her first blind date turns out to be her father.  Ouch.  She and her sisters regroup, and the search starts in earnest.

Jake is also recently divorced.  He and his lawyer Charlie celebrate the papers being signed, but note sadly that Jake decided not to participate in his own defense.  Divorce is war, and he lost on all fronts.  Jake builds wooden boats by hand, and is not selling all that many of them.  Charlie urges Jake to get back into the dating game, but Jake is slow to accept the idea.

Delineation of conflicts:
Sarah and Jake meet at a dog park, both with borrowed dogs.  They soon discover that both of them were faking it, and the first round looks like a bust.

Bob's child attends where Sarah teaches.  They hit is off fairly well at first, but Bob has a bit of a wandering eye.  Will this kill it for Sarah and Bob?  After all, they are just testing the field.

Jake and Sarah get together again, with better rapport, but they split again.

To make things more fun, father Bill Nolan starts a relationship with the exciting character Dolly, which upsets the rest of the family for a time.  Bill and his wife were together for 45 years before her death, after all.

Resolution: Do we get a Hollywood ending, or will this be just another feel bad comedy?  It could go either way.

One line summary: Pleasant feel-good romantic comedy.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 9/10   Nicely shot.  Ordinary people are doing ordinary things in ordinary places.  The reality principle is in place (no supernatural, no SciFi, no aliens, no CGI).  It's spring or early summer, the world is beautiful, and no one is sick or impoverished or threatened.  The visuals capture all of this smoothly.

Sound: 8/10 I could hear the actors clearly.  Background music was a mild plus.

Acting: 8/10 Christopher Plummer, John Cusack, Stockard Channing, and Diane Lane gave fine performances.  None of other actors were bad.

Screenplay: 7/10 Jake and Sarah start out badly, but do better the second time around, though not well enough.  Bob and Sarah start out with a nice warmth, but then things go south.  I liked those cliched but well done threads.  I also liked the thread featuring Dolly and her interactions with Bill and his daughters.  The ending was the biggest cliche of all, and was the only iffy part of the film for me.  I liked the result, but the awkwardness level was mighty high for a few minutes.

Final rating: 8/10

20160314: Comedy Review--Man Up

Name: Man Up (2015)
IMDb: link to Man Up page
Genres: Comedy, Romance   Country of origin: UK.

Cast: Simon Pegg as Jack, Lake Bell as Nancy Patterson, Sharon Horgan as Elaine, Harriet Walter as Fran, Ken Stott as Bert, Olivia Williams as Hilary, Ophelia Lovibond as Jessica, Rory Kinnear as Sean Mallory.

Directed by: Ben Palmer.  Written by: Tess Morris.

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Single 34 year old Nancy goes to a loud themed mixer hosted by a hotel at the insistence of her married sister Elaine.  It's another failure.

Nancy heads via train to an anniversary party at the house of their parents, Fran and Bert. Nancy sits down and talks to Elaine.  Across from her is Jessica, who had listened to her telephone conversation with Elaine.  Jessica lends Nancy a self-help book meant to help her meet her true match.  The train stops; Jessica gets off without taking the book. When Nancy wakes up, she tries to find Jessica to return the book, but meets Jack instead.  (Jessica buys another copy; she had left her old copy on purpose, but Nancy does not know that.)

Jack thinks Nancy is his blind date since she has the book.  Jack has a pleasant manner, and does a Hannibal Lecter impression.  Partly because Lecter is one of Nancy's favourite movie characters, she decides to let Jack keep thinking she's his date.  Jessica shows up with her new copy of the book a good 90 seconds too late.

Delineation of conflicts:
First, there is the lie that started their relationship.  Jack and Nancy head into an evening together under false impressions.  Nancy has several opportunities in their conversation to correct the misapprehension, but fails to do so.

During the date, they encounter some baggage from each side.  There is Jack's ex, or soon to be ex, Hilary, whom they meet with Hilary's new significant other.  Then there is Sean, whom Nancy has known for many years but does not remember.  Unfortunately for Nancy, Sean's a bit of a stalker.

Jack is a bit battle weary from the recently failed marriage.  Nancy is in a negativity phase since she has had so many disappointments in a row.

Then there is the party with Fran and Bert.  Elaine and Fran want Nancy to write something to commemorate the 40 years of wedded bliss.  When might that happen during this busy day?

Resolution: Chemistry.

One line summary: Blind date with the wrong person.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 8/10 The camera work looks fine, but the sets are endlessly prosaic.  Of course, that's what the movie is about: ordinary people doing ordinary things in ordinary places.

Sound: 8/10 No problems.  The background music included some fine tunes.

Acting: 8/10 I liked Lake Bell in Surface (2005) and Over Her Dead Body (2008), but have not seen her work much since.  As for Simon Pegg, I liked him a lot in Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011).

As for this movie, the rest of the cast provided competent performances.  The movie sank or swam based on the screen chemistry between Pegg's character and Bell's character.  In the early going, Nancy was evasive (she's lying left and right, not in her skill set) and Jack was nervously expansive since he wants the date to go well.  This was awkward to say the least.  The chemistry starts to show when they connect on movie after movie, book after book, bowling and eating.

Perhaps the best part was when the lies start to be burned away by truth.  Pegg and Bell really go at in realistic ways that are funny as well.  The dancing scenes were marvelous: they don't slow dance well, but they were in perfect sync for Duran Duran's The Reflex (1984).

Screenplay: 7/10 Awkwardness was displayed aplenty as is common in romantic comedies.  However, this was done, for the most part, without making the people in the awkward situations seem like terrible people (well, except Sean, perhaps).

I got some laughs from watching this film, which is where most romantic comedies fail.

Final rating: 8/10 

20160130: Drama Review--A Little Chaos

Name: A Little Chaos (2014)
IMDb: link to A Little Chaos

Genres: Drama, Romance.   Country of Origin: USA

Cast: Kate Winslet as Sabine de Barra, Alan Rickman as King Louis XIV, Stanley Tucci as Philippe Duc d'Orleans, Matthias Schoenaerts as Andre Le Notre, Helen McCrory as Madame Le Notre, Jennifer Ehle as Madame De Montespan, Steven Waddington as Duras.

