20131221: Action Review--Yakuza-Busting Girls: Final Death-Ride Battle

Yakuza-Busting Girls: Final Death Ride Battle

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Japanese live action feature length film, 2010, NR, 96 minutes, action, crime.
2. IMDB: 5.3/10.0 from 63 audience ratings.  Spoken word is in Japanese; subtitles in English.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...' and 13% liked it from 20 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.4/5.0 from 1,839 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Kazushi Nakadaira.
6. Starring: Asami, Rena Komine, Sakichi Sato, Misato Tate, Rumi Hiragi.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film opens to Asami breaking out of her small mound grave.  Perhaps they buried her alive.  She gets out and shakes off the dirt.  She's wearing a pair of black panties and a somewhat healed bullet hole over her heart.  She finds a character killed in the previous phone.  He's obviously alive, so she takes the wooden cross from her grave, sharpened at the lower end, and rams it through his heart.  Nice.  Then a group of characters killed in the last film show up and advance on Asami with menace, and guns, and swords.


2. Asami keeps killing Yakuza and collecting pinkie fingers.  She makes the news.  Apparently she can kill any reasonable number of men, but when a woman smaller than she is attacks, Asami wins the contest, but is hurt badly.  She meanders around in great pain until Yayoi, the daughter of a local doctor, finds her and brings her to safety.


3. Asami sleeps a lot while recovering.  This allows flashbacks to when Asami was in different gang alliances when she was younger.  This culminated in her getting shot followed by a vision of her burial site.  Asami has waking visions as well, which makes for awkward encounters.


4. In the present, the gang elements put pressure on the head of household through his daughter who was seen with Asami.  The Yakuza torture Asami and Yayoi after capturing them.  The scourging with long stemmed (thorned) roses was somewhat well done.  But then there are numerous continuity errors afterward. 


5. The final large battle was sort of fun, but was ruined by that fact that each individual fight was absurd.


3. Conclusions
1. Are there no police in Japan?  Does slavish obedience to PC nonsense rule Japanese film making?
2. One line summary: Bad acting and screenplay overwhelm mediocre camera work in this poor sequel.
3. One star of five.  Two black holes for acting and screenplay.  The finger-cutting stand-down game (played twice) was the stupidest thing I have seen in years.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 Horrible camera work when the girl gangs are out intimidating men and stealing their money.  Visuals are dark throughout.


2. Sound: 6/10 The subtitles seemed to be OK.  The incidental music was way too intrusive.


3. Acting: 0/10 The fight choreography was bad to terrible.  The acting was absurd throughout.  I did not believe the performance of a single character.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 The long sequences about girl gang members committing crimes was neither entertaining nor informative.  The habit of spending a couple of moments in the present, then going for a long dive into meaningless nonsense (karaoke, or robbing people on the street) in the past is boring and irritating.  When is the main thread going forward?  The main story could have been done at a leisurely pace in twenty minutes, not ninety-six.

20131220: Action Review--Yakuza-Busting Girls: Duel in Hell

Yakuza-Busting Girls: Duel in Hell

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Japanese live action feature length film, 2010, NR, 75 minutes, action.  Spoken word is in Japanese; subtitles in English.
2. IMDb: 5.1/10.0 from 52 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...' and 'No scores yet'; only a stub page.
4. Netflix: 2.5/5.0 from 3,465 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Kazushi Nakadaira.
6. Starring: Asami as Asami the Yakusa hunter, Naoki Kawano, Hitomi Miwa as Akira.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Asami has fought gangsters before and does some more in this film.  She gets taken in by a family, and a good third of the film seems to be the group just waiting around, going to the arcade, chatting while getting drunk, and other mundane activities.


2. Every so often, some evil doer shows up, and Asami fights them.  She dispatches a couple one night, then has to fight Akira. That ends badly for Asami.


3. More people get hurt after Asami recovers.  Asami gets more galvanized.


4. Will Asami prevail against the gang violence?  If she gets that far, will she get revenge versus Akira?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: A bad 21st century spaghetti western in Japan plus gore fest.
2. One star of five.  Two black holes for acting and screenplay.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Lots of bad lighting. The spaghetti western camera work (shooting through heat mirages, long shots with narrow focus, filtered shots of the sun, and so on) were so-so and did not add that much.


2. Sound: 6/10 Incidental music reminiscent of Spaghetti westerns.  Spoken word seemed clear enough.  Foley was a little exaggerated, but that's common enough in such films.


3. Acting: 2/10 Bad.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Bizarre mix of low level silliness (documenting playing kids' arcarde games; women giggling while getting drunk), comedy, cult nonsense, gore fest, and spaghetti western traditions.  None of it was very good, and the disparate pieces did not fit together well at all.  Incredible cruelty for the sake of amusement was much too common.  Catching bullets in the bare hands?  Done three times, but should not have been done once.

20131220: Movie Review--Bounty Killer

Bounty Killer

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 92 minutes, action, SciFi.
2. IMDB: 5.0/10.0 from 1,965 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 50% on the meter; 49% liked it from 293 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 7,963 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Henry Saine.
6. Starring: Matthew Marsden as Drifter, Kristianna Loken as Catherine, Christian Pitre as Mary Death, Barak Hardley as Jack LeMans, Gary Busey as Van Sterling, Abraham Benrubi as Jimbo.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Dystopian future: multi-national corporations have displaced nation-states, then fought wars against one another.  When they were sufficiently weak, and hatred against them was sufficiently high, an oligarchy named the Counsel of Nine asserted itself.  It offers monetary rewards for the dead bodies of (mostly former) corporate executives.  This gives rise to a class of murderers called 'Bounty Killers' who collect rewards and compete with each other for the most rewarding executions.


2. Mary Death is such a bounty killer in this period of abject poverty and excessive wealth.  She has celebrity status since she has scored some very rich murders.  She is also a target of corporate groups trying to regain strength in this largely lawless time.  She and Drifter do jobs together now and then.  Until she finds that Drifter is a former high corporate executive; that is, now a criminal with a huge bounty on his head.


