20131215: Horror Review--Storage 24

Storage 24

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


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


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


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


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


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


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




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


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


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


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


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

20131214: Action Review--Sector 7

Sector 7 (7 gwanggu)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems.


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


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

20131214: Action Review--Transformers Dark of the Moon

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


2. Sound: 10/10 Fine.


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


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


5. SFX: 10/10 Excellent.

20131214: Drama Review--The Playroom

The Playroom

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


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


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


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


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


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




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


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


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems.


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


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

20131214: Horror Reviews--Chanbara Beauty

Chanbara Beauty: the Movie - Vortex

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

20131213: Thriller Review--The Frankenstein Theory

The Frankenstein Theory

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


2. Sound: 8/10 Mostly good.


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


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

20131213: Thriller Review--Night Vision

Night Vision

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

20131212: Action Review--Karate Girl

Karate Girl (K.G.)

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


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


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


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


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


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


2. Sound: 10/10 Excellent.


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


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

20131212: Horror Review--Zombie Hunter

Zombie Hunter

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 92 minutes, horror, zombies.
2. IMDB: 3.3/10.0 from 748 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No Reviews Yet...' and 8% liked it from 99 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.6/5.0 from 4,198 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: K. King
6. Starring: Danny Trejo as Father Jesus, Martin Copping as Hunter, Clare Niederpruem as Alison, Terry Guthrie as Jerry, Jade Reiger as Debbie, Jarrod Phillips as Bill, Jason K. Wixom as Ricky.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film starts with a newscast about Natas, or sin, which is the new 'it' drug.  The government is taking steps.  The viewer watches the newscast being looked at by Natas users.


2. A year later, Hunter is out in the desert, killing the occasional zombie.  His Camaro breaks down from the blood and guts blocking his air intake.  Sigh.  He stops for gas, and ends up killing 8 zombies.  He has not seen another non-zombie ('survivor') for six months. Then someone shoots him while he's driving.  He and the car look pretty bad, but they drag him back to camp.


3. The small group gets to know one another.   Hunter and one of his new mates go out to assess the damage on his Camaro; they encounter zombies.  Soon the compound is attacked by zombies, including some sort of full-on mutant that looks like it was never a human.  This was a disaster.  Jesus dies taking out the lead monster.


4. Down the road, they run out of gas.  They all get sick from looking into a non-operational freezer.  Someone steals their truck, which sets up an ambush by a crazy with a chainsaw.  What was the setup for this?


5. Hunter, Alison, Ricky, and Jerry make it to the airfield, which is supposed to help them out, somehow.  Just where can they fly to that will be safe?


6. Do any of them get out alive?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Bad acting plus a bad script; zombies were uninteresting.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 2/10 Endless, stupid, in-your-face filters.  Pink was my least favourite filter, but others were bad as well.  Otherwise, the picture was rather low in quality, say mid-range VHS. 


2. Sound: 6/10  Not too bad, but with wretched incidental music.


3. Acting: 2/10 Much to my disappointment, Danny Trejo's role was rather small, but that's where the +2 comes from.  The main character is played by Martin Copping, who is more than a little boring, irrelevant, out of tune with the other actors.  Clare Niederpruem was not a plus.  Jade Reiger was decorative, but not a great actress.  Jarrod Phillips gave one of the worst performances I've seen.  Terry Guthrie barely seemed present.


4. Screenplay: 1/10 Not much of a story, but it does have a beginning, middle, and an end.  The dialog is horrible, as is the internal logic of the story.  They stop because they are out of gas.  Someone steals the truck (how?).  Hunter recovers the truck; now it has gas.  Right.  Alison and Ricky are being chased by a fast guy with a chainsaw.  Alison: we've got to get going!  Ricky: I'm tired.


5. SFX: 2/10 Second/third rate. Bad zombie makeup, splatter effects, vomiting effects.  Blood shows up as pink, purple, orange, dark, and occasionally red.

