20160812: Action Review--Atomic Shark

Name: Atomic Shark (2016)
IMDb: link to Atomic Shark page

Genres: Action, SciFi   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Rachele Brooke Smith as Gina, Jeff Fahey as Rottger, David Faustino as Fletcher, and so on.

Directed by: A. B. Stone.  Written by: Scott Foy, Griff Furst.

Image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
At a Southern California beach, Rottger rents out his speed boat for water skiers.  While doing this, the skier is eaten by a red glowing shark.  Rottger reports this to the beach patrol, but is ignored.

On the beach, there are lifeguards (led by a total jackass), the environmentalists, the voyeurs, plus the normal folk.   Gina is Rottger's daughter, one of the lifeguards, and a so-so student of the environment.  She draws her boss' disapproval by insisting that there is a shark problem.

Delineation of conflicts:
The sharks would like to kill and eat the humans.  The environmental group would like the radioactive waste in a sunken submarine to be cleaned up.

As the incidents mount, the drone flyer, the environmentalists, Rottger, and Gina band together to take the issue to the source of the mutated sharks.  The sharks do not take it lying down.

The millennials want selfies every so many minutes, so there is the war with the WiFi.

Resolution: Depends on whether the WiFi works out at sea to coordinate the attack using tablets.

One line summary: Radioactive mutant sharks vs environmental students in SoCal.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 6/10 Bright, well-focused, reasonably framed for natural, outdoor, daytime shooting.  The CGI was frequently unconvincing.

Sound: 7/10 No particular problems.

Acting: 4/10 Jeff Fahey was about as good as he could get given the rotten screenplay.  Other than Jeff, the other actors were between mighty poor and abysmal.

Screenplay: 1/10 Gods of all stars, save me from this crap! The script was just terrible.  This is one of the worst efforts I've seen through Syfy, which is saying a lot.  There were shark movie cliches, beach cliches, stupid boss cliches, radioactivity cliches, and father-daughter cliches.  Add in stereotypical views of millennials, the necessity of WiFi, and the 'ability' of sharks to do just about anything.

Final Rating: 3/10

20160811: Action Review--Ice Sharks

Name: Ice Sharks (2016)
IMDb: link to Ice Sharks page

Genres: Action   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Edward DeRuiter as David, Jenna Parker as Tracy, Kaiwi Lyman Mersereau as Michael, Clarissa Thibeaux as Alex, Travis Lincoln Cox as Sammy, Mia Danielle as Val.

Written and directed by: Emile Edwin Smith.

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
A group of young (25-35-ish) scientists study warming patterns in the Arctic icepack.  A nearby Norwegian camp has been losing hunters in the last month or so.  Some of the underwater warming patterns seem alarming, so Sammy is sent out to check the sensors.

Delineation of conflicts:
The sharks would like to kill and eat the humans.  The humans would like to survive.  The sharks show behavior similar to teamwork.  For instance, the sharks manage to sink the station since the ice underneath it is so much thinner than it has been historically. The humans exhibit cleverness and bravery in countering the effects of the shark attacks on the station.  They seal out the sharks and get a new oxygen source while underwater.  Will they hold off the sharks long enough for help to arrive?

Resolution: The results were sad, but not as bleak as in most elimination derbies.

One line summary: Sharks vs environmental scientists in the Arctic.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 5/10 Where it was not shaky cam, it was good.  However, much of the SFX were truly, deeply, POS bad.  For instance, the model of the station was shabbily obvious for all too many minutes, rather like bad 1950s creature features.

Sound: 8/10 No particular problems.

Acting: 7/10 Some of it was a bit wooden.  On the other hand, the team showed courage and intelligence in the face of adversity.  The usual acting in such a film is to scream a lot, then do something extremely stupid.  This group was definitely better than that, which takes more acting skill.

Screenplay: 7/10 Unlike in a typical teen elimination derby, the somewhat older group in this film cooperated and had several small victories.  This did not compensate entirely against the depredations of the sharks, but it made for a better film.  There were adults present, and the adults wisely called mayday early on, which was a partially saving grace for the group.

Final Rating: 7/10 Yes, I must be in a generous mood, but this is the best Asylum film I've seen so far.

20160810: Comedy Review--Gambit

Name: Gambit (2012)
IMDb: link to the Gambit (2012) page

Genres: Comedy   Country of origin: USA

Cast:
Colin Firth as Harry Deane, Alan Rickman as Lionel Shabandar, Tom Courtenay as The Major, Cameron Diaz as PJ Puznowski, Spencer Cummins as Sgt Puznowski, Cloris Leachman as Grandma Merle Puznowski, Stanley Tucci as Zaidenweber,  Togo Igawa as Takagawa.

Directed by: Michael Hoffman.  Written by: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen (screenplay); Sidney Carroll (short story).

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Harry Deane hates his blowhard multimillionaire boss, Shabandar, who collects art.  Harry is moderately well paid as Shabandar's art curator.  Harry's long time friend, The Major, has a fine hand at forging known works of master oil painters.

Some years back, Shabandar bested the Japanese art collector Takagawa at the auction of Monet's Haystacks in the Morning.  Shabandar would dearly love to acquire the companion piece, Haystacks in the Evening.  Evening was lost in World War II, but Harry sees an opportunity.

Delineation of conflicts:
Harry would like to sell Shabandar the fake created by the Major.  Shabandar would like to own the companion piece.  Harry would like to get rich and stay out of jail, so he plans to create a fake provenance to the target painting.

Harry travels to Texas to find the American rodeo woman PJ Pusnowski, whose grandfather, Sgt Pusnowski supposedly liberated the painting from the Germans who had swiped it earlier in the war.  Shabandar paid 11 million pounds sterling for Morning, so Harry expects to get at least 12 million for Evening.  He offers PJ a large chunk of change, and she decides to cooperate in crafting a false segment of the provenance of The Major's copy.  That is, Evening had been sitting in Texas all those years.

While schmoozing Shabandar in London with PJ, Harry's weak position leads to his firing as well Shabandar's commandeering of PJ's attentions.  Shabandar hires Zaidenweber as an alternate authenticator for the proposed Evening.  Harry hopes to reverse his fortunes, but goodness, what a feckless fool!