3. Mary and Drifter have a history together, as Drifter recounts to Jack as the gypsies hold them prisoner.  They escape and head to Jimbo's place; Jimbo knows who Drifter is, and is willing to help him across the Badlands for a vintage six pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer.  Mary heads across the Badlands, and finds that the gypsies are looking for her.


4. Drifter and Mary both make it across the Badlands.  Mary tries to kill him.  Jack talks her out of it.  They head to the Council of Nine, so that Drifter can submit himself to the judges.


5. Will the corporations re-assert themselves at the last moment?  Will the gypsies catch up with them?  Will the judges resolve Drifter's issues?  If Drifter survives this political snakes nest, will he and Mary get together?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Not the best knock-off of other dystopian movies.
2. One star of five.  Two blackstars for acting and screenplay.  Let there be no sequel.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Looks fine.


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 0/10 Gary Busey was terrible, Christian Pitre was worthless, Barak Hardley was indescribably bad.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Short on ideas, poorly executed, badly acted.  The model for story is not well thought out.  There is no infrastructure for the top-heavy corporation depicted toward the end of the movie.

20131220: Thriller Review--Devils Pass

Devil's Pass (The Dyatlov Pass Incident)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American/Russian live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 100 minutes, thriller, mystery. Spoken word is mostly in English with some Russian; English subtitles.
2. IMDB: 5.5/10.0 from 4,251 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 53% on the meter; 26% liked it from 499 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 3,335 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Renny Harlin.  Written by: Vikram Weet.
6. Starring: Holly Goss as Holly King, Matt Stokoe as Jensen Day, Luke Albright as JP Hauser Jr., Ryan Hawley as Andy Thatcher, Gemma Atkinson as Denise Evers.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Five Oregon students get a grant to replicate the disastrous Dyatlov expedition in the Ural Mountains of 50 years previous.  The Oregon students vanish as well.  The Russian authorities go looking, but do not find them.  Conspiracy theorists obtain a copy of found-film from the Russian authorities.  That is what the bulk of the film  consists of: running that particular found film.


2. Holly leads the expedition; Denise is the sound person.  Jensen is the video recorder.  Andy and JP are experienced guides.


3. They follow the path of the previous expedition to the Mountain of Death.  They place where the members of the first expedition died.  The keep going, and find a door, of all things, only slightly buried in the snow and ice.  Three days out, they have some real problems with a minor avalanche.  Denise is buried in the debris.  Andy's leg and face are messed up badly.


4. Some people show up; for whatever reason, Andy decides to start shooting; the 'rescuers' shoot back.  JP, Jensen, and Holly make it to the door; this time it's open to them.  They find a so-so electrical supply in the tunnel below.  Someone turns off the electricity, so they have only the light from the camera for a little stretch.  They find a lot of stuff in the tunnels, including documents in Russian.  They find pictures of the hikers of fifty years ago.  Plus they find many photos of the USS Eldridge, the supposed location of some time travel experiments in 1943. They discover a nuclear reactor which is still supplying electricity.


5. Holly and Jensen continue; JP seemed to be having trouble walking.  The pair keep recording.  They find a recently killed military man, lots of bones, and more documents, tunnels, and doors.  JP gets injured further or probably killed by the others in the tunnel.  They find a camera that is the same model as theirs, and view more found footage.  Then the strange stuff begins.


6. Will Holly and Jensen make it out alive?  Will the full story ever get out?


3. Conclusions
1. The door in the ice was just too much like the hatch in the TV series Lost.
2. One line summary: Retracing the path of a doomed expedition leads to more losses.
3. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 Supposed to be found footage, but much of it looks too good for that.  Unfortunately, visual quality went south toward the end of the film.


2. Sound: 8/10 Usually good.


3. Acting: 8/10 Better than I expected, given the script.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 Unlikely and not that believable.

20131220: Drama Review--A Perfect Ending

A Perfect Ending

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, NR, 110 minutes, drama.
2. IMDB: 5.4/10.0 from 1,093 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 175,000 USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No Reviews Yet...' and 54% liked it from 146 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.1/5.0 from 124,176 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Nicole Conn.
6. Starring: Barbara Niven as Rebecca Westridge, Jessica Clark as Paris, John Heard as Mason Westridge , Morgan Fairchild as Valentina.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Rebecca is in a marriage where she has never had a climax, and she and her husband Mason have sex twice a year, whether they want to or not.  Mason is a bit of a shifty dealer, and he signs over certain company segments to Rebecca to avoid litigation and perhaps criminal charges.  He's very controlling with her and keeps her in the dark as much as possible.


2. Theme 1: Rebecca's lesbian friends try to get her to enjoy herself more with another woman, perhaps through Valentina, who runs a service for that.  This starts slowly with Paris, since Rebecca is skittish about it, but picks up speed later.


3. Theme 2: Rebecca decides to use Mason's overconfidence to take control of most of his companies.  The documents he urged her to sign earlier are a great help in this.  Further into the film, we find out that Rebecca has terminal cancer.  She will have a lot of decisions to make.


4. Theme 3.: Rebecca's first lesbian lover, Paris, is going through emotional turmoil herself over the loss of a loved one.  Some time ago, she had a minor laughing spat with her husband.  She playfully pushed him away, into the path of a car that killed him.


5. Theme 4: Rebecca's daughter from a first marriage feels left out, plus Mason abused her sexually a few years back.  One Mason and Rebecca's two sons is to be married into even more money, but his prospective wife is a bit of an odd duck.


6. Will Rebecca and Mason handle the full transfer of power before she is gone?  Will Rebecca figure out her sexual identity?  Will Paris get over the exact way that her husband died?  Will the next generation get their acts together?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Soap opera, rated R; nicely done for the budget.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 There were too many closeups of mundane objects coupled with rack focus.  The shots of Paris emoting were atmospheric, but more often boring than not. The regular footage was very well done.


2. Sound: 8/10 Mostly OK, but dips too low sometimes.


3. Acting: 5/10 Lots of variation: John Heard was quite convincing; Barbara Niven almost convincing; the actors who play the grown up children were rather bad, as were the actors who played the lesbian friends.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 The story lines made sense eventually, but the whole thing was rather ponderous.  Oh, well, soap opera traditions.