Directed by: Alan Rickman.   Written by: Jeremy Brock, Alison Deegan, Alan Rickman.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: The film opening is set in France in 1682.  King Louis XIV commands that the gardens at Versailles be upgraded.  The master builder, Andre Le Notre, asks for proposals, of which there are many.  Andre is impressed by Madame de Barra's designs, and commissions an outdoor theatre with flowing water.

Delineation of conflicts:  Louis XIV wants a magnificent garden.  Sabine's competitors give her bad labor recommendations, which impedes her project's progress and gets her started into court intrigue.  Madame de Notre wishes Madame de Barra to fail, since she thinks Sabine is dallying with her husband.  Sabine has more than a brush with the French court.  Sabine has to deal with the years past death of her only child and her philandering husband.

Resolution: The project gets finished, and relationships change.

One line summary:  Excellent minimalist costume drama in the court of Louis XIV.

Statistics:

  a. Cinematography: 10/10 Beautifully shot.

  b. Sound: 8/10 Quiet but sufficient.

  c. Acting: 9/10 Fine acting from Rickman, Winslet, Tucci, and Schoenaerts.

  d. Screenplay: 8/10 The story is not overly complicated, but nicely executed.  For the budget the film had, a good-looking, heart-warming story was told.

Final rating: 9/10; one of the better costume dramas that I have seen.  This is one of the better small budget, low chaos films I have seen.

20151010: Comedy Review--Take Care

Name: Take Care (2014)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Comedy, Drama, Romance  Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Leslie Bibb as Frannie, Thomas Sadoski as Devon, Elizabeth Rodriguez as Nurse Janet, Nadia Dajani as Fallon, Marin Ireland as Laila, Betty Gilpin as Jodi.

Written and directed by: Liz Tuccillo.

The Three Acts: 

Initial Tableau: Frannie has been in an auto accident.  She broke an arm and a leg. She gets incomplete help from her sister and friends.  After too much of that, she appeals to 'the devil'; that is, her ex, Devon.  Devon contracted cancer some years back, and Frannie had cared for him for two years until he was cured.  So she gives him a sufficient guilt trip...and he acquiesces.  His new girlfriend is not exactly understanding.

Delineation of Conflicts:  Frannie's friends do not trust Devon.  Devon wants to get rid of the guilt debt.  Devon's new girlfriend wants his fairly tenuous relationship with Frannie to end as soon as possible.  Devon's feelings of gratitude are a bit limited, but Frannie's sense of being owed (big time) is even larger than she thought, especially when she expounds on all the things she did for him.  Frannie and Devon get the opportunity to be honest with each other, which was not fun for them, but changes everything.  As time progresses, Devon spends more, rather than less, time with Frannie.  How is his new girlfriend going to take that?

Resolution: Well, watch the film.

One line summary: Frannie guilts her ex into caring for her post auto accident.

Statistics: 

Cinematography: 10/10 Looks professional, which I seldom see.

Sound: 7/10 Not much of an issue.  This is a movie executed through dialog, not mood music.

Acting: 5/10 I could have done without the actors who performed as Frannie's friends and sister. I liked Thomas Sadoski quite a bit.  Leslie Bibb's role was awkward and difficult.  She did the awkward part really well.

Screenplay: 5/10  I usually do not care for studies in awkwardness, and this is no exception.  Still, the film has a beginning, a middle, and an end.  The exposition of motivations was probably its strong point.  At least this one made some sense.

Final Rating: 6/10

20150906: Comedy Review--Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Name: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
IMDb: Hitchhiker's Guide main IMDb page

Genres: Comedy, Adventure, SciFi, Romance

Cast: Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, Yasiin Bey (Mos Def) as Ford Prefect, Zooey Deschanel as Trillian, Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox, Anna Chancellor as Questular Rontok, John Malkovich as Humma Kavula, Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin, Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast, Helen Mirren as voice of Deep Thought, Stephen Fry as Narrator.

Written by: Douglas Adams (novel); Douglas Adams and Karey Kirkpatrick (screenplay).
Directed by: Garth Jennings.

The Three Acts

1. The Initial Tableau: We start on Earth, where an ordinary fellow (Arthur Dent) soon discovers that his house is about to be demolished for the sake of a bypass.  His friend Ford Prefect drops by to inform him that Earth is about to be blown up.  While Arthur's house is completely demolished, Ford prepares him for leaving Earth.  During this short stint, Arthur tells Ford about his feeling of loss over Tricia McMillan, whom he had recently met.  However, she ran off with some fellow who claimed he had a spaceship.  Ford and Arthur barely escape before Earth is destroyed.

2. Delineation of Conflicts: The Vogons do indeed blow up the Earth.  Ford and Arthur are tortured by having to listen to Vogon poetry.  They are about to be executed because Arthur insulted the poetry written by the torturer.  By a massive coincidence (one of many), they are rescued by Zaphod Beeblebox, the president of the galaxy, and Trillian, who once called herself Tricia McMillan.  So, all is well, and the film ends, right?

Well, no. Arthur learns that Ford and Zaphod are old friends and also aliens from worlds other than Earth.  Ford is a writer who is doing research for a new edition of Hitchhiker's Guide.  Zaphod had stolen the one vastly expensive ship Heart of Gold whose engine is the improbability drive.  Rontok is after Zaphod for kidnapping the president (Zaphod; figure that one), and she sends the Vogons after him.  Zaphod has some unfinished business with Humma Kavula (his previous political opponent), which causes him to search out Deep Thought and ask for a particular gun that Humma demands.  While with Deep Thought, we get entangled with the quest for the question to life, the universe, and everything.  Deep Thought knows the answer (42), but not the question.  Zaphod, Arthur, and Trillian wrangle about why she left Earth (and Arthur) with Zaphod, and about who ordered Earth to be destroyed.  The clinically depressed robot Marvin laments all the pieces.