20131212: Horror Review--Zonbi asu

Zonbi asu (Zombie Ass: Toilet of the Dead)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Japanese live action feature length film, 2011, NR, 85 minutes, zombies, horror. The spoken word is in Japanese; subtitles in English.  Aspect, 1.85
2. IMDB: 5.0/10.0 from 538 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...' and 100% liked it from 44 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.3/5.0 from 2,974 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Noboru Iguchi.  Written by Noboru Iguchi and Tadayoshi Kubo.
6. Starring: Arisa Nakamura as Megumi, Mayu Sugano as Aya, Asana Mamoru as Maki.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Five Japanese teens go on a day trip in the woods in the mountains. Maki wants to find a tapeworm so she can stay thin for modeling purposes.  The others catch a trout which contains a tapeworm. Maki grosses everyone out by eating the tapeworm.  They encounter a zombie, who bites off a finger of Tak's hand.  They lose their van to a thief soon after.


2. They happen upon some old buildings, and Maki decides to use the outhouse.  While about her business, she is attacked from below by zombies.  Maki gets lost in the crowd.  Megumi leads the others to relative safety.  They fight the zombies, and ultimately get help from Dr Tanaka with a sick daughter Sachi.  He explains the transmission method, fish to animal to humans.  Tak is infected more directly by the zombie who bit his finger off.  The hatching eggs plus Tak's drug use cause the parasite to be quite upset; in this case, Tak's head explodes.  


3. Later, Megumi witnesses Tanaka beating a zombie to get him to throw up a parasite so that Sachi can take it down her throat.  Then the previous parasite exits.  Megumi lets out a startled sound in the middle of this.  Megumi and Tanaka have a talk; Megumi's friends walk in during this.  Tanaka explains that Sachi has leukemia, and that the parasites keep the disease in check.  In return, Tanaka supplies the parasites with hosts.  To further that end, he laced the spaghetti he fed them earlier with parasite eggs.


4. Will any of our heroes emerge alive from this nest of horrors?  Will Naoi (the nerdy boy of the group) ever get his courage?




3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Yet another (quite gross) explanation of zombie origins.
2. One star of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Too bright and washed out; sometimes soft focus and low contrast.


2. Sound/subtitles: 4/10 There are several sections where there are no subtitles.  This does not aid the understanding of the action of the film.


3. Acting: 2/10 Not much was required, and less was delivered.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Floor sweepings.


5. Grossness: 10/10 This is from Tokyo Shock, after all.  Flatulence, tentacle penetration, excrement, vomiting, zombies, exchange of bodily fluids with zombies, ingestion of parasites.  Did I mention zombies?  Consumption of human flesh, dismemberment, gore, blood fountains; ugly, rotting, dead zombies; flies on zombies.  Alien parasites entering the beginning of the alimentary tract, and exiting the lower end.  Exploding heads, and flying via flatulence.

20131211: Action Review--Killing Season

Killing Season

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Belgian live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 90 minutes, action.  Spoken word is in English and Serbian.  Subtitles in English.  Aspect: 2.35
2. IMDB: 5.2/10.0 from 15,319 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 10% on the meter; 29% liked it from 4,212 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.6/5.0 from 350,319 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Mark Steven Johnson.
6. Starring: Robert DeNiro as Benjamin Ford, John Travolta as Emil Kovac, Milo Ventimiglio as Chris Ford, Elizabeth Olin as Sarah Ford.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The move opens in sepia depicting events in Bosnia circa 1992 to 1995, when NATO forces intervened.  NATO forces are shown executing Serbian prisoners; all but one, that is.  Flash forward to 2013 (release year); Emil buys some confidential files about NATO officers in 1995, including Colonel Benjamin Ford.  We switch geography to the Appalachian mountains in the USA.


2. Ben's having pain from an old war wound.  He's having emotional problems with dealing with his son, who wants to meet for a family event.  Ben goes for a drive; his vehicle gives out.  Emil and Ben meet then; this is clearly no coincidence.  Emil helps Ben get the vehicle running again.  When it starts raining heavily, Ben invites Emil to his cabin to wait it out in a dry, warm place.  They get to know each other over hunting stories and discussions of weapons.  Ben admits that he has not killed anything since Bosnia; the hunting trophies in his lodge came with the place.  Emil talks Ben into going hunting using bows and arrows.