20131220: Drama Review--Lovelace

Lovelace

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 92 minutes, biography, drama.
2. IMDB: 6.1/10.0 from 12,910 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 10 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 54% on the meter; 37% liked it from 9,813 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.4/5.0 from 201,979 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman.
6. Starring: Amanda Seyfried as Linda, Peter Sarsgaard as Chuck, Sharon Stone as Dorothy Boreman, Robert Patrick as John Boreman, Chris Noth as Anthony Romano, Bobby Cannavale as Butchie Peraino, Hank Azaria as Gerry Damiano, Adam Brody as Harry Reems, James Franco as Hugh Hefner.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Linda grows up in a repressive household, then marries a dominating husband, who eventually corners her into the porn industry.  She gets the job because Chuck had trained her to pleasure him orally, then took home movies of it.  The producers were enthused.


2. Deep Throat is hugely popular, and she gets a vanity film or two.  She is quite a sensation, and gets to know quite a number of influential people.  Then we jump forward six years to where Linda is into writing books.


3. The film progresses (?) into re-interpretations of what was shown in the first 20 minutes.  Most of the focus was on how stupid or bad the first husband, Chuck Traynor, was.  Clearly he was a bad businessmen.  Their mobster friends could have done much better.  Clearly he mistreated Linda.  On the other hand, the exposition of how Lovelace could have shifted from prostitute and porn star to moralistic author was weak to the point of non-existence.


4. Was Linda's second marriage better?  Did she really escape? The movie does not really address this at all.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Muddled account of Lovelace's sadly mismanaged life.
2. Two stars of five.


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


2. Sound: 8/10 The spoken voices fade away into nothing now and then.


3. Acting: 5/10 Cheers to James Franco, Chris Noth, Hank Azaria, Bobby Cannavale, Robert Patrick.  On the other hand, Amanda Siefried, Peter Sarsgaard, Adam Brody, and Sharon Stone just stank on ice.  I hope to avoid Amanda Siefried in all future roles; she was amazingly terrible here.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 I'm not sure what the story was.  The timeline is very confused.

20131220: Thriller Review--Crawl

Crawl

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Australian live action feature length film, 2011, NR, 80 minutes, thriller, crime.
2. IMDB: 4.8/10.0 from 614 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 500,000 AUD. Aspect: 2.35
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 71% on the meter; 17% liked it from 117 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.9/5.0 from 35,685 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Paul China.
6. Starring: George Shevtsov as The Stranger ('The Croatian'), Bob Newman as Rusty Sapp, Georgina Haig as Marilyn Burns, Lauren Dillon as Holly, Lynda Stoner as Eileen, Paul Holmes as Slim Walding, Paul Bryant as Sergeant Byrd, John Rees-Osborne as Constable Rolly.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The Croatian comes to town and sanctions (kills for hire) the owner of a petrol station, Rusty Sapp.  He gets paid by the Slim Walding (who owns the bar where most of the other characters work) and leaves town.  He runs over a pedestrian on the way to his next stop.  This turns out to be Travis, who's truck had stalled out.


2. Marilyn prepares for the return of her fiance to be, Travis.  He's late for business reasons.  Then he keeps on being late.  The Croatian breaks in, ties her up, and gags her.  He's looking for transportation, but Travis had the truck as well as the keys to the old motorcycle.


3. The police come visit Slim Walding about the murder of Rusty Sapp.  Later, Slim and Holly play the spanking game to work off Holly's debt to Slim.  He makes her crawl to him before she gets over his knee, bares her bottom, then spanks her hard.


4. The Croatian goes back and kills what's left of Travis, then steals the engagement ring from the corpse.  Slim finds his gun missing; he figures he's being set up.  He drives to Marilyn's house, finds Travis' blood, Travis' truck, but not Travis.  So he heads to Marilyn's house; he steps in the chocolate cake Marilyn's friend left on the stoop.  He sees the blood from the Croatian's wounded leg.  He tries to get answers after he unties Marilyn, but she has few answers.  The Croatian comes in and disrupts their conversation.  Then the Croatian goes after Marilyn.


5. Do we find out the Croatian's motivations? Does Slim get what he seems to deserve?  Will Marilyn survive all this?


3. Conclusions
1. This film reminded me of Blood Simple (1984) more than any other single film.
2. One line summary: An interesting but incomplete effort by first time director Paul China.
3. Final Rating: 8/10


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Excellent.


2. Sound: 8/10 The incidental music was often spot on, but sometimes overbearingly loud.


3. Acting: 7/10 Just fine if one likes the acting style that the Coen brothers favour.


4. Screenplay: 7/10 Just what was the plot against Slim?  What was the history with Slim and Holly?  How did the Croatian come into play here?  There are a few too many loose ends here.

20131219: Fantasy Review--Cirque du Soleil

Cirque du Soleil: Worlds Away

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, PG, 91 minutes, family, adventure.
2. IMDB: 6.5/10.0 from 4,793 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 47% on the meter; 58% liked it from 12,274 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.9/5.0 from 42,990 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Andrew Adamson.
6. Starring: Erica Linz as Mia, Igor Zaripov as The Aerialist, Lutz Halbhubner as Ringmaster, John Clarke as Sad Clown, Dallas Barnett as Boss, Matt Gillanders as Circuit Marvelous cast member.


2. Setup and Plot
1. This is indeed a film about a carnival, with some fantasy elements thrown in.


2. The visuals are spectacular.


3. Conclusions
1. Refers to Paul McCartney singing Blackbird as 'folk singing.'  Who came up with that? The Beatles' songs were, by and large, of no connection to the visuals (except perhaps for Octopus' Garden).
2. One line summary: Cirque du Soleil showing off excellent visuals, but not much else.
3. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Watched this in HD but not 3D.  It was still quite beautiful.