Takagawa is in London, ostensibly, to sell certain television rights to Shabandar.  PJ helps Shabandar deal with the Japanese contingent brought along by Takagawa.  This will cement Shabandar's standing in Japanese television.  PJ is swimming in this deal and having the time of her life.  Harry is completely shut out of this, of course.

Harry's last asset is that he has The Major's fake Evening.  Can he use this to reverse all his setbacks?

Resolution: Harry seems a dim bulb, but is he?  Throughout the film, we see him face defeat after defeat, and a mounting sense of overall embarrassment.  The film's title is a good clue to Harry's actual plans.

One line summary: Fine remake of the 1966 caper film.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 9/10 Good looking from beginning to end.

Sound: 8/10 The dialog was clear, the foley was good, and the incidental music amusing.

Acting: 9/10 Colin Firth, Alan Rickman, and Tom Courtenay were excellent.  The rest of the cast did well.

Screenplay: 9/10 The pacing of the film was wonderful.  I got several hearty laughs out of the film, and a dozen or so chuckles.  Not once did I have to strain at suspending disbelief, and the ending came as a mild surprise.

Final Rating: 9/10

20160808: Action Review--IP Man

Name: IP Man (2008)
IMDb: link to IP Man page

Genres: Action   Country of origin: Hong Kong.

Cast:
Donnie Yen as Ip Man, Simon Yam as Quan, Lynn Hung as Cheung, Hiroyuki Ikeuchi as (Japanese) General Miura, Ka Tung Lam as Li, Sui-Wong Fan as Jin, Xing Yu as Lin, Tenma Shibuya as Colonel Sato (Miura's aide).

Directed by: Wilson Yip.  Written by: Edmond Wong, Siu-Wong Fan.

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
The town of Foshan, China in 1935 hosts many martial arts schools.  IP Man is a master of Wing Chun style.  He has a wide reputation which attracts challengers.  He is a man of significant wealth and reputation with a wife and young son.

In 1937, however, the Japanese invasion extended to the region where IP Man lives, including in particular Foshan.  The Japanese military commandeered IP Man's house and ejected him.  Now he is broke.  The Japanese destroyed much of the local manufacturing base, rendering the whole area poor.

Delineation of conflicts:
The local Chinese would like the Japanese to leave; the Japanese clearly intend to stay. The occupying force recruits Chinese masters to fight for rice.  General Miura is quite the expert, and likes to beat the hell out of the locals, three at a time.

IP Man will not participate at first, but a number of deaths draw him out.  He makes a few statements in Miura's tournaments, but what can he do about the situation as a whole?

Quan, a want-to-be rival of IP Man before the war, becomes the boss of a robber gang after the war begins.  IP Man helps defend workers against their extortion by training and personal protection.  Will IP Man be able to help the workers sufficiently to defend themselves?

Will the IP Man confront General Miura directly?

Resolution: We find out.

One line summary: Locals vs Japanese in late 1930s China.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 8/10 Uniformly well-done though not spectacular.

Sound: 8/10 I used the subtitles, but the voices were clear enough for the dialog.  The music was easy enough to hear, well executed, but a bit understated and florid at times.

Acting: 7/10 Donnie Yen was fine as IP Man, as was Hiroyuki Ikeuchi as General Miura, Ka Tung Lam as Li (the poor bastard who chose to interface with Miura), and Simon Yam as Quan.

Screenplay: 8/10  The story moves along, and the motivations are clear enough.  The build up to the final fight between Miura and IP Man was rather good, and the fight was spectacular.

Final Rating: 8/10

201600808: Drama Review--A Decent Arrangement

Name: A Decent Arrangement (2014)
IMDb: link to A Decent Arrangement page

image courtesy of IMDb

Genres: Drama, Romance   Country of origin: USA, India

Cast:
Adam Laupus as Ashok Khosla, Vikram Kapadia as Arun Khosla, Navneet Nishan as Gita Khosla,
Shabana Azmi as Preeti Mehta, Shreya Sharma as Suriya Mehta, Farid Currim as Bashi Mehta,
Diksha Basu as Amita Chandra, Lethia Nall as Lorie Sanders, Adhir Bhatt as Vikram Kohli.

Written, Produced, and Directed by: Sarovar Banka.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Indian American Ashok Khosla travels from the USA (where he grew up, where he lives, where he works) to India in search of an arranged marriage.  In particular, he travels to Chandigarh, as city north of New Delhi.  He stays with his older female cousin Preeti, who will be his matchmaker.

Delineation of conflicts:
Ashok has to decide what his innermost values are while a wife is being picked for him.

A number of American things have rubbed off on Ashok: he likes coffee, not tea.  He does not like cookies (biscuits) with either.  The American supermarket, the American shower, the American versions of tolerance are all things that he appears to miss.  Perhaps the biggest miss is honesty.  Ashok is honest about his aspirations during his interview with the first set of parents; Preeti is correct in that he just destroyed all hopes in that direction.

Preeti has a very methodical approach, and has a large notebook of descriptions of potential brides ready for Ashok's first day.  She asks for his input, but informs him with reasonable clarity, why his opinion is sometimes 'wrong.'  Preeti asserts that her first pick is 'homely,' which surprises Ashok, but is presented as a virtue in this circumstance.

Preeti asserts that the Indian economy is better than the American at present.  That is curious.  Most of the long sets of local footage point to abject poverty, not to sufficiency, much less abundance.  Some scenes about Preeti's circle look like lower middle class America.  The Mehtas' refrigerator looks as if it were purchased used in the 1950s, and this is a film about 2014.

Some of the parents of potential brides would rather meet with Ashok's parents directly, but not with Preeti, and not with Ashok.  Sigh.  Eventually, Ashok is more quiet during interviews, and actually gets to meet one of Preeti's candidates.

Unfortunately for Ashok's clarity of the moment, Ashok meets Lorie Sanders, an American traveling in India.  This sets him into a new quandary since he has yet to meet a potential Indian bride, and here is this living reminder of all things American.  Oddly enough, she knows more about the city of Chandigarh than he does and offers to show him around.

