20150607: Horror Review--Taking of Deborah Logan

The Taking of Deborah Logan

1. Fundamentals.
1. Title: The Taking of Deborah Logan
2. IMDb: Users rated this 5.6/10 (5,435 votes)
3. Netflix: average of 3.5/5.0 (540,642 ratings)
4. Rotten Tomatoes:
   critics rating not found number of reviews too low
   47% liked it from 850 viewers ratings
   Critics Consensus: none yet


5. Status: Released
6. Release date: 2014-10-21
7. Production Companies: Millennium Films, Bad Hat Harry Productions
8. Tagline: Evil lives within you


9. Budget:  Budget estimate not available at review time.
10. Revenue: Revenue figures not available at review time.
11. Runtime: 90 minutes.
12. Genres: Horror, Thriller


13. Directed by: Adam Robitel; written by Adam Robitel, Gavin Heffernan


14. Starring: Jill Larson as Deborah Logan, Anne Ramsay as Sarah Logan, Michelle Ang as Mia Medina, Ryan Cutrona as Harris, Brett Gentile as Gavin, Jeremy DeCarlos as Luis, Anne Bedian as Dr. Nazir, Tonya Bludsworth as Sheriff Linda Tweed


15. TMDb overview: What starts as a poignant medical documentary about Deborah Logan's descent into Alzheimer's disease and her daughter's struggles as caregiver degenerates into a maddening portrayal of dementia at its most frightening, as hair-raising events begin to plague the family and crew and an unspeakable malevolence threatens to tear the very fabric of sanity from them all.


2. Setup and Plot


1. Mia, as part of her PhD thesis effort, arranges grant money to help Sarah Logan take care of her ailing mother Deborah.  The condition for Sarah to get the money (and save the farm) is that Mia has to complete a film.  The film is to document the sort of life that Deborah has because of her illness, and how Sarah is also affected.  Gavin and Luis are Mia's techies, who are put down immediately and repeatedly as sub-humans.  The representatives of medicine and law, Dr Nazir and Deputy Tweed, are both women.


2. The early part of the movie includes results of medical testing of Deborah, and brief discussions of aspects of the disease that we think we understand.  Some of the visual presentation here is fine.


3. Deborah's disease progresses more rapidly than expected.  The not so subtle horror cliches telegraph the general type of trouble to come.  Is there something other than physical disease at work here?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Passable shaky cam possession story.
2. Two stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 3/10 Most of the movie is shot in found footage style or shaky cam.  The plus three is for the visuals during the early discussion of Alzheimer's as a disease.  Most of the film is found footage level badness.


2. Sound: 5/10 Far better than the visuals.  On the other hand, I could have done without the use of overbearing noise to help produce jump scares.


3. Acting: 5/10 Jill Larson was the undisputed centre of the film, and she was rather good.  Then there was the rest of the cast. 


4. Screenplay: 2/10 The film was easy to disengage from, and the ending did not seem well connected to the rest of the film.

20150527: Thriller Review--P2

P2

1. Fundamentals.
1. Title: P2
2. IMDb: Users rated this 5.9/10 (24,482 votes)
3. Rotten Tomatoes:
   35% of critics liked it of 69 critical reviews posted
   36% of viewers liked it from 67,662 ratings
   Critics Consensus: P2 is full of gore, but low on suspense, featuring a cat-and-mouse plot; has been done many times before.


4. Status: Released
5. Release date: 2007-11-09
6. Production Companies: Summit Entertainment
7. Tagline: No tagline found.


8. Budget:  8,000,000 USD
9. Revenue: 7,766,240 USD (Box Office Mojo, world-wide figure)
10. Runtime: 98 minutes.
11. Genres: Horror, Thriller


12. Directed by: Franck Khalfoun. Written by: Franck Khalfoun, Alexandre Aja, Gregory Levasseur.


13. Starring: Wes Bentley as Thomas, Rachel Nichols as Angela Bridges, Simon Reynolds as Bob Harper, Philip Akin as Karl, Stephanie Moore as Jody, Paul Sun-Hyung Lee as man in elevator, Grace Lynn Kung as woman in elevator, Bathsheba Garnett as homeless woman, Philip Williams as Cop #1, Arnold Pinnock as Cop #2


14. TMDb overview: Angela, a corporate climber, gets stuck working late on Christmas Eve and finds herself the target of an unhinged security guard. With no help in sight, the woman must overcome physical and psychological challenges to survive.


2. Setup and Plot


1. Angela is an executive in NYNY trying to finish up her high-priority tasks before leaving to go to her sister's house in New Jersey.  A co-worker apologises repeatedly and profusely for inappropriate behaviour while drunk at the office party.  Such things extend her stay at the office to the point where she walks out with one of the main security guards, Karl, as he closes off elevator access as they descend.  


2. She watches the last car, other than her own, depart the car park, carrying the Asian couple who rode the elevator with her and Karl.   Then her own car will not start.


3. There is (almost) no one in the structure except her and the security guard Thomas. Unfortunately for Angela, he has extensive plans for her.


4. The rest of the film is the dialectic between the executive and the security guard in this mostly empty and strongly bounded environment.  Who will come out better?


