20140411: Documentary Review--War on Whistleblowers

War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 66 minutes, documentary.
2. IMDB: 7.9/10.0 from 34 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 60% on the meter; 75% liked it from 13 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.8/5.0 from 10,300 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Robert Greenwald.
6. Starring: Steven Aftergood, Danielle Brian, Michael Dekort, David Carr, Lucy Dalglish, Daniel Ellsberg, Michael Isikoff as themselves.


2. Setup and Plot
1. This documentary follows a small but interesting set of case studies of real whistleblowers who have been punished by the system in recent years.


2. Daniel Ellsberg was a whistle blower from the 1970s who provides perspective throughout the film.


3. In Iraq in 2006, our soldiers were dying due to the lack of armour on Humvees.  An IED could take one out, and the military inside often died or were badly injured.  Franz Gayl, Science and Technology Advisor to the Marine Corps in the Pentagon, became aware of this and brought it to the attention of his superiors.  He championed the replacement of the Humvee by the safer MRAP, but was greeted with roadblocks. He went to USA Today to get leverage on the problem.  He faced reprisals at work; his journalist contacts were threatened with lack of access.  The Humvees were replaced, but Gayl was put on administrative leave for quite some time.


4. Thomas Drake: (former) Senior Executive at the (US) National Security Agency was the second whistle blower profiled.  'We do not spy on Americans,' was a phrase Drake heard at work.  However, he started his job on 2001/09/11; thereafter, however, he noted huge breaches of this key charter element of the NSA.  Massive amounts of information were being collected on US citizens living inside the USA.  Drake exposed portions of this process.  His life was massively invaded in response by the FBI.  The Justice Department threatened him with the Espionage Act, and specific charges that could potentially land him in jail for the rest of his life.


5. Michael DeKort: (former) Lead Systems Engineer: The Deepwater Program, for the US Coast Guard was the third to be profiled.  DeKort brought to the light of day two major problems with the Coast Guard fleet's upgrade: radios with non-waterproof circuitry, and hulls that were overly susceptible to buckling.  DeKort used YouTube to spread the story, and it eventually found its way to 60 Minutes.  DeKort stayed out of jail.


6. Thomas Tamm: (former) Attorney in the Justice Department was the fourth to be profiled.  He was in the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review within Justice.  He talked to victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  His group applied for judicial warrants to listen in on persons in the United States who were thought to be connected to terrorists.  His group worked with the FBI which had developed the 'probable cause' for these warrants.  Some cases were treated differently, however.


7. All of these whistle blowers suffered in their professional lives.  All of them tried to go through official channels, where they were largely blocked.  I specifically liked the point made that the recent administrations leak secret information as a matter of policy, and none of those leakers go to jail.


8. How did these stories pan out?  What are the implications for other potential whistle blowers?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Well made documentary about federal whistle blowers after 20010911.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Fine for a documentary.


2. Sound: 8/10 Voices and words were clear enough. Incidental music was not overbearing.


3. Acting: z/10 Not applicable.


4. Screenplay: 8/10 The telling of the four stories were well packaged.

20140410: Animation Review--The Croods

The Croods

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American animated feature length film, 2013, NR, 98 minutes, animated, comedy.
2. IMDB: 7.3/10.0 from 92,482 audience ratings. Estimated budget: 135 millions USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 70% on the meter; 78% liked it from 184,720 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 4.2/5.0 from 2,115,656 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Kird De Micco and Chris Sanders.
6. Starring: Nicolas Cage as Grug, Emma Stone as Eep, Catherine Keener as Ugga, Ryan Reynolds as Guy, Chloris Leachman as Gran, Clark Duke as Thunk, Chris Sanders as Belt, Randy Thom as Sandy.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Setup: which planet, don't know.  Time: not so sure when.  We follow a stone age family  who are evicted from their cave by geologic activity.  Grug is the father, Eep the teen daughter, Ugga the wife, Guy the perspective mate of Eep, Gran the grandmother, Sandy the young sister, Thunk the clueless brother, Belt the monkey pet of Guy.


2. Guy knows how to make tones from a sea shell; he teaches Eep.  Guy knows that geologic cataclysms are to come; he warns them all.  Guy knows how to make fire; he uses it to save the family.  Guy knows the value of shoes, which lets him get free of the obnoxiously stupid family, at least temporarily.


3. Guy negotiates with the family to learn new things to get to a new home.  Grug grows jealous when leadership migrates from Grug to Guy.


4. The family eventually loses its acceptance of caves as a place to live.  Grug and Guy bond during an incident with a tar slick, but the dangers are not over yet.


5. Does the family find its way to a new home that is at least relatively safe?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Stone age family uses wits and luck to find a new home.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Art/Animation: 10/10 Brilliant.


2. Sound: 8/10 The incidental music is a bit florid at times, but still good.


3. Voice Acting: 8/10 Leachman, Cage, and Reynolds were fun.  Stone was OK.


4. Story: 8/10 Good humour through most of the story, plus a poignant ending.

20140405: Horror Review--Germ Z

Germ Z

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 84 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 3.6/10.0 from 382 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 500,000 USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...' and 0% liked it from 13 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.5/5.0 from 1,025 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: J. T. Boone, John Craddock.  Written by J. T. Boone.
6. Starring: Marguerite Sundberg as Brooke, Michael Flores as Max, Mark Chiappione as Stu, Beth Pratt as Karen, Zoe Miller as Steph, Bernard Setaro Clark as Davidson.


2. Setup and Plot
1. A meteor crashes into a satellite, which falls to Earth.  It releases a germ which causes cannibalism in its victims, including military responders and locals alike.


2. Parts of the satellite crash in the countryside in western New York.  Local firemen investigate, and find gooey stuff on satellite pieces.


3. About 25 minutes in, the first zombie appears.  Sigh.  There are lots of zombies who meet their ends from shotgun blasts at close range.


4. Will the outbreak be contained?  Will any of the early characters survive?  Will any explanation be given other than 'stuff happens?'


3. Conclusions
1. The 500,000 USD budget was not money well-spent.  I would only watch this again if I were paid a considerable amount of money.
2. One line summary: Space borne bacteria yield ultra-fast zombies.
3. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Occasional exposure mistakes, too many doses of shaky camera, way too much of the idiot biking in the woods while listening to her MP3 player.  Blood effects range from poor to terrible.  A woman barfs inside the deputy's cruiser, mostly onto the inside of the windshield.  In one shot it's yellow; in the next it's blue, but still yellow on her mouth.  The end credits were badly done.


