20151024: Horror Review--Altitude

Name: Altitude (2010)
IMDb: IMDb page for Altitude

Genres: Horror, Mystery   Country of Origin: Canada

Cast: Jessica Lowndes as Sara, Julianna Guill as Mel, Ryan Donowho as Cory, Landon Liboiron as Bruce, Mike Dopud as The Colonel, Jake Weary as Sal.

Directed by: Kaaren Andrews   Written by: Paul A. Birkett

The Three Acts:

The initial tableau: The film opens to a short vignette about the doomed flight of a light airplane.  Then we jump shift to the present.  Five twenty-somethings gather to fly to a concert.  Sara is the pilot; Bruce sits in front next to her.  Mel films with her handheld in the back, next to the jock/thug Sal, who steals Bruce's comic book.  Cory is also in the back as the fifth wheel.  Sara is a bit light on experience, but things seem to be going well.

Delineation of conflicts: Rough weather comes up, and Sara is not rated for instrument flying.  Two other problems arise: their total weight is too high to get above the clouds, and Sara forgot to assure that the fuel tanks were full before leaving.  There is a screw loose, which means an elevator fin does not respond to control.  Bruce's childhood trauma about flying surfaces; this involves Sara in a strong way.  Those are not the only problems; the film is qualified as a horror film for some solid reasons. They are not alone in the storm, or are they?

Resolution:  Well, watch the film.

One line summary:  Inexperienced pilot versus monsters from the id.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 7/10 Consistently saturated with teal, even during the long dark sections of the film.  The point of this not clear. Framing and focus were usually fine.

  b. Sound: 9/10 I had no problems hearing dialog, and the background music was a plus.

  c. Acting: 5/10 Better than I expected.

  d. Screenplay: 4/10 There's a good 15 minutes of story here.  Hijacking the end story of Forbidden Planet (1956) was discouraging, though.  The plus four was for the ending, which I rather liked.

Final rating: 3/5

20150801: Thriller Review--American Psycho 2

American Psycho 2: All American Girl

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


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


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


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


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


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


2. Setup and Plot


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


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


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


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


2. Three stars of five.


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


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


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


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

20150527: Comedy Review--Tank Girl

Tank Girl

1. Fundamentals.
1. Title: Tank Girl
2. IMDb: Users rated this 5.2/10 (22,760 votes)
3. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 based on 674,429 ratings.
4. Rotten Tomatoes:
   38% of critics liked it of 37 critical reviews posted
   64% of viewers liked it, based on 49,400 ratings.
   Critics Consensus: While unconventional, Tank Girl isn't particularly clever or engaging, and none of the script's copious one-liners have any real zing.


5. Status: Released
6. Release date: 1995-03-31
7. Production Companies: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
8. Tagline: In 2033, justice rides a tank and wears lip gloss.


9. Budget:  25,000,000 USD
10. Revenue: 6,600,000 USD
11. Runtime: 98 minutes.
12. Genres: Action, Comedy, Fantasy, Science Fiction


13. Directed by: Rachel Talalay; written by Tedi Sarafian


14. Starring: Lori Petty as Rebecca (Tank Girl), Ice-T as T-Saint, Naomi Watts as Jet Girl, Malcolm McDowell as Kesslee, Iggy Pop as Rat Face, Don Harvey as Sgt. Small, Jeff Kober as Booga, Reg E. Cathey as Deetee, Scott Coffey as Donner, Ann Cusack as Sub Girl


15. TMDb overview: Based on the British cult comic-strip, our tank-riding anti-heroine fights a mega-corporation, which controls the world's water supply.


2. Setup and Plot


1. Set in post apocalyptic Earth, circa 2033, well after a moderate sized comet impacted the planet.  It has not rained for 11 years, the film says.  This is a politics-of-scarcity environment, with the most rare commodity being water, the next being public and private security.  The law of the jungle has replaced rule of law.


2. The protagonist is Tank Girl, who survives by finding water by whatever means and by helping guard the compound where she lives.  The compound is breached early on.  Her boyfriend is killed, and her tween female friend Sam is abducted to be sent to a house of prostitution.  Tank Girl is enslaved.


3. Tank Girl breaks free, of course, and acquires friends Jet Girl and Sub Girl during the film.  Her main goals are survival, which includes obtaining water, and taking on Water and Power, which is a monopoly that no one likes, and are the folks who enslaved her.


4. So, do {Tank, Jet, Sub} Girls find allies to make a dent against Water and Power?  Do they finally end the sub-plot of Sam being in danger?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: You will likely either love or despise this one.
2. Three stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 The intro, credits, and long (hardly bearable) intertitles were done with comic strip style art with minimal animation.  Woof.  Ugly.  The live action parts, by and large, were done beautifully.


2. Sound: 6/10 The music is loud and not all that relevant to anything.  Good luck with that.  The dialog was comprehensible with some sort of normal volume setting, but then the intrusive music was so loud I would have to adjust the volume down.  Then the dialog was not audible.  So I turned on subtitles in Netflix.  Sigh.  The musical production of Cole Porter's 'Let's Fall in Love' was just horrible.


3. Acting: 6/10 I liked Malcolm McDowell in his role.  I usually like Naomi Watts no matter what, but not this time.  Lori Petty was, as always, Lori Petty.  That was just great for this role.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 The attempts at humour are many and are easily recognizable, just not funny.  I might have given this film full marks if had just been funny.  The film's plot, such as it was, was done archipelago style.  That is, an island scene here, followed by those terrible intertitles and overly loud music, then another island.  The whole sort of lurches toward coherence, and sort of makes it.

