20170115: Action Review--Jason Bourne

Name: Jason Bourne (2016)
IMDb: link to Jason Bourne (2016) page

Genres: Action.   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, Tommy Lee Jones as CIA Director Robert Dewey, Alicia Vikander as Heather Lee, Vincent Cassel as Asset, Julia Stiles as Nicky Parsons, Riz Ahmed as Kalloor.

Directed by: Paul Greengrass.  Written by: Paul Greengrass, Christopher Rouse.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
1. Ho-hum.  Another Bourne film, unfortunately with Matt Damon, again.  I liked Jeremy Renner's film, which was alive, and thoughtful, and had something to say.  Jason Bourne, though, was just another damned rehash.

2. Jason is clearly lost.  He makes money by bare knuckles fist-fighting.  The CIA is not aware of him.  Of course, the film defeats that 'happy' steady state.  It's just as well: Jason is subject to frequent hallucinations and fits of depression.  He's clearly getting older, slower, and more subject to his own death wishes.

3. The CIA's dumb shit moves early on in the film galvanize Jason, and end up damaging the CIA more than could be expected.  All of this is unnecessary.  Jason should have been left alone, in which case he would have left the CIA alone.

Delineation of conflicts:
The CIA wants Jason dead.  Jason wishes they would leave him alone.  There is nothing new in this third horrible retread of the rather fine first film.  Nicky hopes to get Jason to oppose horrible processes undertaken by the CIA, but Jason is not all that interested, at first.

Resolution: There is none.  In terms of business logic, Damon and co seem to think that more blood can be drawn from this long-dead corpse in yet another sequel to come.  Bringing back Aaron Cross as played by Jeremy Renner would be a breath of fresh air.  More of Damon would just be more swamp gas.

One line summary: Worthless sequel wanted by nobody.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 0/10 Horrible.  Take your fracking shaky vomit cam and shove it back up where it came from.  Bad focusing, bad framing, bad lighting, indifferent ability to focus on subjects.

Sound: 6/10 I can hear the dialog, which is good.  The incidental music is moderately effective in heightening suspense and the sense of threat.

Acting: 0/10 Matt Damon seems to have dropped into 'phone in the performance' mode, like Bruce Willis and Robert De Niro.  After The Martian I expected something better or at least competent.  I don't like Alicia Vikander, I have never liked Alicia Vikander, and never will like Alicia Vikander in any role.

In general I like the performances of Julia Stiles and Tommy Lee Jones, but this boring repeat would defeat the good efforts of any actor.

Screenplay: 0/10 I hate motorcycle chases.  I hate the endless rebirth of Treadstone under different names.  I hate seeing Nicky in jeopardy for no good reason.  I hate this avalanche of cliches and retread ideas.

Final rating: 0/10

20160812: SciFi Review--Sharknado 4

Name: Sharknado 4: The 4th Awakens (2016)
IMDb: link to Sharknado 4 page

Genres: Action, SciFi   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Ian Ziering as Fin Shepard, Tara Reid as April Wexler, David Hasselhoff as Colonel Gilbert Shepard, Masiela Lusha as Gemini, Cody Linley as Matt Shepard, Imani Hakim as Gabrielle, Ryan Newman as Claudia Shepard, Tommy Davidson as Aston Reynolds, Gary Busey as Wilford Wexler, Al Roker as himself, plus many others.

Directed by: Anthony C. Ferrante.  Written by: Thunder Levin.

Image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Aston Reynolds has made a fortune building installations that prevent the formation of sharknados. Five years have gone by since Sharknado 3, and a new series of variations on sharknado form.  Fin's father, the Colonel, has been rescued from the Moon, and Fin's wife, April, has been revived and rebuilt as a cyborg.

Delineation of conflicts:
The sharks are hungry and are coming in several shapes and forms in several locations about the connected United States.  The majority of humans have no defense whatsoever against this.  Fin and his family attempt to fend off the sharks and help Aston stop the sharknado formation.

Resolution: Seriously?  If they can bring back April, they can do whatever they want for future Sharknado films.  The precedent has been set.  Nothing is ever finished here.

One line summary: Fin Shepard and family fight sharknados again.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 4/10 Natural photography without shaky cams: rather nice.  SFX: beyond cheesy, beyond rotten, just terrible, and there was a lot of it.

Sound: 5/10 OK, but nothing to brag about.

Acting: (-2)/10 There was no acting, except perhaps by Al Roker.  Gary Busey looked like he needed life support for this one.

Screenplay: (-1)/10 Hacksaws were the artistic motif.  Illogic reigned over everything.  This was one continuous downpour of bullshit.