2. Sound: 4/10 I could hear the dialog; this was a mixed blessing.  The music was very amateurish.  The plus 4 was mostly for the song during the end credits.


3. Acting: 0/10 Marguerite Sundberg, Michael Flores, and Mark Chiappione were irritating on the one hand, not interesting on the other hand. The actors who played the military were the worst.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Close to the worst example of unrelenting bad dialog I've seen in the last year.  None of the characters were worth caring about.  The involvement of the military was of some importance at the beginning, then was dropped.  The ending was not much of an ending.

20140402: SciFi Review--Mega shark vs Mecha shark

Mega Shark vs. Mecha Shark

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2014, unrated, 85 minutes, SciFi.
2. IMDB: 4.1/10.0 from 244 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No Reviews yet...' and 'No score yet.'
4. Netflix: 2.6/5.0 from 1,710 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Emile Edwin Smith.
6. Starring: Christopher Judge as Jack Turner, Elisabeth Roehm as Rosie Gray, Matt Lagan as Admiral Engleberg, Hannah Levian as Sandy, Paul Anderson (voice) as Nero, Deborah Gibson as Emma MacNeil.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Jack Turner and Rosie Gray are a couple who are proofing a submarine/AI system that is shaped like a shark.  That is the Mecha Shark.  The AI is 'Nemo,' a voice-only character.


2. The world is in a tizzy about rampant megalodons; those would be the Mega Sharks.  So, there is at least one Mega Shark that is headed to Australia, to an ancestral mating ground.  Great.


3. In the midst of all this macro-disaster, there is a little girl looking to stay hidden from her mother.  This is some joke that the screenwriter apparently thought was funny.  Guess again.  That somehow snags Rosie's efforts.


4. The Mecha Shark has an amphibious mode.  Nero gets lost in cyberspace, and the shark becomes just as big a problem as Mega Shark.


5. Will Mecha Shark stop reaping destruction in Australia?  Will the Mega Shark get put down?  Will Elisabeth and Christopher get into some better movies and stay out of this sort of nonsense?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Just as flipping bad as it looks.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 There are some nice aerials and shots of US naval vessels.  The CGI is hit or miss, mostly miss.


2. Sound: 2/10 Mostly not a factor, but the background music is truly poor.


3. Acting: 4/10 I liked Elisabeth Roehm in American Hustle and Law and Order.  I liked Christopher Judge in Stargate SG1.  Debbie Gibson was her usual bubbly self.  Past those three, we had performances that are beneath amateurish.  Even the veterans must have had a tough time not barfing at the bad dialog.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Poor dialog.  The script has about 15 minutes of story spread over 85 minutes.

20140402: Drama Review--I Am Love

I Am Love

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Italian live action feature length film, 2009, rated R, 120 minutes, drama. romance.
2. IMDB: 7.0/10.0 from 10,555 audience ratings.  Spoken word is in Italian; English subtitles.  Estimated budget, 10 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 80% on the meter; 68% liked it from 15,517 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.4/5.0 from 268,174 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Luca Guadagnino.
6. Starring: Tilda Swinton as Emma Recchi, Flavio Parenti as Edoardo Recchi Junior, Edoardo Gabriellini as Antonio Biscaglia, Alba Rohrwacher as Elisabetta Recchi, Pippo Delbono as Tancredi Recchi, Marisa Berenson as Allegra Rori Recchi,


2. Setup and Plot
1. The Recchis are an Italian family based in Milan that is quite wealthy from Edoardo Sr's investments in the textile industry.  Edoardo's son Tancredi married Emma, who was visiting Italy from Russia.  Emma embraced Italian culture and reared Tancredi's son Edoardo Jr (Edo).  Edo was a race car driver, and was also interested in starting a restaurant with his long time friend Antonio.


2. As the film progresses, Emma organises dinners for important guests.  Edo and Antonio move forward with the restaurant.  Edo takes more control of the family business.  The family decides to sell the business; this will make them even richer.


3. Emma sees that she is attracted to Antonio; her marriage to Tancredi is depicted as cold from start to finish.  Elisabetta (Emma's daughter, Edo's sister) tells Emma that she prefers women to men; this ends up having zero dramatic impact.


4. So...will the sale of the textile plants go as planned to the group from India?  Will Antonio and Edo get the restaurant going well?  Will Emma's affair with Antonio torpedo everything?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: The real and imagined problems of the upper crust in modern day Milan, Italy.
2. Two stars of five. 


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Gorgeous, well-executed.


2. Sound: 4/10 OK, I suppose.  It did not seem to be a factor in the film.  Much of the film is next to silent: footfalls, doors closing, other incidental sounds.


3. Acting: 2/10 Most of the actors have talent, but I did not see much of that talent shine; the performances were dull, listless, uninteresting.


4. Screenplay: 4/10  Long and slow with reasonable character development.  Not much of a story was told, with zero characters that I cared about.  The ending certainly reinforced that strongly.

20140324: Horror Review--Summer's Moon

Summer's Moon

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian live action feature length film, 2009, rated R, 91, horror, thriller.
2. IMDB: 4.5/10.0 from 2,321 audience ratings.  Spoken word is English.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet...' and 31% liked it from 1,182 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.1/5.0 from 122,898 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Lee Gordon Demarbre.
6. Starring: Ashley Greene as Summer Matthews, Peter Mooney as Tom Hoxey, Barbara Niven as Gaia Hoxey, Stephen McHattie as Gant Hoxey, Peter Michael Hilton as Darwin, Cinthia Burke as Jessie, Paul Whitney as Sheriff.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Summer travels to the small town of Massey, where she hopes to connect with her long lost father.  After shoplifting in a convenience store where a cop is, the cop gives chase.  Tom helps her escape the cop, and she goes home with him and has a one night stand.  The next morning, though, Tom lets her know that she's not leaving.  Tom's mother Gaia hits her over the head with a blunt object to drive the point home.
   


2. When Summer wakes up from the head blow, she's staked, all four limbs, to a gardening bed full of exposed soil.  She's not alone; there's another captive woman not far away.  One version of the title is "Summer's Blood," and we can guess the origin.


