20151111: Horror Review--3 Headed Shark Attack

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

Genres: Horror    Country of Origin: USA.

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

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

The Three Acts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final rating: 0/10

20151110: Horror Review--Exeter

Name: Backmask (Exeter) (2015)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Horror    Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Stephen Lang as Father Conway, Kevin Chapman as Greer, Kelly Blatz as Patrick,  Brittany Curran as Reign, Michael Ormsby as Rory, Nick Nicotera as Knowles, Brett Dier as Brad, Gage Golightly as Amber, Nick Nordella as Drew.

Directed by:  Marcus Nispel.  Written by: Kirsten McCallion.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:  We get a triple bite opening. First a drug user gets killed after shooting up.  That was quite short  Second, we get horrid archival footage of the Exeter asylum's failed history as a mental institution, where children were killed en masse.  It is rumoured to be haunted by the spirits of those slaughtered.  Third, in modern times, the Exeter asylum is being renovated by a church.  A number of strongly degenerate teens decide to have a drugs/drinks/smokes party at the asylum. Horror cliches dictate a lot of deaths later in the film.

Delineation of conflicts:  The youths vandalise the place, urinating and vomiting on the walls, dumping trash everywhere, and breaking fixtures.  So it's the youths against whatever spirits they rouse by their attempt at levitation.  Can this motley crew of useless teens manage to placate that which possesses Rory?

Resolution: Do all of the teens die horribly, or just most of them?

One line summary: Cliche elimination derby starring a possession.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 7/10 Most of the film was clearly lit and nicely shot.

  b. Sound: 6/10 Mostly an asset, except for the jump scares.

  c. Acting: 2/10 Kevin Chapman's character was killed early on.  Stephen Lang's character is absent for most of the movie, so almost all the acting is done by unknowns.  They seem good at depicting drug use, lack of planning, ignorance, stupidity, and arrogance.  Anything else, not so much.

  d. Screenplay: 2/10 All cliches, all the time.  The DIY exorcism taken from the Internet was a bit funny, but most of the film looked recycled with a new set of actors.

Final rating: 1/10

20151108: Action Review--Monsters Dark Continent

Name: Monsters: Dark Continent (2014)
IMDb: link to IMDB entry

Genres: Horror, Thriller    Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Johnny Harris as Noah Frater, Sam Keeley as Michael Parkes, Joe Dempsie as Frankie Maguire, Kyle Soller as Karl Inkelaar, Nicholas Pinnoch as Sergeant Forrest.

Directed by:  Tom Green.  Written by: Tom Green and Joe Dempsie.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:  We open to a glimpse into the origins of extraterrestrial life having infected Earth, and a rapid archival news slideshow to the current state of hot war against the aliens.  We follow some recruits from Detroit who are about to ship out to the Middle East to fight the aliens.  In separate cuts, we are introduced to Noah Frater, a sniper who takes out 'insurgents.'  The film is unclear about who, if anyone, the insurgents are fighting for, but they are diagnosed as trouble.

Delineation of conflicts:  Parts of the American military are on seek and destroy missions against aliens.  Sometimes high tech, high payload ordinance takes out some of the giant aliens.  Other times the aliens (many bigger than small mountains) take out US aircraft in the air.  The aliens seem to reproduce and grow faster than they can be destroyed.  The Americans are also on missions against local 'insurgents' whatever those are.

Resolution: None.  The film under review is a sequel.  There is enough failure to resolve in this film to allow for another sequel.

One line summary: Failed fight against alien invaders in Middle East, not Africa.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 2/10 A bit better than VHS, but not by much.  Shaky cam, night vision images, bad clarity through rifle scopes, hideous overexposure.

  b. Sound: 4/10 I could hear the actors, but incidental music was either jarring or irrelevant.

  c. Acting: 0/10 There was acting? I've seen far better acting in high school plays.

  d. Screenplay: 0/10 How was this as a SciFi film? Complete failure.  Action film?  You've got to be joking: all weapons fire looked fake; nothing was convincing.  I've had enough of the eff-word, and this film was over-loaded.  Were there any characters to identify with?  No.  Were there any characters to empathise with?  No.  Were there any characters that I cared about in the least?  No.  Were there any objectives (military or cultural) that were achieved?  No.

As an anti-war film, the movie had a little virtue.  In the film, huge amounts of money and resources were spent on the war effort, but there seemed to be no lasting positive results at all.  There were plentiful negatives: dead US soldiers, dead locals, ruined houses, farms, whole chunks of cities. The US troops are clearly next to untrained, and have little chance at anything that they try.

The movie needed subtitles for the Arabic passages.

Final rating: 1/10 Wall to wall nonsense.

20151107: Horror Review--Compound Fracture

Name: Compound Fracture (2013)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Horror, Thriller    Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Muse Watson as Gary Wolffsen, Tyler Mane as Michael Wolffsen, Alex Saxon as Brandon, Renae Geerlings as Juliette, Susan Angelo as Chloe, Leslie Easterbrook as Annabelle, Derek Mears as William, Jelly Howie as Christine.

Directed by:  Anthony J. Rickert-Epstein.  Written by: Renae Geerlings and Tyler Mane.

Tyler Mane, Muse Watson

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:  The movie starts with a homecoming.  Michael Wolfssen and his fiancee Juliette drive to his wealthy father's (Gary Wolfssen) house.  Michael left home in his late teens, and never came back until now, just after his sister Chloe's death. Michael and Juliette bring his nephew Brandon with them. Brandon is not hostile to Michael, but he is not open or talkative in the least, partly because he is having visions.  The family estate looks different to Michael.  Now there are walls, cameras, and all sorts of talismans on display.  Gary lapses into dementia now and then, featuring paranoia and secretiveness.