3. Conclusions


1. Boring, nonsensical, male-bashing, lukewarm non-thriller.


2. One line summary: Lukewarm thriller with more than a touch of gore.


3. Two stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 OK, though nothing special.


2. Sound: 6/10 OK, though nothing special.


3. Acting: 4/10 Not all that engaging.  If we had Anthony Perkins instead of Wes Bentley, this was have been an entirely different matter.  As much as I appreciated Rachel Nichols' visual appeal, her acting did not engage me.  She was the principal reason I lost interest in the SciFi series Continuum, even though its underlying structure was one I would normally enjoy.


4. Screenplay: 3/10 The plot has its complications, and it hangs together somewhat.  However, its execution did not generate much suspense or many thrilling moments.  Also, the successful parts are neither new nor memorable.  The ending was ridiculous beyond measure.

20141108: Drama Review--The East

The East

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American/British live action feature length film, 2013, rated PG13, 116 minutes, drama, thriller.
2. IMDB: 6.9/10.0 from 33,230 audience ratings. Estimated budget, 6.5 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 74% on the meter; 65% liked it from 19,118 audience ratings.
4. I saw this on HBO.
5. Directed by Zal Batmanglij; written by Zal Batmanglij and Brit Marling.
6. Starring: Brit Marling as Jane Owens/Sarah Moss, Alexander Skarsgard as Benji, Ellen Page as Izzy Cannon, Toby Kebbell as Doc, Shiloh Fernandez as Luca, Aldis Hodge as Thumbs, Danielle MacDonald as Tess, Jamey Sheridan as Richard Cannon.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Jane Owens goes undercover for her security firm to gain intelligence about an eco-terrorist group called The East.  As Sarah Moss, Jane succeeds in this.


2. Soon enough, Jane takes part in the group's 'jams' or stings of corporations who have done illegal actions, such as selling poisonous drugs or polluting drinking water with carcinogens and other toxins.  In so doing, she participated in the commission of multiple felonies.  For some reason, this is not considered a problem.


3. There are lots of consequences for the infiltrator, for the group's targets, and for The East itself.


4. Will Jane make it out alive from this group of psychotics?  The first time I believed it, but not afterward.  Will The East survive its own terminal self-importance?  Will any of the felons described do any jail time?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: PI infiltrates eco-terrorist group that preys on corporate evildoers.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Professionally done, but not interesting.


2. Sound: 7/10 Professionally done, but not interesting.


3. Acting: 0/10 Sigh.  This is the weakest part of the film. There were zero believable performances.  


4. Screenplay: 2/10 What was the point of this story?  Advocacy for eco-terrorism?  An illustration of the Stockholm syndrome?  Another vanity film (Brit Marling) that just looks like a botched effort?

20141002: SciFi Review--The Colony

The Colony

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 94 minutes, scifi, thriller, horror.
2. IMDB: 5.3/10.0 from 26,686 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 16 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 16% on the meter; 22% liked it from 6,465 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Jeff Renfroe.
5. Starring: Lawrence Fishburne as Briggs, Bill Paxton as Mason, Kevin Zegers as Sam, Romano Orzari as Reynolds, Charlotte Sullivan as Kai, Atticus Dean Mitchell as Graydon, Julian Richings as Leland.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film is set in a dystopian future.  To combat the effects of global warming, weather control towers were erected and set into operation.  They worked too well, and the world was thrown into an ice age of sufficient strength to freeze over basically everything.  There seems to be nothing left in terms of food production except for a few 'colonies' that can grow in the hydroponic environment.


2. In the main colony (Colony Seven), people are getting sick.  The sick are quarantined and eventually forced to die one way or another. 


3. When Colony 7 gets a distress signal (then nothing) from Colony 5, Briggs, Sam, and Graydon walk through the snow and ice to see what happened.  The power is still on, but there is no greeting party, and pools of blood here and there.  They discover a survivor, Leland, who tells them of a ray of hope.  They had augmented their antennas, and received a partial transmission from a third colony that had re-engineered a control tower to melt the permafrost.  They had dispersed the cloud cover and melted the ice down to soil.  They had called out for anyone who had seeds to plant.


4. Colony 5 had sent out a search party that did not find their target.  Unfortunately, another group followed them back.  Briggs and Sam try to get the map coordinates from Leland, but he seems too traumatized to be of much help.  Soon enough, the Colony 7 trio meet the killers of Colony 5.


5. Will Briggs, Sam, and Graydon make it back to Colony 7?  Will they be followed?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Politics of scarcity meets cannibals in future Ice Age.
2. Two stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 Ugly.  It's dystopia, so that's not unexpected.  However, lots of the film looks just plain sloppy.


2. Sound: 5/10 I could hear the dialog clearly.  Background sound was not well used.


3. Acting: 4/10 Lawrence Fishburne was rather good, Bill Paxton OK.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 Badly written.  Lame dialogue.  Unimpressive from beginning to end.

20140822: Movie Review--Alien Abduction

Alien Abduction

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2014, NR, 85 minutes, horror, thriller.
2. IMDB: 5.0/10.0 from 1,419 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 25% on the meter; 28% liked it from 508 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Matty Beckerman.
5. Starring: Katherine Sigismund as Katie Morris, Corey Eid as Corey Morris, Riley Polanski as Riley Morris, Jillian Clare as Jillian Morris, Jeff Bowser as Sean, Peter Holden as Peter Morris.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The Morris family drives in the North Carolina mountains near Brown Mountain during vacation.   Some unnerving events, such as dead crows falling from the sky onto their van, contribute to the family getting lost on the winding mountain trails.