3. Emil tries to get Ben to kill a deer, but Ben just does not have the heart for it.  Then Emil sets about telling Ben bit by bit about how he knew Ben was in Bosnia, how Emil was in the same place at the same time.  He shoots Ben in the leg.  Then Emil starts to continue the discussion after he's strung up Ben by the wounded leg.  Emil was the one that Ben shot in the back, and left alive.  That is what Emil is upset about.  Amazingly, Ben gets free, fights Emil for a bit, then escapes into a river.


4. The discussion of the horrors of war, Ben's issues, and Emil's issues goes on, and on. Ben's son and daughter-in-law come up to visit.  Emil promises not to kill them if Ben agrees to continue.  More issues come out; Emil did things that were despicable.  The two combatants do considerable physical damage to each other.


5. Will Ben survive?  Will Emil survive?  Will Emil drag Ben's family into this?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Two survivors of the Bosnian conflict fight it out deep in the woods.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 No problems; beautifully done.


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 10/10 The two principal actors gave fine performances.


4. Screenplay: 7/10 The reversals of fortune were interesting to a point, but were not quite satisfying.  I would think that Colonel Ford, at least, would have terminated the action as soon as possible, rather than allow the 'game' to keep going.  Still, the ending was rather good.

20131210: Movie Review--Abduction of Eden

Abduction of Eden

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, 98 minutes, crime, drama.
2. IMDB: 6.6/10.0 from 3,290 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 82% on the meter; 71% liked it from 2,212 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.7/5.0 from 172,622 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Megan Griffiths.
6. Starring: Jamie Chung as Eden, Matt O'Leary as Vaughan, Beau Bridges as Marshall Bob Gault, Scott Mechlowicz as Jesse, Eddie Martinez as Mario, Mariana Klaveno as unacknowledged.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Film opens to rap music played with a black screen.  Not a good start.  Hyun Jae is tied up with her mouth duct-taped in the truck of the kidnapper who plays the rap music. It is clear that this is not going to go well for Jae.


2. Then we backtrack to one day earlier to Las Cruces, New Mexico in 1994.  Hyun-Jae, teen daughter of Korean immigrants who own 'Gifts and Taxonomy.'  Jae let herself be vulnerable: smoking, getting a false ID, going drinking while out against her parents wishes.  Picking up men in bars turns out to be a very bad idea.  The fireman who sends over two whiskeys to Jae and her friend turns out to be part of the machinery in finding and kidnapping at risk young teen-aged virgins.  Also, he has many badges, not just a fireman's.  He stops, talks to a comrade, then they take her.  The comrade drives her to Arizona.  He dumps her in a ravine at a man's ranch.


3. Bob Gault is part of law enforcement, but he also works with the kidnappers.  They had left a transmitter on Jae's ankle, and Bob zeroed in on that.  After making sure there were no witnesses, Bob kills the deputy the man had called, then the man.  Bob takes Jae to the next part of the pipeline.  She wakes up in a clinic; she's drugged and the old woman there removes her metal braces.  When Jae wakes next, she's with other young women, all scantily clad in a make-shift barracks.  Bob has each young woman pick out a kitten to centre their attentions.  Then he turns to Jae.  He has intercepted the missing persons report that her father had filled out. He makes it clear that nothing is going to come of it.


4. Bob renames her Eden from "Eden's Garden," the trailer park where her parents live.  He makes it clear that she will be a prostitute, and that she is expected to bathe in the morning, in the evening, and after sexual congress.  Bob reminds her that he knows where her parents live, that he's part of law enforcement, and he will cause trouble for the parents if she gets out of line.  End of setup, 22 minutes in.


5. Eden attempts to escape early on, but is severely disciplined.  She bides her time for a year, then attempts to gain Vaughan's confidence.  That starts to go well, but Vaughan does his best to make her a fellow drug addict. He also teaches her to man the telephones, and to drive a truck.  At one of the seminars that Bob gives, he is approached by an investigators for the two murders he committed when picking up Jae.


6. Will her new approach work?  Will Vaughan's drug use hurt her chances?  Will Bob or Vaughan be exposed for their criminal activity?




3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Human trafficking victim attempts to escape life of crime and prostitution.
2. Four stars of five.