20150524: Horror Review--DeepStar Six

DeepStar Six

1. Fundamentals.
1. Title: DeepStar Six
2. IMDb: Users rated this 5.1/10 (6,388 votes)
3. Rotten Tomatoes:
   0% from 6 critics ratings
   23% liked it from 479 user ratings
   Critics Consensus: Not enough critics' ratings to form consensus.


4. Status: Released
5. Release date: 1989-01-13
6. Production Companies: TriStar Pictures, Carolco Pictures
7. Tagline: No tagline found.


8. Budget:  Budget estimate not available at review time.
9. Revenue: 8,143,225 USD (Box Office Mojo)
10. Runtime: 105 minutes.
11. Genres: Action, Horror, Science Fiction, Thriller


12. Directed by: Sean S. Cunningham; written by Lewis Abernathy, Geof Miller


13. Starring: Taurean Blacque as Captain Phillip Laidlaw, Nancy Everhard as Joyce Collins, Greg Evigan as McBride, Miguel Ferrer as Snyder, Nia Peeples as Scarpelli, Matt McCoy as Jim, Cindy Pickett as Dr. Diane Norris, Elya Baskin as Burciaga, Thom Bray as Hodges, Ronn Carroll as Osborne, Marius Weyers as Van Gelder


14. TMDb overview: The crew of an experimental underwater nuclear base are forced to struggle for their lives when their explorations disturb a creature who threatens to destroy their base.


2. Setup and Plot


1. Project leader Van Gelder is driving most of the crew nuts.  He's behind schedule on constructing an underwater missile platform for the US Navy.  Unfortunately, pro forma sound checks reveal a cave beneath the seabed over which the platform was to be built.  Van Gelder orders that explosives be used to collapse the cave so that building can continue.  Burciaga and Collins register their objections due to structural risks.  Scarpelli objects since she will lose any chance of studying possible life forms that normally reside in the caves.  Captain Laidlaw sides with Van Gelder since the Navy is likely to shut down the project if there are any more delays.


2. Hodges and Osborne set off the charges as ordered.  When they send down a tethered remote unit to record stills and video, they manage to lose it.  They detach from their tractor housing to pursue the remote, since losing it would be so expensive.  The cavern is rather huge, and the likelihood of filling it in to continue construction looks bleak.


3. That's when the elimination derby starts.  The rest of the film is about survival: the crew versus whatever took out that the remote.


3. Conclusions


1. One line summary: Good actors who deserved a better script.


2. Three stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Perhaps this was OK for its time, but then again, perhaps not.  Compared to The Abyss, which also came out in 1989, it looks rather ordinary and dated, especially the models of underwater structures.


2. Sound: 6/10 The actors were well-miked, so I could hear the dialog.  The background music was typical of 1970s, 1980s film scores but toward the lower end of the spectrum.


3. Acting: 8/10 The film had a competent cast.  Most of the actors were more or less in mid-career, and their filmographies continue well past this property.


4. Screenplay: 6/10 This was a rather ordinary entry.  It's sci-fi set underwater with some nasty creatures.  This one turns into a more or less by-the-numbers elimination derby, with none of the characters (except perhaps Snyder) showing any awareness of what was happening.  It was just not that interesting.

20150502: Horror Review--The Purge Anarchy

The Purge: Anarchy

1. Fundamentals.
1. Title: The Purge: Anarchy
2. IMDb: Users rated this 6.5/10 (62,969 votes)
3. Rotten Tomatoes:
   57% of critics liked it, of 118 who rated it
   58% of viewers liked it, of 64,921 who rated it
   Critics Consensus:  Gritty, grisly, and uncommonly ambitious, The Purge: Anarchy represents a slight improvement over its predecessor, but it's still never as smart or resonant as it tries to be.


4. Status: Released
5. Release date: 2014-07-17
6. Production Companies: Universal Pictures, Why Not Productions, Platinum Dunes, Blumhouse Productions, 5150 Action
7. Production Countries: France, United States of America
8. Tagline: Welcome to America, where one night a year, all crime Is legal.


9. Budget:  9 million USD
10. Revenue: 109 million USD
11. Runtime: 104 minutes.
12. Genres: Horror, Thriller


13. Directed by: James DeMonaco; written by James DeMonaco


14. Starring: Frank Grillo as Sergeant, Carmen Ejogo as Eva Sanchez, Zach Gilford as Shane, Kiele Sanchez as Liz, Zoë Borde as Cali, Justina Machado as Tanya, John Beasley as Papa Rico, Jack Conley as Big Daddy, Noel Gugliemi as Diego, Castulo Guerra as Barney


15. TMDb overview: Sequel to The Purge. The New Founders of America invite you to celebrate your annual right to Purge. The Purge: Anarchy, the sequel to summer 2013's sleeper hit that opened to No. 1 at the box-office, sees the return of writer/director James DeMonaco to craft the next terrifying chapter of dutiful citizens preparing for their country's yearly 12 hours of anarchy.


2. Setup and Plot


1. America, 2023, Los Angeles.  Use of The Purge continues to eliminate people who live below the poverty line.  The film starts at March 21 at 16:34; that is, 2 hours, 26 minutes before the onset of the sixth annual 12 hour Purge.  The opening scene is at a diner.  Various Latinos wish each other to 'Stay Safe' before they head to sanctuary and whatever weapons they have.