Shortly thereafter, Ashok meets the Chandra family, and his first Indian bride candidate, Amita Chandra.  He gets to like Amita.

By the time his parents Arun and Gita arrive in Chandigarh, Ashok has to make some decisions.

Resolution: These cultural differences resolve themselves, eventually.

One line summary: Desi man looks for arranged marriage in India.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 5/10 When the camera is steady, this film has a low budget, but still good-looking appearance.  When the camera is weaving about, nausea seems just around the corner.

Sound: 4/10 Neel Murgai is credited with the music, which added some atmosphere but not much emotional depth.

Acting: 5/10 Adam Laupus and Shabana Azmi were convincing as Ashok and Preeti.  Lethia Nall was quite good as Lorie, but the rest of the cast I could have done without.  Entirely.

Screenplay: 7/10 Slow and careful, passive and illuminating.  Ashok is a fish out of water, but this is not played for laughs.  There is no humour in this piece, and little action beyond the motion of the train in the initial sequence.  As a still and thoughtful film, it's fairly pleasant.  Unless one likes still and thoughtful, this could be a major trial.

"We all want out of this shit, and you want to get back in."  Ashok hears this at a bar in Chandigarh, from a local IT professional, and it seems to encapsulate the entire movie for me.

Final Rating: 6/10

20160720: Action Review--The Good The Bad The Weird

Name: The Good, The Bad, The Weird (2008)
IMDb: link to The Good The Bad The Weird page

image courtesy of The Movie Database (TMDb)

Genres: Action, Crime, Comedy   Country of origin: South Korea

Cast:
Jung Woo-Sung as Park Do-won (the Good), Lee Byung-hun as Park Chang-yi (the Bad), Kang-ho Song as Yoon Tae-goo (the Weird).

Directed by: Kim Jee-woon.  Written by: Kim Jee-woon, Min-suk Kim.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
This motion picture is set in 1930s Manchuria, traditionally part of China, but occupied by Japanese armed forces at the time.  The three protagonists are Koreans who have some connection to Korean independence, however weak this connection might be.  The Good is a bounty hunter of considerable skill and experience.  The Bad is a gang leader capable of endless (and often fortuitous) violence.  The Weird appears to be a bumbling bandit who succeeds only by serendipity.

Like a typical James Bond film, the opening is a manic short in its own right, followed by a calmer, longer, deeper depiction of the issues hinted at in the short.  In this case, the film opens at the home of a rich Chinese man, who has an obligation to a man in the Japanese power structure.  The map is sent to even things up.  However, the Chinese fellow hires The Bad to steal the map back.  We jump forward in time to a speeding train.

The Weird decides to rob the train, and starts his robbery slightly ahead of The Bad.  By accident, he finds the train car with the Japanese delegation who have the map, plus various other valuables.  While rifling through luggage, the Weird barely gets to the map when The Bad's gang engages the train with its full attack.

Just about every train robbery cliche follows, as does the arrival of The Good.  The Weird gets away from The Good and The Bad, which sets up the rest of the film.

Delineation of conflicts:
The film is about the map.  It begins with the map, and ends with the map.  Everything in between is about the pursuit and acquisition of the map, plus finding the map's destination.  There is some value attached to the map, since the Japanese army wants it, as do monied interests in China and Japan, as well as bandit gangs and freelance thieves.

The Good and The Bad follow The Weird.  Alliances come and go.  Betrayals arise and damage is taken.

Resolution: The dialectic of conflicts ends late in the film.

The end sequence runs like the Keystone Kops set in the desert, only with one thousand times better production values.  The three protagonists outrun, outgun, or evade other gangs, Japanese army elements, and each other until only the three are left.  They find their target in the map, then they deal with each other.

One line summary: Fine western film set in 1930s Manchuria.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 10/10 Excellent camera work, whether it be vast expanses of desert, tight shots of fights in cityscapes, horses versus motorcycles, moving trains, or quiet interviews in a wealthy man's opulent house.

Sound: 6/10 Dialog was in Korean, Mandarin, and Japanese.  I relied on the sub-titles.  Musical accompaniment was appropriate, but not quite the asset it might have been.

Acting: 9/10 The three lead actors were quite engaging.  They (or their doubles) show considerable athletic skill, plus fine weapons expertise.  Several segments were done at breakneck speeds, and everyone seemed up to the task.  Quiet interpersonal scenes were done well.

Screenplay: 8/10 This could be considered an alternate take on the iconic film The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966).  There were parallels, but this is a very Asian film.  At 130 minutes, the film is a bit long, but the humour and the action make the minutes melt away.

Final Rating: 8/10

20160719: Fantasy Review--Jurassic World

Embrace the Suck, review #2: Jurassic World (2015)
Pre-emptive considerations:

1. Chris Pratt.  A poor man's version of Tyler Labine.  I don't believe any line that he says as an actor; he is a strong deal breaker.


2. Bryce Dallas Howard.  Why, just why?  Two deal breakers in one film!


3. Counter-balancing the nausea caused by the choice of lead actors was the presence of much better actors such as Irrfan Khan, Vincent D'Onofrio, Omar Sy, BD Wong, and Judy Greer.

So why did I watch it? I liked very much the source material from Jurassic Park.  I thought the SFX might be a step up from the original, which would be worth seeing.

------Return to normal review mode.------

Name: Jurassic World (2015)
IMDb: link to Jurassic World page

courtesy of The Movie Database (TMDb)

Genres: Fantasy   Country of origin: USA

Cast:
Chris Pratt as Owen, Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire, Irrfan Khan as Masrani, Vincent D'Onofrio as Morton, Omar Sy as Barry, BD Wong as Dr Henry Wu, Judy Greer as Karen, Nick Robinson as Zach, Ty Simpkins as Gray.

Directed by: Colin Trevorrow.  Written by: Amanda Silver, Rick Jaffa.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
In modern day Costa Rica, the theme park Jurassic World has completely replaced the theme park Jurassic Park, which closed twenty years earlier due to a disaster involving multiple human deaths.  The new park has bigger dinosaurs with more teeth and greater ability to do damage.