Final Rating: 0/10 The Asylum at its worst, perhaps redefining the limits of bad.

20151111: Horror Review--3 Headed Shark Attack

Name: 3-Headed Shark Attack (2015)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Horror    Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Danny Trejo as Max Burns, Karrueche Tran as Maggie, Robert Van Dam (Szatkowski) as Stanley,  Jaason Simmons as Dr Ted Nelson, Jena Sims as Dr Laura Thomas, Brad Mills as Greg, Stephen Norris as Steve, Larry Gamell Jr as Dr Leonard, Bob Constance as Brad, Rico Ball as Omar.

Directed by:  Christopher Ray.  Written by: Jacob Cooney.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: First snapshot: We see the monster in the first few minutes. We start at some sort of oceanside resort where we have a skinny dipping dare. Right in the middle of this, the 3 headed shark attacks and kills a woman, then three men.

Second snapshot: Maggie starts as a new intern at an oceanographic research station, The Persephone, a big chunk of which is underwater.  The station is placed near the Great Pacific Garbage Patch to study the effects of garbage on the ocean ecology.  Persephone aims to join forces with special interest groups to help save the planet.  While on the initial tour with one of the special interest groups, Maggie meets Greg again, whom she knew in undergraduate school.

Delineation of conflicts: The 3-headed shark is hungry, and eats people, while the people would rather go on living.  Persephone staff try to keep people safe, but the shark has other ideas.  After the shark destroys the station, a few survive and escape on a small boat.  Max Burns diverts the fishing expedition he's leading to try to help.  The shark diverts to attack a booze cruise ship.

Resolution: Will the booze cruise be saved, or will cliches be enforced?

One line summary: 50% better than 2-Headed Shark Attack.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 8/10 Most of this film is A+ beautiful to look at when filming natural objects or people.  The CGI shark is even fairly well done.

  b. Sound: 7/10 I can hear the actors' dialog clearly.  The background music is pleasant but seems a bit non-relevant at times.  At times it does help build tension.

  c. Acting: 2/10 Maggie, the lead in the film, is played by Karrueche Tran, and this appears to be her first film. It shows, and not in a good way. Brad Mills was absolutely terrible as Greg.  Danny Trejo was his usual self, which was an improvement, but does not lift this sinking wreck.

  d. Screenplay: 0/10 As per usual with Asylum pictures, more attention and money should have been devoted to the screenplay.  The endless repeat of sand on the ocean bottom being kicked up tiresome.  The unlikely physics of the script serve to feed the shark: the shark rams the larger cruise ship, and people just fly off.  Once, maybe, but five or six times, it is to laugh.  The shark jumps high into the air, lands on the cruise boat, just happens to eat all the officers on deck (one officer per mouth), and gets back to the ocean unhurt but chewing.  After the shark breaches the boat, and knocks it into a 45 degree angle, the boat rights itself after one dramatic double death scene.  Oh, really?

Does anything happen when Danny Trejo actually gets there? Well, yes and no.  The entire script is so unreasonable (especially the ending) that the absurd humour is its only positive aspect.

Final rating: 0/10

20150528: SciFi Review--Age of Ice

Age of Ice

1. Fundamentals.
1. Title: Age of Ice
2. IMDb: Users rated this 1.8/10 (1,207 votes)
3. Rotten Tomatoes:
   zero ratings by critics returned
   19% of users liked it from 62 recorded ratings
   Critics Consensus: No consensus formed yet.


4. Status: Released
5. Release date: 2014-12-09
6. Production Companies: The Asylum
7. Tagline: The world's greatest desert now a frozen apocalypse.


8. Budget:  Budget estimate not available at review time.
9. Revenue: Revenue figures not available at review time.
10. Runtime: 85 minutes.
11. Genres: Adventure, Science Fiction


12. Written and directed by: Emile Edwin Smith.


13. Starring: Barton Bund as Jack Jones, Bailey Spry as Amber Jones, Owais Ahmed as Tariq, Joe Cipriano as Dylan Jones, Jules Hartley as Diane Jones, Yaron Urbas as Capt. Kawar, Wilfried Capet as Simon


14. TMDb overview: Massive earthquakes open the Arabian tectonic plate, resulting in unstable weather and freezing temperatures that will be unsurvivable by nightfall. Attempting to reach safety, a vacationing family in Egypt must battle the rapidly cooling temperatures that usher in a new Ice Age, covering the Sphinx, Pyramids, and Sahara Desert with mountains of snow.