2. Sound: 2/10 My first experience of Cirque du Soleil was the soundtrack of Alegria, with no video, but with powerful singing.  When I first saw Alegria, I was disappointed, because the visuals were so inferior to the singing.  In this film, the visuals are striking, fully as good as I hoped for in Alegria.  However, the sound track in this film is weak, unimpressive, hardly a match for the amazing visuals.


3. Acting: 3/10 I have no interest in (or enjoyment of) clowns, carnies, and mimes.  If you like them, you might find this film more palatable. 


4. Screenplay: 3/10 There was a screenplay?  Were there characters I was supposed to care about?  Enjoy the visuals; that is all you are going to get: art direction, not screenplay.

20131219: Drama Review--Rampart

Rampart

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, rated R, 101 minutes, drama, crime.
2. IMDB: 5.8/10.0 from 15,248 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 74% on the meter; 35% liked it from 11,103 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.9/5.0 from 302,148 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Owen Moverman.
6. Starring: Woody Harrelson as David Douglas Brown, Jon Bernthal as Dan Marone, Stella Schnabel as Jane, Jon Foster as Michael Whittaker, Ben Foster as General Terry, Cynthia Nixon as Barbara, Anne Heche as Catherine, Sigourney Weaver as Joan Confrey, Ned Beatty as Hartshorn.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Los Angeles, 1999.


2. At lunch, David and Dan give the new rookie Jane a pep talk of sorts about being in the LAPD.  Jane asks about the scandal.  Something's gone wrong, the DA is pressured to prosecute someone in LAPD, but he would rather not.  More details later; this is central to the movie.  Then David and Jane go on routine maneuvers.  Much of the detail is about different nationalities of illegal aliens, together with the Siamese twin issue of the massive illegal drug industry.


3. David's home life is a bit different.  He married one woman, Barbara.  They broke up, then he married her sister, Catherine.  He sired a daughter with each, Helen and Margaret. Both families live with him.  Just to top things off, when both wives deny him, he's quite comfortable with picking up hot women at bars.


4. After an incident with a man who rammed his car, Dave is asked to retire.  He makes it clear that he has not intention of doing this.  The pressures against him mount.  He retains counsel.  He uses his contacts to try to find out the real motivations behind what's hitting him.  One of the chief of these contacts is Hartshorn, who finally gives up on him.


5. His wives and daughters all desert him, kick him out of the house he pays for, send him their rivers of hate.  Internal affairs is closing in.


6. Will Dave find a reasonable way through the mess he is in?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Follow a dirty Rampart cop on his way down.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 9/10 Usually excellent.


2. Sound: 9/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 10/10 Well done to: Sigourney Weaver, Anne Heche, Woody Harrelson, and Ned Beatty.


4. Screenplay: 7/10 Looked like it needed another 30 minutes to close the loops, but decided to leave things hanging.  What happens to Dave and the rookie, or Dave and Dan, or the larger corruption investigation?  Did Hart recover?  There were lots of loose ends.  Still, the story of Dave moved forward relentlessly.

20131216: Drama Review--28 Hotel Rooms

28 Hotel Rooms

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, NR, 82 minutes, drama.
2. IMDB: 5.3/10.0 from 1,303 audience ratings.  Aspect 1.78.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 43% on the meter; 40% liked it from 925 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.1/5.0 from 68,239 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Matt Ross.
6. Starring: Chris Messina as Man, Marin Ireland as Woman, Robert Deamer as Bartender.


2. Setup and Plot
1. She is from Seattle; he is based in New York.  He is a novelist; she is a data miner.  They travel in their work and meet now and then.  They are rather guarded about their personal information, but are obviously attracted to one another.  They get to know each other over time.  She reads his book and likes it.


2. Eventually they talk about anything and everything.  Their careers change over time.  They discuss the meaning of what they do.  They deal with life events.


3. When he is about to get married (she has been for some time), they talk about dropping their mates and marrying each other.  But somehow it does not happen.


4. They have some tough times as well, such as when they talk about why they have not married each other.  The ambivalence shines through again.


5. Some of their pretend conversations about possible lives together are fantasy, but still priceless.  The acting by Chris Messina and Marin Ireland was very nuanced.


6. She gets pregnant, and decides to rear the child with her husband of record.  Both of them have trouble dealing with it, but it's the decision that involves the least damage. Other changes come along, like his inability to drink coffee, due to a stomach condition.


7. Will they keep meeting, or will their married lives force that tradition to break?




3. Conclusions
1. Strong resemblance to Same Time, Next Year with Alan Alda and Ellen Burstyn, 1978.
2. One line summary: Enduring relationship between two people not married to each other.
3. Five stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 9/10 Fine, except for the occasional camera shake.


2. Sound: 9/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 10/10  The two principals are quite good.


4. Screenplay: 9/10 Well told evolution of a long-lasting affair between two people who are more than friends.

20131215: Horror Review--Stranded

Stranded

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 87 minutes, horror, SciFi.  Estimated budget, 2 million CAD.
2. IMDB: 3.4/10.0 from 1,730 audience ratings. Spoken word is in English.  Aspect 2.35
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 0% on the meter (impressive); 11% liked it from 1,011 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.3/5.0 from 6,306 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Roger Christian.
6. Starring: Christian Slater as Col. Gerard Brauchman, Brendan Fehr as Dr. Lance Krauss, Amy Matysio as Ava Cameron, Michael Therriault as Bruce Johns.


2. Setup and Plot
1.  A mining company on the moon has one of its bases damaged by a meteor storm.  Some of the rocks break open after finding their way into the station.  Some sort of life form is detected; it multiplies rapidly.  Communications are out; attempts to re-assert communications fail.


2. Ava gets a knick on her finger through which she is infected.  This gives rise to a rapidly accelerated pregnancy.  She gives birth, but no one will believe her.


3. Bruce Johns gets cloned by the aliens.  It takes the Colonel and the Dr a long time to figure this out.  In the meantime, they blame Ava and keep her locked up.  After a pleasant chat, they let her go and enlist her help.


4. The alien, as Bruce Johns, starts to shut down their oxygen supply system.  They attempt a counter-strike, but this fails badly.  Will their next attempt?