3. Resolution: Some issues are resolved in this film.  The book that spawned the film was only the first in a series, after all.  When Arthur meets Slartibartfast (played brilliantly by Bill Nighy), the third act takes off.  Slartibartfast works for a concern that builds planets.  Perhaps all this could be put back together, but will it?

One line summary: Slow start, strong finish.

Statistics
a. Cinematography: 10/10 Taken as a whole, this is a beautiful film.  Even the charts were a visual asset.

b. Sound: 8/10 The dialog is clear, and background sound added to the proceedings.

c. Acting: 8/10 Malkovich was brilliant in a small role, as were Rickman, Mirren, and Fry as voice actors.  Bill Nighy gave a wonderful performance.  I liked Ms Deschanel better than I usually do.  Mr Freeman played the character he usually plays, an ill-equipped ordinary being who somehow perseveres to see tough goals achieved.  So, he was a fine choice to play Arthur Dent.

d. Screenplay: 6/10 This is an odd duck.  The beginning was so slow it almost demanded yawns.  However, the building of context through the film led to a brilliant and dense comedic impact in the last 20 minutes.  The start, though, was so bad that the wife and I nearly abandoned the film to watch, well, anything else.  I am glad to have stuck with it, but would not watch it again.

Final Rating: 8/10

20150831: YA Review--Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

Name: The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)
IMDb: City of Bones

Genres: Fantasy, YA female,  coming of age, romance, comedy

Cast:  Lily Collins as Clary, Jamie Campbell Bower as Jace Wayland, Kevin Zegers as Alec Lightwood, Jemima West as Isabelle Lightwood, Robert Sheehan as Simon Lewis, Lena Heady as Jocelyn Fray, Jared Harris as Hodge Starkweather, Aiden Turner as Luke Garroway, Godfrey Gao as Magnus Bane, CCH Pounder as Dorothea, Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Valentine, Kevin Durand as Pangborn, Robert Maillet as Blackwell.

Directed by: Harald Zwart.  Written by: Cassandra Clare (book), Marlene King and Jessica Postigo (screenplay).

The Three Acts

The initial tableau: In New York City, young Clary starts having problems.  She sees people and things that others cannot.  She obsessively draws strange symbols in her room.  She gets in trouble with strangers at a club and sees impossible actions.  Her friend who is a young man is interested in her in a way that she is not interested in him.  To top it all off, unknown forces kidnap her mother and ransack the apartment where the two of them lived.

The delineation of conflicts:  Clary discovers that she is a Shadowhunter, a dying breed who have fantastic magical powers, but are fully mortal.  That is, they age normally and they die fairly easily. Shadowhunters fight and kill demons as best they can.  They get their magic from inheritance (parents were Shadowhunters) or transformation (drinking from the Cup of Raziel). Drinking from the Cup also confers the ability to write runes on one's body; these often yield magical assistance.

Their recruiting has been weak of late since two of the most powerful of their members  (Valentine and Jocelyn) have gone off the rails.  Valentine consorted with demons to gain their powers.  Jocelyn hid the Cup to keep it away from Valentine.  Valentine wants the Cup back, and goes to all sorts of foul actions to get it.  Clary needs to go from her 'mundane' (ordinary human) state to being the most powerful and inventive of all the Shadowhunters in order to stop Valentine.  She's shorted on time, since Valentine and his henchmen move things forward quickly.

Simon is in love with Clary, Clary is in love with Jace, Jace is in love with Clary, but Valentine convinces Jace that he is Clary's sister.  Oi.  Magnus and Alec might be attracted to one another, but there is so much going on.

The resolution:  Well, watch the movie.  Many things get resolved, but not all.

One line summary: Reasonable coming of age #fantasy.

Statistics: 

  a. Cinematography:  8/10 Good looking film.  There are plenty of SFX, but not the massive destruction type.  Rather, the up close and personal type of SFX, showing the unexpected.

  b. Sound:  7/10 Not a hindrance, but not much of a help, either.

  c. Acting:  7/10 I liked most of the performances, both from the young crew (particularly Collins, Bower, and West) and the older crew (especially Heady, Harris, Turner, Gao, and Pounder).  The triumvirate of villains (Valentine, Pangborn, and Blackwell) was a very effective block of trouble for the young heroes to overcome.

  d. Screenplay:  4/10 There seemed to me to be just too much going on.  I do not fault the actors, but rather the script/book.  For this film, we inherit structure from werewolf, vampire, and warlock lore.  We inherit structure from biblical warrior angel lore.  But wait!  There's more!  On top of all the rules and logic already involved, we have the invented Shadowhunters.  Much of their baggage is not all that well explained.  Where did the portal come from?  How did they get all that real estate?  How do they keep the real estate when there are so few of them, and none of them work, apparently.  Where did the underground group dealing with the dead come from?  How are they connected?  Anyway, much as I liked the film, I thought it was dreadfully short of reaching sufficiency on exposition.  Since there is likely no second film matching the books, explanations will likely remain lacking.

  e. Final Rating: Six of ten

Concluding remarks: This is the film version of a six book series written by Cassandra Clare; City of Bones is the first book of The Mortal Instruments series.  In 2014, Constantin Films, which owns the film rights to the series, decided not to make a film from the second book.  Rather, they are opting for a Mortal Instruments TV series  in 2015.

20150831: YA review--Beautiful Creatures

Name: Beautiful Creatures (2013)
IMDb: Beautiful Creatures main page

Genres: Fantasy, YA female, coming of age, romance, comedy

Cast: Alden Ehrenreich as Ethan Wate, Alice Englert as Lena Duchannes, Jeremy Irons as Macon Ravenwood, Viola Davis as Amma, Emma Thompson as Seraphine, Emmy Rossum as Ridley Duchannes, Thomas Mann as Link.

Directed by: Richard LaGravenese.  Written by: Richard LaGravenese (screenplay),  Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl (book).