Delineation of conflicts:  Gary beat Michael's mother, who then left him.  Despite Gary's wealth, he contributed no dollars to treating her subsequent cancer. Michael is not happy on those scores, nor on the fact that Gary beats his new wife, Annabelle.  The paranoia is bearing down on everyone. Also weighing everyone down are the consequences of the manner of Chloe's death.  The reason for the paranoia is not revealed early on, but once it is, the whole remaining family has to work better together to fight it.

Resolution: Not everyone survives but the evil is largely broken.  So it's a bleak film, but not jet black.

One line summary: A broken family fights the curse it put upon itself.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 5/10 There are too many issues with focus, framing, camera movement, and insufficient light.

  b. Sound: 7/10 Better than the lighting.

  c. Acting: 7/10 Muse Watson (NCIS, I Saw What You Did Last Summer), Tyler Mane (X-Men, Halloween reboot), Derek Mears (Friday the 13th reboot, True Blood), and Leslie Easterbrook (Police Academy series) all were familiar and competent.  The bit players read their lines, but were not much better than that.

  d. Screenplay: 4/10 Short on motivation, long on 'where is that coming from?'

Final rating: 6/10 I'm glad I saw it, but I would not give it a strong recommendation.  If this group does another film, I hope they spend more time on the script.

20151106: Horror Review--Let Us Prey

Name: Let Us Prey (2014)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Horror    Countries of Origin: Scotland, Ireland.

Cast: Liam Cunningham (Game of Thrones) as Six, Pollyanna McIntosh (Tales of Halloween) as PC Rachel Heggie, Bryan Larkin as PC Jack Warnock, Hanna Stanbridge as PC Jennifer Mundie, Douglas Russell as Sergeant MacReady, Brian Vernel as Caesar, Jonathan as Ralph Beswick, Niall Greig Fulton as Dr Hume.

Directed by:  Brian O'Malley.  Written by: David Cairns.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:  The movie starts in Scotland on the coast of the ocean near the small city of Inveree.  A man walks among the rocks and modest cliffs around sundown; the waves are crashing against the rocks and the land.  Groups of crows are in flight.  The music is techno and overbearing; the visuals were impressive until we had the lens flare dumped on us.  The man seems grim and dodgy as he lights his cigarette in the wind, and looks below him at the city lit against the dying light.

Within Inveree, night shift police officers ready themselves for the evening, one wakening at 19 hundred hours.  The crows are on the roof tops.

Delineation of conflicts:  Six has a purpose, and he sets off events within the city.  As Rachel makes her first walk to the station, Caesar speeds past her and apparently slams into Six.  His body is not found, though, just residual fresh blood.  Rachel and Sgt MacReady process Caesar, then incarcerate him in a cell next to the more than suspected wife beater Ralph Beswick.  MacReady introduces Rachel over the radio to officers Warnock and Mundie, who have recently finished coitus on duty.  Sigh.  Mundie hints on the call that Rachel has had trouble of her own before being exiled to Inveree.  Mundie and Warnock find and bring in Six, who is a bit worse for the auto encounter.  They summon Dr Hume.

By this juncture, the cast and fundamental relationships are established, so it seems time for the flashbacks to begin.  Most of the film's driving conflicts are about the internal struggles depicted in these reveries/flashbacks.  Dr Hume has a bloody dark secret that sets him off to kill Six, but he is restrained.  Each character has some secret that Six somehow brings to the surface.

Resolution: Six seems intent on sanctioning each of the guilty.  Who will be left?

One line summary: A quiet night in a sleepy town turns bumpy.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 8/10 Except for the lens flare, quite good.

  b. Sound: 5/10 Perhaps the techno background tracks appeal more to European audiences. I find them irritating, and I find myself watching the subtitles with my headphones off.

  c. Acting: 7/10 The film has the feel of a play, with a small cast that operates mostly in a low number of sets.  Perhaps this was not Oscar material, but it was much better than I expected. Liam Cunningham, Pollyanna McIntosh, and Douglas Russell were especially good.

  d. Screenplay: 6/10 As elimination derbies go, this was rather good.

Final rating: 6/10

20151106: Comedy Review--Results

Name: Results (2015)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Comedy  Country of Origin: USA

Cast: Guy Pearce as Trevor, Cobie Smulders as Kat, Kevin Corrigan as Danny, Giovanni Ribisi as Paul, Brooklyn Decker as Erin, Anthony Michael Hall as Grigory, Constance Zimmer as Mandy, Tishuan Scott as Lorenzo, Zoe Graham as Talley, Elizabeth Berridge as Amy (Danny's ex).

Written and directed by:  Andrew Bujalski.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableau:  At his local gym, rich but out of shape Danny gets directed to the owner, Trevor.   Trevor interviews Danny, then sets up a schedule with Lorenzo for Danny.  Kat (Trevor's former lover) talks Trevor into letting Danny be her client instead.

Delineation of conflicts:  Kat and Trevor are still attracted to each other, but Trevor wants Kat at arm's length since they are so mismatched.  Danny wants to be with Kat, but Kat does not want to be with him.  Trevor wants to expand his business, but has all these chaotic elements to deal with.  Danny seems to be embracing discipline (diet and exercise, supposedly), but he shows little impulse control (giant TV, newly purchased classic guitar, huge house, weed, paying the gym a year in advance, views sample exercise videos as porn, pays a young man 300 USD to connect up his TV, and so on).  Add in some throw away characters with the attendant noise.

Resolution: Things move forward slowly in jumps, as in 'where did that come from?'