5. Does anyone survive this one?




3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Bad dialog, bad acting, weak script in this infection in space story.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 Dark, with shadows placed so that significant things are hard to make out, but trivial objects are clear as day.


2. Sound: 8/10 Reasonably good.


3. Acting: 1/10 Zounds.  Terrible.  Brendan Fehr: better in Roswell or Bones or CSI:Miami; not all that believable as a staff physician on a moon base.  Christian Slater: one of his worst performances ever.  Amy Matysio: have not encountered her before, and this was a bad start.  Michael Therriault: plays a weak, incompetent whom no one believes, and who is short on emotional stability.  Why would such a character ever be hired for work in space?


4. Screenplay: 1/10  Absurd dialog.  Weak, derivative story.  Logical mistakes aplenty.


5. SFX: 0/10  Terrible. The opening sequence with the meteor storm was laughably bad.  Creature effects were ridiculous.

20131215: Horror Review--The Frozen

The Frozen

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, PG-13, 94 minutes, horror.  Spoken word is in English.
2. IMDB: 4.0/10.0 from 889 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 250,000 USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' and 6% liked it from 43 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.1/5.0 from 128,341 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Andrew Hyatt.
6. Starring: Brit Morgan as Emma, Seth David Mitchell as Mike, Noah Segan as The Hunter.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Emma and Mike go for a trek through winter snow in Colorado.  They discuss their relationship, not always amicably.


2. They have a snowmobile accident far from contact with other people.


3. Will either of them survive?




3. Conclusions
1. The reviews looked pretty bad, especially from viewers with experience.  The story was lifted (conceptually) from the Twilight Zone, where the story was told better.
2. One line summary: An old theme (the dead admitting they are dead) not done all that well.
3. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 If you love winter snow and ice, this will be a feast for you.  The backgrounds are often washed out, and now and then there is camera shake.  Still, there is a lot of beautiful footage.


2. Sound: 5/10 There was some creepy music, but on the whole, the sound was not a factor, which is disappointing.  The sound levels were ridiculously bad.  When I had the volume up for conversation, the ending credits came out blaring.


3. Acting: 3/10 I liked Brit Morgan in True Blood, but not so much in this one.  Seth David Mitchell was one of the producers, and I wished he had kept to that exclusively.  Noah Segan might as well have been a piece of cardboard.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 The two main characters die fifteen minutes in.  That is where I started to lose interest. The next 79 minutes did not add much of anything; bickering can be found just about anywhere, as can footage about incompetence.  The conceit of the film is that 'you are not dead until you realise you are dead' is old and tired.  This remake was not an improvement over older, better works on the same theme.

20131215: Horror Review--Storage 24

Storage 24

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. British live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, 87 minutes, horror, SciFi.
2. IMDB: 4.3/10.0 from 3,655 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 41% on the meter; 23% liked it from 2,411 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 133,456 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Johannes Roberts.
6. Starring: Noel Clarke as Charlie, Colin O'Donaghue as Mark, Antonia Campbell-Hughes as Shelley, Laura Haddock as Nikki, Jamie Thomas King as Chris, Ned Dennehy as David.


2. Setup and Plot
1. A few people are at a storage facility when odd things start happening.  One man looks out at his car to see that a large turbine engine has fallen on it.  One theory is that a jet broke up in the sky and the pieces crashed.


2. Mark and Charley drive to the storage, and just barely get in.  Charley is sad about the break up with Shelley.  Shelley and her friend Nikki are at the storage.  The maintenance engineer manages to screwup the circuitry of the gates on the storage just before the monster kills him.  So no one can get out right away, or any time soon. 


3. Shelley does not want to talk to Charley, and is having an affair with Mark.  Charley and Nikki are both surprised, and not in a good way.  Soon enough they know they are trapped, and that something murderous is in there with them.  Also present are Chris, from earlier in the day, and David, who more or less lives in the storage facility.


4. When the monster breaks through the door that they counted on to protect them, Chris runs and gets killed by the monster.  David shows them his setup for getting multiple newscasts.  The military is all over the place in London.


5. The five (Charley, Mark, Shelley, Nikki, David) who remain send Charley and Mark to traverse the ventilation tubes to steal weapons ('acquire' I suppose) from storage lockers not rented by them.  That goes well until the monster blocks Charley; he gets separated from Mark.


6. Will any of them get out alive?  Will the authorities come to the rescue, what with tanks patrolling the streets of London?




3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Five Londoners get stuck in a storage facility with a monster.
2. Three stars of five.  Also, director/writer, take your PC nonsense and shove it back where it came from.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 The monster was a classic main-in-the-rubber suit, but not all that well done.  Camera work was fine.


2. Sound: 7/10 If one gets the volume for conversation to be correct, the bump in the night sounds are enormously too loud.


3. Acting: 4/10 Antonia Campbell-Hughes, Laura Haddock, and Noel Clarke were just terrible.  Colin O'Donaghue was barely OK, while Ned Dennehy was the best.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 Short on plot as well as short on acting to implement the plot.  The stupid man-in-rubber-suit monster just turned me off to the story almost as much as the acting.  When the monster does not get killed by the fireworks, I'm not surprised, but why was the nearby Shelley OK?

20131214: Action Review--Sector 7

Sector 7 (7 gwanggu)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Korean live action feature length film, 2011, NR, 101 minutes, action, adventure, horror.
2. IMDB: 4.6/10.0 from 1,278 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No Score yet', and 18% liked it from 238 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.1/5.0 from 74,572 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Ji-hoon Kim.
6. Starring: Ji-won Ha as Cha Hae-joon, Sung-kee Ahn as Lee Jeong-man, Ji-ho Oh as Kim Dong-soo, Seok Min as Yoon Hyeon-wu, Ye Ryeon-cha as Genetic researcher Park Hyeon-jeong.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The opening is set about twenty years in the past.  Divers encounter life at an unexpected depth.  Unfortunately, it was hostile, and it killed Cha Hae-joon's father.