3. Darwin, Summer's putative father, gets out of jail, and comes looking for Summer.  The Sheriff listens, but Summer has not left an impression that keeps his interest.  He makes a few inquiries; Gaia is the first one whom he asks.  Gaia tries to talk Tom into abandoning his 'gardening' and setting the girls free to avoid trouble with the law.


4. Tom does some reading, which he shares with Gaia.  They set Summer free, but keep her in their orbit.  Soon after, Gant Hoxey calls, and there are a series of revelations.


5. Then the emotional fireworks start.  Who survives the gore fest?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Ugly Canadian slasher film with incest and bad line reading.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 On the dark side for the interiors, with better than VHS quality, but not by much.  The colour palettes were often ugly to the point of looking like 1970s video shown during late night.  The exteriors, fewer in number, were better, but still had the low-budget look to them.


2. Sound: 5/10 For a Canadian film done in English, the actors seem to be lip-synching.  Perhaps that's a Netflix problem, sound versus video.  Music did not seem to be an asset.


3. Acting: 4/10 Peter Michael Hilton and Paul Whitney were just horrible.  Even as little as ten hours practicing reading lines might have helped.  On the other hand, veterans Stephen McHattie and Barbara Niven were very good.  Peter Mooney and Ashley Greene were just all over the map, occasionally believable, usually terrible.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 The film is fairly open about incest, real or intended (Gaia and Tom, Tom and Summer, Gant and Summer), but does not seem to even try to capitalise on the shock value.  The gardens did not make any sense.  Was Tom just practicing protracted torture, or was there something to be gained from the plants?  Referring to the original title, was blood actually involved there?  What did the young women before Summer actually die from?

20140323: Drama Review--Cargo

Cargo

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, rated R, 85 minutes, drama.
2. IMDB: 5.3/10.0 from 500 audience ratings.  Spoken language is English.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 67% on the meter; 37% liked it from 113 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 129,200 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Yan Vizinberg.  Written by: Lee Peterkin, Yan Vizinberg.
6. Starring: Natasha Rinis as Natasha, Sayed Badreya as Sayed, Philip Willingham as Lukasz, Raul Torres as Kidnapper, Misha Kusnetsov as Val, Seth Ruffer as Joe.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Natasha arrives in Mexico thinking a job is lined up for her in New York.  A driver picks her up, gets the number of a close relative, then takes her passport.  Yikes!  It's time to get the passport back, then run screaming away, whatever it takes.


2. Natasha does not do that.  She gets thrown into a prison with other kidnapped women who are soon to become enslaved sex workers.  After some time, she's sent off to Brooklyn with Sayed.  When Sayed finally lets her out to use the toilet at a gas station, she hits him over the head and tries to run.  Sayed beats her up, then ties her up.  He continues toward New York.


3. Natasha is discouraged when she has to urinate in the van.  When Sayed gets to a truck stop, he listens to her banging and weeping while he rolls something to smoke.  He gets enraged when she kicks out a window.  He tapes her into the front seat.


4. "I'm just a driver," says Sayed.  Sure, Sayed, you have no moral culpability for your active participation in the slave trade.  Soon after, he stops to pray, pointing to Mecca. After this, Natasha tries to bond with Sayed, telling him how she gave a man in Russia 3,000 USD to get an opportunity with an agency in New York.  The money plus her flying to Mexico was all she needed, or so she thought.


5. This is where the movie lost my interest.  The slave bonding with the slaver?  If you enjoy lying, cat and mouse games, cheap shots and gratuitous violence, you'll like the rest of the film.


6. Does Natasha escape?  Do any of the slavers get brought to justice?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: A much better film was Abduction of Eden, 2012.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Mostly OK.


2. Sound: 7/10 I could hear the lines spoken.  Music was mercifully minimal.


3. Acting: 0/10 I would have liked to have seen some acting in this two-character film.  One might as well have teleprompter messages instead of people mouthing words.  Neither was believable, even when they revealed that they had been lying previously.  Who cares?  This goes beyond the rottenness of the screenplay.  The bit players were almost as bad as the principals.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Sayed's self-righteousness is utter and complete nonsense.  His belief that all enslaved women are whores is rubbish.  I could have done without his hatred of the United States.  I could have done without his endless self-serving lies.  Natasha was about the dullest tool in the shed, and was not engaging.  She had opportunities to ditch her kidnapper, and she did not.  His physical brutality seemed about right on for a vicious kidnapper and slaver, which made his lies all the more foul. -- Anyway, the screenplay was repellant, but to no good end whatsoever. -- The ending was the worst part, since the rest of the film did nothing to justify it.

20140322: Horror Review--Buried Alive

Buried Alive

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2007, UR, 94 minutes, horror, supernatural.
2. IMDB: 4.0/10.0 from 1,549 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet..' and 13% liked it from 685 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.0/5.0 from 30,239 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Robert Kurtzman.
6. Starring: Terence Jay as Zane, Leah Rachel as Rene, Tobin Bell as Lester, Erin Reese as Laura, Steve Sandvoss as Danny, Lindsey Scott as Julie, Germaine Scott Grimes as Phil.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The protagonists are in their late teens or early twenties and in some college somewhere in New Mexico, USA.  The characters are Rene, who seems to have a lot of bad dreams; Zane (Rene's cousin), who's looking for a lost fortune from his family's history; Phil, the nerd who's helping Zane; Danny, who's cool for some unseen reason;  Julie (dressed as cow) and Laura (dressed as dog), two sorority pledges who try to make Rene happy.


2. The six of them head out to the desert to find the 'treasure.'  In parallel, Lester has been digging for gold out in the sticks, and seems to find some early on.


3. Zane starts seeing things.  He does a panic stop at freeway speed to avoid running over someone; no one else sees anything.  Oi.  The group meets Lester, who is the caretaker for Zane's family's deserted house.  There is friction there from the beginning.


4. Rene makes Phil tell the rest of the group about Zane's request for  research on the family history.  This is a bit troubled, but also seems a bit hard to have documented.  The common great grandfather of Rene and Zane had two wives. When Phil goes outside for a better signal, someone kills him.


5. The group gets into a discussion of ancient totems and symbols.  They find pictures of the great-grandfather's two wives; both of them wore the necklace which Rene currently wears. Laura has the symbol on the necklace tattooed on the back of her neck.


6. Rene sends Laura (dressed in boots) to bring back something from Lester's trailer.  She gets there, selects a stuffed rabbit, and returns.  Julie (dressed in jeans, poor choice; her feet suffer) makes the run to Lester's next.  Zane carries Julie back after the ankle injury.