2. Then follows the usual failure of electronics, such as GPS, cell phones, and radio.  One of the more discouraging phenomena was the finding of a whole large tunnel full of vehicles separated from their owners.


3. After more scary passages, some of the Morris family finds Sean, a local who likes guns.  He helps them as best he can, but that is not good enough.


4. How many of the family survive and return to civilisation?  Does the 'documentary' impart any particular wisdom?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Yet another forgettable found film pseudo-documentary.
2. Two stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 Found film and worse.


2. Sound: 6/10 The sound added some edge to the proceedings, and I could usually make out the dialog.


3. Acting: 2/10


4. Screenplay: 5/10 The story did sort of hang together despite the cinematography.

20140722: Thriller Review--Cybergeddon

Cybergeddon

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American/Canadian live action television series revisited for Netflix as a feature length film, 2012, NR, 90 minutes, thriller, mystery, crime.
2. IMDB: 6.8/10.0 from 287 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: no results at all.
4. Netflix: 3.5/5.0 from 87,447 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Diego Velasco.
6. Starring: Missy Peregrym as Chloe Jocelyn, Kick Gurry as Chase 'Rabbit' Rosen, Manny Montana as Frank Parker, Olivier Martinez as Gustav Dobreff,


2. Setup and Plot
1. Chloe works for the FBI in counter-cyber-crime.  Cool.  Gustav, an old enemy, sets her up as the one who spreads a virus.


2. Chloe breaks out of detention, and springs Rabbit (hacker whom she had caught before) from jail.  She enlists her former partner, Frank.  Gustav hates Chloe for posing as his daughter to get him in jail.


3. As the movie proceeds, the stakes for Chloe keep getting higher in terms of possible long-term losses.  First her reputation, then her liberty, then her mother's life, and finally something worse: all could be lost, unless victory is snatched from the jaws of defeat.


4. Will Chloe and her unlikely friends come through for the good of the world?  Are they able to defeat the mastermind Gustav?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Lack of chemistry and a weak script doom this thriller.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 The camera/CGI mix worked well for a while, but toward the end, shaky cam plus poor and ancient graphics (UNIX command shell screens???) were a huge let down.


2. Sound: 5/10 The music over the final credits was good.


3. Acting: 2/10 The less said, the better.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 A story does get told, but the linkage between plot points breaks all too often.  A thriller needs to sell the idea that the stakes are high and the protagonists might be up to the tasks at hand.  This was not accomplished.

20140714: Fantasy Review--Prisoners of the Sun

Prisoners of the Sun

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American/German live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 89 minutes, fantasy.
2. IMDB: 3.6/10.0 from 464 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 18 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' and 0% liked it from 3 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Roger Christian.
5. Starring: John Rhys-Davies as Prof. Hayden Masterton, David Charvet as Doug Adler, Carmen Chaplin as Sarah Masterton/Princess Amanphur, Emily Holmes as Claire Becket, Nick Moran as Adam Prime, Michael Higgs as Peter Levitz, Joss Ackland as Prof. Mendella, Gulshan Grover as Rohit.


2. Setup and Plot
1. We start from an 'ancient astronaut' theory.  The 'Osiris' were (plural) a group of space faring aliens who wished to overtake Earth in ancient Egypt.  A cunning pharaoh put them down and imprisoned them.  He locked them beneath a pyramid.  This includes an elusive key.  Every 5000 years, the Osiris can contact home and get re-inforcements.  That time is about up again.


2. The key surfaces on the black market.  Professors Masterton and Mendella seek to find the key and unlock the secrets.  Peter Levitz gets the key first and frames Masterton for murder, so we have a good start in intrigue and conflict.  Levitz is looking for treasure, Masterton is looking for knowledge, Adler replaces Mendella and does not seem up to the job at first.  The ancient forces in the pyramid have their own motives.  Sarah seems to have some destiny to fulfill.


3. The pyramid is breached by Masterton's team, which is now swollen with local representatives and members of the military.  The entrance is marked with a curse, and nearby within there are dangerous insects.  That, of course, is not all, and more deaths occur.  Even worse, they are soon sealed in the tomb.  Adler and Rohit take point on finding the path for the group.  They make their way to Princess Amanphur's tomb.  At the bottom of this, they apply the key.


4. Then the path goes on, and the real discoveries start.  There is an active mummy 'guardian' in the tomb.  Masterton has unannounced plans for his daughter.  There are working alien artifacts deep in the tomb as the 5000 year cycle comes to an end.


5. Will Masterton's intentions come into fruition, or will the masterstroke of the pharaoh 5000 years before hold sway?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary:  Modern archaeology seeks out ancient astronauts.
2. Two stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 The camera work is rather nice.  The related CGI was another matter; some was OK, but other parts were just poor.


2. Sound: 6/10  Fairly good, but could have added more to the overall feeling of suspense or danger.


3. Acting: 4/10 David Charvet (Baywatch) as a PhD?  Give me a break!  Carmen Chaplin was moderately good.


4. Screenplay: 3/10 This was old, tired, recycled material with a layer of not impressive new CGI.  The ending was abrupt, and the exposition of motivations was too slim.

