20160925: Comedy Review--The Road to Hong Kong

Name: The Road to Hong Kong (1962)
IMDb: link to The Road to Hong Kong

Genres: Comedy, SciFi   Country of origin: UK.

Cast:
Bing Crosby as Harry Turner, Bob Hope as Chester Babcock, Joan Collins as Diane, Robert Morley as Leader of the Third Echelon, Walter Gotell as Dr. Zorbb, Dorothy Lamour as Dorothy Lamour, Felix Aylmer as Grand Lama, Mai Ling as Ming Toy, Yvonne Shima as Poon Soon, Michele Mok as Mr. Ahso.  Then there is the cameo with Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin.

Directed by: Norman Panama.  Written by: Melvin Frank, Norman Panama (screenplay).

Joan Collins, Bing Crosby, Bob Hope

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Babcock and Turner are two minor con men who have fallen on bad times.  By chance, Babcock finds the only copy (hm) of a secret Russian formula for an advanced rocket fuel.  He manages to read the formula (without understanding), but destroys the written copy soon after.  The pair discover that the formula is sought after, and could bring them money.  They start the search for a way for Babcock to recall the specifications for the fuel.

Delineation of conflicts:
The pair search for, and find, the High Lama.  The Lama's people have the lore to let Babcock remember the rocket fuel recipe.  However, the Lama and all his society agree that the special concoction needed to do this should never leave their home.  That is a fine mess for Hope and Crosby to bumble their way out of.

No sooner than they have ditched the High Lama's agents, the 3rd Echelon wishes to get the formula which will enable flight to the Moon.  From the Moon, the 3rd Echelon hopes to bomb modern civilization (1962 style) into submission.  Diane is the 3rd Echelon's agent who manipulates the con men easily.  She gets them to headquarters without too much trouble.

The last conflict is for Diane's loyalty.  She is loyal to her employer, but she grows to like both Babcock and Turner.  Her boss is willing to do anything to get the rocket formula, including killing either or both of the con men.

Resolution: This was a vaudeville style comedy, so one does not expect a rousing ending which is a triumph of coherence.  Instead, we get a couple more laughs from the film industry making fun of itself after the heroes (?) save the world but not themselves.

One line summary: Hope and Crosby in the last Road picture.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 5/10 This film gets an A+ for cheesiness.  The rockets, the submarine, the planet at the end of the picture, and the animated fish were incredibly obviously fake.  The footage of actors, though, tends to be crisp and well-framed.

Sound: 8/10 It is in mono, but has been updated for current broadcast standards.  I did not catch any pop and hiss that one normally expects from 54 year old properties.

Acting: 6/10 It's a comedy and I got a couple of dozen laughs.  It's hard for me to complain.  However, Hope and Crosby were both rather terrible at acting in this one.  On the other hand, I enjoyed Joan Collins the most.  She was gorgeous in 1962, she spoke her lines well, and her singing voice was better than I expected.  Dorothy Lamour and Robert Morley added good laughs.

Screenplay: 6/10 The overall plot is silly, and the script is slanted toward one-lines and sight gags.  So it's not a great work of art, but it was a comedy that got me to laugh.

Final Rating: 6/10

20160920: SciFi Review--Total Recall

Name: Total Recall (2012)
IMDb: link to Total Recall page

Genres: SciFi   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Colin Farrell as Douglas Quaid/Hauser, Kate Beckinsale as Lori Quaid, Jessica Biel as Melina, Bryan Cranston as Cohaagen, Bokeem Woodbine as Harry, Bill Nighy as Matthias, John Cho as McClane.

Directed by: Len Wiseman.  Written by: Kim Wimmer, Mark Bomback (screenplay).

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
In a dark future dystopia, Douglas works in the UK side of Europe, but lives in Australia.  His job is hardly fulfilling, and he is haunted by recurring disturbing dreams.  In this stressful situation, he considers using the service Total Rekall, which provides the customer with an extra set of memories that are satisfying in some sense.

Douglas signs up with Total Rekall to be a secret agent against Chancellor Cohaagen, the leader of the UFB, the strongest state.  His rewards would be excitement and a growing sense of self-worth, at least while experiencing the extra memories.