Claire has a position of responsibility at the park coordinating operations.  She promises her sister Karen that she will show her nephews Zach and Gray a good time at the park.  Claire provides them with bracelets that let them get on rides without waiting in line, and hires a nanny to oversee them.  However, she does not provide them with more than a few minutes of her own time.

Owen is still bonding with the four raptors he has dealt with since their hatching.  As an accident early on shows, the training and loyalty are a bit iffy.

Delineation of conflicts:
The animals at the exhibits would like to escape their jails; the owners of the park would like them kept in captivity.  The makers of the film think that the viewers would like to see human beings slaughtered by the animals.   Said human characters would like to continue living.

The owners of the park experience decay in attendance when there are not enough new attractions every so often.  In order to keep profits high and push them higher, the owners fund the creation of 'new' animals made from dinosaur DNA plus other DNA.  The danger in this seems to elude the park owners, who set up testing, but do not spend enough money or thought on safeguards.

Claire delegates her responsibilities for Zach and Gray to an English nanny, and the results are not good.  Consequences here are many. Claire and Owen spend a lot of effort finding the boys then helping them survive.

Claire and Owen have some nebulous past relationship, and that seems to be going nowhere.  Despite this, when the going gets tough, she calls on Owen for help.

The Morton character represents interests who want to make huge amounts of money by weaponising the dinosaurs, particularly the raptors.  Chaos at the park represents an opportunity for Morton to take over the park and scoop up the full research on dinosaur redesign technology.  This would circumvent dealing honorably with the owners.

Owen sets up a pilot project to see whether raptors can bond with humans.  He has some success since he has interacted with them from birth.  Later these raptors meet with the indominus creation, and are drawn to it, since it has some raptor DNA.  The raptors have divided loyalties.  How will that play out in the final battle?

Resolution: The dialectic of conflicts ends late in the film.  Most of the resolutions end up the way one would expect, and take most of the movie and much effort.  So the film at least goes through the motions of good storytelling, but fails chronically in delivery.

One line summary: Same plot as Jurassic Park with newer SFX.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 9/10 I rather liked this, despite the overabundance of CGI.  The skill level and care in editing was high.  In particular, the sequence where the indominus comes out of camouflage is just brilliant.

Sound: 6/10 I could hear the dialog clearly, which was usually a plus.  The main score by Michael Giacchino would have been more at home in an historical costume drama, rather than in a high tech fantasy.

Acting: 4/10 The two lead actors are walking disasters, and the director did not do enough to blunt this weakness.  Sam Neill and Laura Dern (the leads in Jurassic Park) outshine Pratt and Howard by orders of magnitude.

In contrast, I would like the fine actors Irrfan Khan, Vincent D'Onofrio, Omar Sy, BD Wong, and Judy Greer in just about any property in which they appear, including this one.  However, I do wish that each of them had had more screen time plus better dialog.

Screenplay: 5/10 This was a rehash of Jurassic Park, but with more CGI and lesser actors.  The 'new' elements were just excuses for more butchery of human beings by mindless, ridiculous, and impossible monsters.

There were natural (for a fantasy) conflicts aplenty, and the storytelling brought them to reasonable conclusions in most cases.

The dialog struck me as poor.  Part of that was the lack of acting skills on the parts of the lead actors (Pratt and Howard), but not all of it.  Even the much better supporting actors sounded terribly stupid here and there.

Final Rating: 6/10

20160718: Action Review--The Man from UNCLE

Embrace the Suck, review #1: The Man from U. N. C. L. E. (2015)
Pre-emptive considerations:

1. Henry Cavill.  After watching a segment of Man of Steel (2013) with Cavill and Kevin Costner, I took a mighty oath never to watch another movie with Cavill in the cast.  I still like Costner, but Cavill was just horrible, and he's a Brit to boot, playing Superman.  A thousand times, no.


2. Armie Hammer.  Part of the reason I was never a strong fan of The Social Network (2010) was the portrayal of the Winklevoss twins by Mr Hammer.  When the mega-flop The Lone Ranger (2013) was circling the bowl, I took the criticisms of Mr Hammer to heart, and skipped it.


3. Counter-balancing the nausea caused by the choice of lead actors was the presence of Guy Ritchie as the director.  Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000) are two favourites of mine.  The humour, action, and sleek editing style were excellent.

So why did I watch it?  I had DVR'd it on a lark. I liked the source material from 1964-68, after all. The wife and I were looking for some funny material recently, and we both remembered the Guy Ritchie films listed above.

------Return to normal review mode.------

Name: The Man from UNCLE (2015)
IMDb: link to The Man from UNCLE page

image courtesy of TMDb

Genres: Action, Comedy, Drama   Country of origin: USA, UK

Cast:
Henry Cavill as Napoleon Solo, Armie Hammer as Illya Kuryakin, Alicia Vikander as Gaby Teller, Hugh Grant as Alexander Waverly, Elizabeth Debicki as Victoria Vinciguerra, Luca Calvani as Alexander, Sylvester Groth as Uncle Rudy, Jared Harris as Sanders (CIA contact), Misha Kuznetzov as Oleg (KGB contact).

Directed by: Guy Ritchie.  Written by: Guy Ritchie, Lionel Wigram.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
In the early 1960s, on behalf of the CIA, reformed master thief Napoleon Solo crosses into East Germany to extract Gaby Teller so as to find (and get leverage over) her scientist father.  Russian KGB agent Illya Kuryakin has a similar mission.

Delineation of conflicts:
Solo and Kuryakin compete throughout the film, partly from international and interagency competition, partly from testosterone poisoning.  Victoria Vinciguerra and her rich family have cornered Dr Teller into constructing nuclear devices that are somehow more dangerous than the usual kinds, as in 'end of the world' dangerous.  Victoria wants to use the devices for leverage.  The CIA, KGB, and MI5 would like to stop that.  The goals of these agencies are not always in sync with each other.

Resolution: The dialectic of conflicts ends late in the film.  Stay tuned.

One line summary: Origin story of UNCLE (United Network Command for Law and Enforcement).

Statistics:

Cinematography: 8/10 Nicely done.

Sound: 10/10 The dialog was in English, German, Russian, and Italian, so I relied on sub-titles.  I know enough German to tell that the sub-titles were usually on target, so I trusted the sub-titles for the spoken Russian and Italian.  Guy Ritchie is a huge fan of music, and the choices made for this film were delightful.