20140603: Action Review--GI Joe: Retaliation

GI Joe: Retaliation

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated PG, 110 minutes, action, scifi.
2. IMDB: 5.9/10.0 from 110,396 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 130 million USD; estimated world wide gross, 375 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 28% on the meter; 49% liked it from 196,820 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: John M. Chu.  Written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick.
5. Starring: Dwayne Johnson as Roadblock, Jonathan Pryce as President, Byung-hun Lee as Storm Shadow, Elodie Yung as Jinx, Ray Stevenson as Firefly, DJ Corona as Flint, Adrianne Palicki as Jaye, Channing Tatum as Duke, Ray Park as Snake Eyes, Luke Bracey as Cobra Commander, Arnold Vosloo as Zartan.


2. Setup and Plot


1. The current film is the sequel to GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009).  Since the first film, Cobra Commander and Destro are in custody. Zartan has successfully impersonated the President of the US.


2. The Joes get orders from the President to recover stolen nuclear weapons from Pakistan.  The mission is successful, but someone kills the Pakistani head of state.  This is pinned on Snake Eyes, and the whole mission is classified by the White House as the Joes going rogue.  Where do they get off stealing nuclear weapons?  The President orders that the Joes be sanctioned.


3. Roadblock, Lady Jaye, and Flint survive the attack.  Using secret channels, the trio reaches out to any other Joes.  They make face-to-face contact with General Joe Colton, who founded the Joes.


4. In an alternate thread, Storm Shadow and deadly ex-Joe Firefly spring Cobra Commander from the prison in Germany.  Cobra Commander abandons Destro in the process, and Storm Shadow is badly wounded before they can exit.  Storm Shadow retires to the Himalayas to recover.  Snake Eyes and Jinx capture Storm Shadow and take him to Japan.  Storm Shadow reveals that he only joined Cobra to get revenge on Zartan for killing his uncle.


5. General Colton helps the remaining Joes get close to Zartan and get a DNA sample to prove he is not the President.  With definitive proof, they prepare for more retaliatory action.


6. Zartan (as the US President) calls a conference of world nuclear leaders.  He tricks them into destroying all nuclear weapons, then shows them project Zeus, which allows Cobra to destroy whole cities with one shot.  Cobra Commander arrives and demands rule of the entire world.


7. Will the Joes be able to stop this plan and restore the legitimate President?  Will they re-capture Cobra Commander?  How many cities will be destroyed by the Zeus project?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: The action sequel to Rise of Cobra was quite a commercial success.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 9/10 Shaky at times, but mostly excellent.


2. Sound: 4/10 Bad sound leveling.


3. Acting: 4/10 I liked the performances of Dwayne Johnson and Jonathan Pryce. Otherwise, not so much.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 The segment where Zartan gets world leaders to fire huge numbers of nuclear missiles, then destroy them, was the most stupid version of 'Simon says' that I have ever seen. The lines written for Duke were indeed inappropriate, as Roadblock put it.  The supposition that the public will accept anything is still a bit tough to take.

20150515: Documentary Review--Thievery Corporation: Live at 9:30

Thievery Corporation: Live at 9:30

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, NR, 97 minutes, documentary, music.
2. IMDB: 8.8/10.0 from 12 audience ratings. Twelve ratings is not much of a sample.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...' and 100% wanted to see it from 1 audience ratings.  Yes, that is ONE audience rating.
4. I watched this on Crackle, complete with commercials.  The commercials, at least, were done by professionals.
5. Directed by: Jolyon Hoff.
6. Starring: Thievery Corporation.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film consists of concert footage interwoven with documentary interviews.


2. The camerawork on the concert footage is truly poor.  The sound recording and playback is rather good, but the visuals are amateurish in comparison.


3. Perhaps most unfortunate about this uninspired effort is that the interviews (beautifully shot, but impoverished in content) seem to have less than nothing to do with the concert footage.


4. I have recently watched and reviewed Metallica: Through the Never, Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage, and Muscle Shoals.  Compared to those majestic accomplishments, this film is amateurishly directed, visually ugly, and musically listless.


3. Conclusions
1. For better 'world music' try Afro-Celt.
2. I would not recommend this to anyone.  The best parts were the commercials.
3. One line summary: If you enjoy lens flare and smoke, you'll love this.
4. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 0/10 If you enjoy lens flare and smoke, you'll love this.  The film is beyond belief ugly.  The multiple overlay method fails badly; the background videos seem irrelevant.


2. Sound: 10/10 Just fine.  That is why I gave the film 2/5 instead of a (first ever) 0/5.


3. Acting: z/10 Supposedly not applicable here, but some numbers were clearly lip-synced, and done so quite poorly.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Documentary clips: relentlessly boring, incomplete, and self-important.  Concert footage: musicians were competent, but poorly presented visually.  Fusion: complete failure.  With eyes closed, the film is a bit better.

20140512: Music Review--Black Keys 2008

The Black Keys Live at the Crystal Ballroom

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2008, NR, 64 minutes, music, documentary.
2. IMDB: 5.1/10.0 from 30 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet' and 100% liked it from 15 audience ratings.
4. I watched this on Crackle.  The commercials were quite an improvement over the sub-amateur concert content.
5. Directed by: Lance Bangs.
6. Starring: Daniel Auerbach (guitar, vocals, keyboard) and Patrick J. Carney (drums) as themselves.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The Black Keys was a two man group in this 2008 effort: Daniel on guitar, keyboard, and vocals, Patrick on drums.