7. Still, no one checks on Phil, who is dead, but propped up in the car.  After so many hours one might think they would notice something.


8. Looks like an elimination derby.   How many of the remaining five will survive?  Do Rene and Zane figure out the knot in their ancestors' history in time for it to do anyone any good?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Good visuals, but not much of a story in this teen slasher film.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Well done, no complaints.


2. Sound: 5/10 Leveling problems, conversation versus 'music.'  The music during the credits was really hideous.


3. Acting: 4/10 Germaine Scott Grimes, Steve Sandvoss: useless. Lindsey Scott, Leah Rachel, Erin Reese: not that good.  Terence Jay: almost OK.  Tobin Bell: rather good in an extended cameo.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 The central threat, the motivation for the revenge, and the ending did not make a lick of sense.  What was the point of the Danny character, except to supply drugs?  What was the point of the Phil character, except to slam people with computer skills?  What was the point of the Julie character except her pneumatic figure?  The characters Rene, Zane, and Laura were not interesting enough to make up for the general lack of story.

20140321: Thriller Review--High Lane

High Lane (Vertige)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. French live action feature length film, 2009, NR, 84 minutes, thriller, action.  Spoken language is French.
2. IMDB: 5.7/10.0 from 4,360 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 60% on the meter; 33% liked it from 850 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.3/5.0 from 247,355 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Abel Ferry.
6. Starring: Fanny Valette as Chloe, Nicolas Giraud as Fred, Johan Libereau as Luc, Raphael Lenglet as Guillaume, Maud Wyler as Karine, Justin Blanckaert as Anton.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Skilled climber Fred and girlfriend Karine, with friends Chloe, Guillaume, and Luc take a hike in the mountains.  IMDb claims the film was shot in the French Alps; the scenery is impressive.  However, the titles and dialogs say that that they are in Croatia, 'leaving civilization.'  That was a bad sign.


2. Early on, their path is marked as blocked.  They decide to rock-climb above the blockage and proceed on the chosen path down line of the blockage.  That looks rather iffy to me; the terrain takes some serious rock climbing skills.  Further, Luc has vertigo, and should have turned back to wait in the vehicle.  Also, someone is following them.


3. After a sturdy-looking suspension bridge breaks, nearly killing Karine, they must press on to a pass.  After that, at a critical turn, the climber's cable is no longer anchored.  The leader, Fred, goes high, again attempting to go above and around the problem.  He succeeds, but Luc and Guillaume are left dangling when more pitons pull out.  Fred gets caught in an animal trap.  Karine and Chloe rescue the dangling Guillaume and Luc via a rope.


4. While waiting in the trap, Fred gets a clue that perhaps he is not alone.  The other four finally head for Fred, but he has been dragged off.  Apparently these folks have never heard of tracking a blood trail while it's still light out.  Chloe falls into a pit trap.  Karine goes in after her, and extricates her from a spike.  The men pull them out.  Darkness falls; they keep looking for Fred in the dark as the rain starts.  Whoever has been hunting them shoots Karine through the thorax with a barbed arrow, and cuts the rope joining her to Chloe.


5. Things get worse for the group.  Will any of them get out alive?


3. Conclusions
1. On Netflix, an English dub was used.  I would have preferred the French with subtitles.
2. One line summary: Started out nicely enough, but its finish looked completely copied.
3. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Loved the 2.35 aspect ratio.  The mountains and the woods were beautiful, and the camera work was professional.  There was a little camera shake now and then that did not improve the viewing experience.


2. Sound: 7/10 The dubs really were not good.  The incidental music and sound were hit and miss: some right on target, some seemingly pointless.


3. Acting: 7/10 Perhaps not Academy Award performances, but rather good.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 This film starts nicely enough, but borrows much too heavily from the Wrong Turn series.  Whatever demons Chloe seemed to need to exorcise early on are not revealed completely, but they killed her in the end.  The portrayal of a love triangle was weak.

20140321: Horror Review--Resident Evil: Damnation

Resident Evil: Damnation

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Japanese animated feature length film, 2012, rated R, 100 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 6.5/10.0 from 10,748 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet...' and 74% liked it from 1,654 audience ratings.
4. I watched this on Crackle.
5. Directed by: Makoto Kamiya.
6. Starring: Matthew Mercer as Leon S. Kennedy, Dave Wittenberg as Buddy/Sasha, Wendee Lee as Svetlana Belikova, Val Tasso as JD, Robin Sachs as Ataman, Courtenay Taylor as Ada Wong.


2. Setup and Plot
1. This is animation via 3d modelling tools coupled with recording of live actions.  Looks wonderful; better, in fact, than many live action horror films that I have reviewed lately.


2. The main action takes place in a fictional former Soviet bloc nation, Eastern Slav Republic, that came into existence after the fall of the USSR.  The film follows an American agent, Leon S. Kennedy, who goes rogue during the continuing civil war in ESR.  The rumour that Leon wants to check out is whether or not the rebel forces in the civil war are using BOWs (Bio Organic Weapons).  Leon encounters a BOW almost immediately.


3. President Svetlana brings in Ada Wong from the BSAA (Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance) to look into the allegations.  By themselves, the BOW are useless (attack friend and foe alike), but if a plaga is applied, control can be asserted.  Sounds tricky.  Leon needs to get some sort of evidence of all this.  So does Ada Wong.


4. The things that look like zombies walking around in Eastern Europe seem to be humans enslaved by plaga attaching themselves to spinal cords.  Great.  I was expected a high quality zombie film, and got a no zombie film.


5. Will Leon or Ada get the evidence they needed?  Will the ESR survive as a country?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Amazing animation accomplishment; not so amazing plot.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Art/Animation: 10/10 Exceptional; I'd like to give it a 73 out of 10, but 10 is tops.  Most of the film looks great.  Loved the fight sequences between Ada Wong and President Svetlana.


2. Sound: 8/10 Sound leveling could be better.  Going from fight-action music to/from conversation is a disaster.


3. Voice Acting: 7/10 This varies a lot.  Matthew Mercer, Wendee Lee, and Courtenay Taylor were good. Val Tasso was mighty irritating.  Most of the others were competent.


4. Story: 4/10 Wow. Terrible dialog in so many places.  Is this a civil war film, a zombie film,  an east vs west film, a biohazard film?  The connections to Resident Evil seem weak.