2. Great opposition campaign slogan: We no longer worship at the altar of Christ, Mohammed, or Yahweh.  We worship at the altar of Smith and Wesson.


3. Thread 1: Papa Rico, mother Cali, and daughter Eva are together in a small house.  Papa announces he's going to sleep through it after boarding up his room, but he has a different mission to attempt.  Will he succeed?  How will the women do?


4. Thread 2: Shane and Liz are a twenty-something couple who are trying to stay out of trouble, but it comes looking for them early: a gang sabotaged their car.  They had decided to split up.  They are squabbling over how to announce it when they discover the bad news about the car.  Will they last long against the reaper gangs?


5. Thread 3: will the opposition accomplish anything? Will they target the thug gangs or the rich?


6. Thread 4: Sergeant roams the deserted downtown Los Angeles, looking for opportunities.  He saves a few people from a circumstance or two by killing gang members.  Will his early success continue?


3. Conclusions
1. In the first film, most of the characters may have been rich and privileged, but were too arrogant to live.  In this film, some of the characters at least offer some meaningful resistance.
2. One line summary: Class warfare in 2023 from the outlier POV.
3. Three stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 3/10 In most of the frames, 70% or so of the screen is out of focus. I have better things to do than watch amateur nonsense. Occasionally, the view is warm and clear and well-focused.  Then there is the recurrent shaky-cam footage.


2. Sound: 8/10 I could hear the dialog.  The background music heightened tension.


3. Acting: 5/10  All the actors were better than the child actors (the main saboteurs) in the original.


4. Screenplay: 6/10 The script is ambitious, and the issues hot in the environment of 2015 America.  Did the director engage me with the issues of the opposition?  No.  I never believed they had a chance, which is unfortunate.  Did the director get me to care about the main characters representing the lower class?  Again, no.  Most of them were too stupid to live.  So, what am I left with?  Plenty of characters to despise or not care about, but no one to identify with or to empathise with.

20141108: Horror Review--The Revenant

The Revenant

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2009, rated R, 117 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 6.4/10.0 from 8,239 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 56% on the meter; 51% liked it from 2,140 audience ratings.
4. I saw this on the SyFy channel.
5. Written and directed by D. Kerry Prior.
6. Starring: David Anders as Bart Gregory, Chris Wylde as Joey Luebner, Louise Griffiths as Janet, Jacy King as Mathilda.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Bart gets shot in Iraq and dies from it.  He was embalmed, and his coffin was put in the grave.  For better or for worse, the coffin was not buried.  Bart awakens that night, leaves his coffin and finds a nearby morgue.  After cutting the cords tying his mouth shut, and ripping off some nasty looking skin, Bart goes to seek out his friend Joey.


2. Joey is taken aback.  He was at Bart's funeral.  Bart looks rather bad.  At dawn, Bart drops to the floor.  At dusk, he rises again.  After a botched mugging against them, Bart and Joey discover that Bart needs blood to repair his body.  These traits characterise a 'revenant.'


3. Through a bumbling progression, Bart and Joey grow to like killing violent bad guys and draining their blood.  Unfortunately, Bart helps Joey become a revenant, and the two of them become terribly more effective as they gather money, better weapons, and experience killing gangsters.


4. Also unfortunately, they are not careful enough about disposing of the corpses of the bad guys that they kill and drink the blood of.  Some of them return as revenants, and with memory intact and with revenge intended.


5. Perhaps more dangerous for Bart and Joey is the fact that the authorities have noticed their vigilantism.  They are tracked.


6. Who would the greater threat be for our heroes, the revenge seekers, or those who would use them as tools?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Two friends become undead vigilantes.
2. Three stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Reasonably good, but awfully dark. 


2. Sound: 5/10 A bit odd during the murder scenes.


3. Acting: 6/10 The two principals were rather good.  The others, not so much.


4. Screenplay: 7/10 The narration moves along nicely.

20141104: Drama Review--The Rite

The Rite

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, rated PG-13, 114 minutes, drama, horror, thriller.  Spoken languages are English and Italian for the most part.
2. IMDB: 6.0/10.0 from 65,608 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 37 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 21% on the meter; 41% liked it from 51,969 audience ratings.
4. I saw this film on Cinemax.
5. Directed by: Mikael Hafstrom.
6. Starring: Anthony Hopkins as Father Lucas Trevant, Colin O'Donoghue as Michael Kovak, Alice Braga as Angeline, Ciaran Hinds as Father Xavier, Toby Jones as Father Matthew, Marta Gastini as Rosaria, Rutger Hauer as Istvan Kovak.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Michael is the son of an undertaker, and is trained in the trade as he grows up. In young adulthood, he decides to study for the priesthood.  After receiving a very expensive education, he chats with his mentor, Father Matthew.  On his last exams, Michael did well in most subjects, but not in theology.  Also, he has all sorts of doubts about himself, and submits his resignation.  Matthew directs him to spend some time in Rome taking a course about exorcism.  The instructor for the course is Father Xavier, who is very old school and clear about issues.  He sends Michael to Father Lucas to see what practical exorcism is about.


2. Michael continues his dialog with Xavier, and meets a journalist, Angeline.  Michael decides to witness more of Lucas' work with the possessed woman Rosaria.