The Three Acts:

Initial tableau: Ethan lives in Gatlin, South Carolina and visits high school there.  He bemoans the fact that he has little prospect of leaving, and has applied to a number of colleges.  The town seems stuck in the past, particularly the Civil War.  His mother is dead; his father is next to catatonic. His welfare is looked after by himself (somewhat) and Amma (mostly).  One day a new girl arrives in his class, Lena Duchannes.  Her family founded the town some centuries ago, and still owns everything of importance in it.

The delineation of conflicts: Ethan wants to get to know Lena, which immediately creates separation between him and almost all of his former friends in town.  Ethan visits Lena at home, which creates immediate tension between him and her uncle, Macon Ravenwood.  The Ravenwood/Duchannes clan are gathering at the family compound to witness the coming of age birthday of Lena.

So far, this all seems rather ordinary.  The fantasy element is that all members of the Ravenwood family are casters; that is, beings who cast magical spells, often with considerable power.  At the sixteenth birthday, Ravenwood teenagers reach their full power as casters, and choose between the dark and the light sides of casting.  Lena would rather not be a dark caster like her mother Seraphina, but fate seems to have marked her to be such.  Ethan would like to be Lena's husband, but has the full opposition of everyone in Lena's family.  Amma would like to help Lena and Ethan to their best possible outcome.

Resolution:  Well, watch the film.  The resolution was brilliant in my opinion, but what do you think?

One line summary: Well done coming of age fantasy.

Statistics:

  a. Cinematography: 8/10 I thought the lighting and camera work were fine, and the limited use of CGI was good.  It was not world destruction style CGI; rather, just enough to support the story.

  b. Sound: 8/10

  c. Acting: 9/10 The veteran actors were excellent and the younger ones did well enough.

  d. Screenplay: 8/10 I've seen this film compared to Twilight, which is odd.  This film has good acting and a witty script.  I do not remember laughing while plowing through Twilight, but this one is much better.  I anticipated some of the outcome, but not all, and the route to get there was a fun ride.

  e. Final rating: eight of ten

20150802: Comedy Review--Three Night Stand

Three Night Stand

1. Fundamentals.
1. Title: Three Night Stand
2. IMDb: Users rated this 4.8/10 (477 votes)
3. Rotten Tomatoes:
   60% of critics liked it of 10 critical reviews posted
   36% liked it from 280 viewers' ratings
   Critics Consensus: no consensus yet


4. Status: Released
5. Release date: 2013-12-06
6. Production Companies: Vroom Productions, Banner House Productions
7. Tagline: Meet Carl. His wife. & the Love of his Life.


8. Budget:  1.2 million CAD
9. Revenue: Revenue figures not available at review time.
10. Runtime: 86 minutes.
11. Genres: Comedy, Drama


12. Written and directed by: Pat Kiely.


13. Starring: Sam Huntington as Carl, Meaghan Rath as Sue, Emmanuelle Chriqui as Robyn, Reagan Pasternak as Stacey, Jonathan Cherry as Doug, Dan Beirne as Aaron Berg


14. TMDb overview: A married couple's romantic weekend is turned upside down when the husband's ex-girlfriend, a woman he's secretly obsessed with, is running the ski lodge where they're staying.


2. Setup and Plot


1. Carl and Sue get ready for a weekend at a ski lodge.  Carl plans to get Sue a new ring, and for them to renew their vows.  When they arrive, they find that Carl's ex Robyn, who now calls herself Ryan, has bought the place and is running it.  Carl also hoped that during this weekend, he and Sue might iron out some turbulence in their relationship.  On top of that, Carl slips out now and then to telephone Stacey, his best friend and co-worker.  Stacey tries to help Carl as best she can, but has her husband Doug to contend with at the same time.


2. Worlds collide!


3. The rest of the film is about the consequences of the collision.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Not worth the effort.


2. Three of ten


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Nothing to write home about.


2. Sound: 5/10 I could hear the dialog.  Sound was not an enhancement.


3. Acting: 4/10  I saw quite enough of Sam Huntington and Meaghan Rath in the television series Being Human (2011-2014).  The neural pathways are still thinking of their old relationship.  The action shows only lip service to any attraction between them.  This is OK, since there is no chemistry to speak of.  Although that fits into the setup of the script, it weakens engagement: why should I care about these two, the main characters, that is?


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Looks like the broad ratings are not too far off.  There is enough plot for about 15 minutes, but this gets stretched to 86.  There are not many laughs in this film.  The main situation that generates conflict is handled with the blunt instrument called Sam Huntington, so the script is rather lost to his blundering ways.
   
   If you hate women, you might like this film.  If you hate men, you might like this film. Both men and women are portrayed as being beneath worthless.  If you despise romance, you might like this film.  If you hate laughing, you might like this film.  There was no romance, but only callousness and cynicism.  I did not laugh while watching this movie.
   
   Since I do not fit into any of those categories, the picture had little appeal to me.

20150619: Drama Review--Beyond

Beyond

image courtesy of The Movie Database

1. Fundamentals.
1. Title: Beyond
2. IMDb: Users rated this 3.8/10 (471 votes)
3. Rotten Tomatoes:
   zero critics responded with ratings
   29% of viewers like it based on 103 ratings
   Critics Consensus: None yet.


4. Status: Released
5. Release date: 2014-04-25
6. Production Companies: Attercorp Productions, Bigview Media
7. Tagline: Survival is a Choice.


8. Budget:  Budget estimate not available at review time.
9. Revenue: Revenue figures not available at review time.
10. Runtime: 89 minutes.
11. Genres: Drama, Science Fiction, Romance


12. Written and directed by: Joseph Baker, Tom Large


13. Starring: Richard J. Danum as Cole, Gillian McGregor as Maya, Paul Brannigan as Michael, Kristian Hart as Keith Novac, Sid Phoenix as Prof. Rawlston Jennings, John Schwab as National Space Agency Spokesperson, George Dillon as Newsreader


14. TMDb overview: A suspenseful sci-fi journey tracking the turbulent relationship of Cole and Maya as they struggle to survive in a world where the human population has been left decimated after an extra-terrestrial attack.


2. Setup and Plot


1. What is believed to be an asteroid approaches Earth.  There is a bit of imprecision.  The experts cannot decide whether it will impact our planet even when it is visible in the night sky.  As the object gets closer, other possibilities show themselves.