Delineation of conflicts:
The imaginary scenario of Total Rekall never gets imprinted.  Armed agents crash into Total Rekall to arrest or kill Douglas.  He avoids dying, but unfortunately goes home to his 'wife' Lori, who is not his ally.  Douglas is on a quest to stay alive, to regain his memories, to find old or new allies, and to figure out what he wants to do with what time he has left.  There seem to be factions within Cohaagen's administration, but all of them seem to be after Douglas.  Opposing the administration is the Resistance, one of whose leaders is Matthias.  Douglas tries to find Matthias.  Will this free Douglas, or will it just accomplish Cohaagen's goals of putting down the Resistance?

Resolution:  Murky, right up to the end.

One line summary:  Hard reboot of the 1990 classic.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 10/10  The practical and CGI effects are impressive, showing the improvement of technology from 1990 to 2012.  Compared to this film, the original seems somewhat inventive but clunky and out of date.  It's hard to miss the debt of the 2012 film to _Star Wars_ in general, storm troopers, droid armies, and city of Coruscant in particular.

Sound: 7/10 I could hear the dialog, which is good.  The background music is not all that interesting.

Acting: 5/10 Negatives: Kate Beckinsale is at her most unconvincing.  Jessica Biel was her usual unremarkable self, decorative but without warmth.  Compared to Sharon Stone and Rachel Ticotin, the 2012 pair were cold cardboard.

Positives: Bokeem Woodbine, Bryan Cranston, and Bill Nighy were great in limited roles.  I usually consider Colin Farrell a totally blunt instrument, but liked his acting here.  On the other hand, I believed Arnold's action sequences, but Farrell's, not so much.

Screenplay: 6/10 This film is a strong departure from the 1990 film of the same name, so much so that a different name altogether would have been appropriate.

Final Rating: 6/10

20160919: Comedy Review--Love and Friendship

Name: Love & Friendship (2016)
IMDb: link to Love & Friendship page

Genres: Comedy  Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Kate Beckinsale as Lady Susan Vernon, Chloe Sevigny as Alicia Johnson, Morfydd Clark as Frederica Vernon, Tom Bennett as Sir James Martin, Jenn Murphy as Lady Lucy Manwaring, Lochlann O'Mearain as Lord Manwaring, Sophie Radermacher as Miss Maria Manwaring, Stephen Fry as Mr.

Directed by: Whit Stillman.  Written by: Jane Austen (novella Lady Susan), Whit Stillman (screenplay).

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Lady Susan Vernon loses her husband at Langford.  She imposes herself on Churchill.

Delineation of conflicts:
Not everyone is delighted by Susan's presence.  Susan is a notably charming flirt, a spendthrift, as well as devious and changeable.  Sir James Martin, quite a dolt but with income, is interested in Frederica, Susan's daughter, but Frederica is not interested in him.  Susan wants Sir James to succeed with Frederica for the income, but what will Sir James get in return?

Resolution: Delightful.  Stay tuned until the end.

One line summary: Comedy based on Jane Austen novella.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 8/10 Lovely sets, good lighting, nice

Sound: 9/10 I could hear the dialog clearly, and the background music fit the period piece well.

Acting: 9/10 Kate Beckinsale was better than I've ever seen her.  Chloe Sevigny was good as Susan's friend.  Tom Bennett as fine as the blockhead Sir James Martin.

Screenplay: 10/10 Stillman's screenplay based on Austen's novella was rich in its word play, and nicely executed.  I had dozens of good laughs.

Final Rating: 9/10

20160911: Fantasy Review--It Follows

Name: It Follows (2014)
IMDb: link to It Follows page

Genres: Fantasy  Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Maika Monroe as Jay Height, Keir Gilchrist as Paul, Olivia Luccardi as Yara, Lili Sepe as Kelley Height, Bailey Spry as Annie, Jake Weary as Hugh, Daniel Zovatto as Greg.

Written and directed by: David Robert Mitchell.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
There is an opening, very short sequence about Annie, who is running from something.  She drives to a beach, then waits.  Next morning, she's dead.  Do we reconnect with this?

The film is about Jay Height, not Annie.  Jay grows closer to a boyfriend, Hugh.  They have sex at a remote place in the back of his four door sedan.  Then he drugs her, takes her to an abandoned car park, then ties her to a chair on rollers.  The boyfriend says that he's passed something on to her.  As they speak, a woman approaches.  The boyfriend gets agitated.  Unless Jay passes it on to someone else via sex, the whatever-it-is will come back for him.