3. The dialogs and the exorcisms continue, as do the flashbacks to Michael's youth and his issues with his father.


4. Will Michael figure out what is bothering him and resolve it?  Will demons enter the fray?  Will Michael ever find his strength?


3. Conclusions
1. The film's end credits claim that Michael Kovak is a real priest operating near Chigago, US, and that Lucas Trevant is another real exorcist working near Firenze, IT, and has done over 2000 exorcisms.  If this is a 'true story,' the film makers should have done a better job.
2. One line summary: Young man needs to resolve his doubts before becoming a priest.
3. Three stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Uniformly excellent.


2. Sound: 6/10 Lots of mumbling, but some beautiful music here and there.


3. Acting: 5/10 Not that great, but I blame that on the script.  The five points was for the fine performance of Hopkins, and nothing else.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 This would have been a nice 20 minute short.  There is not enough story here to merit 114 minutes.  The actors tried, but this is old ground, and there is little new here.  Perhaps this is a strong example of bad horror.  Inept and untrained fools with little purpose in life are expected to go up against an organised and experienced enemy.  Why should they have any hope of success?  Michael's conversion at the end is just not believable.  Perhaps this might have worked with a better actor, a better script, a better director.

20141102: Comedy Review--Adult World

Adult World

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 97 minutes, comedy.
2. IMDB: 6.1/10.0 from 7,293 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 54% on the meter; 37% liked it from 4,530 audience ratings.
4. I saw this on Showtime.
5. Directed by Scott Coffey, written by Andy Cochran.
6. Starring: John Cusack as Rat Billings, Emma Roberts as Amy, Evan Peters as Alex, Armando Riesco as Rubia, Shannon Williams as Candace, John Cullum as Stan, Cloris Leachman as Mary Anne.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Amy recently graduated from a good school with 90,000 USD in debts.  She does not have a job, and has been piling up new debts with her compulsion to enter every poetry contest she can find.  Her parents are near (or somewhat past) their ability to support her financially.  Her father gives her an ultimatum: get a job.


2. Amy goes looking for that job, and fails repeatedly.  Reaching the end of her rope, she interviews for, then accepts with regret, a job at Adult World. This sex shop sells books, magazines, and various related paraphernalia.  Amy is clueless about many things, and being a good employee is one of those things.  She tries, and is rather bad at it.  Alex advises her of her shortcomings, but she does not know that she is supposed to get better at it.  On the other hand, she makes new friends of value through work.


3. In parallel, she convinces her poet hero, Rat Billings, to mentor her in producing good poetry.  This is not an easy relationship, to say the least.


4. Will Amy learn some basic life skills?  Will she get published?  Will she ever get Rat's respect?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: John Cusack's performance helped float this dull comedy.
2. Three stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Reasonable.  The dark look reflects Syracuse in winter, but also Amy's depths of mood while struggling to navigate life on her own.


2. Sound: 8/10 I had no problems hearing the lines spoken by the actors.


3. Acting: 4/10 The story is good enough, but the execution was wretched.  The 97 minute runtime felt like 3 hours.  The plus four on the rating was from John Cusack's solid performance.  Emma Roberts was non-engaging.


4. Screenplay: 6/10 Some of the largest steps in the narrative were told in the closing credits.  I found this discouraging.  The pace was plodding.

20141005: Drama Review--Parts per Billion

Parts per Billion

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2014, NR, 98 minutes, drama.
2. IMDB: 4.2/10.0 from 834 audience ratings.  Estimated budget: 1.3 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No consensus yet,' 21% liked it from 130 audience ratings.
4. Written and directed by Brian Horiuchi.
5. Starring: Frank Langella as Andy, Gena Rowlands as Esther, Josh Hartnett as Len, Rosario Dawson as Mia, Teresa Palmer as Anna, Penn Badgley as Erik.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film is compartmentalized into three threads following Andy and Esther, Len and Mia, Anna and Erik, plus some overview footage.  The narration goes back and forth in time to give layers of explanation.


2. So if you (the viewer) find it a bit confusing at first, do not be surprised.


3. The background context of the film is the rapid ending of the human race due to biological weapons unleashed in the Middle East.  The biological agents kill everyone in sight and are spread by wind to Europe, to Africa, to Asia, and finally to the Americas.  At first, the three couples seem to have little awareness or concern about the end of humanity or even their own imminent deaths.


4. Anna and Erik miss each other entirely.  This does not get better as the film progresses.  He's into his music; she is into his washing dishes or their getting the cupboards just right.  Both seem to be dim bulbs without empathic response.


5. News sources indicate that one must wait inside until the density of the biological agents drops below 80 parts per billion.  Len and Mia hear this, and decide to stay cooped up at their abode.  They figure that their impending divorce is now moot since the legal system is probably finished working and they will be dead soon enough.  So they talk about their lives together.


6. Andy and Esther are at a hospital.  Those around them are dead.  They are alive since they both were on oxygen.  They may have to go to a new hospital after the staff is dead and their oxygen supplies are running low.


7. There are some interconnections shown in flashback.  For instance, Andy and Esther are Erik's grandparents, and Mia was Andy's lawyer in some legal actions concerning biological research.  Erik observes Mia and Len during a pubic spat while he is moonlighting as staff at a social event.


8. So, after all the discussion, does anyone survive?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Chatty film about couples not facing the end of the human race.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Some bad shaky-cam, but mostly OK.