One line summary: Bland romantic comedy with chaotic script.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 6/10 Has that fuzzy, smoggy look of VHS.  The slight but noticeable shaky cam did not help.

  b. Sound: 6/10 Slightly hollow, but OK.

  c. Acting: 4/10 Despite his being in this film, I still like Guy Pearce, who gives value to the viewer no matter how wretched the rest of the film is.  On the other side of the ledger, I did not believe Ribisi's character was a lawyer, nor capable of handling business transactions reliably. Cobie Smulders did not impress me in the episodic TV series How I Met Your Mother and Agents of SHIELD; she was even less effective as an actress in this movie.  Kevin Corrigan convinced me his character liked being inebriated, but did little else.

  d. Screenplay: 4/10 There are lots of islands in the script, but firm connections between the islands are few and far between.

Final rating: 4/10  Hm, I rounded down due to Smulders' terrible effect on the film.

20151104: Horror Review--Lazarus Effect

Name: The Lazarus Effect (2015)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Horror, Mystery  Country of Origin: USA

Cast: Olivia Wilde as Dr Zoe McConnell, Mark Duplass as Frank, Sarah Bolger as Eva, Evan Peters as Clay, Donald Glover as Niko.

Directed by:  David Gelb.  Written by: Luke Dawson, Jeremy Slater.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableau: Engaged couple Frank and Zoe get a grant to do a study.  They hire Clay and Niko to help with computers and recording telemetry.  Together they develop a method for preserving recently dead tissue so that it can be revivified without loss of memory, or damage to motor or sensory nerve responses.  This would allow surgeons and specialists to bring back patients once whatever needed fixing on the patient was complete. They hire Eva to document the project on film.  During the three years spent on the project so far, Frank and Zoe have put off their wedding plans and worked hard to justify the grant.

Delineation of conflicts:  The team records their work on university computers.  Unbeknownst to them, the content gets reviewed regularly by the company that underwrote Frank's grant contract.  When the team successfully reanimates a dog put down for having cataracts, Frank finds that his contract is nullified, and everything is seized by the relevant pharmaceutical company.  The team sees an opportunity: get whatever they can from backups, and piece together their research so that they can continue in another lab before their chance of getting credit is lost.

Resolution: What could possibly go wrong?  There's jail, perhaps. Plus, the dog they reanimated was not quite normal.  What would happen if they tried to reanimate a human?

One line summary: Another weak entry in the 'not safe to play God' sub-genre.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 6/10 This is definitely a mixed bag.  Regular shooting is fine.  Results shot through the documents camera is less good.  There is a third mode having to do with filming experiments on the fly; this is even poorer in quality.

  b. Sound: 8/10 Good but not great.  The number of jump scares was thankfully small.

  c. Acting: 5/10 I liked Mark Duplass, Ray Wise (small role), Evan Peters, Sarah Bolger, and Donald Glover.  Olivia Wilde, however, was just terrible.

  d. Screenplay: 4/10 Before the funding break, the story was going well.  After the question of religion came up, and all the mistakes began, the flaws and cliches were many and clear.

Final rating: five of ten

20151104: Commentary on standard film cliches.

1. Jump scares are what I consider cheap jack stupid tricks: the viewer is shocked by slamming into a sudden upward facing cliff of sound.  Worse yet, the residue of each such collision is that the protagonist looks like a weakling or a fool; neither of these makes me more interested in the film.

2. Sacred cows are films, actors, or directors that are considered above any type of criticism.  From a conversation in MOVIES and BOOKS WORLD (a Google plus community):

What is Sacred Cow status?

(my reply)

Sacred cow as in India, where in some quarters one may not kill or injure cattle (or even shoo them along) because they are thought of as sacred.

As for movies and review/criticism, a few films are thought to be (by some parties) above being the target of any plain speaking about its deficiencies. Anyone who dares say 'the acting could have better because...' gets trolled, sometimes relentlessly.

While researching Babadook before watching it, I stopped after only about 50 reviews. Why? Because at least a third or more of the reviews attacked other reviewers for not rating the film 9/10 or 10/10. Those who gave the film low ratings were described in quite unflattering terms.

While I hated this film intensely, others did not. Take +Peter Pluymers for example. I imagine (correct me if I am wrong) he watched the film, thought about it, then wrote up his considered opinion. Good for him, and I'm glad he had a better time watching it than I did.

Some who rated Babadook highly do not give others the same courtesy that I would automatically give to them. Such folk are offended that someone gave their favourite a low rating, and they think they have the right not to be offended. Such people think of the film as above criticism; that is, has sacred cow status.

--------

Sorry for the long answer. I have avoided watching and/or reviewing several films in the past year or so because they obviously have strong sacred cow standing. I'm done with that. (Such as Guardians of the Galaxy, Babadook, Straight out of Compton, and so many others.)

I'll be using the phrase sacred cow for any film that I think has this sort of standing. I am reminded of 'crap movie' alert, except that some sacred cows I really like, such as Inception or Birdman.

3.  Additional Horror cliches, slasher/serial murderer sub-genre:
  a. Those running from the slasher serial murderer are going to stumble over nothing, fall, and die soon thereafter.
  b. Let's split up
  c. Teenagers having sex (or were on the way) are many times more likely to be killed by the serial murderer
  d. There's a murderer on the loose, so it must be time to take a shower.
  e. Even though you thought you killed the slasher, they are still alive or can be resurrected.
  f. When running out of the house at night, it's better not to take your keys.

4. Horror cliches, alien monster sub-genre:
  a. What is that alien life form?  Let me put my face next to it.
  b. They obviously come in peace.
  c. Anything that goes wrong is our fault, not theirs.

5. Horror cliches, traditional fantasy {vampire, werewolf, frankenstein, mummy, witch} sub-genre:
  a. The older cliches do not actually work: garlic, wolfsbane, crucifixes, silver bullets, wooden stakes, and the like.
  b. The monsters look good, while ordinary humans are ugly.  Think Twilight and Harry Potter.