Delineation of conflicts:
The police interview Jay.  They find the parking lot that Hugh took her to, chair she was tied to, her lost purse, and the apartment that Hugh said was his.

Jay seems to be followed by various characters.  Are they figments of her imagination, or is something real after her?  She has a difficult time showing anybody direct evidence of the followers, who seem to be reanimated dead.  Does that change?  Does she pass 'it' on to someone else?  Can she escape with the help of friends?  These are Jay's attempts to deal with the unknown.

Resolution: Jay finds that 'Hugh' was a Jeff Redmond.  Jeff tries to be helpful with limited success.  Greg tries to take the problem away from her in a bit of macho display that fails.  Where is the solution, or is there one?

One line summary: Slow boiling fantasy thriller.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 8/10 Dingy and dark realistic photography of a town in steep decline in Michigan, USA.  It looks professionally done and adds to the atmosphere, I suppose.

Sound: 7/10 I can hear the dialog, which is the first big test on sound.  Did the foley or background music add much to the proceedings?  During the first 50 minutes, not so much.  Later the electronic music did some mood augmentation.

Acting: 6/10 The acting was much better than I expected for this sort of film.

Screenplay: 4/10 There is no possibility that any of the events in this film could happen, so this is supernatural horror, which I label as fantasy these days.  As usual with fantasy, one has to judge the film against its internal rules, since it has it has decided to lose connection with reality.

The one rule seems to be "if you've got it, you'll know it; convincing anyone else is another matter;" another is "pass it along or it will kill you."  The film stays pretty true to those two fantasy premises.

The film moves slowly, which was not a plus for me.  There was barely enough content here for a 42 minute television episode, much less a 105 minute feature film.  The tiny theme of the safe suburbs versus the evil city never seemed to go anywhere for me.  Just to cap everything off, the ending is nebulous.  Perhaps that was meant to be an opening for a sequel.

Some of the visuals seemed to be disconnected islands, such as when Jay swam out to a boat on a lake, and the opening scene with Annie.

Final Rating: 6/10

20160905: Thriller Review--Silver Streak

Name: Silver Streak (1976)
IMDb: link to Silver Streak page

Genres: Action, Thriller, Crime  Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Gene Wilder as George Caldwell, Richard Pryor as Grover Muldoon, Jill Clayburgh as Hildegard ('Hilly') Burns, Scatman Crothers as Ralston, Ned Beatty as Bob Sweet, Ray Walston as Mr Whiney, Patrick McGoohan as Roger Devereaux, Clifton James as Sheriff Chauncey, Richard Kiel as Reace.

Directed by: Arthur Hiller.  Written by: Colin Higgins.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
George Caldwell (publishing) and Hilly Burns (secretary to an art historian) meet on a train trip from Los Angeles to Chicago aboard the train called the Silver Streak.  They get along swimmingly. Unfortunately, through their cabin window, George sees a dead body dropped off the train.

Delineation of conflicts:
The body was that of Hilly's boss.  When George inquires about the boss, he gets thrown off the train while it's still moving.  By luck, he catches up with the Silver Streak, and gets back on.  The rest of the film is about George trying to stay alive, to find out just what happened, and to set things right if he can.

Hilly seems to be involved.  Bob Sweet tells George about Roger Devereaux, whose 'chauffeur' Reace threw George off the train.  When George confronts Hilly and Roger about the matter, Roger has a feasible explanation.  Even better, the art professor himself shows up.  Or does he?

George gets a bit tipsy, and tells Bob Sweet about the matter.  George is confused and needs someone to talk to, after all.  So, will George be able to pass off the dead body sighting as just a drunken misperception, or will the truth win out?

Resolution: Just about the time you think you've got the film figured out, Richard Pryor's character shows up and changes everything.  The film moves to a satisfying conclusion.

One line summary: Murder mystery with Wilder & Pryor.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 9/10 Among other things, this is a travel film.  The shots of the countryside from LA to Chicago are pretty nice.  The interiors are clear, well-lit, and well-focused.

Sound: 8/10 The dialog was easy to follow.  The music was typical 1970s fare.  Some of it was a bit too florid and orchestral for my taste.  Other parts were made with those old style synthesizers which sound primitive these days.

Acting: 9/10 Gene Wilder carries the show for the first 60% or so, and did a good job as the lead.  Jill Clayburgh was good in a limited role as the secretary who knew just a bit too much.  Ned Beatty's short stint was good.  Patrick McGoohan delivered urbane menace quite well, and Ray Walston was a good grumpy henchman.  When Richard Pryor entered the fray, the afterburners kicked in.

