20140219: Horror Review--Vanishing on 7th Street

Vanishing on 7th Street

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2010, rated R, 92 minutes, horror, thriller.
2. IMDB: 4.9/10.0 from 18,381 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 10 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 51% on the meter; 20% liked it from 16,660 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.1/5.0 from 456,060 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Brad Anderson.
6. Starring: Hayden Christenson as Luke, Thandie Newton as Rosemary, John Leguizamo as Paul, Jacob Latimore as James.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film is set in Detroit in modern times.  Paul handles the technical end of a movie theatre.  Luke had a nice job at a television studio.  Young John was with his mom.  Rosemary was a nurse.  One day darkness falls, so to speak.  People disappear, with their clothes left behind.  The period that the sun shines decreases rapidly.


2. Three days later, almost everyone is gone.  The four have found each other, and are trying to save Paul.  They have figured out that they need to stay in some sort of light.  Batteries that work are getting harder and harder to find.  Luke locates a truck that might still work.


3. The darkness comes after them.  Will any of them survive?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary:  During a power outage, a dark force makes people vanish.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 It's a dark subject.  The camera work is pretty good for the trying situation.


2. Sound: 6/10 No particular problems, but the creepy music is not all that creepy.


3. Acting: 5/10 Hayden Christenson, Thandie Newton, and John Leguizamo all gave reasonable performances, but I have seen each of them do better in better films.  The script did not give them much interesting to do or to say.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 Short on ideas, useless ending.  The references to Roanoke Island did not seem to lead anywhere.

20140219: Horror Review--YellowBrickRoad

YellowBrickRoad

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2010, rated R, 98 minutes, horror, thriller.
2. IMDB: 4.7/10.0 from 3,466 audience ratings.  Estimated budget: 500,000 USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 44% on the meter; 30% liked it from 1,871 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.7/5.0 from 189,828 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Jesse Holland and Andy Mitton.
6. Starring: Cassidy Freeman as Erin Luger, Anessa Ramsey as Melissa Barnes, Laura Heisler as Liv McCann, Lee Wilkof as Clerk, Daryl Freeman as Daryl Luger.


2. Setup and Plot
1. In 1940, the residents of Friar, New Hampshire walked up a mountain road.  They were not seen again.  The film starts with a recreation of part of the Army's subsequent investigation. In 2008, the coordinates of the trail head are declassified.  A group bands together to investigate the incident.


2. The group is well equipped.  They bring a six wheeled vehicle of some sort, multiple cameras, a high-quality sextant, GPS, compasses, maps, tents, and all manner of other things.


3. After the music and the noise starts, things start to go downhill.  About the same time, the compasses start to wobble or spin.  The GPS gives wildly variable and always false readings.  The noise is intermittent and so loud that hands-over-the-ears is not enough to keep it from being debilitating.  Their two-way radios become unreliable.


4. After one of the men kills Erin over a hat, the sanity of the group just drops off a cliff.  They cannot agree on a way back, since their travel notes are gibberish.  They split into smaller groups.  One character jumps to her death.  One character implores a woman companion to kill him; she eventually snaps his neck after he tells her how to do it.  A man kills himself after filming a good-bye.  Early on, there is a scene about the dangers of nightshade.  Later a character commits suicide using nightshade.


5. Does anyone survive?  Does anyone figure out the mystery that instigated the trek?  Watch for the final seconds after the closing credits; a few images (supposedly) from the Army investigation are shown.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary:  Well-appointed modern twenty-somethings follow the path of a doomed march made in 1940.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Often OK, but has shaky cam now and then.


2. Sound: 0/10 Huge dynamic range, which is quite irritating. Make that worse than irritating.  To hear its meaningless conversations, one needs to turn the sound up.  A lot.  To avoid breaking the speakers, or getting a visit from the cops, one needs to turn the sound down, down, down.  The sound alone renders this film a failure.


3. Acting: 3/10 I liked Cassidy Freeman's (Smallville) performance fairly well.  I cannot say the same for the rest of the cast.  The +3 is for Ms Freeman alone.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Pointless.  Was the original purpose of the expedition achieved?  Not even remotely.  Did the dead characters gain any enlightenment before death?  No.  The ending was just one more fall into insanity.

20140216: Horror Review--The Telling

The Telling

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2009, rated R, 83 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 3.7/10.0 from 1,305 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet,' and 17% liked it from 257 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.6/5.0 from 45,053 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Nicholas Carpenter.
6. Starring: Holly Madison as Stephanie, Bridget Marquardt as Eve DeMarco, Christina Rosenberg as Amber, Nicole Zeoli as Roxy, John D'Aquino as Viktor.


2. Setup and Plot
1. There is a bit of a grisly segment where a sorority girl is killed.  We flash forward one year to an induction sequence at the same sorority.  Three pledges get the challenge to tell the scariest story that they know.  So the film anthology has its overarching context ("Sorority Sisters").


2. Story 1 (Dollface): A man and his girlfriend have a woman house guest for a couple of weeks.  The man finds an antique doll in a dumpster.  The doll is possessed, supposedly, and engineers the deaths of the two women, and manages to get the man blamed for it.


3. Story 2 (Crimson Echo): A fading star gets fewer and fewer parts until she gets none when she's over thirty.  Out of the blue, she gets a gig in Europe.  She's desperate enough to take it.  She's drugged and prepped.  Then she meets her crew, who are all undead.  What becomes of her?