6. Horror cliches, body violation sub-genre:
  a. People can survive for long periods of time while hanging from a thick meat hook that has penetrated several internal organs.
  b. Tiny parasites can control higher level behaviour in the host.

7. Horror cliches, elimination derby sub-genre: 
  a. Will one person survive, or will it be zero?  Two or more seems out of the question.
  b. Elimination derby often marks the final act of a film.  First there is the initial tableau, where characters and interactions are introduced.  Second, perhaps a round of illustrating conflicts.  Last, though is the elimination derby: the reasons for everyone being killed are clear, so only the actual murders are left.
  c. Some of the cheaper horror films skip the initial tableau and delineation of conflicts, and go straight to elimination derby.  This way, the writing is less complicated, and the director (if there is one) does not have to plan the smooth bundling of plot lines.

W.I.P.

20151101: Fantasy Review--Van Helsing

Name: Van Helsing (2004)
IMDb: Van Helsing on IMDb

Genres: Fantasy  Country of Origin: USA

Cast: Hugh Jackman as Van Helsing, Kate Beckinsale as Anna Valerious, Richard Roxburgh as Count Vladislaus Dracula, David Wenham as Carl, Shuler Hensley as Frankenstein's monster, Alun Armstrong as Cardinal Jinette, Elena Anaya as Aleera, Silvia Colloca as Verona, Josie Maran as Marishka, Kevin J. O'Connor as Igor, Will Kemp as Velkan Valerious, Tom Fisher as Top Hat.

Written and directed by:  Stephen Sommers

The Three Acts:

The initial tableau: There is a lot going on in this film.  The initial context comes from four vignettes:

(1) Doctor Frankenstein has successfully brought life to his cobbled together monster.  Dracula, who funded Frankenstein, figures that his investment has borne fruit, and kills the doctor. The monster is enraged by this, and manages to escape Dracula and the mob with their torches. Dracula recruits Igor.

(2) Van Helsing confronts Mr. Hyde in Paris at the behest of a secret group operating out of the Vatican.  In doing such work, Van Helsing has become a wanted criminal of international renown.  He has no public support whatsoever, and is hated by many.

(3) At the Vatican, Van Helsing is dressed down by Cardinal Jinette.  He gets a new assignment: to protect the Valerian family (Anna and Velkan), and to help them kill Count Dracula in a fulfillment of a family oath.  The oath was that the family would not enter Heaven until Dracula was destroyed. Van Helsing meets the friar named Carl, who is both timid and talented.

(4) Velkan and Anna attempt to trap the werewolf that has been terrorising the village.  Velkan kills the werewolf, but is bitten in the process.

Delineation of conflicts:  Velkan becomes a rather powerful werewolf.  Dracula would use Velkan for his own purposes.  Van Helsing and Anna have a chewy first meeting, then agree to oppose Dracula's intentions toward Velkan.

Dracula and his trio of mates (Aleera, Verona, and Marishka) want their undead offspring to have life.  Van Helsing, Anna, and the Vatican want them to die: Van Helsing, to follow orders; Anna, to save her family from Purgatory; the Vatican, to drive the spawn of Satan from the face of the Earth.

Frankenstein's monster would like to live in peace with some degree of freedom.  Dracula wants to consume him to transfer life to his offspring.  The Vatican wants the monster dead since he's not precisely human, and his life was not given to him by God.  Carl would like to comply with the Vatican's wishes, but cannot in good conscience.

Dracula wants Van Helsing dead for strong reasons of his own.  Van Helsing, Carl, Anna, and the monster are opposed.

Resolution: Excellent, difficult, and harmonious.

One line summary: A wonderfully constructed remix of modern fantasy themes.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 10/10 Beautiful natural shots plus excellent CGI.  Many of the sets were gorgeous in design and intricate in detail.

  b. Sound: 10/10 Lovely.

  c. Acting: 9/10 This is my favourite from all Hugh Jackman performances I have seen.  Richard Roxburgh was great as Dracula, Kevin J. O'Connor made a fine Igor, David Wenham was wonderful playing Carl. Kate Beckinsale, Elena Anaya, Silvia Colloca, and Josie Maran were excellent as Anna and the brides of Dracula.

  d. Screenplay: 10/10 There are several threads as described above, all woven together nicely.  Great writing, with some good dashes of comedy thrown in.  Carl's discoveries and deliveries of intelligence dovetailed nicely with the needs of the action heroes.  The culminating action sequences were gripping, and the final, parting scenes definitely pulled at the heartstrings.

Final rating: 9/10

20151031: Fantasy Review--Zhongkui

Name: Zhongkui: Snow Girl and the Dark Crystal (2015)
IMDb: Zhongkui

Genres: Fantasy   Origins: Mainland China

Cast: Chen Kun as Zhong Kui/Demon King, Li Bingbing as Snow Demon/Little Snow, Winston Chao as Zhang Dao Xian, Zishan Yang as Zhong Ling (Kui's sister).

Directed by:  Peter Pau, Tianyu Zhao.  Written by: Chen Kun, Li Bingbing, Winston Chao.

The Three Acts: 

Initial Tableau: Every 1000 years at July 15, a period of travel among Hell, Heaven, and Earth ensues, where travel is done by reincarnation.  Devastation results as demons reincarnate near the village of Hu on Earth.  The powers that be in Heaven dispatch a volunteer, Zhang Dao Xian, to help out the humans caught in the crossfire.  Zhong Kui steals the 'Dark Crystal' from an active ceremony in Hell itself, and is spirited away by Zhang, one of the gods.  The Snow Demon volunteers to the Demon King to fetch back the crystal.  Her sister, Little Snow, is being held captive by the King, so her compliance is assured.