Screenplay: 9/10 The film was engaging from beginning to end, with a few laughs thrown in.

Final Rating: 9/10 Excellent.  Nice script, good execution by the cast.

20160904: Comedy Review--See No Evil, Hear No Evil

Name: See No Evil, Hear No Evil (1989)
IMDb: link to See No Evil, Hear No Evil

Genres: Comedy, Thriller   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Gene Wilder as Dave Lyons, Richard Pryor as Wally Karue, Joan Severance as Eve, Kevin Spacey as Kirgo, John Capodice as Scotto, Anthony Zerbe as Sutherland, Alan North as Captain Braddock, Kirsten Childs as Adele.

Directed by: Arthur Hiller.  Written by: Earl Baret, Arne Sultan (story).

Image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Dave owns a news stand.  Wally is looking for a job.  Dave is deaf, Wally is blind.  Wally likes gambling, and owes his bookie Scotto 2800 USD.  Scotto, in turn, owes money to far nastier people. The bookie leaves a valuable gold coin in Dave's pay box before Eve kills him.  Dave and Wally are arrested for the crime.

Delineation of conflicts:
Wally and Dave try to prove that Eve did the murder, and Kirgo is her accomplice.  Eve and Kirgo attempt to retrieve the rare coin for Sutherland, and eliminate Wally and Dave.  The cops, led by Captain Braddock, want to apprehend Wally and Dave after they escape to prove their innocence. Wally's sister Adele tries to help them, and gets a load of trouble for her efforts.

Resolution: Dave and Wally do a lot better (and worse) than one might think.

One line summary: Pryor and Wilder in their prime.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 7/10 Meh.  Looks like 1980s video.

Sound: 7/10 I could hear the dialog, which was the biggest issue to consider.  Background music was barely a consideration.

Acting: 8/10 Wilder and Pryor dominate the film, but the supporting players added laughs as well.

Screenplay: 8/10 It's a fairly simple story, but well done.  The gag at the end with Anthony Zerbe and Richard Pryor was just delightful.

Final Rating: 8/10 If you like either Pryor or Wilder, you've got to see this one.

20160902: Fantasy Review--The Last Witch Hunter

Name: The Last Witch Hunter (2015)
IMDb: link to The Last Witch Hunter page
Genres: Fantasy, Action.   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Vin Diesel as Kaulder, Rose Leslie as Chloe, Michael Caine as Dolan the 36th, Elijah Wood as Dolan the 37th, Olafur Darri Olafsson as Belial, Julie Engelbrecht as the Witch Queen.

Directed by: Breck Eisner.  Written by: Mark Sazama, Cory Goodman, Burk Sharpless (screenplay).

Image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Initial, part I: We're in the black plague era in Europe, say 13th century.  The spread of the plague is attributed to the spellcasting of evil witches.  Vin Diesel's character, Kaulder, is one of the witch hunters who finds the Witch Queen.  Kaulder and company put an end to the plague, but at the cost of Kaulder's wife, his only child, and most of his hunter friends.  While dying, the Witch Queen curses Kaulder.

Initial, part II:  In current New York City, Kaulder is still hunting witches.  Yes, the same Kaulder. He's allied with an old group within the church, the Axe and Cross, which tries and imprisons witches.  They also keep secrets.  Kaulder's main contact with Axe and Cross is Dolan the 36th, played by Michael Caine, in one of those short roles that he does so well.  Dolan is quite old, and Dolan the 37th seems ready to take over being contact with the immortal Kaulder.

Delineation of conflicts:
In the present, witch activity seems to be picking up.  Something large is brewing.  Kaulder suffers a number of reverses, and his list of allies shrinks.

The film began in apocalyptic mode, and near the end it is almost there again.  Kaulder must face what he did not face the first time, 800 years ago.

Resolution: Will Kaulder find new allies, or must he carry the day himself?

One line summary: Attempt at another Vin Diesel movie franchise.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 8/10 Well done on the whole; the visuals kept my attention.

Sound: 8/10 Dialog is clear.  Music seemed appropriate.