2. Sound: 6/10 Not much of an issue.  The movie is about discussion, not about music and mood.  The background music is either barely noticeable or slightly irritating.


3. Acting: 6/10 OK, but not great.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 The movie reminds me of very coarsely patched mosaics.  The individual tiles make sense, each with very small content, and, if one stands far enough away, the whole makes a statement as well.  I am not so sure that I can ever back up to make sense of this piece of nihilism.  Perhaps you, the viewer, will have better luck with it.

20140822: Horror Review--Phantoms

Phantoms

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 1998, rated R, 96 minutes, horror, sci-fi.
2. IMDB: 5.4/10.0 from 14,221 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 13% on the meter; 27% liked it from 12,397 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Joe Chappelle.  Written by Dean Koontz, novel and screenplay.
5. Starring: Ben Affleck as Sheriff Bryce Hammond, Rose McGowan as Lisa Pailey, Joanna Going as Dr. Jenny Pailey, Peter O'Toole as Dr. Timothy Flyte, Liev Schreiber as Deputy Stu Wargle, Nicky Katt as Deputy Steve Shanning.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Lisa visits her medical doctor sister Jenny in Snowfield, Colorado for a reunion and perhaps a ski vacation.  When they return to town from the airport, Jenny's housekeeper is dead, which is the first level of surprise.  They find just about everyone else in town is dead.


2. In the second segment, the sisters encounter Sheriff Bryce, and Deputies Wargle and Shanning.  The quintet snoop around a bit, and the deputies are killed mysteriously.  The Sheriff manages to make outside contact before the telephones and radios are rendered inactive.


3. In the third round, the US government sends in a team to investigate.  The team includes Dr. Flyte, since the Sheriff mentioned him in his communication.  The organism they are dealing with absorbs the military and the investigators, except for Dr. Flyte, a solid scientist who has become a paranormal investigator.


4. After not hearing from their party, the government decides to send in more personnel.  Meanwhile, Flyte, the sisters, and the Sheriff attempt to find a way to deal with the threat.


5. Will they succeed, or is everyone out of luck?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: A solid story that looks more than a bit dated now.
2. Three stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Well done for the most part.  Some of the SFX look a bit dated, but still OK.


2. Sound: 8/10 Rather good at rendering the atmosphere of the unknown and the unexpected.  Sometimes it feels a bit over the top, though.


3. Acting: 6/10 Peter O'Toole was fine, but this was not one of the better efforts of Ben Affleck or Liev Schreiber.


4. Screenplay: 6/10 Usually I am a fan of Koontz, but this screenplay seems to be one of his more mediocre efforts.

20140822: Horror Review--The Den

The Den

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 76 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 6.0/10.0 from 2,173 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 77% on the meter; 62% liked it from 563 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Zachery Donahue.
5. Starring: Melanie Papalia as Elizabeth Benton, David Schlachtenhaufen as Damien, Matt Riedy as Sgt. Tisbert, Adam Shapiro as Max.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Elizabeth Benton gets a university grant to explore and classify what she finds online in chat rooms.  She sees much of what she expected in terms of diverse activities, but she also encounters something rather disturbing.  A chat room user will not show their face.  This is followed by that user hacking her computer, recording (and replaying) intimate dealings between her and boyfriend Damian, then showing her what appears to be a snuff video.


2. The police show some interest, but do not have enough facts to go forward in the investigation.  As more odd goings-on occur, the police become irritated with her for wasting their time.  Damien tries to help in tracking down those involved, but the miscreant has considerable skill.  He hacks her account, severely hurts her relationship with her thesis committee, and does even worse things to her family.


3. Cut off from most of her support group, can Liz help her family and save herself?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: A reasonable story turned into bloody drivel.
2. Three stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 Varies considerably. Some is excellent and professional; some is the worst side of shaky cam.


2. Sound: 6/10 Also varies considerably.  Endless groaning and breathing is not all that worthwhile.


3. Acting: 4/10


4. Screenplay: 7/10 As a story about possible downsides to modern social media interactions, it is fairly good.  It might have been told better without the shaky cam and the poor sound.

20140822: Drama Review--The Conspiracy

The Conspiracy

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2012, NR, 84 minutes, thriller, mystery.
2. IMDB: 6.4/10.0 from 2,678 audience ratings.  Spoken world is English.  Estimated budget, 1.2 million CAD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 86% on the meter; 65% liked it from 754 audience ratings.
4. Written and directed by: Christopher MacBride.
5. Starring: Aaron Poole as Aaron, James Gilbert as Jim, Bruce Clayton as Mark Tucker, Ron Kennell as Ron, Alan C. Peterson as Terrance.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Aaron and Jim get to know Terrance, a colorful conspiracy theorist.  They were gearing up to do a documentary film with Terrance as the center when Terrance disappears, and his apartment is rifled.


2. Aaron and Jim are galvanized, and pursue Terrance's interests.  Their investigation leads them to research the Tarsus Club, the 'New World Order,' and the cult of Mithras, which stretches back quite far in history.  Jim has a wife and child to keep him centered, but ends up continuing with the effort to find the elusive 'truth.'  Clips from an interview with a psychiatrist sprinkled throughout the film are another grounding mechanism, and a warning of bad things to come.


3. The pair manage to get into a meeting of the Tarsus Club.  Their recording devices were on tie-clips, and the results were correspondingly unimpressive.