Acting: 6/10 Guy Ritchie is clearly a talented director.  The three lead actors are walking disasters, but he managed to neutralise that factor.  His choices of seasoned actors for the side characters were sound.  I liked Jared Harris, Hugh Grant, and Sylvester Groth quite well.

Screenplay: 8/10 I watched this to have fun, and collected a number of good laughs.  The combination of humour and action was good.  The film was 117 minutes long, but I did not feel that it dragged anywhere.

Final Rating: 8/10

20160417: Comedy Review--The Big Short

Name: The Big Short (2015)
IMDb: link to The Big Short page

Genres: Biography, Comedy, Drama   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Scion Capital: Christian Bale as Michael Burry, Dave Davis as Burry's assistant, Rudy Eisenzopf as Lewis Ranieri.

Deutsche Bank: Ryan Gosling as Jared Vennett, Jeffry Griffin as Chris (Jared's assistant).

FrontPoint Partners: Steve Carell as Mark Baum, Marisa Tomei as Cynthia Baum, Brad Pitt as Ben Rickert, Hamish Linklater as Porter Collins, Jeremy Strong as Vinnie Daniels, Adepero Oduya as Kathy Tao.

Directed by: Adam McKay.  Written by: Charles Randolph, Adam McKay (screenplay), Michael Lewis (book).

Deutschebank meets FrontPoint

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Michael Burry MD retired from medicine and became a hedge fund manager.  When joining Scion Capital, he negotiated to have strong control, no matter what, of his part of the hedge funds.  A bit over a year before the start of the the housing collapse in 2007/2008, Burry saw the writing on the wall, and managed to short (bet on failure) several housing securities that seemed bulletproof.  He was widely criticised and attacked from within his company.

Jared Vennett listens extensively to what's going on in the markets.  When he catches some of the Street's disdain for Burry's short bets, he takes a closer look, and decides that he too can profit from the coming recession.

While Jared was looking for allies in shorting housing securities, one of his calls is misplaced.  The 'other' FrontPoint Partners takes the call, and the small but talented group arranges a meeting with Jared.

Delineation of conflicts:
Michael Burry is at war with this company throughout most of the film.  Sticking to his position is not easy in the least.

Jared has a hard time convincing others of his position, which was derived from Burry's.  He also perseveres through some heavy flack from others.

Jared's presentations inspire Mark to do his own research.  Some of the delving into the absurdities of the housing bubble were hilarious; others, incredibly sad.  The uncovering of fraud leaves Mark outraged; others seem to think he is a stupid idealist.  Mark's group joins the small wave betting on failure in the artificial housing securities.  Mark resists wave after wave of pressure to sell off his bets.

Resolution: The dialectic of conflicts ends late in the film.  Stay tuned.

One line summary: Follows small group who bets against the housing market.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 4/10 Sucked.  Pointless bad camera work.

Sound: 7/10 I could hear the actors speak.  The music varied quite a bit, from irrelevant to too damned loud to right on target.

Acting: 10/10 Gosling, Carell, Bale, and Pitt were all brilliant in their parts.

Screenplay: 7/10 Too many threads, too many balls in the air simultaneously, not always enough context, way too many drops of the f-bomb.  After the first 20, the next 50 are of little effect.

On the other hand, the black humour is often so trenchant that one has to laugh, and I laughed many times.  The movie drives home the damage done by the widespread fraud and endless lies in the securities industry.

Final Rating: 8/10

20160417: YA Review--Scorch Trials

Name: The Scorch Trials (2015)
IMDb: link to Maze Runner 2: The Scorch Trials

Genres: YA, Adventure, SciFi   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
YA immune group: Dylan O'Brien as Thomas, Kaya Scodelario as Teresa, Thomas Brodie-Sangster as Newt, Ki Hong Lee as Minho, Dexter Darden as Frypan, Jacob Lofland as Aris Jones, Alexander Flores as Winston.

WICKED: Aidan Gillen as Janson, Patricia Clarkson as Ava Paige.

Scavenger outpost: Giancarlo Esposito as Jorge, Rosa Salazar as Brenda, Keith Jardine as Jim (guard).

Settlement with bar: Alan Tudyk as Blondie (Marcus), lots of extras.

Right Arm settlement: Barry Pepper as Vince, Lili Taylor as Mary, Jenny Gabrielle as Ponytail.

Directed by: Wes Ball.  Written by: T. S. Nowlin (screenplay), James Dashner (book).

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
The film starts where Maze Runner left off.  The YA group of immunes have broken out of the maze, only to be placed under the control of WICKED more directly.  They are in a WICKED lab.  After a bit, they find that WICKED is draining them of elements of their blood.  That means being in a permanent coma with tubes tied to their circulatory systems.  They take a shot at escape.

Delineation of conflicts:
WICKED wants the immunes for their blood chemistry.  The immunes want to be free human beings, not slaves being drained while in a permanent coma.  The immunes make new friends along the way, but WICKED will stop at nothing to get them back.

Resolution: There is a third film coming in 2017, but fortunately no fourth.  Little is resolved in this movie.

One line summary: YA group struggles to avoid enslavement

Statistics:

Cinematography: 9/10 Lots of good visuals.

Sound: 7/10 No problems, but nothing special either.

Acting: 7/10 The young actors were better than I expected.  Among the veterans, I liked Patricia Clarkson, Lili Taylor, and Giancarlo Esposito; Barry Pepper and Alan Tudyk, not so much.

Screenplay: 5/10 Oh, my.  There are so many bad cliches embraced in this film.  Zombies, for instance, were both unwelcome and boring.  Dystopia is all too common.  The presence of operating high tech laboratories with seemingly boundless resources is just ridiculous. Where could such wealth come from?  No where, that is where.

Final Rating: 6/10

20160404: Drama Review--Silver Linings Playbook

Name: Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
IMDb: link to Silver Linings Playbook

Genres: Drama   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence as Tiffany, Robert De Niro as Pat Solatano Sr, Jacki Weaver as Dolores Solatano, Chris Tucker as Danny, Julia Stiles as Veronica, Dash Mihok as Officer Keogh, John Ortiz as Ronnie, Anupam Kher as Dr Cliff Patel, Paul Herman as Randy, Shea Whigham as Jake.