Acting: 5/10 Michael Caine was fine in his short role as noted above.  Vin Diesel is convincing as an action hero, even here with swords, magic, fists, and intention instead of cars, guns, and explosives. Julie Engelbrecht had her fine moments as Kaulder's arch nemesis, the Witch Queen, at the very beginning, and at the very end. Olafur Darri Olafsson was a blast as Belial, an in-your-face opponent for Kaulder.

Elijah Wood's performance sucked rocks.  Rose Leslie (Game of Thrones, 17 episodes) was almost interesting as Kaulder's on-again, off-again witch ally.  That was a bit weak, since she was supposed to be the female lead.

Screenplay: 5/10 Violence and threat moves the plot along, so the 106 minutes runtime does not drag too badly. I'm glad I saw the film, but would not watch it again.  Why not?  The narrative is not well-constructed.  It seemed like every five minutes there was some change or rules, or some impressive (?) artifact to consider.

At the end of the film, I felt that I should have been happier for the protagonist, but just could not be. Would there be major challenges for him in the centuries to come?  Would Chloe be a reliable ally? By this time I did not care, and I felt this to be a major failing of the film.

Final Rating: 6/10 I liked it better than most people did, but I would be hard pressed to say, 'you must see this one.'

Checking against Box Office Mojo and IMDb, the film took in 27 million USD domestically, against 90 million USD production costs, so the chances for a sequel are slim.  The Numbers website puts worldwide revenue at 131 million USD, plus 19 million in disks. This does not increase the likelihood of a sequel by much.  Chances for a franchise: none.

20160831: Action Review--The Gunman

Name: The Gunman (2015)
IMDb: link to The Gunman page

Genres: Action, mystery, thriller, crime.   Country of origin: USA.

Cast:
Sean Penn as Jim Terrier, Idris Elba as Barnes, Jasmine Trinca as Annie, Javier Bardem as Felix, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox.

Directed by: Pierre Morel.  Written by: Jean-Patrick Manchette (novel), Don MacPherson (screenplay).

Image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Terrier worked in the Congo in 2006 during their civil war as a mercenary.   His speciality is assassination, and he kills the minister of mines.  Minister of mines is a key position, due to the Congo's mineral wealth.  Terrier's being tasked with this shows his level of trust with whomever is paying him.  Jim is having an affair with Annie, who is a doctor who does humanitarian work.  Felix is in love with Annie, which she does not reciprocate at the time.

Delineation of conflicts:
Eight years later, Jim is back in the Congo, again working in parallel with a humanitarian agency, but not as an assassin.  However, someone holds a grudge, and makes an attempt on his life.  Their agents are charged with providing proof of death.  Terrier intends to keep living.  In order to do that, he needs to know the motivations of whoever wants to kill him. His adversary has no intention of that happening, so the mystery/thriller action ensues.

Terrier leaves Congo for London to confer with his former colleague Cox.  He asks about the complete list of those who knew about the assassination.  This is the springboard for the rest of the film's plot: find the true players and ask them what's what.

Just to make things more interesting, Jim's past war injuries have had a cumulative effect.  He has memory loss and passes out now and them.  Can he keep it together long enough to sort this out?

Jim's first stop is Barcelona, the last known of Felix, his first real target.  However, Felix just might have his own agenda here.

Resolution: Jim finds out some of what he needs to know, but will he find out enough?

One line summary: Sean Penn as an action hero.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 7/10 Not all that good.

Sound: 8/10 Dialog is clear.  Music is subdued but appropriate.

Acting: 7/10 Mark Rylance was fine as I expected.  Ray Winstone was an asset. Sean Penn was in good form.  Javier Bardem disappointed as usual.  The overused Idris Elba was better than I expected in a small role.  Jasmine Trinca was OK for what the script gave her to work with.

Screenplay: 6/10 Violence and threat moves the plot along, so the 115 minutes runtime does not drag. The romantic angle was bleak and sad, but did resolve somewhat well.  I'm glad I saw the film, but would not watch it again.  Checking against Box Office Mojo and IMDb, it took in 11 million domestically, against 40 million production costs, so the chances for a sequel are slim.

At the end of the film, I felt that I should have been happier for the protagonist, but just could not be.  I felt this to be a major failing of the film.

Final Rating: 7/10 I liked it better than most people did, but I would be hard pressed to say, 'you must see this one.'

20160812: SciFi Review--Sharknado 4

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

Genres: Action, SciFi   Country of origin: USA.

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

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

Image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

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

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

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

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

Statistics:

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

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

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

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

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

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