4. The Tarsus Club does a good job of scaring Aaron and Jim.  Afterwards, Jim gets to go to a recorded meeting with an official of the Tarsus Club.  The spin or the truth?  Which one gets delivered more by the film?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Clever ending to a short subject.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 The film is filmed in both hand-held and more standard camera techniques.  The found-film part does not add anything, but does subtract a bit.  The segement concerning the Mithras cultist meeting was particularly visually poor.  The vignette filter cut off a chunk of the screen; faces were blurred out; over all resolution was VHS-style grainy; the smoke was good at cutting down on clarity.


2. Sound: 6/10 Adequate; I can usually understand the dialog.  Voices were disguised during the outdoor initiation meeting of the Tarsus club.


3. Acting: 5/10 Giving the benefit of the doubt.


4. Screenplay: 6/10 The ending ties together the rest of the film nicely.

20140802: SciFi Review--Sharktopus vs Pteracuda

Sharktopus vs Pteracuda

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, straight to video, 2014, UR, SciFi, action, unintentional comedy.
2. IMDB: 7.2/10.0 from 14 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: '...no results found...'
4. I saw this on the SyFy channel.
5. Directed by: Kevin O'Neill.  Produced by: Julie and Roger Corman.
6. Starring: Robert Carradine as Doctor Rico Symes, Conan O'Brian as himself, Katie Savoy as Lorena, Rib Hillis as Ham, Tony Evangelista as Lorena's boyfriend Rick, Hector Then as Harold Smith.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The TV movie opens with a flashback to the end of a previous sharktopus film, where the sharktopus is killed, but it manages to cast off a little sharktopus.  In the present, Harold has an ocean side resort where he keeps the now grown-up new sharktopus.  Lorena is trying to teach the monster new, better behavior.  Harold hopes the chimera becomes a hot attraction for his water resort.


2. Former MIT researcher Symes has put together another chimera, pteracuda (pteradactyl plus giant barracuda).  Unfortunately, a foreign agent, Vladimir, has hijacked the ability to remote-control the pteracuda.  Symes had hoped to sell the pteracuda as a particularly expensive genetic weapon, so losing control of the chimera is a disaster for him.


3. In order to get control back, Symes pays Harold a briefcase full of money for the sharktopus.  Subsequently, Symes and Ham kidnap Lorena in the hopes that they can reassert control of the sharktopus.


4. Both chimeras do a lot of damage to human beings.  Will the humans ever assert control over them?  Will the they be able to put an end to the killing?  Will Vladimir be neutralized?  Will the Fukushima scenario be implemented?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Two monster chimeras; twice the fun.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Most of it is rather good.  The CGI quality was mixed; some looked sharp and well done, some was truly bad.


2. Sound: 7/10 Neither great nor especially poor.


3. Acting: 5/10 Robert Carradine, Rib Hillis, and Katie Savoy were reasonably good, but most of the others were not so much.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 There was a bit more plot than I expected.

20140726: Comedy Review--Peep World

Peep World

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2010, rated R, 79 minutes, comedy, drama.
2. IMDB: 5.6/10.0 from 2,869 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 23% on the meter; 22% liked it from 8,557 audience ratings.
4. Directed by Barry W. Blaustein.  Screenplay by Peter Himmelstein.
5. Starring: Lewis Black as the Narrator, Sarah Silverman as Cheri Meyerwitz, Ron Rifkin as Henry Meyerwitz, Alicia Witt as Amy Harrison, Michael C. Hall as Jack Meyerwitz, Rainn Wilson as Joel Meyerwitz, Lesley Ann Warren as Marilyn, Taraji P. Henson as Mary, Judy Greer as Laura, Kate Mara as Meg,


2. Setup and Plot
1. Henry Meyerwitz has four grown children: Jack, the architect; Joel, the lawyer who took 8 times to pass the bar exam; Cheri, the failed artist/actress; Nathan, the writer, who is seven years younger than Cheri.  Henry is distant and imperious.  Jack is tasked each year with paying for an expensive dinner in honor of Henry's birthday.


2. By Henry's seventieth birthday, family relations have gone from being tense and dysfunctional to harsh and confrontational.  The main reason for this change is the wide success of Nathan's book Peep World, which is more than a bit too biographical for the comfort of Cheri, Joel, and Jack.  To make things worse, Jack's business and revenue have shrunk, Joel's legal career is at a snail's pace, and Cheri's career is going nowhere.  The topper is that Henry has a new girl friend Amy, who is the actress that plays Cheri in the film of Nathan's book.


3. In the hours leading up to the seventieth birthday dinner, the slow burns of the principal characters are exposed.  At the dinner, they burst out, capped by Henry's speech returning all their fire.


4. Will the family gain some cohesion out of all this?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: The surfacing of truth is a painful process.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Well shot for the most part; on Netflix it seemed to have some intervals of focus that was too soft.


2. Sound: 7/10 No particular problems, but I thought the sound could have been more of an asset to the film than it was.


3. Acting: 8/10 The large cast included several skilled actors doing fine work.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 The threads came together well at the end, but I thought the film would have been better without a narrator.  Just to be clear, most of the laughs I got out of the film were from Lewis Black's expert delivery--as the narrator.  The film was billed as a comedy; why should most of the humor come from the narrator's performance?