Directed by: David O. Russell.  Written by: David O. Russell (screenplay), Matthew Quick (novel).

image courtesy of The Movie Database

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Narcissist Pat Jr is in a mental hospital.  His keepers are nagging him that it's time to go.  He keeps putting them off.  This pattern is repeated forever: Pat won't do as he's told, or requested, or cajoled, just for the sake of thumbing his nose at whoever is bothering him.  Pat's mother Dolores signs him out and takes him home.

Pat Jr's ex-wife Nikki has a restraining order against him, in part because he beat the hell out of Nikki's lover while she was still married to Pat Jr.  In Pat Jr's defense, the adulterer was in the shower with Nikki, in Pat Jr's house, and told Pat Jr to leave his own house so that he could continue with Nikki.

Delineation of conflicts:
Pat Jr wants Nikki to come back to him.  Nikki wants him to stay the hell away from her.  Pat Sr is also nuts (wails on other fans at sports contests), and Dolores has to put up with their endless nonsense.  Senior has OCD plus, and Junior is bipolar with severe mood swings.

Tiffany enters the scene and makes things worse.  She has her own issues and does not hesitate to dump on others, definitely including Pat Jr.

Pat Jr would like to get his old teaching job back.  The administrators of the school are hardly interested in that, given Pat's proven history.

Pat Sr and Randy, both bookies, end up with a big 'parlay' double bet just past Christmas.  First, the Eagles versus the Cowboys in football, plus a bet on the dance score that Tiffany and Pat Jr achieve.  Much of the last third of the film is about this.

Resolution: Does Pat Jr. find a durable silver lining?  Does he find a strategy to stay out of explosive interactions with other people?  Will Pat Sr's OCD get the better of him?

One line summary: Vastly overrated drivel.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 3/10 Washed out, at least early on.  Bad framing that smacked of shaky cam.

Sound: 6/10 I could hear the actors speaking the dialog.  Some of the music was quite good.

Acting: 4/10 Jennifer Lawrence won Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role (Oscar) in 2013 for her portrayal of Tiffany.  So I gave this a nonzero score.  This is a very forgettable film for DeNiro and Julia Stiles, two actors whom I usually like without reservation.  I did not care for the other performances at all.

Screenplay: 0/10 The characters, as written, are irritating without being interesting.  I identified with zero of them, empathised for none of them, and did not care in the least how the characters or relationships ended up.

Early on, Pat Jr intends to go out in public wearing a trash bag with holes cut through it.  It's only by luck that he's talked out of it, if only for a short time.  Is this meant to be important, or just a good sign to stop watching?

Final rating: 4/10  OK, barely. 

Pre-emptive considerations.

1. Bradley Cooper's blatant asshole personality glares through from the beginning, just as it does in every other film the jerk is in.
2. I could do without Chris Tucker.  Of course, I think that for every single film I have watched in which Chris Tucker appears.
3. The property is loaded with sports metaphors and dialog, so I tuned out during much of the film.  If I wanted a sports show, there is plenty on HBO.
4. The cinematography looks washed out and flat, perhaps from deliberate use of measured overexposure. I suppose that was used to reflect the high entropy existence of drug-addled mental patients.

20160318: RomCom Review--Must Love Dogs

Name: Must Love Dogs (2005)
IMDb: link to Must Love Dogs page

Genres: Comedy, Romance.   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Diane Lane as Sarah Nolan, John Cusack as Jake, Elizabeth Perkins as Carol, Christopher Plummer as Bill Nolan, Dermot Mulroney as Bob, Stockard Channing as Dolly, Ali Hillis as Christine, Ben Shenkman as Charlie.

Directed by: Gary David Goldberg.  Written by: Claire Cook (novel), Gary David Goldberg (screenplay).

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Sarah Nolan is recently divorced, and she gets advice and possible setups from sisters Carol and Christine, her brother, and her father Bill. The efforts to get her back into the dating game seem to be going along swimmingly, but her first blind date turns out to be her father.  Ouch.  She and her sisters regroup, and the search starts in earnest.

Jake is also recently divorced.  He and his lawyer Charlie celebrate the papers being signed, but note sadly that Jake decided not to participate in his own defense.  Divorce is war, and he lost on all fronts.  Jake builds wooden boats by hand, and is not selling all that many of them.  Charlie urges Jake to get back into the dating game, but Jake is slow to accept the idea.

Delineation of conflicts:
Sarah and Jake meet at a dog park, both with borrowed dogs.  They soon discover that both of them were faking it, and the first round looks like a bust.

Bob's child attends where Sarah teaches.  They hit is off fairly well at first, but Bob has a bit of a wandering eye.  Will this kill it for Sarah and Bob?  After all, they are just testing the field.

Jake and Sarah get together again, with better rapport, but they split again.

To make things more fun, father Bill Nolan starts a relationship with the exciting character Dolly, which upsets the rest of the family for a time.  Bill and his wife were together for 45 years before her death, after all.

Resolution: Do we get a Hollywood ending, or will this be just another feel bad comedy?  It could go either way.

One line summary: Pleasant feel-good romantic comedy.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 9/10   Nicely shot.  Ordinary people are doing ordinary things in ordinary places.  The reality principle is in place (no supernatural, no SciFi, no aliens, no CGI).  It's spring or early summer, the world is beautiful, and no one is sick or impoverished or threatened.  The visuals capture all of this smoothly.

Sound: 8/10 I could hear the actors clearly.  Background music was a mild plus.

Acting: 8/10 Christopher Plummer, John Cusack, Stockard Channing, and Diane Lane gave fine performances.  None of other actors were bad.

Screenplay: 7/10 Jake and Sarah start out badly, but do better the second time around, though not well enough.  Bob and Sarah start out with a nice warmth, but then things go south.  I liked those cliched but well done threads.  I also liked the thread featuring Dolly and her interactions with Bill and his daughters.  The ending was the biggest cliche of all, and was the only iffy part of the film for me.  I liked the result, but the awkwardness level was mighty high for a few minutes.