4. Story 3 (Prank Call): Three young women go out to catch a horror fest, but did not get tickets first.  They return home with the hope that the cable guy is done.  They get into telephone pranks; things go downhill from there.


5. After the three stories are finished, the sorority rejects all three of the pledges.  One of the pledges is the sister of the girl in the first sequence.  Guess what happens next.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Bad on acting, screenplay, music; strong on cleavage.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Reasonably good.


2. Sound: 5/10 Also reasonably good.  Some of the incidental music was rather enjoyable, but I could not figure out what it had to do with the film.


3. Acting: 0/10 John D'Aquino was the only one I recognized as an actor.  The rest were uniformly terrible.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Oi, as bad as the acting.  Well, perhaps worse: nothing new, nothing scary, nothing remotely believable.

20140216: Horror Review--April Fools Day

April Fool's Day

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 1986, rated R, 89 minutes, comedy, horror.
2. IMDB: 6.2/10.0 from 8,449 audience ratings.  Estimated budget: 5 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 36% on the meter; 48% liked it from 13,233 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 184,011 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Fred Walton.
6. Starring: Amy Steel as Kit, Deborah Foreman as Muffy/Buffy,  Deborah Goodrich as Nikki, Leah Pinsent as Nan, Pat Barlow as Clara, Griffin O'Neal as Skip, Ken Olandt as Rob, Mike Nomad as Buck, Clayton Rohner as Chaz.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Eight college-age young adults travel to a friend's mansion on a remote island.


2. The place is loaded with practical jokes: dirty water from the kitchen tap, turning off one light turns on another, a tap in a room sprays the user, S&M gear in the chest of drawers, newspaper clippings left where they are meant to be found; that sort of thing.


3. Of course, the ferry does not come everyday, and the cops are not easily available.  It seems like three of them get killed early on, but then other evidence denies that.  For example, Rob talks to the cops by phone, indicating Buck is dead.  Cop replies, I'm looking at Buck, alive, right now, in the hospital.  Inspires confidence, eh?  Something is clearly wrong with the narrative, but the pacing gets rushed, and nobody seems to notice.


4. The elimination derby continues, or is it just trickery?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Young adult elimination derby film with a comedic ending.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 As viewed on Netflix streaming, the visual quality was better than VHS quality, but not by much.


2. Sound: 6/10 The dynamic range was way too large.


3. Acting: 6/10 Mediocre.  Some actors were fairly skilled, but others were downright poor.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 Has a beginning, middle, and a sharp turn at the end.  Those who enjoy practical jokes will probably like this one more than I did.

20140216: Drama Review Nuit 1

Nuit 1

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2011, NR, 87 minutes, drama, indie.
2. IMDB: 6.4/10.0 from 353 audience ratings.  The spoken language is French with English subtitles.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 63% on the meter; 55% liked it from 376 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.8/5.0 from 4,929 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Anne Emond.
6. Starring: Catherine de la Leon as Clara, Dmitri Storoge as Nikolai.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Clara and Nikolai meet at a rave.  They go home together.  They have sex.


2. She cannot sleep, takes a bath, then leaves.  He calls her back before she's out the door.


3. They talk, endlessly, in long, pointless, low-energy monologues. Then they talk some more.  The problem is, their lives are flat, failed, undistinguished, prosaic: the lives of two slacker drug users who cannot engage life.  Who cares?  Self-loathing is just not appealing.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Two boring slackers discuss their uninteresting one night stand.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Fairly good for the difficult low light conditions often chosen by the director.  When there was sufficient light, the visuals were rather good.


2. Sound: 5/10 OK, though nothing great.


3. Acting: 4/10 Meh.  Any high school drama student could have swapped in for either of the principals.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 Plain, boring, non-engaging.  The script is not clever enough to make one care about the characters, who are about as engaging as lichen on rocks.  Write an essay, get it published, get it out of your system, but don't make a film about it, especially one this bad.

20140216: Horror Review--The Seasoning House

The Seasoning House

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. British live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, 90 minutes, horror,
2. IMDB: 6.0/10.0 from 3,159 audience ratings; aspect 2.35
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 21% on the meter; 38% liked it from 254 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.4/5.0 from 10,901 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Paul Hyett; written by Paul Hyett and Conal Palmer.
6. Starring: Rosie Day as Angel, Sean Pertwee as Goran, Kevin Howarth as Viktor.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Set in the Balkans in 1996 during war.  Goran rounds up women, keeps the few he likes for his house of prostitution, and kills the rest.  Goran selected the deaf-mute Angel to serve as housekeeper of sorts in the whore house.  Goran had Angel's mother shot to death before her eyes.


2. Viktor runs the whore house and treats Angel less savagely than he treats the involuntary prostitutes.  Angel is slim enough to navigate the air vents.  She uses this to do the prostitutes small favors, like giving a piece of chocolate.


3. When Goran returns, one of his soldiers brutally uses one of Angel's friends.  He suffocates her while he reaches climax.  Angel witnesses this, and stabs the rapist multiple times.  She barely escapes through the air vents.  The rest of the soldiers decide to find her.


4. Will Angel escape?  Will there be any justice for the rapist military criminals?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Brutal depiction of military enslavement and cruelty in the Balkans.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Good, though sometimes more than a bit out of focus.  There was a tendency to show fog way too much.  Outdoors, sure.  Indoors?  That is harder to believe.


2. Sound: 4/10 Sometimes fine.  Often the conversation levels are very low, while the dramatic incidental music is off-the-charts loud.