2. The pair was recorded during a set at the Crystal Ballroom in Portland, Oregon, USA.


3. The visuals are between poor and worse.  The audio is not that good. 


4. One can make out some of the sound that would later mature into something good.  The musical style for which the group achieved fame was definitely not present yet.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Might be interesting for die-hard fans.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 1/10 Sub-VHS quality.  Bad focus, lens flare, so-so framing, contrast flattening.  Looks like the worst-ever camcorder product from the eighties.


2. Sound: 4/10 Not very good.  I've heard far better quality from Black Keys cuts on the FM radio in my car.  Their expanded group for post 2010 efforts has a much better sound.


3. Acting: z/10 Not really relevant.  This is musical performance only, with no further aspirations.


4. Screenplay: 3/10 Straight-up concert recording, with no particular frills, or acting, or story line.  This was about the longest 64 minutes I can remember.

20140511: Thriller Review--Trap for Cinderella

Trap for Cinderella

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. British live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 99 minutes, thriller.
2. IMDB: 5.4/10.0 from 657 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 25% on the meter; 20% liked it from 129 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.9/5.0 from 4,276 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Iain Softley.
6. Starring: Tuppence Middleton as Mickey, Alexandra Roach as Do, Aneurin Barnard as Jake, Frances De La Tour as Aunt Elinor, Stanley Weber as Serge.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Mickey and Domenica meet each other after a number of years.  Do is a bank employee; Mickey is a photographer who lives as if she were rich.  Do quits her job, and they get to know each other somewhat.  They decide to get together at a house where they had common experiences as children.


2. As 'Mickey' recovers her memory, and recovers from reconstructive surgery, we switch to flashbacks of when the two had just met each other again.  Then there are further flashbacks to the estate where there was a near drowning incident when Do and Mickey were pre-teens.  Mickey was blamed for this and a subsequent event that was at least as bad.  They do not see each other for years, partly at Do's family's insistence.


3. In the depths of these flashbacks, a plot is hatched.  Will it succeed?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Fraud, deceit, and bullying aplenty; good story telling, not so much.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Mostly good, parts excellent, but sometimes in shaky camera mode, which looked horrid.


2. Sound: 3/10 Bad sound leveling.


3. Acting: 2/10 There was acting? The characters were repellant, but not engaging. I hoped the trap would spring on Cinderella so that the film would end.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 Neither the pacing nor the labyrinth of flashbacks and reinterpretations were engaging.  I had a strong hope that all the main characters would be terminated with extreme prejudice.

20140506: Horror Review--Here Comes the Devil

Here Comes the Devil

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Mexican live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 97 minutes, horror, thriller.
2. IMDB: 5.7/10.0 from 1,128 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 41% on the meter; 34% liked it from 2,609 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.7/5.0 from 19,665 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Adrian Garcia Bogliano.
6. Starring: Francisco Barreiro as Felix, Laura Caro as Sol, Michele Garcia as Sara, Alan Martinez as Adolfo, Giancarlo Ruiz as Sgt. Flores.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Parents Felix and Sol take children Sara and Adolfo on a trip.  Sara starts her first period, which is a temporary alarm.  After visiting a medic, they return to their motel, and the kids want to go exploring again.  While waiting, the parents get interested in each other, and the time gets away from them.  The sun goes down and the children have not returned from their trek to a steep, rocky hill.  The police wisely advise to restart the search in the morning.  The next morning, the police return the kids.


2. However, not all is well.  Sara draws some disturbing art.  Both Sol and Felix get unexplained bruises on their bodies.  Sara has an unexplained seizure when she sees a man who was around just before the kids went missing.  The parents do a dastardly violent crime at night.  The babysitter has an horrific blackout.  That is just the beginning of the family's descent.


3. Is the family doomed, or will they find a way back to sanity?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Neither scary, nor suspenseful, nor gory, nor interesting.
2. Two stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Good, but not great.


2. Sound: 7/10 The actors were well-miked, but I was paying more attention to the sub-titles.  The music was only mildly helpful for setting mood.


3. Acting: 3/10 Some people were in front of cameras while they hit their marks and said their lines.  I would not call any of this good acting, however.  There was way too much time spent with the camera on Laura Caro's stone face while someone off camera spoke.  Francisco Barreiro was quite unconvincing.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 The film does tell a story, but it is neither interesting nor well told. The SFX and the hallucinations were not convincing at all.

20140430: Comedy Review--White Reindeer

White Reindeer

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 82 minutes, comedy, drama, indie.
2. IMDB: 5.8/10.0 from 458 audience ratings.  Aspect 1.85
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 89% on the meter; 54% liked it from 278 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.6/5.0 from 18,982 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Zach Clark.
6. Starring: Anna Margaret Hollyman as Suzanne Barrington, Laura Lemar-Goldsborough as Fantasia, Lydia Hyslop as Patti, Joe Swanberg as George, Chris Doubeck as Detective Ross, Marissa Molnar as Latifa, Nathan Williams as Jeff Barrington.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Jeff and Suzanne seem to be happy living in Virginia near Christmas time.  Jeff has a new job starting in January, and they enjoy each other's company deeply.  Suzanne comes home one day before Christmas to find Jeff on the floor with his head bashed in.