Final rating: 8/10

20160316: Horror Review--Hangar 10

Name: Hangar 10 (2014)
IMDb: link to Hangar 10 page

Genres: Horror, SciFi.   Country of origin: UK.

Cast: Robert Curtis as Gus Mills, Abbie Salt as Sally, Danny Shayler as Jake.

Directed by: Daniel Simpson.  Written by: Adam Preston, Daniel Simpson.

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Boyfriend Gus, girlfriend Sally, and Sally's old friend Jake set out with metal detectors and the like to discover some missing gold in the Suffolk area in England.  They stop at a pub which Gus had used as a base when he found a Roman coin sometime back. Fliers at the pub note UFO activity.  Right. Just before they start the actual search, Jake mentions that a military helicopter has been circling the area near them for hours.

They start in nearby accessible plowed fields.  They find nothing, so the meandering continues.

Delineation of conflicts:
Gus is a jerk; Sally and Jake put up with him.  Jake is a jerk; Gus and Sally put up with him.

They do much of the search in the dark, and have some navigation difficulties in the woods (Rendlesham Forest).  They are in a spot of danger from hostile forces that discover them.

Resolution: Will the aliens get them?

One line summary: Look for gold, find aliens.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 0/10   For the first hour or so, the visuals were absolute bullshit, with failures aplenty: focus, depth of field, framing, sufficient light, flare, artifacts from dirty lenses and so on.  Toward the end, there were visual effects added in abundance.  The movie seemed like a bad join of two incompatible films.

Sound: 2/10 For the first hour or so, the sound was rather poor since it was captured with a handheld video camera of low quality.  Toward the end, a great deal of sound effects were added, some of which were unsettling.

Acting: 0/10 Three non-actors plus a cheap video camera.  The lines were bad, and the delivery was bad.

Screenplay: 0/10 These plotlines have been done to death: found film, bickering, getting lost in the forest at night, search for ancient relics, the bogeymen are after you, the military and their opaque motives are somehow involved.  None of them were done well here.  Add in parking on private land without permission and having one's ride stolen.  The last five minutes seemed like a borrow from an entirely different film.

Final rating: 1/10

Spoiler alert:

No one comes out alive.  The aliens depicted were not cool or interesting or even vaguely feasible.

20160315: Thriller Review--The Traveler

Name: The Traveler (2010)
IMDb: link to The Traveler page

Genres: Thriller, Supernatural.   Country of origin: Canada.

Cast: Val Kilmer as Mr Nobody/Drifter, Dylan Neal as Detective Alexander Black, Paul McGillion as Deputy Jerry Pine, Camille Sullivan as Deputy Jane Hollows, Nels Lennarson as Deputy Toby Sherwood, John Cassini as Deputy Jack Hawkins, Chris Gauthier as Desk Sergeant Gulloy.

Directed by: Michael Oblowitz.  Written by: Joseph C. Muscat.

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
The film starts with a short depiction of the abduction of a young girl by an out-of-focus kidnapper.

We jump forward a year to the present day on a rainy Christmas Eve night.

Desk Sargeant Gulloy is a fussy man who is the omega male of the group at the Sheriff's station.  He  does not care for the loud, foul, disgusting speech of his coworkers at the station, or their generally inconsiderate actions, like leaving the door open for the cold and rain to flow in, cancelling the central heating.   His passive aggressive approach clashes with the classless alphas early and often.

The interactions of the four deputies are primitive and adolescent.  Evidently psych tests were not required to obtain their jobs.  Detective Black is the father of Mary, the girl abducted in the first scene.

To complete the initial scenery, Mr Nobody enters the station, and tells Gulloy that he would like to confess to murder.  The state cops come by to tell them that they are going to close down the off ramp from the Interstate due to a major accident.  The station will be more isolated than usual, and many things are not working due to the holiday.  That's where we are when the action of the story begins.

Delineation of conflicts:
The deputies and the desk sergeant despise each other.  The detective's wife is phasing into a breakup with him.  The detective is held in contempt by the deputies since he was promoted over them to detective.  The detective is in a depressed phase since he has not been able to solve his daughter's disappearance.

Mr Nobody is not especially compliant with the orders of the cops.  Clearly, he holds them in contempt, and the cops are not happy with his lack of obedience.

Have they already met Mr Nobody?  Will any of them get a bit of closure about their failed pursuit of Mary's murderer?

Resolution: The police think they have a confessed murderer.  Only late in the film do they realise that his confessions are to their detriment.

One line summary: Cops pay for guilty secret.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 6/10  The visuals were in the VHS range most of the time.  The reduced palette and the dominance of dark regions over light contributed to the overall tone of depression and hopelessness.  The lighting choices involved a great deal of fluorescent lamps, whose colour output contributed heavily to the grey-green of the interiors, where most of the film is shot.  The peeling paint, rusted metal, and flickering lighting contribute to the feeling of gloom and decay.

Sound: 5/10 I could hear the dialog.  The background music was alternately creepy and irrelevant.

Acting: 5/10 I recognise Val Kilmer from many works, of course.  Otherwise, I'm familiar only with Paul McGillion (Stargate Atlantis, 2004-2009).  The acting was OK, but not great.  Kilmer's performance was not one of his best, but he still outshone the others.

Screenplay: 3/10 The dialog was hardly sparkling, and the f-word was used to the point of numbness.  I would rate the script low on originality. The theme of supernatural retribution is hardly new, and elimination derbies are common in horror films.  The ending was a bit better than I expected.

Final rating: 4/10

Elimination order: spoiler alert

As Mr Nobody confesses, the deaths of the guilty cops happen.  Hawkins first, Gulloy second, Sherwood and Hollows third and fourth, then Pine.  The order related to the manner of violence the cops had visited on an unidentified drifter the year before while looking for Mary Black's killer.

20160314: Comedy Review--Man Up

Name: Man Up (2015)
IMDb: link to Man Up page
Genres: Comedy, Romance   Country of origin: UK.

Cast: Simon Pegg as Jack, Lake Bell as Nancy Patterson, Sharon Horgan as Elaine, Harriet Walter as Fran, Ken Stott as Bert, Olivia Williams as Hilary, Ophelia Lovibond as Jessica, Rory Kinnear as Sean Mallory.