3. Acting: 6/10 Sean Pertwee and Rosie Day were fine, and Kevin Howarth was not bad.  The rest of the cast was poor.


4. Screenplay: 6/10 Slow and methodical, and fairly convincing in its description of real horror in large quantities.  However, I thought it gave in too often to portraying people as caricatures rather than more rounded individuals.  I liked the last scene with Angel and Goran, though I thought there was not enough retribution.

20140215: Action Review--The Last Airbender

The Last Airbender

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2010, rated PG, 103 minutes, action, adventure.
2. IMDB: 4.4/10.0 from 88,932 audience ratings.  Estimated budget: 150 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 6% on the meter; 31% liked it from 318,495 audience ratings.
4. I watched this on SyFy, complete with commercial breaks.
5. Written, produced, and directed by: M. Night Shyamalan.
6. Starring: Noah Ringer as Aang, Dev Patel as Prince Zuko, Nicola Peitz as Katara, Jackson Rathbone as Sokka, Shaun Toub as Uncle Iroh, Aasif Mandvi as Commander Zhao, Cliff Curtis as Fire Lord Ozai, Saychelle Gabriel as Princess Yue.


2. Setup and Plot
1. On a planet not our planet Earth, political divisions are aligned with the elements: the Fire Nation and what used to be nations aligned to air, water, and earth (the element).  At one time, there used to be balance among the elements, but after the disappearance of the avatar about a century previous, that balance was lost.  The Fire Nation is in the process of conquering the planet.  Nations aligned with the earth element and air element have fallen to the Fire Nation.  A Water Nation stronghold still exists in the far north. 


2. A few people can work magic with the elements.  Only one (the 'avatar') can work magic in all four elements.  The cause of the political imbalance was the disappearance of the avatar.


3. Back to the film: at the beginning of the tale, two water nation teenagers, Sokka and Katara, accidentally discover the avatar encased in ice.  As fate would have it, extremely disgraced Prince Zuko of the Fire Nation witnesses this. 


4. The lines of power in the Fire Nation are broken.  Fire Lord Ozai has banished his son; Zuko's only hope of re-instatement is to bring the avatar to his father.  Oddly, Ozai prefers that Commander Zhao do that instead.  This undermines the success of the Fire Nation.


5. Another plot driver is that there have been no air benders (magicians who used the air element) for decades.  The avatar is ready, willing, and able to demonstrate his strong mastery of air bending.  The rub is that the avatar ran from his responsibilities (a century before) without having learned to use fire, earth, or water magic.


6. So.  The Fire Nation views Aang as a threat, but their efforts to capture him are weakened by internal dissension.  Aang needs to learn water, fire, and earth bending in order to bring back balance to the world (which is not our Earth).


7. This film is about finding Aang, then Aang's learning water bending while the Fire Nation tries to stop him.  That's it.


8. Future movies might include Aang learning earth bending, Aang learning fire bending, and Aang crushing the Fire Lord.  The current film did not address these matters.


3. Conclusions
1. Considered as a film in its own right, the picture was disappointing.  Considered as a live-action adaptation of the animated series, this was a complete bust.  If there are to be sequels, a different auteur should be at the helm, with some serious oversight.
2. One line summary: Disappointing action film; terrible adaptation of the animated series.
3. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Mixed.  The photography was well done.  The SFX was another matter.  Some of it was fine, but much of it was lackluster, and some was outright poor.


2. Sound: 7/10 OK, but nothing interesting.


3. Acting: 4/10 Aasif Mandvi, Dev Patel, and Shaun Toub were reasonably good.  Many of the other characters were not so good.  In particular, the choices for the characters Aang, Katara, and Sokka needed to be much better.


4. Screenplay: 3/10 The first ten minutes were rather good.  The rest of the story was not so good.  To complete the story arcs of the animated series, there would have to be two, perhaps three, additional films.  I do not see this happening.  For 150 million, one should expect a better script and SFX that varies between current and good to smashingly excellent.  Those things did not happen.  So, who would trust the same screenwriter = director = producer?

20140214: Horror Review--Berberian Sound

Berberian Sound Studio

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. British live action feature length film, 2012, NR, 92 minutes, drama, thriller.
2. IMDB: 6.3/10.0 from 5,176 audience ratings. Spoken word is in English or Italian with English subtitles.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 83% on the meter; 53% liked it from 2,227 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.9/5.0 from 13,289 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Peter Strickland.
6. Starring: Toby Jones as Gilderoy, Tonia Sotiropoulou as Elena, Cosimo Fusco as Francesco Coraggio, Antonio Mancino as Giancarlo Santini.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Shy English sound engineer Gilderoy travels to Italy to make a film.  He is hit by a number of issues.  He does not speak Italian.  Some of the Italians speak some English; several speak none.  No one is willing to take the responsibility to pay back his travel costs.  The film is a horror picture, and is something of a salacious one.  Gilderoy is more than a bit of a momma's boy (though he is 40+ in age) and the subject matter shocks him.


2. Gilderoy has a rocky trip to success in this new workflow.  He has his own bag of tricks for producing sounds for film, some of which delight his new colleagues.  Horror films have different needs than the films Gilderoy is used to working on, so he has techniques to learn.  Examples: chopping up produce to mimic blades destroying human bodies; screams, crying, whimpering, moans, and so on.  Gilderoy has to deal with odd relationships among the hierarchy of people working on the project.