Delineation of Conflicts: Snow Demon wants the crystal for her King.  Heaven wants to keep it, so as to restore all the souls taken by demons.  Zhong Kui is assigned to protect the Dark Crystal as it lies hidden within Hu.  When a traveling troupe of entertainers arrives from the west, Zhong finds that Little Snow came with it.  Can Zhong help free Little Snow from Hell, or will she seduce him away from his primary duty to Heaven?  Will he successfully defend the Dark Crystal and the captured souls within it?

Resolution: There are some major reversals during the final segment as resolution approaches.  Those were quite well done.

One line summary: Grand fantasy, Chinese style, from the video game of the same name.

Statistics: 

Cinematography: 8/10 Variable.  Most of it is quite good.

Sound: 8/10 Some instrumental sections of the background music are way too florid for my tastes.

Acting: 7/10 Again, quite variable.  Some of the bit players are not very skilled.

Screenplay: 7/10 Being a fantasy involving three realms, the film has to deliver a lot of context in a short time.  I watched this on Netflix, and was glad to be able to roll back and clarify points now and then.

SFX: 7/10 Quite variable. Some of the effects are amateurishly bad. The majority look mature and impressive.

Final Rating: 7/10

20151030: Horror Review--Heartless

Name: Heartless (2009)
IMDb: link to IMDB

Genres: Horror, Mystery  Country of Origin: UK

Cast: Jim Sturgess as Jamie Morgan, Noel Clarke as A.J., Timothy Spall (Wormtail in the Harry Potter films) as George Morgan, Clemence Poesy as Tia, Joseph Mawle as Papa B, Eddie Marsan as Weapons Man, Luke Treadaway as Lee Morgan, Justin Salinger as Raymond Morgan.

Written and directed by:  Philip Ridley

The Three Acts:

The initial tableau: Jamie's face is dominated by large birthmarks, plural.  The largest one covers his whole left eye area.  Jamie does 'real' photography with film, and chemical development where he works with his brother.  While trolling for photo opportunities at night, he runs afoul of some bipedal reptilians, who look like gangsters, while they kill two people and set them on fire.  Jamie lives with his mother.  AJ is Jamie's new neighbor; for lack of other candidates, AJ hopes to become Jamie's friend. Jamie's father George is 10 years dead, but still has a presence in his life.  Jamie seems quite alienated by his life, his deformities, his job, is living arrangement, and his lack of prospects with women.

Delineation of conflicts:  This is somewhat difficult to describe.  Why?  Because the protagonist seems to be insane.  Just how much of this is real?  It's hard to get interested in characters when it is not clear what is real and what is feverish imaginings.

Let us suppose that what is presented is real. Jamie gets a gun to protect himself after the gang beats the hell out of him and burns his mother alive.  The reptiles rake AJ's abdomen with a deep claw attack.  The whole setup is to justify Jamie's descent into cooperation with dark forces to solve his self-perceived problems.

Jamie would like to have female companionship, marriage, and children. How is that going to happen?  Does the dark pact with Papa B help out this problem?  Can he back out?

If the protagonist is insane, on the other hand, one hopes the conflict in his mind ends before the movie does.

Resolution: The protagonist is a broken toy.  The usual resolution for broken toys is that they stop working.

One line summary: Yet another deal with the devil gone bad.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 2/10 We have here some really fine VHS shooting.  Or is this some really bad current cinematography?

  b. Sound: 1/10 Too loud, too intrusive, and not all that interesting.

  c. Acting: 4/10 Joseph Mawle and Eddie Marsan were good.  I liked what little I saw of Timothy Spall.  Jim Sturgess was way over the top, and most of the rest of the cast I could have done without.

  d. Screenplay: 2/10 The first monolog by Papa B was rather good.  However, things go downhill into a flurry of cliches after that.  There is nothing new here, nothing interesting, just the lies made up by an insane mind.  This film was not as bad as the much more pretentious Babadook, but it is still a rotten mess.

Final rating: 2/10

20151028: Action Review--Iron Man 3

Name: Iron Man 3 (2014)
IMDb: link to IMDb page

Genres: Action, Thriller   Country of Origin: USA

Cast: Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian, Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin (Trevor Slattery), Miguel Ferrer as Vice President Rodriguez, William Sadler as President Ellis, Don Cheadle as War Machine, Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark, Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, Rebecca Hall as Maya Hansen, Stephanie Szostak as Ellen Brandt, Ty Simpkins as Harley Keener, Paul Bettany as JARVIS (voice).

Directed by:  Shane Black. Written by:  Shane Black, Drew Pearce.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableau:  We open over a decade ago in Switzerland.  Tony Stark participates wildly in end-of-the-year celebration parties.  He meets Maya Hansen and Aldrich Killian, who try valiantly to convince him to be interested in technology developed by the think tank, AIM.  Tony hardly listens, partly from buzz, partly from arrogance.  He writes out a few equations which forward the effort considerably, gives them to Killian, and promises to meet Killian on the roof to develop the ideas further.  But Tony breaks his promise.

In the present, after Tony participates in The Avengers action in New York City, there are multiple attacks by 'The Mandarin.'  Tony is not all that involved until his friend Happy Hogan is nearly killed by one of the attacks.  Tony declares war.  The Mandarin is backed by individuals who have the Extremis treatments developed by AIM.  They can melt Tony's suits from the heat of their bodies, regenerate severed limbs, and many other things.  Tony has his work cut out for him.