20140724: Action Review--Dead in Tombstone

Dead in Tombstone

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length video, 2013, NR, 99 minutes, action, Western, supernatural.
2. IMDB: 4.8/10.0 from 2,699 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 5.2 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet..' and 30% liked it from 337 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 37,160 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Mike Elliott.
6. Starring: Danny Trejo as Guerrero, Mickey Rourke as Blacksmith/Lucifer, Anthony Michael Hall as Red Cavanaugh, Dina Meyer as Calathea Massey.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Red Cavanaugh is about to be hung, but the rest of the Blackwater Gang rescue him.  Red sells them a plan to liberate some gold.  His half-brother and co-leader of the gang, Guerraro, agrees as long as they make it a quick and relatively clean operation.


2. Once the plan is in motion, though, Red bloodies the town and kills his brother, as well as the sheriff.  Red takes over the town with the remaining Blackwater Gang as his fellow enforcers.  He joins forces with an English business man to keep a choke hold on the town and the mining of the gold.


3. Meanwhile, Guerrero has a long chat with Lucifer, and strikes a deal with him.  If Guerrero can snuff his old gang, Lucifer will restore him to life above ground.


4. The bloodletting increases.  One might expect that, given the cast and the setup of the screenplay.


5. Does Guerrero re-gain his life, or does Red foul up his plans again?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Deals with Lucifer sometimes take longer than expected.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Nicely atmospheric, but had some terrible hand-held moments.


2. Sound: 6/10 I could hear the dialog, which was fine, but the sound did not add much to the mood of the piece.


3. Acting: 8/10 I liked the four principal actors in this property.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 This video would have been better at 75 minutes rather than 99.  The script was a bit short on ideas, and long on torture, murder, forced labor, revenge, and betrayals. 

20140722: Thriller Review--Bastards

Bastards (Les Salauds)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. French/German live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 100 minutes, thriller.  Spoken word in French and English; sub-titles in English.
2. IMDB: 6.2/10.0 from 1,429 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 64% on the meter; 40% liked it from 642 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.5/5.0 from 6,530 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Claire Denis.
6. Starring: Vincent Linden as Marco Silvestri, Chiarra Mastrioanni as Raphaëlle, Julie Bataille as Sandra, Michel Subor as Edouard Laporte, Lola Chretin as Justine.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Marco is the captain of a supertanker.  He's at sea and life is good.


2. Pull the chain on that.  Marco's sister Sandra calls him back in desperation: her husband has committed suicide, her daughter Justine is in a tailspin, and the family business is not going well.  Sandra accuses wealthy business man Edouard Laporte as the cause of these ill fortunes.  So Marco, in his own particular way, goes after Edouard.


3. Marco's fortunes diminish, and he discovers a number of discouraging truths about his family.  This gets more evident when a young man offers to sell Justine back to him for 5000 francs.


4. Will Marco pull himself and his family out of this downward spiral, or will external forces be too great for that?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Told slowly in noir style, to a harsh conclusion.
2. Three stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 For much of the screen time, there was not enough light or too much light, odd choices of camera angles, strange depth of field choices...in other words, much of the noir package.  The filming of the car ride with passengers and drivers high on drugs was quite emblematic of this.  I did not find this helpful or illustrative, even though this is a dark tale.


2. Sound: 7/10 OK, redeemed by the sound track with the closing credits.


3. Acting: 6/10


4. Screenplay: 6/10 A bit lurching for my taste.  The film jumps from segment to segment to segment, with time references not all that clear, with one message.  All the characters are flawed and disgusting.  Got it: noir.

20140614: Action Review--Company of Heroes

Company of Heroes

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 100 minutes, action, drama.
2. IMDB: 5.1/10.0 from 3,760 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No Reviews Yet,' and 38% liked it from 417 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.7/5.0 from 204,392 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Don Michael Paul.
6. Starring: Tom Sizemore as Dean Ranson, Chad Michael Collins as Nate Burroughs, Vinnie Jones as Brent Willoughby, Neal McDonough as Lt. Joe Conti, Dmitri Diatchenko as Ivan Pozarski, Juergen Prochnow as Luca Gruenewald.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film opens in World War II, European theatre, December of 1944, Belgium in particular.  On a routine patrol, a squad loses their sniper to German sniper fire.  When they return to base, they get a cake walk assignment to deliver Christmas hams to a forward operating position.  The Allied forces are confident; Belgium was taken months ago.


2. The bigger group taking the hams includes Dean Ranson, who used to be a lieutenant before his squad got wiped out in fifteen minutes.  Now he's a cook.  Conti is the lieutenant in charge.  Nate, who killed the German sniper in the first scene, becomes Conti's new sniper.  The hams and several men are soon lost to a German attack featuring mortar fire, snipers, and machine guns.  Nate proves himself again.


3. The protagonists battle on, make new allies along the way, and encounter a number of tough fights.  They work with Willoughby, a British agent, and Pozarski, who claims to be a Polish prisoner of the Nazis.  Of course, he's not.  As the film continues, the small group takes on a mission for the OSS, which involved a Nazi 'super weapon' under development, and the rescue of one of its developers, Dr. Gruenewald.


4. Will they be able to stop the use of the super weapon and rescue Dr. Gruewald?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Mostly solid piece on the Battle of the Bulge toward the end of WWII.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Lens flare.  Was Jar Jar Abrams about?  Sloppy, bumpy, jumpy shaky cam work was disruptive when it appeared.  The CGI for the WWII aircraft was sometimes noticeably bad.