3. In the second half of the film, it seems Gilderoy is descending into madness.  Then again, perhaps this is not true.  When we watch Gilderoy smiling and speaking Italian with his boss while watching footage of himself, one sees that the overall context of the film is probably not what we thought it was in the beginning.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Visually gorgeous art film about sound engineering on a horror picture.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Quite well done in trying circumstances; much of the film is shot in low light.  The sound engineering props in this film are quite impressive, and shot beautifully.


2. Sound: 10/10 Quite good as one might expect.


3. Acting: 7/10 The principal actors were reasonably good.


4. Screenplay: 7/10 The 'plot' is more than a bit murky, but it does clear up toward the end.

20140212: Thriller Review--Edison Force

Edison Force

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American/German live action feature length film, 2005, rated R, 99 minutes, crime, drama, thriller.
2. IMDB: 5.3/10.0 from 11,536 audience ratings. Estimated budget, 24.2 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 0% on the meter; 36% liked it from 9,734 audience ratings.
4. I watched this on Crackle.
5. Written and directed by: David J. Burke.
6. Starring: Kevin Spacey as Wallace, Morgan Freeman as Ashford, LL Cool J as Deed, Justin Timberlake as John Pollack, Dylan McDermott as Lazerov, John Heard as Tilman, Piper Perabo as Willow.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Deed, Lazerov, and Tilman work on the Edison Force, an elite crime stopping unit.  Ashford, who used to be well-regarded reporter, runs a publication of only modest reputation.  Ashford faults Pollack early on for not backing up his opinions with facts; not so long later, he fires Pollack.


2. Pollack is interested in showing that the Edison Force has done some shady work, but he does not seem to know how to do that.  Even his girlfriend Willow thinks that about him.


3. To get his career back on track, Pollack starts pursuing a particular case in which he thinks a man has been framed.  The trail leads to exposure of corruption, reactive violence, and other discouraging results.


4. Will Pollack get his story substantiated and published?


3. Conclusions
1. Where was the oversight on this one?  The cast is rather good overall, but the result was rather poor.
2. One line summary: First time actors and a poor script waste the efforts of the veteran actors.
3. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 9/10 Good looking night filming as well as crisp daylight footage.


2. Sound: 8/10 Good for the most part.


3. Acting: 4/10 I have come to like LL Cool J in NCIS: Los Angeles, but his acting in this earlier work just did not cut it.  Justin Timberlake did OK in the fluffy comedy Friends with Benefits, but in Edison Force and other dramatic roles, I did not care for his performance.  Kevin Spacey, Morgan Freeman, John Heard, and Piper Perabo seemed to be trapped inside this awful screenplay.  Given a good screenplay and a skilled director, Dylan McDermott can give fine performances, but he had neither to rely on here.  The worst part is that Timberlake's character is the center of the film.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Given the budget of over 24 million USD, a better screenplay could have been obtained, but it was not.  This is the second biggest weakness of the film.

20140209: Horror Review--The Big Bad

The Big Bad

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, rated R, 77 minutes, horror
2. IMDB: 3.8/10.0 from 138 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' 0% liked it from 16 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.3/5.0 from 27,615 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Bryan Enk.  Written by Jessi Gotta.
6. Starring: Jessi Gotta as Frankie Ducane, Jessica Savage as Molly,  Timothy McCown Reynolds as Fenton Bailey, Patrick Shearer as Carter Petch, Alan Rowe Kelly as Annabelle.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Frankie and Molly, two women with rage issues and non-healing wounds, meet at a bar and get to know each other over drinks and drugs.  They eventually bond over the fact that they have both been bitten by a werewolf.


2. Molly turns; Frankie deals with that.  Then Frankie is kidnapped and taken to Annabelle, who rips out one of Frankie's eyes to replace one of hers.  Frankie eventually counterattacks and gets away.  She finds her stepfather, Fenton, and his alter ego.


3. Will Frankie get free of the werewolves, or become part of the community?


3. Conclusions
1. Vanity film, since screenwriter = lead actor = co-producer => 3 x fail.
2. One line summary:  Bad werewolf script overshadowed by terrible camera work.
3. One star of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 2/10 Framing, lighting, focus, depth of field, and continuity errors---all suck rocks.  Throw in shaky camera.


2. Sound: 4/10 Not very good.  I needed the subtitles all too often.


3. Acting: 0/10  Uniformly bad.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 That opening was -8 points all by itself.  The film's plot development was as murky and jerky as the camera work.  None of the characters were interesting.

20140205: Horror Review--Hatchet 2

Hatchet 2

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Image courtesy of The Movie Database.
2. American live action feature length film, 2010, UR, 85 minutes, horror, slasher, revenge.
3. IMDB: 5.4/10.0 from 6,729 audience ratings.  Approximate budget: 800,000 USD; aspect, 1.85
4. Rotten Tomatoes: 36% on the meter; 36% liked it from 2,623 audience ratings.
5. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 110,059 audience ratings.
6. Written and directed by: Adam Green.
7. Starring: Danielle Harris as Marybeth Dunston, Tony Todd as Reverend Zombie, Kane Hodder as Victor Crowley/Thomas Crowley, Parry Shen as Justin, Tom Holland as Bob, R. A. Mihailoff as Trent, AJ Bowen as Layton.


2. Setup and Plot
1. This film is the sequel to the 2006 movie, Hatchet; no surprise there.  Kane Hodder and Tony Todd reprise their roles, but Danielle Harris replaces Tamara Feldman as Marybeth.