2. The scene jumps back and forth from before the arrival, when the couple met, to the present, after the encounter, when most humans are dead.  The dialectic is awkward in execution and definitely off-putting.


3. As the film rolls on, will we ever see the encounter?  Will we ever see the end of the couple's complaining about each other?  Will anyone survive this situation?


3. Conclusions
1. This is psychological drama, not science fiction.  All of the narrative is false, if one is to believe the ending.
2. One line summary: I would not recommend this to a friend.
3. Three of ten


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Dark and gritty, to no particular point; a bit too much shaky cam.


2. Sound: 5/10 I can hear the dialog.  The reason for some of the musical interludes escapes me.


3. Acting: 4/10 For the majority of the film there are only two actors.  The pair seem listless and irritable, not under siege or in threat of their lives, not even hungry and dirty.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 The dialog is mostly boring, including the many tiffs; after hearing 'we need to talk' the first three times, the next dozen are irritating.  There are too many back and forth jumps in the timeline.  These two factors undermine any interest I had in the original concept.  In the post encounter/eradication era, there is not as much evidence of genocide as I would have expected.  Eliminating billions of humans would leave some traces, but many of the scenes are devoid of any signs of previous habitation.  The ending more or less throws away the rest of the film.  Another way of putting it is that the rest of the film provides next to no foundation for the ending.

20141112: Comedy Review--The Coalition

The Coalition

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013 (video), rated R, 95 minutes, comedy, romance.
2. IMDB: 4.3/10.0 from 384 audience ratings. Estimated budget, 1 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No critic reviews yet...',  53% liked it from 64 audience ratings.
4. I saw this on Showtime.
5. Directed by, Monica Mingo; written by Monica Mingo and Terrell Suggs.
6. Starring: Denyce Lawton as Skylar Hathaway, Eddie Goines as Prime Alexander, Adrienne Bailon as Katilina Santiago, J. R. Ramirez as Lonzo Ramirez, Ingrid Clay as Autumn Singletary, Sant'e Andrews as Dallas, Nadine Ellis as Kennedy Lorenze', Shanti Lowry as Dylan Singletary, Nicole Garza as Carnegie.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Prime is a sports hero who enjoys time with his male posse, Dallas, Kalif, and Lonzo.  The quartet enjoy publicly and privately embarrassing the women that they date.  Some of these women include Autumn, Carnegie, Skylar, and Katalina; these four have their women allies in tow.


2. The four men seem to think that the wronged women will never meet and talk to each other.  Of course, that does happen, and the women eventually find common cause for revenge.  The tipping point came when Autumn took Skylar to a park where Prime was with his wife and kids.


3. Will the ladies break up the pack?  Will the men defend themselves?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Chick flick cliche extravaganza, plus foibles of the idle rich.
2. One star of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 No problems. Looks like very high end video.


2. Sound: 4/10 Unfortunately, I could hear the sound track.  I could hear the dialog, which was a mixed blessing.


3. Acting: 0/10


4. Screenplay: 2/10 It has a plot of sorts, but there is nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing engaging, nothing touching.

20141026: Comedy Review--Moonrise Kingdom

Moonrise Kingdom

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, PG 13, comedy, drama, romance.
2. IMDB: 7.8/10.0 from 186,113 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 16 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 94% on the meter; 86% liked it from 132,953 audience ratings.
4. I saw this film on HBO.
5. Directed by: Wes Anderson; written by Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola.
6. Starring: Bruce Willis as Captain Sharp, Harvey Keitel as Commander Pierce, Edward Norton as Scout Master Ward, Bill Murray as Walt Bishop, Frances McDormand as Laura Bishop, Tilda Swinton as Social Services, Jared Gilman as Sam, Kara Hayward as Suzy, Bob Balaban as The Narrator.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film is set on New Penzance Island, 16 miles long, in 1965.  Preteens Suzy and Sam decide to run away together in honor of their love for each other, plus their general unhappiness with their living situations.  Suzy lives with her parents, both lawyers, and three younger brothers.  Sam is an orphan who is in a foster home, but spends a lot of his time camping with the Khaki Scouts.


2. Suzy's mother is having an affair with (police) Captain Sharp.  Her father seems to miss this, but Suzy does not.  Sam's foster home is loaded with much larger males who do not especially care for him.  Flashbacks tell how Sam and Suzy met; a year later they decide to run away from home together.  Sam's activities encourage his foster parents to expel him; this starts Social Services on his trail.


3. The bulk of the film concerns the hit and miss search for the young pair, and the fall out when they are found.  Captain Sharp, the scouts, and Social Services are on the hunt. Add to this a great storm (Hurricane Maybelline) that impacts the island later in the film.


4. How does all this turn out?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Preteen pair lead authorities on a chase.
2. Four stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 This is not a high budget film, but the visuals were well-crafted and fine to look at.


2. Sound: 8/10 The background musical numbers were good for adding atmosphere.  I could hear the dialog.


3. Acting: 9/10 With another director, I would not praise the acting all that much.  However, this brilliant cast clearly got along quite well with the director, and they are all on the same page.


4. Screenplay: 8/10 Nostalgic and stylized.  If you have acquired the taste for Anderson's work (which I have), you will likely be delighted.

20140518: Comedy Review--Much Ado about Nothing

Much Ado about Nothing

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, PG-13, comedy, drama, romance.  Shot in greyscale ('black and white.')
2. IMDB: 7.6/10.0 from 9,602 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 84% on the meter; 78% liked it from 24,841 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.4/5.0 from 36,414 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Joss Weedon.  Screenplay: Joss Weedon, from the play by Shakespeare.
6. Starring: Amy Acker as Beatrice, Alexis Denisof as Benedick, Nathan Fillion as Dogberry, Clark Gregg as Leonato, Fran Kranz as Count Claudio, Reed Diamond as Don Pedro, Jillian Morgese as Hero, Spencer Treat Clark as Borachio, Riki Lindhome as Conrade, Sean Maher as Don John.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film was shot in Santa Monica (Los Angeles County, CA, US), in modern dress, with computers, pistols, automobiles, and live cell phone video.