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


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 8/10 Quite good.  Beau Bridges is excellent as the equally affable and menacing Bob.  Matt O'Leary was a bit off.  Jamie Chung's performance as Eden was a solid portrayal of intelligence, courage, and discipline in the face of a grim situation.


4. Screenplay: 8/10  Definitely an engaging story, and quite a scary one.

20131209: Drama Review--Ambrosia

Ambrosia

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2012, NR, 79 minutes, drama.  Spoken word is in English.
2. IMDB: 7.3/10.0 from 28 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: Not even a stub page.  No search results for the 2012 film. Update: 'No reviews yet...' and 'No score yet....'
4. Netflix: 2.1/5.0 from 2,492 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Baharak Saeid Monir.
6. Starring: Sahir Biniaz as Leila, Heather Doerkson as Sarah, Camyar Chai as Ali, Pauline Egan as Monica.


2. Setup and Plot
1. In 2012, the film depicts a man ordering pizza and writing on a piece of paper while driving.  Nice.  Perhaps distracted driving is not as serious in Canada.


2. Leila is an immigrant of Iranian descent in Canada.  Leila is taking a class in which she makes designer clothing.  She helps make pizzas with her husband Ali at his shop Canadian Pizza now and then.  At a party, she gets a job offer through her connections from class.  Ali is happy for her success.  Early on, her boss Sarah invites her for a drink at a lesbian bar.  Leila and Sarah discuss their cultural differences.


3. Ali's business fortunes start to decline along with that of the local economy.  Leila is doing well, but her boss is coming on to her.  Ali fires two of his staff; Leila is at the pizza shop more often after work, but she's not happy with it.  Ali is a hothead who does not suffer gladly racial lies and insults from Anglo Canadians.  Leila gets more discouraged while Ali spirals downward.


4. Leila's boss renews her romantic approaches to Leila, who slowly gets more receptive.  In the middle of all this, Leila finds that she is pregnant.  She decides to terminate without mentioning this to Ali.  Ali put the house on the market without mentioning this to Leila.  These two choices were not good, possibly terminal, to the marriage.  Leila leaves in a huff.  She makes arrangements to live elsewhere, and Ali wonders where she is and what's going on.  After meeting Ali at the office, Sarah dismisses him as too simple for Leila.


5. Will Leila go through with the termination?  Will Ali and Leila get back together?  Will Ali keep his business?  Will Sarah get what she wants?


3. Conclusions
1. This film was not well noticed by the public.  The barefoot and pregnant cliche at the end was a bit of a surprise.
2. One line summary: Culture clash in Canada, the short version.
3. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 No problems; looks fine.


2. Sound: 9/10 Good, clear.


3. Acting: 5/10 Camyar Chai and Sahir Biniaz were solid enough as Ali and Leila.  Pauline Egan was not all that convincing as Monica.  The supporting actors were OK but not great.  Heather Doerkson was the least believable as Leila's boss. 


4. Screenplay: 5/10 Plays like a soap opera, without much intricacy or depth.

20131209: Comedy Review--The Art of Seduction

The Art of Seduction (Jakeob-ui jeongseok)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Korean live action feature length film, 2005, NR, 100 minutes, comedy, romance.  Spoken word is Korean, subtitles in English.
2. IMDB: 6.2/10.0 from 848 audience ratings. 
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...' and 51% liked it from 1,132 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.4/5.0 from 63,977 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Ki-hwan Oh.
6. Starring: Song Il-guk as Seo Min-jun, Son Yi-jin as Han Ji-won, No Ju-Hyeon as Min-jun's father.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The male protagonist Min-jun, and the female protagonist Ji-won, are both manipulative, lying opportunists who use strangers for their own gains.  Judging from the first few minutes of the film, I would hope that both of them get the lengthy jail sentences that they so richly deserve. Neither of them succeeds by merit, unless one counts their skills in identifying the weaknesses of their targets and exploiting those weaknesses.  They are parasites who regularly commit felonies.


2. In early part of the narrative, we see the depredations of the pair as they act separately on their marks.  Eventually they meet one another.  She likes to ram stopped cars with single drivers then victimize the person she hit.  She pulls that on the male protagonist, and is surprised when he does not fall for her bovine scatology.  They lie to each other, then lie some more, then lie some more.  The music indicates that this is supposed to be humorous.