2. Marybeth was in Honey Island Swamp, and barely escapes the wrath of Victor Crowley.  Her father and brother were not so lucky.  She's saved by a swamp scavenger, who proceeds to kick her out after he finds that she is from the Dunston family.  The scavenger tells her to have the Reverend Zombie explain everything.


3. She gets a long explanation from Zombie, who was a friend of her father's.  Her father and two friends did the prank that resulted in Victor Crowley's death.  They decide to mount a party of local hunters to clear the area and recover the bodies of the brother and father.  Zombie offers 500 just for going on the expedition.  Also, the expedition might lead to opening the Swamp for legal gator hunting, and legal swamp tours by Zombie's company.


4. Once the group is deep in the swamp at night, they try to figure out a plan.  Sigh.  To increase incentives, to whomever brings back the head of Victor Crowley, Zombie offers 5000 USD.  Zombie has a 'secret' plan that he thinks will quell the curse.


5. Then the elimination derby begins.  This one is of the gorefest, slasher type.


6. Will anyone survive this?  Will the Reverend's plan work?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Expedition to the swamp to recover bodies turns out badly.
2. Two stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Not too bad, but never really fine.


2. Sound: 9/10 One of the better parts of the film.


3. Acting: 4/10 The usual for low budget elimination derbies.  Danielle Harris was not in her best form.  Tony Todd was good.  Most of the others were not.  I do wish they had hired an accent coach.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 Simple plot, but it does have a beginning, a middle, and an end.


5. SFX: 4/10 Lots of splatter, lots of fake internal organs. Not much of it was very convincing.

20140205: Drama Review--The Man Who Cried

The Man Who Cried

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. British/French live action feature length film, 2000, rated R, 99 minutes.
2. IMDB: 6.2/10.0 from 10,979 audience ratings.  Spoken word is in English and multiple languages.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 35% on the meter; 59% liked it from 25,557 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.3/5.0 from 341,783 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Sally Potter.
6. Starring: Johnny Depp as Cesar, Christina Ricci as Suzi, Cate Blanchette as Lola, Oleg Yankovskiy as Father, John Turturro as Dante Dominio, Harry Dean Stanton as Felix Perlman.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Fegele (later Suzi) grows up in Russia in a small Jewish settlement.  Her father leaves the family to seek his fortune in America.  After he has left, the settlement is burnt to the ground, and many die.  After reports of this, the father does not look for his daughter.


2. Suzi gets evacuated to England, and learns other languages there.  When she is a bit older, she expresses an interest in singing and show business, and gets a berth in Paris.  There she meets Lola, another expat Russian; Cesar, a gypsy; Dante, an Italian opera singer; Felix, who runs the musicals that Dante stars in.


3. Paris is OK for Suzi for a while, but eventually the Nazis get closer, and closer, then take Paris.  After a period of occupation, it becomes clear that she should leave. She would like to stay with Cesar, but he advises her to go.  Lola gets tickets for Lola and Suzi, and they get on a ship headed for America.


4. Do they make the crossing safely?  Does Suzi find her father in America?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Russian Jewish singer makes her way to America during the Nazi period in Europe.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 9/10 Fine looking picture for the most part.


2. Sound: 8/10 OK.


3. Acting: 5/10 Kudos to Johnny Depp, Christina Ricci, Harry Dean Stanton, and Cate Blanchette for individual performances.  The chemistry between characters seemed a bit lacking, though.  John Turturro was a major detriment, especially the dreadfully fake lip-synching.  His portrayal of a racist bully was fairly good, but did not make up for the rotten performance as a singer.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 This was a nice 15 minute story stretched over 99 minutes.

20140205: Drama Review--Kahaani

Kahaani

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Indian live action feature length film, 2012, NR, 122 minutes, thriller, drama.
2. IMDB: 8.3/10.0 from 21,645 audience ratings. Spoken languages are Hindi and Bengali; subtitles in English.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet,' 89% liked it from 1,138 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 4.1/5.0 from 88,311 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Sujoy Ghosh.
6. Starring: Vidya Balan as Vidya Venkatesan, Parambrata Chatterjee as Inspector Satyaki Sinha aka Rana, Indraneil Sengupta as Arnab Bagchi/Milan Damji, Colleen Blanch as Agnes D'Mello, Nawazuddin Siddiqui as Mr. Khan, Saswata Chatterjee as Bob Biswas.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film opens with some experiments on rats.  Looks like nerve gas.  Soon thereafter, there is a mass death on a train when a vial of the stuff is broken in one of the cars.  End segment.


2. Vidya travels from London, UK to Kolkata, West Bengal, IN to find her husband.  He talked to her everyday since he left London, up until about two weeks previous.


3. At the first the police have no idea.  The place where he worked claimed he worked says they made no assignments for him, and he did not report to them.  The police suggest a body; she does not recognise it.  She and the police go to where his uncle lived, but no one will say that they know of him.  They get the same sort of response at the school where he did his studies in youth.  The cops investigate the airline records; no one of his name left London nor arrived in Kolkata on the given dates.


4. Vidya reached out to Agnes, who does some digging, but finds locked files.  Oi.  She remembers a man with another name (Milan Damji) who looked just like Vidya's picture of her husband.  Soon thereafter, Agnes is murdered.  A police official (Khan) who is targeting the company NDC interviews her about her relationship to Agnes.  The experiments at the beginning of the film were done at NDC.