2. In 2011, we switch to an oil drilling platform.  During one of the drills, odd fish (like opening sequence) come floating up.  The genetic researchers Park Hyeon-jeong  captures several of them and keeps them in a tank.  One of the more ignorant of the crew (Chi Sun) takes out one; it bites him, infects him, and gives him a deformed face.


3. The drillers encounter 100 dry holes, but they resolve to keep trying, and do strike oil.  Three months later, they are on maintenance mode.  While doing repairs, they lose one of the younger staff, Hyeon-wu.  A short time later, Hyeon-jeong falls to her death.  The crew blame Chi Sun.  Shortly thereafter, the on site staff physician is killed.


4. Of course, it's a dark and stormy sea.  Chi Sun has gone insane from the things he's seen.  Plus, there is a serious infestation in the rig, and some walking horrors that seem to be hungry.  Chi Sun gets lost in the shuffle.


5. The captain goes to investigate with his biggest gun.  Hae-joon goes with, then the whole remaining crew.  The captain guesses correctly that the monster has some sort of strong relationship to oil, and throws his ignited cigarette lighter in its mouth.  That worked for a bit.  The monster starts on fire, but the fire does not kill it.


6. Will anyone get out alive?  How did the captain know to throw the lighter? Why was there a geneticist on board to begin with?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary:  The lure of a vastly improved fuel goes very, very wrong.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Well done, except the monster, which was one of the more important characters of the film.


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 5/10 The lead actress is a little weak.  The two comic relief characters were more of a detriment than anything else.  The monster was pretty bad.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 Some of the plot steps are hidden for a while, but it unfolds fairly well before the end.  I thought the final conflict with the monster went on too long.

20131214: Action Review--Transformers Dark of the Moon

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Mixed CGI and live action; feature length film, 2011, PG-13, 154 minutes.  Action.
2. IMDB: 6.3/10.0 from 256,856 audience ratings.  Estimated budget: 195 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 36% on the meter; 56% liked it from 245,270 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 4.0/5.0 from 4,626,624 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Michael Bay.  Written by Ehren Kruger.
6. Starring: Shia LeBoef as Sam Witwicky, Rosie Huntington-Whitely as Carly, Josh DuHamel as Colonel Lennox, John Turturro as Simmons, John Malkowicz as Brazos, Patrick Dempsey as Dylan Gould, Frances McDormand as Mearing, Alan Tudyk as Dutch.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Sam from the first two Transformer films has a new girl friend, Carly, whose ex-boyfriend, Dylan, helps him get a job. Little does Sam know that Dylan was the reason that he did not get any other jobs.  He's cut off from contact with the autobots.


2. An autobot artifact is found in Chernobyl.  It is traced back to the dark side of the moon.


3. This turns out to be a plant by the decepticons in a long gambit to get Optimus Prime to return and revive Sentinel Prime.  The decepticons had already taken possession of hundreds of 'pillars' needed to construct a space-time bridge to Cybertron, which could allow for the whole transformer balance to be redone more strongly in favour of the decepticons. 


4. The decepticons show their hand when Sentinel announces he had 'made a deal with Megatron' at the end of the transformer war that destroyed Cybertron.  Sentinel convinces the American government to help rebuild Cybertron, and to make the autobots exiles and outlaws.  Director Mearing finally accepts Sam and plots to oppose Sentinel and the decepticons.


5. The autobots get launched toward space; Megatron shoots them down. Sentinel plans to bring Cybertron to Earth in pieces via the space bridge, then to use six billion humans to rebuild it, as commanded, to its former glory.


6. Sam finds where Carly is in Chicago.  He re-unites with the autobots; they decide to attack the decepticon base in Chicago before the decepticons can fully enclose it and render it unassailable.


7. There's a lot of fighting (45 minutes worth?).


8. Will the decepticons be defeated before they pull Cybertron across the space bridge?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Technically excellent action film saddled with a bloated script.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Beautifully done eye candy.


2. Sound: 10/10 Fine.


3. Acting: 7/10 I liked John Turturro, Frances McDormand, John Malkowicz, Alan Tudyk, and Patrick Dempsey.  Shia LeBoef and Josh DuHamel were OK, but Rosie Huntington-Whitely was a strong negative.  Megan Fox is looking a lot better after seeing this film.  The voice acting was very spotty; some fine (Leonard Nimoy comes to mind), some hard to understand, some just laughable.


4. Screenplay: 6/10 Too long.  Just under two hours would have been better, instead of just over two and a half.  The story of Sentinel's betrayal was rather nice, but should have been tightened up.  The story of the skyscraper broken in two was visually interesting, but the likelihood of humans surviving it seems very low.


5. SFX: 10/10 Excellent.

20131214: Drama Review--The Playroom

The Playroom

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, NR, 82 minutes, indie drama.
2. IMDB: 5.2/10.0 from 400 audience ratings. Spoken word is in English.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 55% on the meter; 55% liked it from 310 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.0/5.0 from 15,898 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Julia Dyer.  Written by: Gretchen Dyer.
6. Starring: John Hawkes as Martin Cantwell, Molly Parker as Donna Cantwell, Olivia Harris as Maggie Cantwell, Cody Linley as Ryan (Maggie's boyfriend), Ian Veteto as Sam Cantwell, Alexandra Doke as Janie Cantwell, Jonathan Brooks as Clark Knotts, Lydia Mackay as Nadia Knotts.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Martin and Molly Cantwell have four children, Maggie, Ryan, Sam, and Janie.  The parents are alcoholic, and mostly absentee.  Maggie serves as surrogate mother.  She and the younger children often cleanup after the mess that the parents leave behind (cigarette butts, drinks glasses, random clothing, and so on).


2. It's the era of the Patty Hearst kidnapping, when cigarettes were still popular and considered socially acceptable.  Partner swapping seemed to be OK as well.  After stealing yet another of her mother's birth control pills, Maggie observes her mother being kissed and fondled by the man of a couple visiting to play bridge.


3. Several drinks later, the parents do not notice that the older boy has fallen off the roof.  Maggie does the required first aid.  More drinks later, the parents and the guests openly discuss Donna's infidelity with Clark.  Nadia and Martin are taken aback and depressed, respectively, and the friendship of the couples takes a hit.