3. As the story continues, they have to deal with their previous targets.  They also get to like each other, even though they continue constructing plausible lies.


4. Do the protagonists get together and stay together?  Does one get the upper hand and crush the other?  Stay tuned (if you can stand it) to find out.




3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: An almost clever film glorifying the lives of grifters in Korea.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Excellent with very few exceptions.


2. Sound: y/10 Moot, I suppose.  The voiced Korean seemed quite soft.  I had to trust the subtitles.


3. Acting: 5/10 More like mugging.  There must have been over 100 instances of 'oh, did that idiot believe me?'


4. Screenplay: 5/10 It is a story of (ethically) ugly people doing ugly things to people whom they hold in contempt.  When the protagonists get to know one another, they sharpen each other; that is, improve their 'A' game.  There is neither redemption nor punishment in this collection of vignettes about con artists.

20131208: Horror Review--Antiviral

Antiviral

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, horror, science fiction.
2. IMDB: 5.6/10.0 from 5,462 audience ratings.  Estimated budget 3.2 million CAD, aspect 1.85
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 65% on the meter; 41% liked it from 4,293 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.8/5.0 from 92,618 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Brandon Cronenberg.
6. Starring: Caleb Landry Jones as Syd March, Sara Gadon as Hannah Geist, Joe Pingue as Arvid, James Cade as Levine, Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Abendroth.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Edward Porris reports to a clinic to get infected with the same disease that celebrity Hannah Geist has.  Syd is his handler and the protagonist of the film.  He reassures people to keep going with their stated choices.


2. Syd is also a part of the celebrity meat market.  Cells from celebrities are used to reproduce (in relatively large quantities) muscle tissue that is sold as steaks and the like. Arvid is his contact in the meat sales.


3. Syd gets a new sample from Hannah Geist, and gives it to himself.  He's knocked out for a while.  When he wakes up, Hannah is dead, and Syd was one of the last people to see her alive.  Arvid would like Syd to give him a sample of this, since Arvid could make a huge profit on it.  Syd claims not to have any knowledge of what killed her.


4. Everyone is up in arms about Hannah's passing, especially at the Lucas Clinic, the company where Syd works.  Syd stays ill, and consults with Arvid, who takes him to Levine.  Levine forcibly takes a sample of the Hannah Geist pathogens.  Syd tries to escape, but he is way too weak.  They dump him on the street later.  Nice.  Thugs from another group kidnap him.  They take him to Dr. Abendroth, who has come from Germany to do an autopsy on Hannah.  First, though, the doctor wishes to see what is happening with the living specimen, Syd.


5. Doctor Abendroth tells him that the virus he has was designed to deflect diagnosis, but that he had gotten around the viruses protections.  Hannah is still alive, but further along in the disease.  They talk.  Hannah's family has traced the disease back to Lucas Clinic, and hope that Syd will find out who at Lucas designed it.  Syd has to retrace his steps, this time with an entirely different purpose.


6. Something sinister is afoot.  Will Syd be able to help Hannah?  Will he survive the effort?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Future horror thriller: diseases are big business, lucrative crime, and silent weapons.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Bad in a few spots (jerky camera and the like), but mostly fine quality.


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 8/10 Much better than I expected.  Caleb Landry Jones and Malcolm McDowell were quite good.


4. Screenplay: 8/10 Good story, well developed in the narration of deep corruption.

20131208: Comedy Review--Paranormal Whacktivity

Paranormal Whacktivity

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 89 minutes, comedy, horror.  Spoken word is in English.
2. IMDB: 2.5/10.0 from 229 audience ratings.  Estimated budget: 360,000 USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' and 0% liked it from 21 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.0/5.0 from 457 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Roger Roth.
6. Starring: Sasha Formoso as Kasey, William Patrick Riley as Michael, Aneliese Roettger as Annabelle, Melinda Y. Cohen as The Professional, Chanel Ryan as Bride of Dracula, Stephanie Danielson as Emilie Rose/Fatin.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Michael and Kasey move into an uncle's house.  Michael tries to make a sex film with Kasey, and does not do all that well. Then there is the film over the film aspect: Michael hires a professional porn crew to make the sex film.  These people re-enter and leave every so often.