5. Khan and his boss reach out to outlier intelligence personnel to solve the crime of the rail attack.  The bad guys attempt to scare Vidya with a visit from the man who assassinated Agnes.  Vidya and Rana continue to investigate her husband's real movements before he disappeared.


6. Will Vidya find out the truth?  Is her husband still alive?  Will the miscreants be brought to justice?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Brave pregnant woman searches for her missing husband amidst corruption.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Lots of VHS level shooting, lots of amateurish footage.


2. Sound: 8/10 Mostly fine, but some of the incidental music is annoying to say the least.


3. Acting: 7/10 Reasonable.  The is mostly a one-woman show, but the one woman is not nearly stellar enough to carry a two hour movie.  The long-suffering Parambrata Chatterjee gave a good performance, which almost counterbalanced the rotten work of Nawazuddin Siddiqui.  Saswata Chatterjee as the assassin was not very believable either.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Absurd.  The bad guys could have defused this at many junctures with relative ease.  A single knife thrust, for instance, and no one would be left who cared enough to keep the investigation going.  So, this is PC nonsense with an unconvincing lead.  The last five minutes were the worst in that regard.

20140204: Drama Review--Boogie Woogie

Boogie Woogie

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. British live action feature length film, 2009, NR, 94 minutes, comedy, drama.
2. IMDB: 5.3/10.0 from 2,425 audience ratings. Estimated budget, 6 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 36% on the meter; 20% liked it from 1,030 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.7/5.0 from 59,107 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Duncan Ward.  Written by Danny Moynihan.
6. Starring: Stellan Skarsgard as Bob Maclestone, Gillian Anderson as Jean Maclestone, Alan Cumming as Dewey Dalamanatousis, Heather Graham as Beth Freemantle, Danny Huston as Art Spindle, Jack Huston as Jo Richards, Christopher Lee as Mr. Alfred Rhinegold, Joanna Lumley as Mrs. Alfreda Rhinegold, Amanda Seifried as Paige Oppenheimer, Gemma Atkinson as Charlotte Bailey, Jamie Winstone as Elaine, Simon McBruney as Robert Freign, Charlotte Rampling as Emille.


2. Setup and Plot
1. There are several threads running through this film, rather like the more complicated Robert Altman films.


2. Art Spindle is the dealer who attempts to swindle every one he knows.  He also likes to run his hands over younger people (man or woman) in the art world.


3. Jean and Bob Maclestone are in their prime, in some senses, but their marriage is falling apart.  Bob is having an affair with Beth (Art's assistant), while Jean is dallying with the artist Jo Richards. Plus they disagree on just about every art decision.  Jean drops her high heel while hiding with Jo in a men's rest room stall.  Bob notices its exact shape and size, then kicks it back to her.  Later she asks for a divorce, and is shocked when he agrees immediately.


4. The older couple, Alfred and Alfreda Rhinegold, own the art work 'Boogie Woogie' which so many people want in the film.  Alfred has had it for 50 years; Alfreda recognises that they are broke and need the money.


5. Art fires Beth for moving toward starting her own business.  Then Art gives Beth a party that Jean thinks is 'so moving.'


6. Jean leaves Bob and goes to Art's place, inadvertently interrupting a liaison.  Speaking of breakups, Elaine decides to break her business relationship with Dewey.  As her erstwhile agent, Dewey gave her a place to live and supported her art career.  Beth offers Elaine a better deal, so Elaine decides to go with Beth who wants an exclusive (business) relationship.  Paige visits Jo's studio, which we see doubles as his seduction pad, particularly his 'peripheral vision' project.  Paige objects, "Aren't you with Beth?"


7. Art Spindler deals with Freign, who has Alfreda's ear, in an attempt to finesse Alfred's desire to keep the piece by Mondrian.  Bob and his lawyer deal with splitting resources, while Jean and her lawyer Emille do roughly the same.  That goes on for a bit too long, but seems reasonable given how much property the couple has.  Well, had...the lawyers will soak up some of it.  Emille gives Jean good advice, which is about the best relationship in the film.  Bob attempts an end run around the process with the lawyers.


8. Will the Mondrian get sold?  Will the divorce get settled in a half way reasonable fashion?  Who will get clobbered in this demolition derby?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Follows the wheeling and dealing in the upper echelons of the art world.
2. Four stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Often outstanding, but also sometimes wretched, mostly during the hand-held phases.


2. Sound: 10/10 Just fine.


3. Acting: 7/10 Stellen Skarsgard, Gillian Anderson, Christopher Lee, Danny Huston, Charlotte Rampling, and Joanna Lumley were marvelous.  Unfortunately, Jamie Winstone, Simon McBruney, Gemma Atkinson, Amanda Seifried, and Jack Huston were in the cast.  I usually enjoy Alan Cumming's work, but not this time, not by a long shot.


4. Screenplay: 6/10 The story was slow getting off the ground, and continued that way for too long.  It picks up some speed after context is well set.  I liked the ending, since it showed some story threads leading to crashes and others going on to more success.

20140203: Movie Review--The Naked Kitchen

The Naked Kitchen (Kichin)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


3. Acting: 6/10 Reasonable.


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

20140202: SciFi Review--Alien Dawn

Alien Dawn

1. Production Fundamentals; Reception
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, 80 minutes, SciFi.
2. IMDB: 2.4/10.0 from 579 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 1.85 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' 0% liked it from 19 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.5/5.0 from 56,456 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by Neil Johnson.
6. Starring:  Rachelle Dimaria as Marissa J. McKellen, Alex Bell as Anders Kaczynski, Michael Abruscato as Roger Kaczynski, Cynthia Martin as Joni Mitchell, Tiffany Adams as Sera Michaels, Tiffany Martin as Tiffany Lewis, Marc Zicree as Brad Raybury.