2. The police investigation seems rather light and inept at the beginning.  Things pick up a bit after Suzanne starts combing through the files and web addresses on Jeff's computer.


3. Suzanne decides to meet some of the girls that Jeff knew.  Fantasia is one of the dancers.  Suzanne starts into shoplifting, as well as cocaine use.  Neither of these serves her well.  Her old set of friends prove to be less normal afterward.  Eventually, though, she starts to get information about Jeff's secret life: lap dances, cocaine use, and his other love interests.


4. Her excursion into getting to know the neighbors is not too damaging.  Then again, it was not beneficial for Suzanne.


5. Does Suzanne connect the dots?  Does she seek help with the police?  Will she survive the neighbors, or her Internet Christmas-sadness buying spree?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: A Christmas-themed feel-bad film.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 From overexposure to underexposure to faux blondes to terrible makeup, the sets and lighting were poor.


2. Sound: 7/10 The actors were miked OK.  The incidental music was crappy, but then again, that's pretty much what the story was about: crappy situations.


3. Acting: 4/10 I almost liked the performance of Anna Margaret Hollyman, but not any of the many others.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 There was nothing funny about this film.  It should not be billed as a comedy.

20140423: Drama Review--The Mark 2 Redemption

The Mark 2: Redemption

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 94 minutes, drama, action, thriller.
2. IMDB: 5.9/10.0 from 98 audience ratings.  Spoken word is English.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' and 'No scores yet.'
4. Netflix: 3.4/5.0 from 95,583 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: James Chankin.
6. Starring: Craig Sheffer as Chad Turner, Eric Roberts as Cooper, Sonia Couling as Dao, Johann Helf as Warren, Gary Daniels as Joseph Pike, Ivan Kamaras as Phillip Turk, Sahajak Boonthanakit as Dr. Siriwat.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The sequel takes up immediately after the point where the first film ended.


2. Pike got free and continues to look for Chad at the behest of Phillip Turk.  Turk is emerging as a world leader.  Cooper has been imprisoned by Pike, and Cooper unexpectedly gives his captors a strong clue (Chad's brother's last location) to Chad's current whereabouts.


3. Pike's forces close in on Chad as he prepares to depart his brother's last home. Chad finds a way to locate Dr Siriwat, who was a leader in the chip program.  He tries for a meeting, but is intercepted by Pike's men.


4. Do they find Dao's sister alive?  Does Chad survive having the chip inside him?  Will Turk get control of Chad?  Can anyone undermine Pike's pursuit?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: The sequel was slightly (but not significantly) better than the original.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 The camera work was better than in the first film. There were fewer minutes of shaky camera, for instance. The flashbacks were unpleasant to look at from the choice of filtering techniques.


2. Sound: 6/10 The voices of many of the actors seemed hollow.  The incidental music was a bit florid for my taste.


3. Acting: 3/10 Wretched.  The male leads, Sheffer, Gary Daniels, Ivan Kamaras, were all terrible.  Eric Roberts was better, but only in a small part.  Sonia Couling and Johann Helf were also somewhat better.  Most of the actors in the bit parts were quite bad.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 The dialog was repeatedly awkward where Christian messages were forcibly injected.  As a tool to convince people of a point of view, I think this movie was a failure.  As with the first film, there was not much story stretched over 94 minutes. Some of the chase scenes looked like very poor imitations of the fourth Bourne film. The ending more than hinted at a sequel.


5. SFX: 5/10 Neither convincing nor horribly bad; just so-so.

20140422: Thriller Review--The Mark

The Mark

1. Production Fundamentals; Reception
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, rated G, 92 minutes, drama, action.
2. IMDB: 3.7/10.0 from 525 audience ratings.  Estimated budget: 1.5 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...', and 30% liked it from 21 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.3/5.0 from 146,681 audience ratings.
5. Directed by James Chankin.
6. Starring: Craig Sheffer as Chad Turner, Eric Roberts as Cooper, Gary Daniels as Joseph Pike, Ivan Kamaras as Phillyp Turk, Sonia Couling as Dao, Sarah Deakins as Jodie Scott, Carey Scott as Pilot.


2. Setup, Plot
1. Avanti Corporation creates one biometric computer chip intended to have some profound interface with a human being.  If that were not strange enough, their lab was just about to implant the thing inside a chosen test subject when the lab is attacked.  While the lab burns and things are still blowing up, the lab surgeon does an emergency implant into a member of the security force for Avanti, one Chad Turner.


2. Cooper, the failed head of security for Avanti, gets Turner on a plane to a safe place.  That does not work.  For one thing, Joseph Pike is determined to have the chip.


3. The plane is hijacked by three murderers and one tech accomplice.  The attempt at re-taking the plane and killing all the hijackers was almost successful.  The lights go out; when they come back on, some passengers are gone, with their clothes left behind.  (This event was given a spiritual explanation.)  There are more problems than just the departed hijackers.


4. Will the plane land safely?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Mostly ineffective action film with spiritual overtones.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 2/10 Poor close-ups accompanied by camera shake.  Stupid camera angles.