2. Things go bump in the night, and they film some of it, usually ineffectively.  Their attempts to get rid of the demon are pitiful.


3. The film mimics various parts of the Paranormal Activity series, for comic effect, supposedly.  'There was something in this bed giving you head.'  Oh, my. Other parts of the film parody other films, such as Ghost Busters, or any number of soft porn shows.


4. The Ernie Hudson impersonator was not at all funny or entertaining.  This describes all of the vignettes that compose the film.  The fake Inception bit was the worst.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: A bad soft porn parody of the terrible Paranormal Activity films.
2. One star of five.  Two black holes for acting and screenplay.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Excellent camera work throughout.


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 0/10 Zero.  None present.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 The primary question about parodies is, 'did it make me laugh?'  The answer is no, not once, not at all.

20131207: Movie Review--Scenic Route

Scenic Route

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 86 minutes, thriller.  Aspect 1.85
2. IMDB: 6.4/10.0 from 3,471 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 62% on the meter; 55% liked it from 2,763 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.4/5.0 from 44,979 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Kevin Goetz, Michael Goetz.
6. Starring: Josh Duhamel as Mitchell, Dan Fogler as Carter, Miracle Laurie as Joanne, Christie Burson as Joanne.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film opens with Mitchell and Carter beating the nonsense out of each other.  Mitchell prevails, and Carter looks either knocked out or possibly dead.


2. We jump back in time, and I'm quite ready to stop watching, given what I know will happen.  So, in the real opening of the film, Mitchell is sleeping, and Carter is driving an old truck through Death Valley, California.  The truck is old, and it breaks down; unfortunately, this turns out to be by design.  At least they are not sweating initially.  Mitchell has a broken foot and uses crutches.  Neither of them has a cell phone signal.  It's not that cool: one hundred and fifteen degrees.


3. They are in the middle of nowhere, sixty miles from the last town, one hundred miles to the next.  Mitchell has a wife and child, but still thinks about another woman named Karen.  Carter met Karen lately, and she wanted to talk about Mitchell.  Mitchell is tall and athletic; Carter is middle height and heavy.  From their consternation with each other, I do not see why they are ever doing anything together for a single moment.


4. There is a lot of talk which uncovers issues.  These issues make the two characters angry at each other, and explains the violence shown in the opening sequence.  One of the issues is that Carter sabotages every possibility of their getting rescued.  This is mortally stupid.  How can anyone care about such a character who betrays his friend to the point of death?  How can anyone care about the friend who allows the betrayal?


5. The pile of incidences of bonehead stupidity mount.  Carter talks Mitchell into getting a Mohawk haircut in the dark using a hand tool.  They drink windshield wiper fluid because it's wet; later they are puking while possible help drives by.  The next day, an elderly lady stops to see how they are doing, but drives away after seeing Mitchell's Mohawk with accompanying long cuts and blood stains.  Carter gives him hell for scaring her away.  A day or so later, they miss a tow truck that stopped next to the truck to render assistance.


6.  If this is your cup of tea, be sure to watch the entire film.  The pile continues to grow.


3. Conclusions
1. Kyle Killen wrote the horrid The Beaver, and this effort is horrible as well. The ending was a good hard shattering of illusions, and about the only almost competent part of the film.
2. One line summary: Darwinian selection at its best: two clods value bickering more than retaining life.
3. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 2/10 The scenery is ugly, whereas Death Valley showed me a number of lovely sights in the short time I spent there.  Looks like ugly by choice.


2. Sound: 8/10 Not bad.


3. Acting: 4/10 Josh Duhamel was OK, but not great.  Dan Fogler was totally useless.  I had never heard of him before; now he's on my deal-breaker list.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Why would anyone care about either character in this two man film?  They are painted as traitor and fool with nothing interesting about either of them.