2. Leonato, the governor of Messina, welcomes back Don Pedro and his comrades, Benedick and Claudio, from a successful campaign, and hosts them for a time.  Claudio and Leonato's daughter Hero take a liking to one another quickly.  Benedick and Leonato's niece Beatrice take a dislike to one another and argue heatedly.


3. Claudio and Hero's marriage is arranged quickly, while friends decide to deceive Benedick and Beatrice into thinking that each is in love with the other.  Don Pedro's brother Don John arranges for Borachio and Conrade to bear false witness that Hero was untrue to Claudio.  The marriage is stopped during the ceremony.  Hero is rejected as an adulteress by her prospective groom, by her father, and by Don Pedro.  Beatrice does not believe it.  The priest at the ceremony counsels cooling down and investigating.


4. Since this is a comedy, one knows that most of the issues will be resolved with a good dose of wit.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Another modern take on the Shakespeare play.
2. Four stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Greyscale (the vast majority of pixels are neither black nor white) is not my favourite, and never will be.  Despite that, most of this film is beautifully shot; I took off 2 points for camera shake.


2. Sound: 7/10  There is a whole lot of mumbling going on.  I was hoping for crisply spoken and perfectly miked dialog.


3. Acting: 7/10 Amy Acker, Sean Maher, Clark Gregg, and Reed Diamond were delightful.  I expected a bit more from some of the other actors.


4. Screenplay: 9/10 The modern visuals with a dose of modern musical instruments coupled with the original text was an interesting mix.  Perhaps this is not for everyone, but I liked it.

20140402: Drama Review--I Am Love

I Am Love

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Italian live action feature length film, 2009, rated R, 120 minutes, drama. romance.
2. IMDB: 7.0/10.0 from 10,555 audience ratings.  Spoken word is in Italian; English subtitles.  Estimated budget, 10 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 80% on the meter; 68% liked it from 15,517 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.4/5.0 from 268,174 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Luca Guadagnino.
6. Starring: Tilda Swinton as Emma Recchi, Flavio Parenti as Edoardo Recchi Junior, Edoardo Gabriellini as Antonio Biscaglia, Alba Rohrwacher as Elisabetta Recchi, Pippo Delbono as Tancredi Recchi, Marisa Berenson as Allegra Rori Recchi,


2. Setup and Plot
1. The Recchis are an Italian family based in Milan that is quite wealthy from Edoardo Sr's investments in the textile industry.  Edoardo's son Tancredi married Emma, who was visiting Italy from Russia.  Emma embraced Italian culture and reared Tancredi's son Edoardo Jr (Edo).  Edo was a race car driver, and was also interested in starting a restaurant with his long time friend Antonio.


2. As the film progresses, Emma organises dinners for important guests.  Edo and Antonio move forward with the restaurant.  Edo takes more control of the family business.  The family decides to sell the business; this will make them even richer.


3. Emma sees that she is attracted to Antonio; her marriage to Tancredi is depicted as cold from start to finish.  Elisabetta (Emma's daughter, Edo's sister) tells Emma that she prefers women to men; this ends up having zero dramatic impact.


4. So...will the sale of the textile plants go as planned to the group from India?  Will Antonio and Edo get the restaurant going well?  Will Emma's affair with Antonio torpedo everything?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: The real and imagined problems of the upper crust in modern day Milan, Italy.
2. Two stars of five. 


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Gorgeous, well-executed.


2. Sound: 4/10 OK, I suppose.  It did not seem to be a factor in the film.  Much of the film is next to silent: footfalls, doors closing, other incidental sounds.


3. Acting: 2/10 Most of the actors have talent, but I did not see much of that talent shine; the performances were dull, listless, uninteresting.


4. Screenplay: 4/10  Long and slow with reasonable character development.  Not much of a story was told, with zero characters that I cared about.  The ending certainly reinforced that strongly.

20140221: Drama Review--Adore

Adore

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Australian/French live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 111 minutes, drama, romantic.  Spoken word is English.
2. IMDB: 6.2/10.0 from 10,589 audience ratings.  Aspect, 2.35; estimated  budget 16 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 32% on the meter; 44% liked it from 3,885 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.4/5.0 from 106,649 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Anne Fontaine.
6. Starring: Naomi Watts as Lil, Robin Wright as Roz, Xavier Samuel as Ian, James Frecheville as Tom, Ben Mendelson as Harold, Gary Sweet as Saul.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Lil and Roz have sons, Ian and Tom, about the same age.  Lil's husband passes away, and Harold, father of Roz's Tom is not central in her life.  Fifteen or so years later, the sons are adults who are still living at home.  Harold gets a job far away in Sydney.  Roz seems a bit loath to join him.


2. Through some innocent interactions, Roz and Ian start being attracted to one another, physically speaking.  Similarly, Tom and Lil seem to have a few sparks flying.


3. That's where the evasions start for a while.  Ian and Roz match up first.  Tom and Lil begin a bit more slowly.  Tom tells Lil about Roz and Ian, but Lil does not want to discuss it with Roz.  Eventually they do discuss it, and act like they are going to stop the activity with the sons.  But they don't.


4. The rest of the film is about these four people dealing with these unconventional relationships.  Roz eventually breaks it off with Harold.  Lil has always kept Saul a bit distant.


5. How will this play out over the long term?  There are all sorts of changes along the way; the sons show interest in women their own ages, for instance.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Lifelong women friends have unconventional relationships with each other's sons.
2. Four stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Very nice indeed.


2. Sound: 9/10 Good and competent; they might have used background music a bit more.


3. Acting: 9/10 Solid performances all around.


4. Screenplay: 8/10 Most of this story was beautifully told.  Unfortunately, the ending could have been dealt with better.