2. Sound: 7/10 The actors are miked OK.  The music is not all that effective.


3. Acting: 2/10 Absurdly bad.  The lead actor, Craig Sheffer, is perhaps the worst of them all, with Gary Daniels a close second. The pair who played the pilot and co-pilot were terrible.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 The dialog is odd and stilted, especially where Christian beliefs are being injected.  There is not much story stretched over 92 minutes.


5. SFX: 4/10 The mock-up of a commercial passenger jet airplane is ridiculous.  The animated airplane exteriors were not good.

20140419: SciFi Review--Big Ass Spider

Big Ass Spider!

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated PG-13, 80 minutes, SciFi, comedy.
2. IMDB: 5.2/10.0 from 2,357 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 78% on the meter, but no consensus yet; 43% liked it from 739 audience ratings.
4. I saw this on the SyFy channel.
5. Directed by: Mike Mendez.
6. Starring: Ray Wise as Major Braxton Tanner, Patrick Bauchau as Lucas, Greg Grunberg as Alex Mathis, Clare Kramer as Lieutenant Karly Brant, Alexis Knight as Nurse Lisa.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Alex the exterminator has an ordinary day, more or less, but he gets bitten by a brown recluse.  He goes to a hospital to have the inflammation treated early on.  He sees a corpse go by, and asks Nurse Lisa about it.  While Alex is being treated, one of the hospital staff in the morgue notices something moving in the corpse's body bag.   The staff member thought it was a spider, just bigger than a spider.  No one believes this, but his wound inflammation is huge, nearly all of the right side of his neck.


2. Alex trades killing the spider for paying the hospital bill.  He sets about to kill the spider with a security guard.


3. Meanwhile, Major Tanner arrives and places the hospital under his command.  (Right, under what jurisdiction?)  Tanner wants to see the body in the morgue.


4. The spider, now a bit larger than dinner plate, crawls through the ducts ahead of Alex, and kills a patient.  The spider keeps getting larger with each kill.


5. The rest of the film is about the continued growth of the spider until it is huge.  Will Alex or Major Tanner get the giant arachnid under control before Los Angeles is destroyed or the spider eggs hatch?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: The endless badness is almost funny, but not quite.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Reasonably good.  The creature animation was mostly ordinary, partly stupid beyond belief.


2. Sound: 6/10 The actors were miked OK, but music was not used well.


3. Acting: 4/10 Yikes, what are Ray Wise and Patrick Bauchau doing in this debacle?  (The plus four was for Wise and Bauchau.)  Greg Grunberg was unrelentingly not funny and not believable.  I got absolutely no sense of fun or cleverness.  The rest of the actors (notably Clare Kramer) were terribly bad.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Fifteen minutes of story were stretched beyond breaking over eighty minutes of movie.  On the SyFy channel, add another forty minutes of commercial interruptions.  This story was never scary, never funny, never clever.  It's wall-to-wall nonsense delivered with straight faces; stale, stupid, failed.  For this one, I would say that the viewers got it right, and the RT critics got it dead wrong.

20140417: Horror Review--Dead before Dawn

Dead before Dawn

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 89 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 4.9/10.0 from 2,105 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet...' and 38% liked it from 272 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 60,021 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: April Mullen.  Written by: Tim Doiron.
6. Starring: Devon Bostick as Casper Galloway, Martha MacIsaac as Charlotte Baker, Christopher Lloyd as Horus Galloway, Brandon J. McLaren as Dazzle Darlington, Brittany Allen as Lucy Winthrop, Tim Doiron as Seth Munday, 


2. Setup and Plot
1. Casper has a traumatic experience as a child at his grandfather's curio shop.  He still has nightmares during college.  A particular vessel drops, his father catches it, and his father is transformed for the worse by it.


2. Casper is more than a bit on the wimpish side.  He agrees to mind the curio shop "Occult Barn" for his grandfather while the grandfather receives a lifetime award.  His friends drop by, and he lets them handle the vessel; this is something his grandfather explicitly forbid.  One of his friends drops the vessel and it breaks.


3. The lights go out.  The group makes up a curse, in great detail, then say they are done with the curse's rules.  The lights come back on.  The group agree to meet later to test it out.


4. So, if someone in the group looks directly into someone else's eyes after 10 pm, the targets kills themselves, then return as a mixture of demon and zombie, or zemon.  Unless they reverse the curse before dawn, the group itself will be cursed.


5. That evening, the number of mysterious deaths mount, but many of the 'dead' do not stay dead.  The group re-assembles, realises that they are in deep trouble, then arm themselves.  They go back to the Occult Barn, and tell Horus about the incident and the curse.  Unfortunately, they look Horus in the eyes, and he kills himself.


6. Will the group be able to use Horus' book to reverse the curse?  Will anybody in town be left as a normal human?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: A film about rapid zombies without much humor or plot.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Better than VHS quality, but not by much.  The SFX vary from mediocre to poor.


2. Sound: 6/10 I could hear the actors' voices and the incidental music, some of which was appropriate for a zombie comedy.


3. Acting: 3/10 Weak.  The three is mostly for Christopher Lloyd's short performance.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Boring, not funny, not engaging.   The central idea of the curse was beyond stupid.