20140320: Thriller Review--Killing Jar

Killing Jar

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2010, rated R, 90 minutes, crime, thriller.
2. IMDB: 5.9/10.0 from 1,838 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 400,000 USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 0% on the meter; 33% liked it from 552 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.4/5.0 from 302,816 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Mark Young.
6. Starring: Michael Madsen as Doe, Danny Trejo as Jimmie, Harold Perrineau as John Dixon (Smith), Amber Benson as Noreen, Jake Busey as Greene, Kevin Gage as Hank, Lew Temple as Lonnie.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film is shot in a diner (the Copal Grill) in a small town called Silver Lake, where the lake has dried up some years back.  Jimmie is the manager/owner/cook, Noreen is the waitress on duty during the film, Dixon is the man passing through from a conference to his home in Brooklyn.  Lonnie is one of the local cops; Hank sort of lives at the diner.  Doe blows in after the group heard the story of a family of four getting murdered in a nearby town.  He immediately gets on Noreen's case, and pisses Jimmie off.


2. Lonnie is one of the dullest tools in the shed, and he does not pick up on Doe being a possible problem.  Noreen convinces him to talk to the man.  He does.  Doe leaves, then comes back with a fully loaded multi-shot shotgun.  He kills Lonnie and Jimmie immediately for the insults.


3. Noreen, John, Hank, and the two teen-aged kids are stuck in the diner with Doe.  For a short while, Doe seems to have everything under control, but then Greene walks into the diner.  Greene brings money to pay 'Mr. Smith' for the job completed.  Greene tries to walk out, but Doe informs him that he is not Smith.  Of course, we've already met Smith; we just have to find out who it is.


4. Greene attempts to bargain with Doe.  That does not work.  Turns out it was a real estate deal that Greene wanted to complete to avoid vengeance from loan sharks.  To cure his problem, Greene hires an enforcer to convince the farmer to sell his land.  So the enforcer did the murders of the family that the diner heard about earlier.


5. Do we discover who the enforcer is?  Does anyone escape from Doe?


3. Conclusions
1. Talk about low budget!! Very little spent on sets and props.
2. One line summary: Nice character driven small film.
3. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Iffy at best, but the lighting in diners does suck.


2. Sound: 9/10 Pretty good; all the actors were well-miked.


3. Acting: 9/10  Good.  I liked Madsen, Busey, Benson, Perrineau, and Gage quite well.  Trejo's part was small, but he was good for the spot.


4. Screenplay: 8/10 Nicely done.

20140320: Horror Review--War of the Dead

War of the Dead

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American/Lithuanian/Italian live action feature length film, 2011, NR, 86 minutes, horror, zombies, supernatural.  Spoken word is English with lots of dubbing.  Straight to video.
2. IMDB: 4.1/10.0 from 1,753 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 1 million euros.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...' and 11% liked it from 185 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.1/5.0 from 95,684 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Marco Maekilaakso.
6. Starring: Andrew Tierman as Captain Martin Stone, Jouko Ahola as Captain Niemi, Samual Vaurama as Kolya, Mikko Leppilampi as Lieutenant Laakso, Andreas Wilson as Assistant, Antti Reini as Sergeant Halonen.


2. Setup and Plot
1. In World War II, Finnish troops and American troops attempt to investigate a Nazi bunker that lies inside Germany.


2. After spending some time with Wikipedia, I see that there was little historical support for the idea of American and Finnish troops to be operating together against the Germans.  America was the ally of the Soviet Union.  Finland had been fighting the Russians off and on for about 150 years.  During most of World War II, the Finns were allied with the Nazis based in Norway and Germany against their longtime enemy, Russia.


3. So, the setup of the film is nonsense.


4. The 'action' scenes are boring or inept.


5. As a zombie film (the bunker in Germany supposedly contained experiments to re-animate the dead), this is a bust.  The main clue that a walking biped was a zombie was 'did we not already kill that one?' or words to that effect.  A few zombies had glazed over eyes.  The gloomy, heart wrenching threat one expects from the Zombie Apocalypse environment was absent.


3. Conclusions
1. Cheap jack zombie film with historical inaccuracy.
2. One line summary: Avoid this ersatz zombie film plus poor action film.
3. 1/10


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 3/10 Dark.  Poor camera angles.  Colour palettes so reduced as to be only slightly different than greyscale.


2. Sound: 4/10 Horrible accents.  Background music was not an asset.


3. Acting: 0/10 Terrible performances.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 There was a screenplay?  Where was the exposition of motivations?  There was a lot of stilted dialog that generated confusion.  The joint group just drifted from one disaster to the next.  The film seemed more of an elimination derby of nameless characters that were impossible to care anything about.

20140320: Horror Review--Argento's Dracula

Argento's Dracula 3-D

1. Fundamentals, reception.


1. Italian live action feature length film, 2012, NR, 110 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 3.6/10.0 from 2,039 audience ratings.  Estimated budget: 5.6 million euros.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 11% on the meter; 18% liked it from 1,179 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.8/5.0 from 30,847 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Dario Argento.
6. Starring: Thomas Kretschmann as Dracula, Marta Gastini as Mina Harker, Asia Argento as Lucy Kisslinger, Unax Ugalde as Jonathan Harker, Rutger Hauer as Van Helsing, Maria Cristina Heller as Jarmila, Miriam Giovanelli as Tanja.



2. Setup and Plot


1. In the opening segment, a young woman, Tanja, has a tryst with her married lover.  They have a spat.  She walks back home alone; an owl targets her.  She calls for help; a taxidermist comes out of his house, but does not help her after she falls.  The owl transforms into a humanoid vampire and bites Tanja.


2. In the next segment, Jonathan Harker arrives at a small train stop after the only coach of the day has left.  He commissions a horse, and rides to Passburg.  He quarters his horse, and stops at the Gasthaus for a hot evening meal and a night's lodging.  He observes a number of shady characters lurking about.  Later the shady group dig up Tanja's grave.  The taxidermist who did not help Tanja fight off the vampire attacks them.  By the time they have subdued him, Tanja is gone.


3. The next morning Jonathan visits Lucy, the daughter of the mayor.  Lucy wonders where Mina is; Jonathan says she was delayed.  Jonathan eventually makes his way to Count Dracula's castle, where he is to be the librarian.  The Count shows him his collection, and Jonathan looks forward to the cataloging and the reading.  Unfortunately for Jonathan, Tanja is still a young out-of-control vampire, and she sets about to get his blood.  When she's drawing from his neck, Dracula throws her off and takes her place.  Escape fails the next day.