20140203: Movie Review--The Naked Kitchen

The Naked Kitchen (Kichin)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Korean live action feature length film, 2009, NR, 102 minutes, drama, romance.
2. IMDB: 6.5/10.0 from 202 audience ratings.  Spoken word is in Korean; subtitles in English; aspect 2.35
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' 17% wanted to see it from 116 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 19,524 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Ji-yeong Hong.
6. Starring: Min-a Shin as Ahn Mo-rae, Ji-hun Ju as Park Du-re, Tae-woo Kim as Han Sang-in, Yi-da Jeon as Seon-woo Kim.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Mo-rae is married to Sang-in, and has known him since childhood.  She even calls him Bro to commemorate this.  Sang-in switches business to being a restauranteur, and gets a new mentor, Du-re.  Unfortunately, Mo-rae has a chance meeting with Du-re before he is introduced by her husband; they start an affair.  When she meets Du-re formally, it is a bit of a shock.


2. Mo-rae tells Sang-in she's been unfaithful.  Fairly soon after that, Sang-in forgives her for it.  The affair continues, however, and Sang-in stays in the dark about the identity of the other man.  Of course, he starts to figure it out, since Mo-rae and Du-re are fairly obvious about it.


3. Will Mo-rae stay with Sang-in or go off with Du-re?  Are there further complications?


3. Conclusions
1. We see the difficulties of rich, young professionals in perfect health.  They do manage to create problems for themselves through ongoing irresponsibility.
2. I've seen this (RT) described as a comedy.  There is absolutely nothing funny about this movie.
3. One line summary: Love triangle gone bad, or was it gone stupid?
4. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Well done.


2. Sound: 8/10 The subtitles seemed OK compared to people's expressions, tones, and actions while speaking.


3. Acting: 6/10 Reasonable.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 A good 15 minutes of story spread over 102 minutes.  Incredibly stupid ending.

20140129: Comedy Review--Drinking Buddies

Drinking Buddies

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 90 minutes, comedy, drama, romance.
2. IMDB: 6.2/10.0 from 22,308 audience ratings.  Aspect, 2.35
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 82% on the meter; 51% liked it from 16,818 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 324,035 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Joe Swanberg.
6. Starring: Olivia Wilde as Kate, Jake M. Johnson as Luke, Anna Kendrick as Jill, Ron Livingston as Chris, Ti West as Dave, Jason Sudeikis as Gene Dentler.
7. This film is an example of the indie subgenre mumblecore, which is deadly boring.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Kate does PR and promotional setups for a fairly new small brewery.  Luke works at the same brewery.  Jill is Luke's long time girlfriend.  Chris is Kate's boyfriend.


2. The two couples spend a weekend in the woods at a reasonably appointed cabin in Michigan.  Jill and Chris go on a hike, while Kate and Luke play cards.  Through all sorts of usual out in the woods activities, Luke and Kate seem to gravitate to each other.  They are a better fit than Kate and Chris.  Chris and Jill seem a bit more compatible than with their usual partners.


3. What could possibly go wrong?


4. Kate and Chris break up.  Jill puts the screws on Luke to get married some time or another.  Chris gifts Jill with a book; Luke is not all that happy about it.  When Jill goes away for a week, one wonders what else might break.


5. Kate drops in on Chris, who re-asserts the breakup.  Kate and Luke get drunk at his place.  Soon thereafter, Luke helps Kate move to a smaller place, which was not without its pain for Luke, especially when they finish the job.


6. Jill returns home days early from her trip.  Can they patch things up?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Uninteresting couples shake up their relationships in this feel bad comedy.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 It's a bit soft on focus, plus recurrent camera shake.


2. Sound: 8/10 Dips a bit low in conversation now and then.


3. Acting: 3/10 Uninspiring, uninteresting, slow, uninvolving.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 Slow, but not worth finishing.  "You are not allowed to make me feel bad," says Kate about ten times in one scene.  Tremendously bad scripting; really bad planning overall.

20151019, lundi.
I just watched Olivia Wilde on Off Camera with Sam Jones. A long part of the interview was about the making of Drinking Buddies. The director is more than a bit non-standard, and makes up films on the fly. There's more to it than that, and it does not work with all actors, but that is essentially it. Like the scene of selling a couple a beer was made up after the crew went to a brewery, drank, and watched people. Oi, perhaps that works for some films, but it's my thought that it did not work for this one. Despite this new insight, I still think that this film sucks rocks for the reasons given above.

20140129: Movie Review--Love and Other Disasters

Love and Other Disasters

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. British live action feature length film, 2006, rated R, 90 minutes, comedy, romance.
2. IMDB: 6.3/10.0 from 9,415 audience ratings. Aspect: 1.85
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 20% on the meter; 57% liked it from 6,767 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.3/5.0 from 687,301 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Alek Keshishian.
6. Starring: Brittany Murphy as Emily Jackson ('Jacks'), Matthew Rhys as Peter Simon, Catherine Tate as Tallulah Riggs-Wentworth, Santiago Cabrera as Paolo Sarmiento, Eliot Cowan as James Wildstone, Stephanie Beacham as Felicity Riggs-Wentworth.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Emily is an American working in a fashion house in London.  Her formal job is in fashion photography, but her hobby seems to be matchmaking.


2. Jacks' friend Peter is looking for a significant other; his tentative screenwriting centers around Jacks.  So Peter is a lead in the film perhaps as much as Jacks.


3. How many of Jacks' matchmaking schemes will work?  Will she find her own good and lasting relationship?  Or will she stay stuck in her rat's maze of correctness?


4. Least favourite moment, paraphrased: "I don't want to be one of those characters who gushes out their deepest secrets while the violins play."  Then Jacks gushes out her secrets while the violins play.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: An overabundance of tired cliches: young adults in the fashion world.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Often overexposed, rendering thousands of frames nearly washed out.


2. Sound: 7/10 Okay.


3. Acting: 4/10 The late American actress Brittany Murphy was going through the motions at best, and flying over the top at worst.  Matthew Rhys was even worse. The other actors seemed to be in competition for who could be the most wooden, except for Catherine Tate, who was indeed irritating.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 Yikes.  There seemed to be no cliche from the fashion industry that could not be exposed and exploited.  The central joke of this mess is just not funny.  The film's open self-awareness was discouraging.