2. Setup, Plot
1. Aliens invade the SW USA.  They make sounds like 1950s aliens, most specifically, the sounds in War of the Worlds, 1953.


2. Characters named Brad Raybury and Joni Mitchell?  Good grief.


3. Soon enough, the story centers on survivors are Marissa, Anders, and Roger, with no resources to speak of, and no plans.  They have long arguments about what food is common, and what is not.  These folks are pointless.  They care more about bickering than about surviving.  Later they join up with Sera and Tiffany.


4. This is a tough one.  Should I root for the powerful, effective aliens or the feckless, lame moronic humans?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Full of sound and fury, signifying less than nothing.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 2/10 Some of it is bad; much of the rest is really bad.  The found footage parts were as atrocious as expected.


2. Sound: 2/10 Terrible.  Leveling was done by someone who hates audiences. 


3. Acting: 0/10 Terrible.  All the performances. All the characters are unlikeable.  There are too many absurd arguments about ridiculous non-issues.  If one is going to have a mostly eastern European cast, why not film in eastern Europe to save money?


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Very stupid dialog.  Rips off War of the Worlds and Skyline rather openly. The depictions of ultimate stupidity (Woman asks for water. Man forces a cup of bleach down her throat.  Man gets excited; does not know why the woman is suddenly in acute distress.) were fairly convincing.  How are such lame, incompetent people to make any progress against the aliens?  Cell phones work during this invasion?  Not for long. The military hands out heavy weapons to civilians?  Nope.


5. SFX: 0/10 Incredibly bad. One of the worst jobs I have ever seen, beginning to end.

20140202: Horror Review--Jack the Reaper

Jack the Reaper

1. Production Fundamentals; Reception
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, rated R, 86 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 3.5/10.0 from 486 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' 22% liked it from 55 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.0/5.0 from 30,892 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by Kimberley Seilhamer.
6. Starring:  Douglas Tait as Railroad Jack, Sally Kirkland as Harold's Nana, Tony Todd as Mr. Steele, Alexandra Holder as Jesse, Jay Gillespie as Shawn Hickey, Chris Bruno as Paramedic Vasquez, Isobel Cueva as Paramedic Duyenen, Shanti Rule as Heather, Richard Chery as Andre, David Lee Walton as Jesse's Dad, Andrew Olsen as Brian (aka Casper).


2. Setup, Plot
1. 'Charon High School:' now there is a great start, Charon being the oarsman on the boat that crosses the rivers Styx and Acheron separating the living world from the underworld.  The film is a murder elimination derby, so nice telegraphing.


2. Twenty-something actors playing teen characters in high school gather for a field trip.  Heather is pregnant by a not ready for fatherhood boy.  Jesse's being treated badly by her father.  Various bullying pairs are present.  One of the girls is deaf.


3. All the idiots on the bus have not completed a paper about the Industrial Revolution for one of their classes.  The teacher makes everything clear: do the field trip without nonsense, then pass the class.  Otherwise, fail.


4. Mr. Steele gives the first lecture at a location filled with memorabilia from the 19th century part of the Industrial Revolution.  He emphasizes the dangers of the iron horse.


5. One of the kids sees a figure by the road on the way there.  Mr. Steele later identifies him as Railroad Jack, who is a reaper of sorts.  If one has seen him, then he has eyes on you, and so on.


6. On the way back, the trouble starts.  The bus crashes.  The f word is issued liberally.  The cell phone coverage fails.  The teacher is gone.  The bus driver is gone.


7. Then the kids see the 'carnival.'  Sure.  The kid who warns about the man she kept seeing on the way is laughed down.  They find no one, they find no telephone that works. Are these clues?  They get a number of the attractions to operate, and have fun for a while, but then the fun ends.


8. Will any of these deserving teens survive?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Teen murder elimination derby; better than some, worse than most.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 Camera shake, washed out appearance.  Seems to be only VHS quality in sunlight as well.


2. Sound: 7/10 I could make out the spoken words. The incidental music was not the best.


3. Acting: 4/10 All the actors portraying teens gave poor performances.  Why not hire absolute amateurs of the correct age and get better performances?  Tony Todd was great as usual; that's what the +4 is for.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 Teen murder elimination derby; better than some, worse than most.


5. SFX: 0/10 Horrible.

20140201: Horror Review--The Bell Witch Haunting

The Bell Witch Haunting

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 90 minutes, horror
2. IMDB: 3.4/10.0 from 492 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reivews yet,' 6% liked it from 106 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.8/5.0 from 84,954 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Glenn Miller.
6. Starring: Cat Alter as Dana, Drew Cash as Scott, Brandan Hellenthal as Brandon Sawyer, Julia Cearley as Janette Sawyer, Natalie Burtney as Lisa.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The Robertson County Sheriff's Department (in TN, I think, rather than TX or KY) has a short segment where they say they found some footage from the cell phones and video cameras on or near the Sawyer families corpses. So, we are locked into 'found footage.'  Later on in the film the cops called to find Dana Sawyer refers to himself as from Adams County PD.


2. Brandon gets a video camera as a birthday gift.  He starts annoying everyone immediately.  He records some poltergeist activity in empty rooms, but never seems to notice this.  He records a whole lot of other things that get ignored.