2. Sound: 8/10 Nice and rich.  Music was a bit florid, though.


3. Acting: 7/10 Reasonably good.  I liked Tom Sizemore's earthy work, Chad Collins' performance, and the presence of Vinnie Jones.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 The shift from competent low-level infantry work to high-level spying in enemy territory was well over the top.  The segment of getting the bomb before the Nazis use it was a bit more engaging, but not all that believable either.  The cliche ending pieces (you have done us a great service, but you do not get to talk about it, plus visiting the father's grave) were well done but still cliches.

20140601: Action Review--Machete Kills

Machete Kills

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 107 minutes.
2. IMDB: 5.7/10.0 from 35,830 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 12 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 29% on the meter; 37% liked it from 34,163 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Robert Rodriguez.
5. Starring: Danny Trejo as Machete Cortez, Michele Rodriguez as Luz, Carlos Estevez as the President Rathcock, Mel Gibson as Luther Voz, Demian Bichir as Mendez, Amber Heard as Miss San Antonio, Vanessa Hudgens as Cereza, Sophia Vergara as Desdemona.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Mendez is schizo and very dangerous.  Among other things, he has a missile pointed at Washington.  His heart is wired up (thanks to the work of Voz' company) so that if he dies, the missile is launched.  He has instructed his men to kill him if he is captured.


2. The US President convinces Machete to take down Mendez and end the threat.  His handler is Miss San Antonio.  Machete discovers the heart device, and decides not to kill him.  Instead, he aims to bring Mendez back to Voz Tech Industries to disable the heart device.


3. There are a number of obstacles.  The Chameleon aims to kill Mendez for money.  Mendez' own men try to kill him.  Desdemona wants to kill Mendez to avenge Cereza.  Miss San Antonio is not quite who we thought she was.


4. Supposing Machete gets the beating heart to Voz, will Voz cooperate, or does he have other plans?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Action aplenty, but not as good as the first film.
2. Hm, I am not sure about the third film.
3. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Nicely shot.


2. Sound: 8/10 No particular problems.  I thought the music might be a bit more rousing.


3. Acting: 7/10 I liked the performances of Mel Gibson, Danny Trejo, Demian Bichir, Antonio Banderas, and Michelle Rodriguez.  A few others, not so much.


4. Screenplay: 3/10 The film started up in a reasonable style, but ended up looking like one of the worst of the Bond films.  The whole space theme was over the top.

20140513: Documentary Review--Coldplay Live 2012

Coldplay Live 2012

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. British live action feature length film, 2012, TV-PG, 59 minutes, music, documentary.
2. IMDB: 8.4/10.0 from 418 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet,' and 95% liked it from 109 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 4.1/5.0 from 39,415 audience ratings.  The 59 minute version was offered.
5. Directed by: Paul Dugdale.
6. Starring: Coldplay (Chris Martin, Guy Berryman, Jonny Buckland, Will Champion), Rihanna.


2. Setup and Plot
1. This concert footage film was generally in support of the album Mylo Xyloto.  Cuts from that album (Us Against the World, Paradise) plus some old favourites such as Clocks, Viva La Vida.


2. The footage was shot mainly from Stade de France and from Glastonbury's Pyramid Stage.  The visuals with the thousands of lit wrist bracelets were interesting.


3. There is a little commentary from Chris Martin in voiceover versus some poor footage of band members.  Otherwise, there were no interviews or insights.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Find the 96 minute version if you can.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 Meh.  Disappointing.  Looked like late eighties, early nineties.


2. Sound: 10/10 Quite good.


3. Acting: z/10 Not really applicable in documentary.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 Not interesting.  It only had concatenated concert performance footage, which was not that good.

20140513: Documentary Review--Talihina Sky: The Story of Kings of Leon

Talihina Sky: The Story of Kings of Leon

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, NR, 85 minutes, music, documentary.
2. IMDB: 7.0/10.0 from 626 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 50% on the meter; 73% liked it from 273 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.8/5.0 from 35,485 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Stephen C. Mitchell.
6. Starring: Caleb, Jared, Nathan, Matthew Followill.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The Followills are family: deeply religious, poor, with musical traditions in the church.  Their relatives are interviewed.  There are extensive snapshots of the band on its way up, coupled with footage of the reactions from within the family during that process.


2. Segments of the film compare and contrast: the family's poverty versus the successful band's enormous wealth; the stern religion of many of the family versus the drug use, sexual freedom, and foul language of the band; the political conservatism of the family versus the relatively PC outlook of the band.


3. These disparities have all sorts of fallout, as one sees throughout the film.  Many of the family are happy for the band; some worry for their welfare.  Much of the white hot energy of the band's music and lyrics come from these harsh differences.  Some of the band members deal with these issues consciously, and the process seems not to be over.


4. In the long run, how well will the band's members keep dealing with the family issues?  If they reach resolution, will the band still have the same level of fire and creativity?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Documentary of the roots of Kings of Leon.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Varies quite a bit.  Most of it is fairly bad.  It was nice to see some of Oklahoma again.


2. Sound: 6/10 I expect hugely wonderful sound on a movie about a successful rock group.  Compared to the sound in Metallica: Through the Never, this is just week-old porridge.  In addition, there is very little music actually played from the Kings of Leon: two partial songs at the end, which was only a little redemption.


3. Acting: z/10 Documentary; this does not apply.


4. Screenplay: 7/10 To my mind, there were too many cuts and joins.  The same points could have been made with three examples instead of twenty. On the whole, though, the exposition was still effective, just redundant.