4. Mina arrives at the train station and is met by her old friend Lucy instead of Jonathan.  Dracula visits Lucy that night, and Lucy looks terrible the next day.  Lucy talks her into going to the castle.  Mina, alone on horse, is attacked by wolves, but saved (hm) by Dracula and taken to his castle.  Mina thinks Dracula looks familiar; Dracula feels the same.  Jonathan is not at the castle, so Mina heads back.  Lucy has passed.


5. What will become of Jonathan?  Is Mina one of Dracula's wives re-incarnated?  Will Lucy rise as a vampire? Will Van Helsing ever show up?



3. Conclusions


1. One line summary: Serviceable remake of Dracula, based mostly on the novel.
2. Seven stars of ten.



4. Scores


1. Cinematography: 7/10 Other than some gratuitous camera shake, the film was well shot.  The sets and costumes were beautiful on the whole, conveying the impression of the Europe of around 100 years ago.  The CGI interludes (few and short) were seriously bad, such as the praying mantis segment, the blood effects, and a couple of the wolf transformations.


2. Sound: 7/10 The lip synch needed improvement.  Some of the instrumental music sounded like throwbacks to the 1950s or 1960s; this was not a plus.  The choral background music was far better.


3. Acting: 8/10 I was put off by Kretschmann's performance at first, but got to like it as the film progressed. When Van Helsing accomplishes hard-to-believe feats against the vampires, I only kept watching because Rutger Hauer was the actor.  Marta Gastini was good in the pivotal role of Mina.  My favourite was Miriam Giovanelli as Tanja.


4. Screenplay: 7/10 I liked the meeting of Dracula with the town leaders.  They mention their pact with Dracula: he helps them financially, while they allow him certain liberties.  After a number of deaths in short order, the leaders consider breaking the pact.  Dracula lets them know his power; only his true ally survives.  That would have been a good place to start wrapping up the film: there is no defense against transcendent power.  Let everyone know (or suspect) this, then end it. -- The film stays with the book's tradition, though, which is unfortunate.  For instance, if Dracula can change from human form to a swarm of insects back to human form in a second or two, why would he allow himself to be destroyed? -- This movie answers that question better than any other I have seen.

20140319: Horror Review--Infected

Infected

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, 94 minutes, action, horror, zombies.
2. IMDB: 2.9/10.0 from 756 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...' and 12% liked it from 72 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.8/5.0 from 78,433 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Glenn Ciano.
6. Starring: Christy Romano as Kelly, Michael Madsen as Louis, William Forsythe as Dr. Dennehey, Tom DeNucci as Andrew, Johnny Cicco as Seth, Jeanine Kane as Angela, Tracey Sheldon as Hooker.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Louis and son Andrew attempt some bonding centered around deer hunting.  Dr. Dennehy is the local sawbones.  He's doing the same thing with his son Seth.


2. Things start to go to hell after one of Dennehey's patients (a friend's grandmother) bites him; the wound starts getting nasty.  Seth and Andrew bond over being embarrassed by their respective fathers, and over loving illegal firearms.


3. After granny goes missing, Louis, Dennehey, Andrew, and Kelly (the granddaughter) go looking for her.  The other youngsters get plowed, and Seth gets attacked by granny.


4. Things go downhill from there.


5. Will the authorities arrive and fix all this viral outbreak?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Terrible zombie film; two actors wasted.
2. One star of five.  Black hole for screenplay.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Not so good.  There is too much fuzzy focus and failures with zooming.  Camera rotation I can always do without.  Zombie effects were on the poor side.


2. Sound: 3/10 The actors were usually miked OK, but not always.  The score/incidental sound varied between irrelevant to counterproductive.


3. Acting: 2/10 I've seen Michael Madsen give wonderful performances in several movies, but this was not one of them.  William Forsythe was a bit better (accounting for the two points).  The lesser players were just horrible.  Tracey Sheldon was pneumatic and decorative, but did not deliver lines well.


4. Screenplay: 0/10  Talking zombies?  Thinking zombies? A zombie who wins an argument with a normal healthy human being?  Zombies having telephone calls about uncashed checks and child custody?  ---  Horrible dialog.  Little internal logic.  A new Lyme disease that accounts for zombie behaviour?  I doubt it.

20140319: Action Review--Kill em All

Kill 'em All

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2012, 86 minutes, action.
2. IMDB: 4.4/10.0 from 902 audience ratings. Estimated budget, 3.2 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...' and 26% liked it from 83 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.4/5.0 from 166,682 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Raimund Huber.
6. Starring: Johnny Messner as Gabriel, Gordon Liu as Snakehead, Ammara Siripong as Som, Tim Man as The Kid, Rashid Phoenix as Mickey, Joe Lewis as Carpenter.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Set in Thailand.  A number of martial artists/assassins are drugged by one means or another, then kidnapped and placed in a prison/gladiator building.  The room where they wake up is where they get to fight to the death.   That is, the eight of them fight until seven are dead, and perhaps one is alive.  First a voice from outside the room introduces them and berates them one at a time.  The voice sees to it that one of them is killed just to be able to say, 'obey or die.'


2. There is a fatal encounter, then there is a box lunch session marked by stupid conversations, with the obligatory open mouthed sloppy eating.  Then there is a second fatal encounter.  The winners of the two fights get to choose weapons from a room off to the side.


3. Then they are supposed to sleep.  Right.  After more fatalities, a few break out of the room and start exploring the building.  There are more fighters from the 'cabal.'  The protagonists have to deal with them before the boss.


4. Lots of fighting.  Some trash talking.  Who cares.


5. Does anyone get out alive?  Do they defeat the boss?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Terrible acting, screenplay in martial arts film set in Thailand.
2. One star of five.  Two black holes for acting and screenplay.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 Footage from many crappy locations.  Odd camera angles used to lessen one's enjoyment of the visuals.  Visual quality is a bit better than VHS most of the time.  Sometimes we view the movie from the CCTV view point of the observer who tells the fighters the rules.  Wretched colour palettes.


2. Sound: 4/10 Sound levels suck.  If the sound is set to withstand the overly loud poor choices of music, then conversation cannot be heard.


3. Acting: 0/10 Uniformly and completely absent.  The people in the film look athletic, but are not actors in any sense.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Ridiculous fight choreography.  Dialog that is beyond stupid.