20140124: Drama Review--Apart

Apart

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, UR, 85 minutes, drama, mystery, romance.
2. IMDB: 5.2/10.0 from 434 audience ratings. 
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 11% on the meter; 55% liked it from 209 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.9/5.0 from 33,396 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Aaron Rottinghaus. Written by Josh Danziger and Aaron Rottinghaus.
6. Starring: Olesya Rulin as Emily Gates, Josh Danziger as Noah Greene, Bruce McGill as Dr. Thomas Abner, Joey Lauren Adams as Dr. Jane Sheppard.


2. Setup and Plot


1. In the first half or so of the film, we follow Noah around as he tries to remember his past.  He's lost much of his memory in some acute personal event.  Several people assure him that this is a good thing.  He looks for Emily, finds her, gets past her thorny personality and direct resistance to visiting the past.


2. Supposedly Emily and Noah are linked by a psychiatric disorder which lets them know each other's minds.  Even worse, they see visions of bad things happening to those around them.  It's tough for Noah to recall.  For similar reasons, it's tough for Emily as well.  Even worse, they are not able to ward off the bad things happening.


3. The first such event was when they were around eight years old; the second around when they were high school seniors.  The first was a bus crash.  The two of them recuperate, more or less, in the same hospital.  The second was a fire, the culmination of a sequence of unfortunate events during late high school.


4. All this is nonsense, and assigned to folie à deux, or induced delusional disorder.  In this case, "She's crazy and made me do it," or "He's crazy and made me do it." The simpler explanation is "He is crazy and she is crazy."  So, own up to it and get them off the streets: two crazy people are over-indulged and allowed to hurt others unnecessarily.


3. Conclusions
1. Folie à deux (Induced delusional disorder (F.24) ICD-10) is in the literature; wikipedia has a nice article about it.  However, this is the worst vanity indie film I've seen in months.
2. One line summary:  Two defective children are bad for each other and those around them.
3. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Fine work.  Amazingly good considering the foulness of the screenplay and most of the acting.


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 3/10  The veteran actor Bruce McGill delivered as usual.  The rest of the cast was terrible.  The two principals were the worst.  The three points are for Mr. McGill.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 This was a rat's nest of nonsense of endless re-interpretations.  The script is as bad as the acting of the two principals.  There is about five minutes of content stretched over 85 minutes.  Rotten Tomatoes got it right at 11%.

20140121: Comedy Review--Overnight

Overnight

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, 95 minutes, indie, romance, comedy.  Spoken word is in English.
2. IMDB: 5.1/10.0 from 346 audience ratings. Estimated budget 2.85 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet,' and 36% liked it from 73 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 98,732 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Valerie Breiman.
6. Starring: Rachel Blanchard as Jenny, James D'Arcy as Tom, Gbenga Akinnagbe as TMJ, Anthony LePaglia as Tully, Maz Jobrani as Amir, Mousa Kraish as Mohammed, Christina Chang as Lisa, Claudia Christian as Sandy, Kevin Rahm as Chip, Josh Braaten as Derek.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Most of the activity of the film is on a red eye flight direct from Los Angeles to New York City on Valentine's Day.  Tully, the pilot, has anger management issues.  Many of the passengers have problems finding successful romantic relationships.


2. Jenny and Chip have a dinner before she flies back to New York.  He gives her some expensive earrings, though her ears are not pierced.  She tells him that she has decided to move to Los Angeles to be with him.  Unfortunately, he has a second string girl friend and does not want Jenny to move.  They break up.  No surprises there.


3. Tom, a theoretical physics professor, gets hooked into accepting a ride to LAX with his ex, who breaks up with him again, for not kissing her on the lips.  Tom and Jenny bump into each other at on of the gift shops.


4. TMJ (a rapper) is going to NYC without his entourage.  While he is walking to his gate, rap music plays, in which the singer shows his sense of entitlement--to murder whomever he wishes.  This was a good place to stop watching the film.  Hate speak usually does not bode well for a film.  Amir and Mohammed are both 'randomly' chosen for a more thorough inspection before boarding.


5. On the plane, the flight attendants Sandy and Lisa immediately classify Jenny as a high maintenance bitch.  Great: more hate speech.  Amir and Mohammed are immediately pigeon-holed as terrorists.  TMJ immediately shies away from Tom because he's white, while Tom is not positively impressed with TMJ's "I'm the most garish pimp here" clothing.  The male flight attendant has trouble getting TMJ to get off his cell phone during take-off.  After learning that TMJ was on board, Sandy and Lisa sing part of one of his songs which was beyond gross.


6. Tom tries to enable a seat switch between Jenny (in coach) and TMJ, so that TMJ can appear non-elitist to his girl friend.  TMJ objects to sitting next to the terrorists, but Tom talks him into it.  Tom and Jenny try to get to know each other at some length.


7. Tully and his wife have an off and on telephone fight during most of the flight. In between those heated exchanges, Tully and his co-pilot discuss the merits of Christianity.  Tully is an atheist, while Derek is an evangelical.


8. Amir turns out to be allergic to TMJ's dog.  Mohammed tries to talk TMJ into putting the dog back in its carrier.  The dog makes a break for it.


9. Will any of these earnest attempts at relationships work out?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Another failed, low-budget, cliche-ridden, feel-bad, romantic comedy.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Competent but nothing special.


2. Sound: 5/10 No particular problems on sound qualities.  The choice of the incidental music should have been considerably better.


3. Acting: 2/10 Rachel Blanchard, Christina Chang, Claudia Christian, Josh Braaten, and Gbenga Akinnagbe were considerably more irritating than interesting.  Anthony LePaglia and James D'Arcy were better than competent, but could not make up for the others.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 The singing filled with hate-speak did not help, nor did the touchy-feely conversations, nor did the ugly yapping dog loose on a plane.  I am not looking forward to other efforts by Valerie Breiman.  Belly laughs? Zero.  Smiles?  Zero.  Anything in between?  No.  The endless weepy confessions by men were neither illustrative nor interesting.