Directed by: Ben Palmer.  Written by: Tess Morris.

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Single 34 year old Nancy goes to a loud themed mixer hosted by a hotel at the insistence of her married sister Elaine.  It's another failure.

Nancy heads via train to an anniversary party at the house of their parents, Fran and Bert. Nancy sits down and talks to Elaine.  Across from her is Jessica, who had listened to her telephone conversation with Elaine.  Jessica lends Nancy a self-help book meant to help her meet her true match.  The train stops; Jessica gets off without taking the book. When Nancy wakes up, she tries to find Jessica to return the book, but meets Jack instead.  (Jessica buys another copy; she had left her old copy on purpose, but Nancy does not know that.)

Jack thinks Nancy is his blind date since she has the book.  Jack has a pleasant manner, and does a Hannibal Lecter impression.  Partly because Lecter is one of Nancy's favourite movie characters, she decides to let Jack keep thinking she's his date.  Jessica shows up with her new copy of the book a good 90 seconds too late.

Delineation of conflicts:
First, there is the lie that started their relationship.  Jack and Nancy head into an evening together under false impressions.  Nancy has several opportunities in their conversation to correct the misapprehension, but fails to do so.

During the date, they encounter some baggage from each side.  There is Jack's ex, or soon to be ex, Hilary, whom they meet with Hilary's new significant other.  Then there is Sean, whom Nancy has known for many years but does not remember.  Unfortunately for Nancy, Sean's a bit of a stalker.

Jack is a bit battle weary from the recently failed marriage.  Nancy is in a negativity phase since she has had so many disappointments in a row.

Then there is the party with Fran and Bert.  Elaine and Fran want Nancy to write something to commemorate the 40 years of wedded bliss.  When might that happen during this busy day?

Resolution: Chemistry.

One line summary: Blind date with the wrong person.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 8/10 The camera work looks fine, but the sets are endlessly prosaic.  Of course, that's what the movie is about: ordinary people doing ordinary things in ordinary places.

Sound: 8/10 No problems.  The background music included some fine tunes.

Acting: 8/10 I liked Lake Bell in Surface (2005) and Over Her Dead Body (2008), but have not seen her work much since.  As for Simon Pegg, I liked him a lot in Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011).

As for this movie, the rest of the cast provided competent performances.  The movie sank or swam based on the screen chemistry between Pegg's character and Bell's character.  In the early going, Nancy was evasive (she's lying left and right, not in her skill set) and Jack was nervously expansive since he wants the date to go well.  This was awkward to say the least.  The chemistry starts to show when they connect on movie after movie, book after book, bowling and eating.

Perhaps the best part was when the lies start to be burned away by truth.  Pegg and Bell really go at in realistic ways that are funny as well.  The dancing scenes were marvelous: they don't slow dance well, but they were in perfect sync for Duran Duran's The Reflex (1984).

Screenplay: 7/10 Awkwardness was displayed aplenty as is common in romantic comedies.  However, this was done, for the most part, without making the people in the awkward situations seem like terrible people (well, except Sean, perhaps).

I got some laughs from watching this film, which is where most romantic comedies fail.

Final rating: 8/10 

20160306: Animation Review--Hell and Back

Name: Hell and Back (2015)
IMDb: link to Hell and Back page

Genres: Adult Animation, Comedy   Country of origin: USA.

Voice Cast: Nick Swardson as Remy, Mila Kunis as Deema, Bob Odenkirk as the Devil, Susan Sarandon as Barb the Angel, Danny McBride as Orpheus, T. J. Miller as Augie, Rob Riggle as Curt, Kerri Kenney-Silver as Madame Zonar, Jennifer Coolidge as Durmessa.

Directed by: Tom Gianas, Ross Shuman.  Written by: Hugh Sterbakov, Zeb Wells, Tom Gianas.

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Remy and Augie work at a run-down carnival, Remy as a hawker, and Augie as the handyman/fixer. The biggest attraction is called 'Gates to Hell' and it breaks down recurrently.  The budget is limited for spare parts and safety features, 'run-down' is probably a stable state, especially after the bank foreclosure.  Their life-long friend Curt has responsibilities at the park, but no authority.  Curt's boss is a dedicated zoned-out doper.  Will there be upgrades to make the park competitive, or even safe?  Probably not.

Remy looks for some hail Mary action to save the park, but instead settles on a book of Madame Zonar's concerning Beelzebub.  Curt asks Remy for a mint, and Remy gets Curt to seal a blood oath on the book that he will pay back the mint.  Curt openly admits that he lied.  This breaking of the oath activates the dormant Gates of Hell ride.  Curt gets pulled down.  While the vortex is still active, Remy and Augie follow into Hell, so as to find Curt and save his sorry self.

Delineation of conflicts:
The Devil would like to have sex with Barb the Angel.  Barb knows this, and leverages it into having the Devil find Remy and Augie, so that she can get 'save the misplaced mortals' off her To Do list.

Remy and Augie are looking for Orpheus, since he was able to walk out of hell with a person who was condemned.  Deema the half-demon is looking for Orpheus for her own reasons.

One of the demon unions is pissed that there have not been enough sacrifices lately.  Curt gets nominated, largely to his ill-considered speech, and his sacrifice becomes a big event in Hell.

Curt tries negotiating directly with the Devil, who has to deal with the demon union.

Resolution: Can the protagonists save Curt?  Will Curt save himself?

One line summary: WTH meets WTF.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 8/10  I've been watching stop action animation for a number of decades, and this looks rather good.

Sound: 9/10 For many sections of the film, the incidental music is choreographed precisely with the movements of the characters to good effect.

Voice Acting: 10/10 Full marks.

Screenplay: 1/10 Rude, crude, and barbaric.  The story line is competent.  However, the vileness of the speech is next to incomprehensible.  Early on, I hoped Hell would contract to a point with all characters trapped there forever.  I never lost that feeling.

Final rating: 6/10 Neutral.  Proceed at your own risk. Not for the faint of heart, or for anyone with virgin ears.  If you like relentlessly grinding irreverence, this is for you.