Delineation of conflicts:  'The Mandarin' strikes first, destroying Tony's palatial estate on the California coast.  Tony loses his armour, his labs, his base of operation, and soon enough, JARVIS and his suit. Or so it would seem. Tony has to figure out who the Mandarin really is, what AIM does, and how to counter the effects of Extremis, initially without his armour.  Worst of all, the Extremis-enhanced folk capture Pepper, and start making her one of them.  They kidnap War Machine (renamed Iron Patriot) and the President, whom they intend to replace using their own candidate.  To make things even worse, Tony has recurrent PTSD from the action in New York.

Resolution:  Will the Extremis transformation applied to Pepper be reversible?  Will the President be recovered alive?  Will Colonel Rhodes get free to fight alongside Tony?

One line summary: Tony's past comes back to haunt the USA.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 9/10 The SFX were not perfect, but on the whole, this was a smooth visual mix that I enjoyed.

  b. Sound: 10/10 No problems, and some good music.

  c. Acting: 8/10 Guy Pearce's performance was the centre of the dark side of the film, and I liked it quite well.  Ben Kingsley, Don Cheadle, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Robert Downey Jr were lots of fun to watch in this one.  Paul Bettany as the voice of JARVIS was again a delight.  Ty Simpkins was better than I expected.

  d. Screenplay: 9/10
Pros: The story had me guessing on a couple of points to within minutes of the conclusion of the film, which is different than most live action comic book films.  This was a nice follow on film after watching John Wick the day before: massive public violence after massive private violence.  As one might hope from an action-thriller, the plot moved forward without any long pauses, and the hero's team had truly formidable obstacles to overcome.  Even to the last few minutes and the final fight, the feeling of jeopardy was present, since Tony had little hope of defeating Killian one-on-one.

Cons: The comic history of the Mandarin is trashed, utterly and completely. Without some revisionism, the Mandarin will not be able to be used in future Marvel endeavors.  This has many people up in arms.  I quite understand this; it is how I feel about Fox's vile treatment of the Fantastic Four.  This might be a problem for Marvel downstream.  The film's portrayal of the Iron Man suit was also inconsistent with its portrayal in The Avengers, where the suit could withstand attacks from Thor's hammer.

Summary: I never cared for the Mandarin, so I do not care about the portrayal of the Mandarin in IM3.  I despised the character in the comics, and later hated the character in the animated series to the point that I gave up following Iron Man for a time. Only the Tony Stark films with RDJ in the cockpit got me interested again. What made Iron Man 1 great was the portrayal of Tony Stark coming back, against all odds, to defeat enemies of his own country, and enemies of his individual person. Iron Man 3 was a return to form after the wretched Iron Man 2. The third film was about Tony Stark, about his friends, about his fans who helped him when he was down, about the power of enduring love, which is what saved Stark in the end.

Final rating: 9/10

20151027: Action Review--John Wick

Name: John Wick (2014)
IMDb: link to IMDb page

Genres: Action, Thriller  Country of Origin: USA

Cast: Keanu Reeves as John Wick, Michael Nyqvist as Viggo Tarasov, Alfie Allen as Iosef Tarasov, Willem Dafoe as Marcus, Dean Winters as Avi, Adrianne Palicki as Ms Perkins, Omer Barnea as Gregori, Toby Leonard Moore as Victor, Bridget Moynahan as Helen, John Leguiziamo as Aurelio, Ian McShane as Winston, Bridget Regan as Addy, Lance Reddick as Hotel Manager (Charon).

Directed by:  Chad Stahelski and David Leitch.  Written by: Derek Kolstad.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableau:  In modern day greater New York/New Jersey, John Wick's wife Helen suddenly dies of a long lingering illness.  His old acquaintance Marcus gives his condolences after the burial.  He grieves for an interval.  In the days after the wake, a puppy, Daisy, is delivered with a note from Helen.  John and Daisy get to like each other.  While out with Daisy getting gasoline, two Russian mobsters stop for gas at the same time. Iosef admires John's Mustang, and offers to buy either the car or the dog or both.  John declines, and an older associate calls Iosef off.  Iosef and two friends break into John's house, beat him up, ruin beautiful things, shoot Daisy, steal the Mustang, badly damage his newer car, and steal the bracelet of Helen's that John kept near him.

Delineation of conflicts: Daisy was John's last living link with Helen.  The necklace had similar importance.  John wants vengeance on Iosef and on Viggo.  Aurelio informs Viggo of Iosef's actions.  Viggo understands the problem that Iosef has created.  "That fuckin' nobody is John Wick." he informs Iosef the idiot.  He advises Iosef to get out of his sight.  He asks his associate, Avi, to task all his available men to take on John.  When that fails, he sets a bounty of 2 million USD on John's head, and also asks Marcus to do the job as soon as possible.  Will Viggo live through this?

Resolution:  The many conflicts were resolved in what I thought were reasonable ways.  I recommend this film to anyone who likes the genre.

One line summary: Excellent action/revenge film.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 6/10 This would be one of the weaker parts of this film.  I do not like filters, and there were too many minutes of that.

  b. Sound: 9/10 There are some great music tracks in this film, and the incidental music was well-chosen.  The actors were well miked, and I had no problems picking up dialog.

  c. Acting: 8/10 I liked Dafoe as always.  This was a great role for Keanu Reeves.  I have only liked him in The Matrix before this film, and was glad to see another film that suited him so very well.  Michael Nyqvist was superb as Viggo.  Ian McShane, John Leguiziamo, and Lance Reddick were all very good.

  d. Screenplay: 10/10 For a revenge movie, this was a fine script.  The direction and the plotlines certainly raised my hopes that John would succeed in everything that he tried.  Plus, the end of Iosef is something I looked forward to from very early on.  I seldom get that engaged with revenge films.  I loved the humour between old pairs of friends while there were lulls in the action.