4. Throughout the film, the four children weave stories in the attic as a defense against the ugly realities.  They are constructing a rather nice one when Martin asks Maggie to come downstairs.  Maggie reveals that Molly is pregnant by Clark, and the adults erupt.  Maggie screams to avoid bloodshed.


5. Will anyone find a path out of this real and deep mess?




3. Conclusions
1. The film has themes similar to those seen in Ang Lee's The Ice Storm, 1997.
2. One line summary: Teen daughter takes care of three younger siblings while alcoholic parents ignore them.
3. Four stars of five.


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


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 8/10 Olivia Harris was excellent as Maggie.  The child actors were fairly good, and I liked John Hawkes' performance.


4. Screenplay: 7/10 There were so many cuts that the film seemed awfully choppy.

20131214: Horror Reviews--Chanbara Beauty

Chanbara Beauty: the Movie - Vortex

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Japanese live action feature length film, 2009, NR, 88 minutes, action, horror, zombies.
2. IMDB: 4.7/10.0 from 182 audience ratings.  Spoken word is in Japanese; subtitles are in English.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet, ' and 'No score yet.'
4. Netflix: 2.2/5.0 from 1,969 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Tsuyashi Shoji.
6. Starring: Yu Tejima as Aya, Akari Ozawa as Saki, Youhei Hoshino as Ryo, Kaoru Yuki as Mimiko.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Derived from a related video game. Further, this is a sequel to the 2006 film, Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad.  We're pretty far down the road of turning the original concepts into mush.


2. The setting is post zombie apocalypse in Japan.  Zombie hunting sisters Aya and Saki lost their parents to kidnappers when they quite young, and somehow stayed alive to late teen and young adult ages.  They hear of a group led by Himiko, and a supposed method for bringing their parents back to life.


3. Saki is much more into the quest, and goes directly to meet Himiko.  Aya follows with Ryo, a young man from a zombie killer group they met along the way.  Aya and Ryo discuss 'Imchi blood' while walking.  When blood touches someone with Imchi blood, they become uncontrollable killing machines who slaughter friend and foe alike.  Himiko's target group is interested in obtaining Imchi blood.


4. Saki shifted allegiance to the group who kidnapped her parents, since she still believes they can be revived.  She has found their corpses, and the group has done some rituals with her blood.


5. During the conflicts, Himiko reveals that her use of Saki's blood was merely to fuel Himiko's desire for immortality.  Saki shifts allegiance back to her sister, and abandons the false hope of resurrection.


6. Will the sisters survive?  Will Himiko be put down permanently?


3. Conclusions
1. According to one IMDB reviewer, this film toggles between blood splatter and 'great wobbly massive hooters.'
2. One line summary: Desire for immortality drives the plot, not zombies.
3. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 3/10 Has the same sort of stylized ugly as Sin City, only not as well done.  The 'blood on the lens' effect is way over used.  Many of the images are washed out by flare and overexposure artifacts.  Overall, colour seems to be washed out. Many passages are in grey and red: neither in colour nor in black and white.


2. Sound: 3/10 Amazingly irritating.  The background music volume level is generally much higher than that of the conversation.  The choice of music is rather like bad techno music from the 1970s.


3. Acting: 4/10 Saki dresses in a sailor suit.  Aya dresses in a costume reminiscent of Motoko Kusungai (草薙 素子) of Ghost in the Shell.  It is difficult to put much credence in such characters, and those two characters dominate the film.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Himiko wants to live forever by obtaining special blood from Aya and Saki.  All the rest is filler.  Looks like about 10 minutes of plot stretched over 88 minutes.


5. B-movie zombie pack: 4/10
   1. Gore: 5/5 There is a lot of it, anyway.
   2. Zombie speed: fast
   3. Zombie appearance: 2/5 This is incredibly variable. Some zombies have almost no makeup, others have detailed makeup.  Go figure. 
   4. Zombie deaths 1/5: look suspiciously like vampire deaths in True Blood: solid bodies transform into constellations of blood spheres that immediately fall and splatter.
   5. Zombie relevance: 0/5 in this film, zombies are only an extra danger, and the cause of a lot of fighting.  The plot driver is Saki's desire to have her parents resurrected from the dead.

20131213: Thriller Review--The Frankenstein Theory

The Frankenstein Theory

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 86 minutes, horror, supernatural.
2. IMDB: 3.9/10.0 from 1,231 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet...',  26% liked it from 257 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.9/5.0 from 95,827 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Andrew Weiner.
6. Starring: Kris Lemche as Jonathan Venkenhein, Joe Egender as Clarence Malusky , Timothy V. Murphy as Karl McCallion, Heather Stephens as Vicki Stephens, Eric Zuckerman as Eric, Roger Morissey as the Creature.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film starts within an interview of a documentary team of Dr Venkenhein (Ghost Busters joke?), who has various degrees in history and in chemistry.  Jonathan's primary thesis was that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was not fiction.  He's putting together an expedition to Canada to attempt to prove his thesis.


2. In the next segment, the film crew talks about how stupid they think the project is, but that Jonathan is paying for the whole project.  Officially, they will be respectful.  Sure they will.  Throw in a bit of distracted driving (caused by the found film approach), with a near vehicular homicide, and the viewer is setup to watch a home movie where the camera crew thinks the subject is a fool.  Great start in a mere seven minutes.


3. Jonathan thinks his 5 x great grandfather was the model for Dr Frankenstein, and also the founder of modern genetics, 50 years ahead of Mendel.  Since the monster was not well-received at the time, most of the artifacts and papers related to the monster's creation were destroyed.  Jonathan aims to prove his hypothesis by finding the monster in current times still alive, and to bring back proof of its condition.


4. Jonathan's girlfriend thinks this theory is bovine scatology, as does Jonathan's university, from which he is suspended, much to his great embarrassment.  The girlfriend thinks the expedition is a grand waste of money that will not end well.