20131206: Thriller Review--Lizzie

Lizzie

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film 2013, NR, 86 minutes, thriller.
2. IMDB: 2.7/10.0 from 487 audience ratings. Aspect 1.78
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No Reviews Yet...' 0% liked it from 56 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.5/5.0 from 88,301 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: David Dunn Jr
6. Starring: Caitlin Carmichael as Young Lizzy, Amanda Baker as Lizzie Allen, Corbin Benson as Dr. Fredricks, Don Swayze as Daniel Allen, Leif Holt as Jason, Cindy Baer as Lizzie Borden, Shawna Waldron as Maggie.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film starts with back story told in voice over narration with period 1892 articles such as newspapers and photographs.  It then shifts to the present, say 2013, with what is going on with Lizzie Allen, both now and when she was much younger, say six years old.  She has a therapist, Dr Fredericks, who uses hypnosis, not always with good results.


2. Lizzie lives again in the house where she lived when she was a child.  Dr Fredericks thinks something traumatic happened there when she was young.  She's seeing daydreams and night dreams that are rather horrible.  She has trouble remembering her childhood clearly.


3. Ah, she used to have tea parties with a doll that survived the original Lizzie Borden era.  She drinks a lot of wine and watches scary movies with the boy friend, and does not seem able to get her meds right.  Then she sees (hallucinates) herself introducing the doll, Lucy, to her.  Even worse, she sees the Lizzie Borden figure use an axe to kill her younger self.


4. Dr Fredericks of course associates this with childhood memories and an attempt to resolve them in adulthood.  The next day she goes off on the cable guy, has trouble shaving her legs safely, and hears things go bump in the night.  Jason comes in as a masked burglar, and Lizzie does not take it well. Who would?  Jason starts hearing the bump in the night; he gets out his stashed pistol and barely hides it in the living room.


5. Maggie is Lizzie's new neighbor.  She tries to help Lizzie break into part of the basement that the cable guy could not get to.  They fail, but it gets Lizzie more comfortable swinging the axe that Maggie picked out.  Jason manages to get into the basement, where he experiences more bump in the night phenomena.  Dr Fredericks drops Lizzie as a patient, since she demands stronger meds, but will not confront her childhood issues.


6. Maggie turns out not to be what she first said she was.  Jason takes a turn for the worse, and Lizzie feels more and more alone.  That is not the worst of it all.


7. Will Lizze resolve her issues?  Is there something supernatural going on here?


3. Conclusions
1. This film was clearly not well received by the public.  Also, for all the scenes of sharpening an axe on a motorised grinder, they might have tried to get it right.  What was depicted every time was how to dull an axe completely.
2. One line summary: Retelling of the Lizzie Borden story is incoherent and badly assembled.
3. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10  Dark, generally with low contrast, or slightly out of focus.  There's a bit of camera jump as well.  SFX were laughable.


2. Sound: 9/10 Fine. 


3. Acting: 2/10 Most of the minutes of the show have Amanda Baker alone or in frame.  So the movie sinks or swims with her, and I don't believe her performance.  Leif Holt is pretty bad as well.  Corbin Bernson was fine, but he was not onscreen all that much.  Gary Busey has done much better in other movies.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 The past and the present did not blend well here.  For the movie to work, they did need to resolve clearly and effectively.  The retelling of the 1892 story was not put together well either.  The absurd ending was just too much.

20131205: Horror Review--The Moth Diaries

The Moth Diaries

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian/Irish live action feature length film, 2011, rated R, 82 minutes, horror.  Spoken word is in English.  Aspect is 1.85
2. IMDB: 4.8/10.0 from 3,410 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 15% on the meter; 22% liked it from 5,339 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 114,435 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Mary Harron.
6. Starring: Sarah Bolger as Rebecca, Sara Gadon as Lucy, Valerie Tian as Charley, Lily Cole as Ernessa, Anne Day-Jones as Rebecca's mother, Julian Casey as Rebecca's father, Scott Speedman as Mr. Davies, Judy Parfitt as Mrs. Rood.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Rebecca is at a boarding school with dress codes, early morning meetings, prayers, and the like.  Her friend Charlie gets kicked out for breaking a window, for instance; students get detention for being late for morning meetings.


2. Rebecca and Lucy were best friends until Ernessa came along.  Rebecca suspects that Ernessa is a vampire, but no one want to hear anything negative about Ernessa.  Rebecca's attempts to straighten this out only backfire as Lucy gets sick, then weaker, then dead.  Her attempt to confide in Mr. Davies results in his hitting on her; later, he reports her 'troubled' behaviour to Mrs. Rood to get ahead of any child molestation charges, one guesses.