Final rating: 8/10

20151026: SciFi Review--Jupiter Ascending

Name: Jupiter Ascending (2015)
IMDb: link to IMDb page

Genres: Horror, Mystery

Cast: Mila Kunis as Jupiter Jones, Channing Tatum as Caine Wise, Eddie Redmayne as Balem Abrasax, Sean Bean as Stinger Apini, Douglas Booth as Titus Abrasax, Tuppence Middleton as Kalique Abrasax, Charlotte Beaumont as Kiza, Doona Bae as Razo, Nikki Amuka-Bird as Diomika Tsing.

Written and directed by:  The Wachowskis

The Three Acts:

The initial tableau:  Before Jupiter is born to a British astronomer father and a Russian mathematician mother, her father is killed and her mother's life destroyed by PC thugs in Russia.  The film jump shifts to the 'present' (our future) in Chicago.  In some impossibly rich other world, brothers Balem and Titus spar over opaque issues.  Within this context, Earth is an extremely valuable bauble to be 'harvested'; this involves genocidal removal of all inhabitants.  Jupiter is at the heart of this, since her DNA somehow blocks all transactions that the brothers quarrel over.  In Jupiter's own life, there is little but hard work, poverty, and lack of mobility.

Delineation of conflicts: Balem owns Earth, Titus wants it, and Kalique conspires behind them both.  Balem is drawn to Jupiter from past associations, but he intends to kill her to free up his harvesting of Earth.  Titus hired Caine to find Jupiter and protect her from Balem.  Someone has hired Apini; this takes a while to become clear.  Jupiter has a lot of lost memories that filter back at odd moments.  Worlds collide when Jupiter tries to sell some of her eggs for cash: her DNA is up for analysis.

Resolution: The conflicts go on and on, and do eventually resolve.  It just takes a long time to get there.

One line summary: Poor script and acting undermine the lavish production.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 8/10 Most of the film is lovely to watch.  The CGI, though ridiculous, is pretty to the eye.

  b. Sound: 8/10 Mostly professionally recorded and assembled into the film.

  c. Acting: 4/10 Mixed bag.  Sean Bean and Nikki Amuka-Bird were fine.  Channing Tatum was terrible.  Doona Bae was even worse than usual.  Eddie Redmayne was onscreen entirely too much.

  d. Screenplay: 4/10 Based on the script, I answered the following questions.  Whom do I identify with?  No one.  Whom do I empathise with?  Again, no one.  Is there a single character that I care about?  No.  Do I care about the fate of the future Earth?  No, this is all clearly fantastical nonsense.  Do I care about the society of ultra rich pampered aliens who treat Earth as a coal mine?  No.  These factors make 130 minutes of film seem terribly long.

Final rating: 5/10

20151025: Horror Review--The Atticus Institute

Name: The Atticus Institute (2015)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Horror, Mystery  Country of Origin: USA

Cast: Rya Kihlstedt as Judith Winstead, William Mapother as Dr. Henry West, Sharon Maughan as Susan Gorman, Harry Groener as Lawrence Henault, John Rubinstein as Marcus Wheeler, Julian Acosta as young Robert Koepp, Franklin Dennis Jones as Robert Koepp, Rob Kerkovich (NCIS: New Orleans) as Agent Barnes.

Directed by: Chris Sparling  Written by: Chris Sparling

The Three Acts:

The initial tableau: The (fictional) Atticus Institute was founded in the early 1970s to study exceptional persons who might have ESP abilities: telepathy, clairvoyance, telekinesis, for instance.  They find hundreds of subjects, find a few weak espers, and get conned at least once.  Then they meet Judith Winstead.

Delineation of conflicts: West's children still care about their distant father, and are discouraged when the Institute clearly has a bad effect on him.  The Institute staff have great talent, but dealing with an incredibly bad-tempered test subject is quite a challenge.  As they continue to observe Judith, it becomes clear that they are dealing with something besides ESP.  Just what is it?  They call in an expert from the DIA (defence intelligence agency), Robert Koepp.  His presence seems to make it much worse.  Will Judith's ability be diagnosed correctly?  If so, what will the DIA (and DOD) decide to do with it during the Cold War?

Resolution:  The attempts of 1970s science to deal with the supernatural were worth a watch.

One line summary: High-handed DoD personnel fail versus the supernatural.

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 4/10 VHS level, 240p, perhaps.  Even on a mockumentary, why?  There is more time spent in hand-held mode than I cared for.

  b. Sound: 8/10 Much better than the video.

  c. Acting: 8/10  Good.  John Rubinstein and Harry Groener are long time favourite actors of mine, and they delivered.  Rya Kihlstedt was quite something as the possessed Judith Winstead.  Julian Acosta did well as young Roepp.  I liked the actors who played Henry's two children.

  d. Screenplay: 6/10 Proceeded in reportorial style.  The motivations were reasonably well mapped out, except for the starting points.  How things would proceed once the military took control made sense, but how Judith came to the early state (when she first entered the Institute) was still murky to me at the end.

Final rating: 6/10

20151024: Horror Review--Altitude

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

Genres: Horror, Mystery   Country of Origin: Canada

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

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

The Three Acts:

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

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

Resolution:  Well, watch the film.

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

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

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

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

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

Final rating: 3/5

20151011: Horror Review--Wolfman

Name: The Wolfman (2010)
IMDb: The Wolfman

Genres: Horror, drama, thriller  Country of origin: USA

Cast: Benicio del Toro as Lawrence Talbot, Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Hugo Weaving as Inspector Francis Abberline, Emily Blunt as Gwen Conliffe, Art Malik as Singh, Antony Sher as Dr Hoenneger.

Directed by: Joe Johnston.  Written by: Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self (screenplay).