20140319: Action Review--Violet & Daisy

Violet & Daisy

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, rated R, 88 minutes, action, comedy.
2. IMDB: 6.2/10.0 from 4,396 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 23% on the meter; 39% liked it from 2,415 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 50,668 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Geoffrey Fletcher.
6. Starring: Saoirse Ronan as Daisy, Alexis Bledel as Violet, Danny Trejo as Russ, James Gandalfini as Michael, Marianne Jean-Baptiste as Iris, Tatiana Maslany as April.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Violet and Daisy are contract killers.  In the opening sequence they murder 6 people while dressed as nuns.  Soon thereafter, Daisy turns 18, so she can get charged as an adult.  Violet is a bit older, but probably not by much.  They turn down a new job.  Then they see some dresses that they want to buy.    They take the job to get money to buy dresses.


2. The second job is to kill one guy who stole some money from someone higher in their organisation.  Their target shows up late, after they take a nap. They try shooting him with their eyes closed.  He's in the kitchen making oatmeal cookies for them.  Oh, my.  He is dying anyway, and hopes they go ahead with their job.


3. There is a lot of talk among Violet, Daisy, and their target.  This is coupled with a number of odd incidents (like the shootout at the hardware store) that are interspersed with the ongoing conversation.


4. Iris drops by to nudge the girls forward.


5. Will the girls finally finish the job, stay out of jail, and go on with their shallow lives?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Surreal art film about teen female contract killers.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 10/10 Beautifully shot!


2. Sound: 10/10 Amazingly good.


3. Acting: 7/10 Alexis Bledel was 30 when this film came out.  She's best friends with a girl who just turned 18?  Oi.  I like Gandalfini, Trejo, Bledel, and Jean-Baptiste even more than I did before seeing this film.  I'm sure they did what the auteur asked of them, and they certainly did it well. Ronan, on the other hand, is an actor I can count on to deliver a disappointing performance.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 Patty-cake?  Really? Absurd and surreal set the stage.  There was not enough story to fill the 88 minutes.  The theoretical side of me saw that many of the lines were meant to be humorous, but I did not find myself laughing or even smiling.

20140318: Animation Review--Iron Man and Hulk: Heroes United

Iron Man & Hulk: Heroes United

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American animated feature length film, 2013, PG, 71 minutes, animated, adventure.
2. IMDB: 4.6/10.0 from 509 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: no entries, not even a stub.
4. Netflix: 3.6/5.0 from 100,247 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Leo Riley.
6. Starring: Adrian Pasdar as Tony Stark/Iron Man, Fred Tatasciore as The Hulk, David Kaye as Jarvis, Dee Bradley Baker as Dr. Cruler/Zzzax, Robin Atkin Downes as Dr. Fump/Abomination.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Dr. Cruler and Dr. Fump intend to overcome Hulk's strength advantages using the Abomination.  So they capture Hulk, betray the Abomination, then try to squeeze all the energy out of them.  That does not quite work.


2. Cruler and Fump manage to create a glowing ball of energy that has a primitive self-awareness.  It feeds on energy.  Stark uses the EMP (electro magnetic pulse bomb) on it, and seems to put it out of commission, but not really.


3. Hulk gives Stark a lot of trouble.  Then the ball of energy, Zzzax, takes over more and more parts of Stark's flying fortress.  Hulk has no problems dispatching the mandroids, but Zzzax gets into the reactor.


4. Can Tony and the Hulk get out of this one?  If they do make it, who did more damage, the bad guys or Hulk and Iron Man?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Terrible animation; not that good a story.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Art/Animation: 0/10 Amazingly ugly and incomplete.  Looks like old school 3D, and not good old school.  Too flat, too few polygons, too much loss of contrast, and so on.  Looks like a giant step backwards.  What's with that, Marvel?  Did I mention lack of contrast?  Looks a lot too much like the first Tron, only with slightly more colour.


2. Sound: 6/10 Mostly OK.


3. Voice Acting: 2/10 Talking, articulate Hulk?  Sorry, no.  The voices for Fump and Cruler give the impression of feckless, bumbling idiots.  Adrian Pasdar was OK as Stark; David Kaye fine as Jarvis.


4. Story: 2/10 Stupid dialog.  Drs. Cruler and Fump seem to be woefully stupid, and Hulk too clever.  The story, such as it is, is not compelling.  Hulk figuring out the root cause when Tony Stark does not?  No, thanks.  So, the EMP is supposed to solve any awkward situation?  We go directly from fighting Zzzax to fighting wendigos in foggy church yard?  What is that?  Worst of all, the easter egg at the end indicated that a sequel was in the works which will have the same terrible production values and stupid dialog.

20140318: Animation Review--Star Wars: The Clone Wars

Star Wars: The Clone Wars

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American animated feature length film, 2008, PG-13, 98 minutes, animation, adventure.
2. IMDB: 5.7/10.0 from 31,520 audience ratings. Estimated budget, 8.5 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 18% on the meter; 39% liked it from 160,314 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.5/5.0 from 856,956 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Dave Filoni.
6. Starring: Matt Lantner as Anakin Skywalker, Ashley Eckstein as Ahsoka Tano, Christopher Lee as Count Dooku,  James Arnold Taylor as Obi-Wan Kenobi, Nika Futterman as Asajj Ventress, Tom Kane as Yoda, Dee Bradley Baker as Rex, Catherine Taber as Padme Amidala.


2. Setup and Plot
1. This film is a story in its own right, and it serves as an introduction to the animated series that followed it.  The characters Asajj Ventress (Dooku's assassin) and Ahsoka Sano (Anakin's padawan) are introduced in the film, and are regulars in the animated series that follows.


2. The Republic is at war with the Separatists.  The Republic armed forces, composed of clone soldiers and sailors plus Jedi commanders, is fighting valiantly against the droid forces often led by Count Dooku.


3. In order to secure passage in the Outer Rim, the Republic must deal with Jabba the Hutt, whose son has been kidnapped by Dooku's henchmen.  The Jedi work and fight to free the small Hutt, while Ventress and Dooku's forces counter them.


4. Senator Padme Amidala contacts Jabba's uncle Ziro the Hutt on Coruscant to try to resolve the issue.  However, Ziro is in league with Dooku to overthrow Jabba and replace Jabba with Ziro as head of the Hutt clan.  Ziro captures Padme, and things look worse.