3. Rebecca's own problems (her poet father committed suicide) are brought up frequently.  The school is concerned for her.  Some of her daydreams are ridiculous.


4. Will Rebecca stay in school?  Will she expose Ernessa?  Is the school complicit in Ernessa's actions?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Short script short on ideas, light on acting.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 A bit dark and fuzzy in some passages, but mostly fine.


2. Sound: 10/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 4/10 This film might appeal to teen girls; others, perhaps not so much.  The adults are all imperious or criminal.  Most of the teens are portrayed as short sighted.  Sarah Bolger portrays a deeply flawed individual, but is not all that believable.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 The story was short on ideas, and the few it had were not executed all that well.  Rebecca gets to do all sorts of things at the school with no detection, no reprimands, or even discussion.  It seems like she would have been expelled for any number of her actions.

20131205: Comedy Review--The Brass Teapot

The Brass Teapot

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, 101 minutes, comedy, fantasy, thriller.  Spoken word is in English.  Estimated budget, 900,000 USD.
2. IMDB: 6.3/10.0 from 5,704 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 26% on the meter; 50% liked it from 1,636 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.8/5.0 from 182,890 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Ramaa Mosley.
6. Starring: Juno Temple as Alice, Michael Angarano as John, Alexis Bledel as Peyton, Alia Shawkat as Louise, Bobby Moynihan as Chuck.


2. Setup and Plot
1. John goes to work at the Laurel Springs Office Building.  Alice goes to a job interview.  He gets a reprimand from the boss, she does not get the job. Their funds are already short.  So they go to a party and get drunk. They get T-boned by a truck.  It's amazing she was still alive, much less untouched.  Alice spots an antiques shop, and runs into it.  She steals a rather nice looking teapot.  The next day, she accidently burns herself (slightly); the teapot jiggles.  She looks inside and finds 200 USD.  She tries to replicate this, but hurt herself more. The pot gives her 700 USD.  She trips and falls; more money comes from the teapot.  About the same time, John gets fired.


2. John comes home to find the place messed up, and Alice bloodied in multiple places.  She eventually convinces him of the conceit of the film.  A harsh knee slam to his crotch was initially worth quite a bit of money.  John goes back to the place where Alice stole the teapot.  It is marked 'Closed' and is boarded up.  Very unfortunately, John goes on Antiques Roadshow and gets an appraisal.  A man of long Chinese heritage sees the show, and makes a new notation on a wall map.  He was not the only one who watched.  Clearly, they are screwed. 


3. They get into mainlining pain: tattoos, whipping, dental work without pain killers, burning flesh, and so on.  They have no explanations for getting out of debt without jobs. Two large Hasidic Jewish fellows drop by and beat the nonsense out of John, telling them that it was a family heirloom, and their relative had died.  They paid these folks off from the cash that John's beating generated.  The Chinese man tries to warn them, but they rebuff him.


4. They make investments that fail, and splurge on all sorts of things: a huge new house, clothes, restaurants.  An old acquaintence tries to steal it; the Jewish fellows break in to steal it.  Alice tries to beat up the Jewish guys who are buff and about six feet two.  She keeps the pot, but they do her some damage.


5. The diminishing returns start.  The same amount of pain endured results in less reward. Then they discover that if the teapot is near someone else's pain, they also get money.  Unfortunately, Alice tries hit and run to generate money.  They also discover that emotional pain generates cash.


6. Does the moral descent ever end?




3. Conclusions
1. I could have done without the endless river of PC hatred of men.  Major demerits to the director for the unnecessary contempt.
2. One line summary: Magic allows exchanging pain for money; how far will the protagonists go?
3. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 The introductory credits were absolutely beautiful.  Then there was the rest of the film, which was quite nicely shot.


2. Sound: 8/10 OK.


3. Acting: 2/10 Terrible.  Alexis Bledel was okay, but Juno Temple, Michael Angarano, and most of the supporting actors were indeed bad.


4. Screenplay: 6/10 A fairly sound story gets told through poor actors.