20140416: Horror Review--Creature

Creature

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, rated R, 93 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 3.7/10.0 from 2,050 audience ratings. Estimated budget, 3 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 11% on the meter; 16% liked it from 2,207 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.0/5.0 from 150,727 audience ratings.
5. Written by directed by: Fred Andrews.
6. Starring: Mehcad Brooks as Niles, Serinda Swan as Emily, Dillon Casey as Oscar, Lauren Schneider as Karen, Aaron Hill as Randy Parker, Amanda Fuller as Beth, Jennifer Lynn Warren as Ophelia.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The opening sequence with Ophelia's swim in the swamp marks this movie as an exploitation effort: full nudity followed by gore and death.


2. The scene then jump shifts to three upscale city couples traveling in an expensive SUV to the backwoods swamps in Louisiana.  The six rich kids stop at a general store.  They show their general disrespect for local traditions and people.  The four men at the general store are depicted as inbred, uneducated, violent, and unsanitary.


3. The good old boys tell a story of the Boutine family, which was dying out some decades ago.  The story culminates with the almost wedding of brother and sister (Grimley and Caroline Boutine), who are the last possible breeders in the clan.  The ceremony is interrupted by a legendary gator, Lockjaw, who eats the bride.  The groom is discouraged by this.  He kills the gator, then eats it, including parts of his almost bride.  Following one of the cliches of cannibalism, Grimley absorbs some of the strengths of Lockjaw, becoming a man/monster.


4. Let's have a moment of silence for that massive 'jump the shark' incident.


5. The local good old boys warn the six city folk to respect the tradition, which is not explained in any detail.  The city folk don't show respect, of course, and the locals attempt to force the tradition on them.


6. Do any of the city youngsters survive this elimination derby and get home?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Lots of cliches, very little new; throwback SFX.
2. Two stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Looked professional at least part of the time.


2. Sound: 7/10 Not too bad.


3. Acting: 4/10 Mehcad Brooks seemed way too old for the part; on the other hand, he was the best actor in the film by far.  That in itself was another problem: why would such a level-headed young man get into this mess?  Most of the other actors played caricatures, particularly Sid Haig.  All of the actors playing swamp folk gave terrible performances.


4. Screenplay: 3/10 The dialog the actors were given was mostly poor.  The exposition of motivation left a lot to be desired: why did anyone do any of the things they did in this movie?  The worst for me was during the Niles-Lockjaw fight.  There is no way that Niles could survive even one hit from the monster, much less 15 or so.  Ridiculous.


5. SFX: 3/10 The creature effects were modestly convincing; they were reminiscent of the Creature in the Black Lagoon (1954).  The gore effects were not convincing at all.

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.

20140324: Horror Review--Summer's Moon

Summer's Moon

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2009, rated R, 91, horror, thriller.
2. IMDB: 4.5/10.0 from 2,321 audience ratings.  Spoken word is English.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet...' and 31% liked it from 1,182 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.1/5.0 from 122,898 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Lee Gordon Demarbre.
6. Starring: Ashley Greene as Summer Matthews, Peter Mooney as Tom Hoxey, Barbara Niven as Gaia Hoxey, Stephen McHattie as Gant Hoxey, Peter Michael Hilton as Darwin, Cinthia Burke as Jessie, Paul Whitney as Sheriff.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Summer travels to the small town of Massey, where she hopes to connect with her long lost father.  After shoplifting in a convenience store where a cop is, the cop gives chase.  Tom helps her escape the cop, and she goes home with him and has a one night stand.  The next morning, though, Tom lets her know that she's not leaving.  Tom's mother Gaia hits her over the head with a blunt object to drive the point home.
   


2. When Summer wakes up from the head blow, she's staked, all four limbs, to a gardening bed full of exposed soil.  She's not alone; there's another captive woman not far away.  One version of the title is "Summer's Blood," and we can guess the origin.


3. Darwin, Summer's putative father, gets out of jail, and comes looking for Summer.  The Sheriff listens, but Summer has not left an impression that keeps his interest.  He makes a few inquiries; Gaia is the first one whom he asks.  Gaia tries to talk Tom into abandoning his 'gardening' and setting the girls free to avoid trouble with the law.


4. Tom does some reading, which he shares with Gaia.  They set Summer free, but keep her in their orbit.  Soon after, Gant Hoxey calls, and there are a series of revelations.


5. Then the emotional fireworks start.  Who survives the gore fest?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Ugly Canadian slasher film with incest and bad line reading.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 On the dark side for the interiors, with better than VHS quality, but not by much.  The colour palettes were often ugly to the point of looking like 1970s video shown during late night.  The exteriors, fewer in number, were better, but still had the low-budget look to them.


2. Sound: 5/10 For a Canadian film done in English, the actors seem to be lip-synching.  Perhaps that's a Netflix problem, sound versus video.  Music did not seem to be an asset.


3. Acting: 4/10 Peter Michael Hilton and Paul Whitney were just horrible.  Even as little as ten hours practicing reading lines might have helped.  On the other hand, veterans Stephen McHattie and Barbara Niven were very good.  Peter Mooney and Ashley Greene were just all over the map, occasionally believable, usually terrible.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 The film is fairly open about incest, real or intended (Gaia and Tom, Tom and Summer, Gant and Summer), but does not seem to even try to capitalise on the shock value.  The gardens did not make any sense.  Was Tom just practicing protracted torture, or was there something to be gained from the plants?  Referring to the original title, was blood actually involved there?  What did the young women before Summer actually die from?