5. The first part of the trip starts in the dark one morning.  After two airplane flights, the crew (Vicky, Eric, Luke, Brian) and Jonathan land in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada.  They hire a local SUV to continue from Whitehorse.  It's brutally cold.  From Whitehorse they will drive to Deline in the Northwest Territories.  Before they leave the Yukon, they meet with Clarence Malusky, who claims to have had an encounter with the Frankenstein monster.  Clarence apparently did encounter the monster, and does identify a sketch from 1802.  However, Clarence is a meth head who clearly has some personality issues.  They make it out alive at least.


6. They make it to Deline uneventfully.  Jonathan arranges for provisions, such as food and snowmobiles.  Further into the Northwest Territories, Jonathan discusses his ancestor Johann using recombinant DNA methods to incorporate the longevity of certain species into the monster.


7. By Day 4, they reach a yurt (hunter's lodge, quite small), deep in NWT.  Jonathan has tracked unexplained homicides in the area where they are to months of the year.  He figures the monster committed these killings.  He concludes the killings follow a migratory pattern.  That night, one of their snowmobiles is stolen by someone. The next day, Karl tracks the snowmobile on foot to avoid alerting the thief.  After four hours, Luke and Eric follow on the remaining snowmobile.  Looks likes a bad choice.  They find blood, then Karl's rifle, then Karl.  They return, and the panic level rises.


8. Will the remaining party find the Frankenstein monster?  Will any of them return to their homes?


3. Conclusions
1. Uses the found-film approach.  Automatic loss of at least one star.
2. One line summary: Fantasy of finding the original Frankenstein's monster alive today.
3. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10  Found film approach.


2. Sound: 8/10 Mostly good.


3. Acting: 8/10 Timothy V. Murphy was rather good.  Kris Lemche and Heather Stephens are also veterans and gave competent performances.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 Too many cliches.  The self-destructive scientist.  Insufficient preparation for a difficult expedition.  Thinking the wild creature will respond to kind words in the wrong language.  Getting killed one by one.  Found film.  Discover the search object, but cannot prove it (like the entire X-Files series).

20131213: Thriller Review--Night Vision

Night Vision

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2011, NR, 84 minutes, thriller.  Spoken word is in English.
2. IMDB: 2.6/10.0 from 403 audience ratings.  Aspect is 1.78
3. Rotten Tomatoes: not even a stub web page.
4. Netflix: 2.8/5.0 from 29,213 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Nathaniel Warsh.
6. Starring: Ali Adatia as Lance, Darryl Dougherty as Spencer Harrison, Noelle DuBois as Alison.


2. Setup and Plot
1. TV producer Spencer Harrison and a small entourage ride a limousine to his house.  On the way, Lance tries to pitch yet another re-write of the cookie-cutter reality show genre.  Spencer will not have it.  Spencer gets off at his house, and says good-bye to the rest.


2. Spencer meets a woman (Alison) coming out of the bushes next to his house.  He's right to identify her as an unwanted trespasser, but she charms him with the promise of sexual possibilities.  He misses all the cues that she gives off; she aims him harm.  They drink water like it's water, which is not much acting.  The correct thing to do is drink water like it's vodka.  In any case, with the rising hostility, they are slinging down drinks.  She finds his remote-controlled hidden movie camera and turns it on before that become intimate.


3. He kicks her out, but she takes the tape of the proceedings.  She tells him he will regret it.  He hears something in the night, then patrols his house.  He finds that his 800 USD extra sharp knives are missing, even though his security system is armed.  Sigh.  He threatens to call the cops; the lights immediately go out.  She gets a cord around his neck, and squeezes until he passes out, with the help of a little tap to his head.


4. When he wakes up again, she lets him know he is in for a bad time.  Referring to her dress, she says, "It's your favourite colour, red."  The problem is that the dress is grey.  Also, inevitably, they knew each other before.  She was a telephone stalker, who got angry that he changed his number.  She lets him know that his life is at risk.


5. Why would anyone care about this situation?  She is crazy, he is arrogant, and his friends are not quite what he thought they were.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Intense encounter between TV producer and his telephone stalker.
2. One star of five.


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


2. Sound: 8/10 A bit too quiet, even with my sound all the way up.


3. Acting: 0/10 So bad.  Noelle DuBois was just terrible; I hope never to see her again.  Darryl Dougherty was not much better.


4. Screenplay: 3/10 Nice fifteen minute short, but 84 minutes is just two long.  This would have been better as one segment of a horror anthology.

20131212: Action Review--Karate Girl

Karate Girl (K.G.)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Japanese live action feature length film, 2011, NR, 91 minutes; spoken word is in Japanese; subtitles in English.
2. IMDB: 5.6/10.0 from 217 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...',  31% liked it from 50 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 3,480 audience ratings.
5. Directed by:Yoshikatsu Kimura.
6. Starring: Rina Takeda as Ayaka Kurenai, Richard Heselton as Keith.


2. Setup and Plot
1. When very young, Ayaka's karate instructor father was killed and her sister kidnapped.


2. As an adult, Ayaka determines to find out what happened.  She has her father's black belt, and the bad folks in the film want to take it in some ritualized way.  Ayaka decides to fight back.


3. Will Ayaka survive all the hostile attention?  Will the two sisters reunite?  Will the director get a better adviser about fight sequences?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Absurd fantasy; complete waste of production values.
2. One star of five.  If one must do a 'strong female' action film, get a strong, trained, experienced female actress or two, not zero.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Excellent, beautiful, professional.


2. Sound: 10/10 Excellent.


3. Acting: 2/10 Rina Takeda was one of the centres of the film, and her performance was not believable: too light, too small, too thin, too unprepared, too little trained, too slow, too inaccurate.  Takeda's opponents were too passive and often unmoving; they seldom press their advantage when a decisive blow was available.  This sort of PC nonsense is completely the opposite of convincing.  The fist, barely moving, of a 100 pound woman stops and repels the flying kick of a 180 pound man?  Never has happened, never will happen--outside of a film where the director holds the viewer in utter contempt.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Should have been billed as fantasy.  There is enough material for a 15 minute short; 91 minutes is way too long, especially when the filler consists of insultingly bogus fight sequences.