2. Setup and Plot


1. We start with the American Navy in the eastern Mediterranean.  All seems well, then a sequence of unexplained phenomena take out most of the USN ships and planes.  Sure.   This 'explained' (not) by referring to activity of the 'Arabian plate' which exposed magma to sea water which did something else between unlikely and impossible.  Then a blizzard starts. 


2. We start following the Jones family.  Father Jack, daughter Amber, and son Dylan are on a tour of Egyptian pyramids when the strange weather strikes.  They get re-connected with mother Diane before the problems get really serious.  Getting a plane out of Egypt fails.  The train ride fails because Dylan jumps off.  Camels work for a bit.  Walking seems a disaster.  Trucks were not all that safe either.


3. Since the entire Jones family seems to be good at making bad decisions, will the locals end up helping them?  Does anyone get out of this ever-worsening mess?


3. Conclusions
1. What is supposed to be Egypt was filmed in Detroit, MI, US.  Brilliant. The American teen Amber knows more about Egyptian culture than the locals? I don't think so. Either child knowing more than both parents about every issue? No, just no. People jumping off a pyramid 50 times their own height and landing uninjured with unsullied clothing? No.


2. There is nothing that this cast cannot ruin.


3. One line summary: The Asylum strikes again; the audience loses.


4. Zero of ten.  Four black holes for screenplay, acting, cinematography, and contempt for the audience.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 1/10 Poor CGI, some shaky cam, ridiculous set design.


2. Sound: 6/10 I could usually hear the dialog.  The music was not always bad.


3. Acting: 0/10 There was acting? 


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Stuff and nonsense.

20150313: Movie Review--Snowpiercer

Snowpiercer

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. South Korean live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 126 minutes, action, thriller, scifi.
2. IMDB: 7.0/10.0 from 119,571 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 95% on the meter; 73% liked it from 49,659 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.6/5.0 from 1,391,721 audience responses.
5. Directed by: Joon-Ho Bong
6. Starring: Chris Evans as Curtis, Kang-Ho Song as Namgoong Minsoo, Ed Harris as Wilford, John Hurt as Gilliam, Tilda Swinton as Mason, Jamie Bell as Edgar.
7. Estimated production budget, 39 million USD.  Source: IMDb.
8. Revenues: States, 4.6 million (5.3%); overseas, 82.2 million (94.7%).  Source: Box Office Mojo.
9. Target demographic: fans of class warfare stories set in dystopian futures.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Well before the film's start, humanity attempted to reverse global warming using machinery of some sort.  The machinery worked too well.  Results were not as expected: the planet descended into an ice age.


2. As the film opens, the remainder of humanity rides on a single train that circles the globe.  The cars that make up the train are strongly typed by class.  In upper class cars, the food is good and there is light and colour.  In the lower-classed cars, there is much darkness and foul-looking bricks that pass as food.  The wretched food is distributed by armed and armored thugs who treat the riders in a cruel and authoritarian way.


3. Snowpiercer is the name of the train as well as the film.  The train has to clear the tracks of falling and drifting snow in order to continue its trek.  This is probably the most absurd part of this film.  Anyone who has experienced living for prolonged periods in snow country would reject a train being able to do this.  Also, in such a long circuit, avalanches somewhere on the route during 17 years would be certain. 


4. During the film, the classes war upon one another.  Will this violent dialectic produce any forward progress?


3. Conclusions
1. The movie's backdrop is ridiculous from beginning to end.  The proposed source of food looked like it would support one person, if they promised to eat every other year.  There is no possible route for this train to trace around the globe. The map presented of the route includes long segments that are only supported by ice.  Just how was such a thing constructed after the massive failure of the world's economies?  Answer: it was not.  The power source for this train?  Never revealed, unfortunately; at least I would have had something to laugh at.  The implementation of the 'closed ecosystem' was a joke.


2. The film was produced as an English-speaking film with American/British/Korean actors, based on a French graphic novel (Le Transperceneige, 1982; English translation, 2014), and executed by a South Korean auteur.  This movie reminds me of a relay foot race where the baton was dropped at every stage. 


3. The only real energy I saw in this movie was the mutual class hatred.  Perhaps this is why this dreadful film receives any positive regard.  Some like class warfare.  I do not.


4. One line summary: Class warfare in a totally absurd dystopian future train ride.


5. Zero of ten; one black hole for screenplay.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 2/10 Poor, ugly, repulsive, pointless.  The plus 2 was for the mountains toward the end of the film.


2. Sound: 5/10 I could hear the actors' words most of the time; some of the music was good.


3. Acting: 2/10 I still like John Hurt and Ed Harris, despite their being in this debacle.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 My usual high regard for Korean directors/auteurs ratcheted down two full notches.