3. The daughter has terrifying dreams.  The lights flicker; the electrician they call gets electrocuted on an outside junction box.  The son and his friend find some history of the county which includes the Bell Witch.  As it turns out, the house and grounds intersect with the land owned by the Bell Witch.


4. As time wears on, the family dies except for one.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Found footage death elimination derby; camera quality better than some other found footage disasters.
2. Two stars of five.  Favourite part: Dana kills her brother with his birthday present.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 The usual mix: anything from shaky cam plus bad everything all the way to full-lit, beautifully framed and focused.  The long intervals of static shots of empty rooms were not a plus.


2. Sound: 4/10 Varies, just like the visuals.  Some of it is really poor, where words are hard to figure out.


3. Acting: 2/10 More or less at reality-TV level.  The exorcism scene just sucked rocks in terms of acting.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Nothing new.  Perhaps 10 minutes of content stretched over 90 minutes of bad visuals and iffy sound.

20140201: SciFi Review--Plus One

Plus One

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 96 minutes, scifi, thriller, horror.
2. IMDB: 5.5/10.0 from 2,252 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 67% on the meter; 40% liked it from 342 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.1/5.0 from 30,363 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Dennis Iliadis.
6. Starring: Rhys Wakefield as David, Logan Miller as Teddy, Ashley Hinshaw as Jill, Natalie Hall as Melanie, Rohan Kymal as Angad.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Setting: upper end high school, privileged teenagers, little supervision, too many resources available, huge expensive party for these wastrels.


2. A meteor comes from space and lands somewhere nearby.  It gets into the electrical system.


3. After some analysis, it starts duplicating people.  At first no one notices.  Then there are some odd situations where a person sees another person and their duplicate.  For a horrid interval, there were a dozen or so simultaneous fights to the death.  There are injuries and fatalities.


4. Then there is re-integration when both copies still exist.  A few feel great to be alive; many are still reeling from the horror with blood on their hands.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Teen sex comedy crossed with teen elimination murder derby.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Mostly OK, except for some of the low light scenes.


2. Sound: 4/10 Unbelievably poor.


3. Acting: 5/10 Not very convincing, except from the actors who looked like they were 25 to 30 years old. 


4. Screenplay: 7/10 Fairly good what-if movie.

20140201: Movie Review--Upstream Color

Upstream Color

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 96 minutes, drama, indie, SciFi, aspect 2.35; spoken word is in English.
2. IMDB: 6.9/10.0 from 10, 456 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 85% on the meter; 71% liked it from 9,717 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.5/5.0 from 109,355 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Shane Carruth.
6. Starring: Amy Seimetz as Kris, Shane Carruth as Jeff,  Andrew Sensenig as The Sampler.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Kris is attacked one night with an electric stun device, then force-fed a worm of some sort.   She gives her money to the scum who attacked her.  She takes equity out of real property in which she has some ownership.  Most things of value that she has she cashes in or surrenders to her abductor and parasite.  Another man abducts her and transfers some of the worms to pigs that are tagged.  Apparently there are other victims of this aggressive identity theft.


2. After the worms are removed, she slowly regains self awareness.  She loses her job when she reports to work again.  She challenges the bank operations she has done, but the bank has photographic evidence that she in fact instigated her own financial meltdown.


3. She meets Jeff, who seems to have gone through a similar process of life rape.  These two broken people spend time together.  Both of them have memory problems.  He can hold down a job doing financial work off the record...until he decides to beat up his co-workers.  She's had some sort of problem where she cannot have children.  About the time he decided to lose his job, she has some sort of work related foul up.  They end up cuddling in the empty bathtub with their clothes on.


4. At one point, the keeper of the pigs gathers up a litter from an infected mother.  He ties the piglets up in a burlap bag on throws them into a stream.  Everything rots.  The worms travel to some orchids.  The orchids are collected, packaged,  and sold, complete with the parasites.  Great.


5. The book Walden is shown, read from, discussed, and referred to during the film.


6. They eventually obtain some of the pig farmer's records. These include information about them, but they turn it into a mailing list.  They mail a copy of Walden, and invite other victims to the pig farm.


3. Conclusions
1. Some of the words and phrases I see applied to this film are cerebral, artistic, intellectual, 'artistic side of the brain,' beautiful, compelling and so on.  I would counter with pretentious, ugly, pointless, unfocused, deficient, ill-planned, bovine scatology.
2. One line summary: It takes considerable skill to make a film this bad.
3. One star of five.  Four black holes for cinematography, sound, acting, and screenplay.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 0/10 Some stretches of this film show expertise.  Based on that, one must figure that the poor quality of the film was a choice.  Poor framing, poor focus, poor depth of field, jerky camera, massive, avoidable flair not avoided, and so on.  The number of abrupt meaningless transitions is rather high, in the hundreds at least.


2. Sound: 0/10 The incidental music is irritating at best, mind numbingly bad at worst.  The voice miking is rather variable.  I had my hand on the volume control just so I could attempt to hear the dialog or not be drowned out by the atrocious music.  In several passages, the visuals have the characters silent while the sound from another scene is being played.  This choice not to synchronise is repellent.


3. Acting: 0/10 Speaking without affect: no smiles, no frowns, no sparkling eyes, no concern.  Fire the casting director as well as the director.  Most of all, lose the two lead actors.  High school actors with calm faces could have done as well.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Death by a thousand (editing) cuts.  Remember the fable of 'The Emperor Has No Clothes.'  This movie sucks rocks.