The Three Acts:

The initial tableau: Lawrence's mother dies during his childhood in the village of Blackmoor.  This traumatizes him; his wealthy father sends him to an asylum, then exiles him to New York.  Years later, Gwen (Lawrence's brother's fiancee), finds him in New York and begs him to return to Blackmoor to aid in locating his missing brother.  Back in England, Lawrence learns that his brother is dead from mauling by an animal.  In this sad setting, Lawrence tries to renew his relationship with his estranged father, Sir John.  This works to some degree, but Lawrence himself is bitten.  He survives, which is unfortunate, as it turns out.

Delineation of conflicts: Inspector Abberline wants to confine Lawrence as a threat to society.   Reverend Fisk would like the unholy acts of the werewolf stopped. Dr Hoenneger wants to expose Lawrence to his professional colleagues as an insane man whose obsessions make him commit heinous acts, not some supernatural creature.  Lawrence wants to stop the effects the full moon has on him.  Gwen would like to help Lawrence, but it is not clear on just how to do that.  Sir John has his own issues with Lawrence.

Resolution:  Well, watch the film.  It's beautiful to behold, and horrible at the same time.  The ending has considerable strength.

One line summary: Even better than the superb The Wolf Man (1941).

Statistics:
  a. Cinematography: 10/10 Excellent filming and SFX for atmosphere and human reaction shots.

  b. Sound: 9/10 The dialog is clear, and the background music is fine for the situations.

  c. Acting: 9/10 Hopkins, del Toro, Malik, Weaving, and Sher were just great in their roles.

  d. Screenplay: 9/10 Wonderful.  The exposition of motivations was rather direct and clear.  The direction and the performances by the actors made the script come alive.

Final rating: 9/10

20151011: Drama Review--Sphere

Name: Sphere (1998)
IMDb: Sphere

Genres: Drama, Mystery, SciFi  Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Dustin Hoffman as Norman Goodman, Sharon Stone as Beth Halperin, Samuel L. Jackson as Harry Adams, Liev Schreiber as Ted Fielding, Peter Coyote as Harold Barnes, Queen Latifah as Alice Fletcher.

Directed by: Barry Levinson.   Written by: Michael Crichton (novel), Kurt Wimmer (adaptation).

The Three Acts: 

Initial Tableau: Dr Goodman is being escorted out to sea to aid distressed survivors of an airplane crash.  On the way, he sees many naval vessels, which increases his curiosity.  Then he is put into isolation, after which he meets old friends: Dr Halperin (biology), Dr Adams (mathematics), Dr Fielding (astrophysics).  Along with Captain Barnes, they are taken to a facility 1000 feet below sea level.

Delineation of Conflicts:  The site the team is taken to was constructed to study a huge space ship discovered on the seafloor.  The people in the team were chosen to match a report that Norman wrote some ten years before.  Hence Beth, Harry, and Ted all blame Norman for anything that happens during their current predicament.  In his report, Norman had chosen people he knew well for each position in this 'first alien contact' team.  As the work progresses, Barnes has choice words for Norman as well.  Besides the human interactions stemming from past choices, the team has to face the enigma within the space ship, and do their best to survive its considerable power.

Resolution: Working through the puzzle is well worth the time.

One line summary: An intelligent first contact film.

Statistics: 

Cinematography: 10/10 Looks professional, which I seldom see.  The use of practical effects, plus the near absence of CGI helped greatly.

Sound: 8/10 Not much of an issue.  This is a movie executed through dialog, not mood music.

Acting: 10/10 The stellar cast delivered.

Screenplay: 8/10 Well done.  The second act might seem a tad long, but the short third act is well worth it.

Final Rating: 9/10

20151010: Comedy Review--Take Care

Name: Take Care (2014)
IMDb: link to IMDb

Genres: Comedy, Drama, Romance  Country of Origin: USA.

Cast: Leslie Bibb as Frannie, Thomas Sadoski as Devon, Elizabeth Rodriguez as Nurse Janet, Nadia Dajani as Fallon, Marin Ireland as Laila, Betty Gilpin as Jodi.

Written and directed by: Liz Tuccillo.

The Three Acts: 

Initial Tableau: Frannie has been in an auto accident.  She broke an arm and a leg. She gets incomplete help from her sister and friends.  After too much of that, she appeals to 'the devil'; that is, her ex, Devon.  Devon contracted cancer some years back, and Frannie had cared for him for two years until he was cured.  So she gives him a sufficient guilt trip...and he acquiesces.  His new girlfriend is not exactly understanding.

Delineation of Conflicts:  Frannie's friends do not trust Devon.  Devon wants to get rid of the guilt debt.  Devon's new girlfriend wants his fairly tenuous relationship with Frannie to end as soon as possible.  Devon's feelings of gratitude are a bit limited, but Frannie's sense of being owed (big time) is even larger than she thought, especially when she expounds on all the things she did for him.  Frannie and Devon get the opportunity to be honest with each other, which was not fun for them, but changes everything.  As time progresses, Devon spends more, rather than less, time with Frannie.  How is his new girlfriend going to take that?

Resolution: Well, watch the film.

One line summary: Frannie guilts her ex into caring for her post auto accident.

Statistics: 

Cinematography: 10/10 Looks professional, which I seldom see.

Sound: 7/10 Not much of an issue.  This is a movie executed through dialog, not mood music.

Acting: 5/10 I could have done without the actors who performed as Frannie's friends and sister. I liked Thomas Sadoski quite a bit.  Leslie Bibb's role was awkward and difficult.  She did the awkward part really well.

Screenplay: 5/10  I usually do not care for studies in awkwardness, and this is no exception.  Still, the film has a beginning, a middle, and an end.  The exposition of motivations was probably its strong point.  At least this one made some sense.

Final Rating: 6/10