5. Can Padme escape Ziro?  Can Anakin and Ahsoka deliver the Huttlet safely to Jabba, or will Dooku's elite droids capture her?  Will Anakin defeat Dooku?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Animated Star Wars segment set between live action movies 2 and 3.
2. Seven of ten.


4. Scores
1. Art/Animation: 9/10 As good as the sound is bad.  The motions were a little stiff.


2. Sound: 5/10 Wow!! The sound level difference between music (too loud by far) and conversation is just too big and the up/down jumps occur frequently.


3. Voice Acting: 9/10 Nicely done all around.


4. Story: 7/10 Some of the dialog was a little raw, like the remarks between Ahsoka and Anakin.  Otherwise, it was competent adventure material, opening to middle to exciting conclusion.

20140318: Animation Review--Iron Man: Rise of Technovore

Iron Man: Rise of Technovore

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Japanese animated feature length film, 2013, PG-13, 88 minutes, animated, action, scifi.
2. IMDB: 5.2/10.0 from 1,813 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No Score Yet...' and 35% liked it from 506 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.6/5.0 from 43,803 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Hiroshi Hamazaki.
6. Starring: Norman Reedus as Frank Castle/The Punisher; Matthew Mercer as Tony Stark/Iron Man, Eric Bauza as Ezekiel Stane/Technovore, Kate Higgins as Pepper Potts, Kari Wahlgren as Maria Hill, James Mathis as James Rhodes/War Machine, Clare Grant as Natasha Romanov/Black Widow, John Eric Bentley as Nick Fury.


2. Setup and Plot
1. This is an anime version of an Ironman story, late teen/adult style.


2. Tony Stark is about to launch a surveillance satellite.  Someone does not like this.  They set about to blow up Tony's properties near the launch, and draw him into a one on one fight.  Further, they kill his long-time friend and ally, Rhodes, and many people near the launch.


3. Fury sends Black Widow to fetch Ironman.  They have a chat, then Fury tells him he is in custody.  Ironman decides to leave.  Fury sends a lot of people after him.  Ironman evades most of them, but Black Widow gives him a harder time before he disables her plane.


4. The bad guys in this film are a small group who think of technology as a set of false idols, and particularly blame those who create more technology.  So Ironman is high on their list, and his satellite is a prime target.


5. Tony meets with Pepper to get intelligence.  SHIELD surrounds the place, but Tony escapes.  He finds a lead in Pakistan, and meets up with Punisher.  They zero on Ezekial Stane.  SHIELD catches up, and Hawkeye screws Tony's suit with his arrows.  Punisher helps him get away, with Black Widow and Hawkeye in pursuit.


6. Ironman follows Stane's efforts to China.  He discovers more about the powerful weapons that Stane has, namely the technovores, which invade high tech gadgets and take them over.


7. Does Ironman find the ultimate goals of the enemy behind all this?  If so, will he stop that goal from being accomplished?  Will Tony make nice with SHIELD and Pepper?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: A good Tony Stark story, told anime style.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Art/Animation: 8/10 Good by anime standards, but occasionally had the washed out look.


2. Sound: 7/10  The lip synching was not the best.  The music's sound level was way off.  Most of the time the voice actors' words were clear enough.


3. Voice/Acting: 7/10 I liked the performances of Norman Reedus, Matthew Mercer, Kate Higgins, and Clare Grant.  The work of Eric Bauza and John Eric Bentley I did not care for so much.


4. Story: 8/10 Rather nice.  Had transitions beginning to middle to end that were reasonable to follow.  Has some pleasant surprises toward the end.

20140317: Animation Review--AniMen the Galactic Battle

AniMen: the Galactic Battle

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Chinese animated feature length film, 2012, unrated, 86 minutes, animation, adventure.
2. IMDB: 3.6/10.0 from 27 audience ratings.  Spoken language on Netflix was English.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No Reviews Yet...', and 'No score yet...'
4. Netflix: 2.8/5.0 from 56,610 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Xu Kerr.
6. Starring: Bruce Boxleitner as General Moss, Steve Blum as Colonel Steel, Keith David as Sergeant Brass, JB Blanc as Captain Hered, Ogie Banks as Sergeant Gator, Jim Cummings as Xanthor.


2. Setup and Plot
1. This is a space opera rendered using 3-d animation objects.


2. In some galaxy, at some time or another in the history of the cosmos, two sides fight in space.  The Swarm is a single race that has huge numbers.  Many of their members seem to be fairly stupid insect forms that are fitted to combat.  The leaders are few in number, but good at coordinating the hordes of underlings.  The other side is mostly made of humanoids with two arms, two legs, one head, who walk and run upright.  So they are sort of like humans, but still look nothing like Earth humans of the present day.


3. In the opening, General Moss on the humanoid side (the Starworld Alliance) is gathering some sort of intelligence against the Swarm in the form of chips.  He succeeds at that, and narrowly makes his escape at the cost of the lives of several underlings.


4. The scene switches to scenes of militarised non-Swarm life.  We see some training with armored suits.  We switch again to space battles.


5. General Moss returns to the Alliance side during the battle.  Everyone seems concerned about keeping him safe.  The elite 'Triton Force'  is made up of armed flying armoured suits (like badly designed Gundam), and are allies of Moss.  Xanthor is the main leader of the Swarm that Moss and company face.  Xanthor wants to kill Moss and get the chips.  The Triton Force wants to protect Moss and get the chips to the Alliance.


6. So, who comes out on top?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Looks like an old video game made into a movie.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Art/animation: 4/10 About 40% of the runtime is just beautiful, visually speaking.  Then the rest of it is iffy or poor, as in mid-1990s poor.


2. Sound: 4/10 The voice actors were miked OK, but incidental music and sounds were not really effectively used.  The synchronisation of mouth movements and words was rather bad, as often happens in the mixed language setting.


3. Voice Acting: 5/10 There were professional voice actors involved. Bruce Boxleitner and Keith David from live action movies come to mind, as do the veterans Steve Blum from Cowboy Bebop and Ogie Banks from Ultimate Spiderman.  Most of the lesser parts were poorly handled by much less skillful voice actors.


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Terrible.  Full of poor one liners that are not funny.  The script seemed to be an afterthought.  The flow of beginning => middle => end was nowhere near smooth.  The chain of command in the Alliance military seemed to be entirely broken.  The ending was nonsensical.  The main thread of the film was abandoned rather than resolved.