20140730: Drama Review--Madras Cafe

Madras Cafe

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Indian live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 126 minutes, action, political thriller, bollywood, historical fiction.
2. IMDB: 7.9/10.0 from 9,759 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 350 million INR.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet...' and 76% liked it from 417 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Shoojit Sircar
5. Starring: John Abraham as Vikram Singh, Nargis Fakhri as Jaya Sahni, Rashi Khanna as Ruby, Avijit Dutt as Swarup, Sanjay Burbuxani as Former Prime Minister, Ajay Rathnam as Anna Bhaskaran.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The setting is the turmoil of the 1990s in Sri Lanka.  Vikram Singh is the point man for Army Intelligence (RAW, or Research and Analysis Wing) in the matter.  He is drawn in when there are clear signs that an assassination attempt will be made on the former Indian PM, who seems likely to regain his seat of power.


2. The enemy is faceless, well-organised, and quite good at segmenting what any individual or small group needs to know.  Vikram and his entire organisation work very hard at this, and arrest several groups of perpetrators, only to find that there are many small, highly effective bands with the same goal.


3. At one point, when Vikram gets close to a piece of the truth, he is kidnapped and tortured.  He is rescued from this, and goes on the do more exceptional investigatory work.  By the end of the story, though, Vikram has paid many high prices.


4. Through the course of the investigations, Vikram interacts, guardedly, with war correspondent Jaya.  Their careful sharing of information was a well-written part of the plot.  Vikram's whole-hearted pursuit of the case had more than one bad effect on his relationship with his wife Ruby.


5. The movie opens to Vikram in later life, alone, alcoholic, limping, and plagued with guilt over failures.  Told in flashback style, the years spent pursuing the terrorists is gripping.  The long effort at stopping the plot of Anna and the LFT was bulk of the film.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Well-directed political thriller concerning the turmoil in 1990s Sri Lanka.
2. Four stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Usually great, with a few moments of hand-held nonsense.


2. Sound: 6/10 I liked the music over the closing credits.  Sound was not done in the traditional Bollywood fashion, but then this is a more serious work than the more common musicals.  Still, some instrumental music for accenting mood might have been nice.


3. Acting: 8/10 The acting by the principals is outstanding.


4. Screenplay: 10/10 The many threads are woven together rather well.  The depiction of violence was difficult to watch at times, but trenchant and central to the overall story.  Much more screen time goes to political intrigue and efforts at stopping a determined terrorist group from achieving its goals.

20140726: Comedy Review--Peep World

Peep World

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2010, rated R, 79 minutes, comedy, drama.
2. IMDB: 5.6/10.0 from 2,869 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 23% on the meter; 22% liked it from 8,557 audience ratings.
4. Directed by Barry W. Blaustein.  Screenplay by Peter Himmelstein.
5. Starring: Lewis Black as the Narrator, Sarah Silverman as Cheri Meyerwitz, Ron Rifkin as Henry Meyerwitz, Alicia Witt as Amy Harrison, Michael C. Hall as Jack Meyerwitz, Rainn Wilson as Joel Meyerwitz, Lesley Ann Warren as Marilyn, Taraji P. Henson as Mary, Judy Greer as Laura, Kate Mara as Meg,


2. Setup and Plot
1. Henry Meyerwitz has four grown children: Jack, the architect; Joel, the lawyer who took 8 times to pass the bar exam; Cheri, the failed artist/actress; Nathan, the writer, who is seven years younger than Cheri.  Henry is distant and imperious.  Jack is tasked each year with paying for an expensive dinner in honor of Henry's birthday.


2. By Henry's seventieth birthday, family relations have gone from being tense and dysfunctional to harsh and confrontational.  The main reason for this change is the wide success of Nathan's book Peep World, which is more than a bit too biographical for the comfort of Cheri, Joel, and Jack.  To make things worse, Jack's business and revenue have shrunk, Joel's legal career is at a snail's pace, and Cheri's career is going nowhere.  The topper is that Henry has a new girl friend Amy, who is the actress that plays Cheri in the film of Nathan's book.


3. In the hours leading up to the seventieth birthday dinner, the slow burns of the principal characters are exposed.  At the dinner, they burst out, capped by Henry's speech returning all their fire.


4. Will the family gain some cohesion out of all this?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: The surfacing of truth is a painful process.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Well shot for the most part; on Netflix it seemed to have some intervals of focus that was too soft.


2. Sound: 7/10 No particular problems, but I thought the sound could have been more of an asset to the film than it was.


3. Acting: 8/10 The large cast included several skilled actors doing fine work.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 The threads came together well at the end, but I thought the film would have been better without a narrator.  Just to be clear, most of the laughs I got out of the film were from Lewis Black's expert delivery--as the narrator.  The film was billed as a comedy; why should most of the humor come from the narrator's performance?

20140724: Action Review--Dead in Tombstone

Dead in Tombstone

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length video, 2013, NR, 99 minutes, action, Western, supernatural.
2. IMDB: 4.8/10.0 from 2,699 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 5.2 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet..' and 30% liked it from 337 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.2/5.0 from 37,160 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Mike Elliott.
6. Starring: Danny Trejo as Guerrero, Mickey Rourke as Blacksmith/Lucifer, Anthony Michael Hall as Red Cavanaugh, Dina Meyer as Calathea Massey.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Red Cavanaugh is about to be hung, but the rest of the Blackwater Gang rescue him.  Red sells them a plan to liberate some gold.  His half-brother and co-leader of the gang, Guerraro, agrees as long as they make it a quick and relatively clean operation.


2. Once the plan is in motion, though, Red bloodies the town and kills his brother, as well as the sheriff.  Red takes over the town with the remaining Blackwater Gang as his fellow enforcers.  He joins forces with an English business man to keep a choke hold on the town and the mining of the gold.


3. Meanwhile, Guerrero has a long chat with Lucifer, and strikes a deal with him.  If Guerrero can snuff his old gang, Lucifer will restore him to life above ground.


4. The bloodletting increases.  One might expect that, given the cast and the setup of the screenplay.


5. Does Guerrero re-gain his life, or does Red foul up his plans again?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Deals with Lucifer sometimes take longer than expected.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Nicely atmospheric, but had some terrible hand-held moments.


2. Sound: 6/10 I could hear the dialog, which was fine, but the sound did not add much to the mood of the piece.


3. Acting: 8/10 I liked the four principal actors in this property.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 This video would have been better at 75 minutes rather than 99.  The script was a bit short on ideas, and long on torture, murder, forced labor, revenge, and betrayals. 

20140722: Thriller Review--Bastards

Bastards (Les Salauds)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. French/German live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 100 minutes, thriller.  Spoken word in French and English; sub-titles in English.
2. IMDB: 6.2/10.0 from 1,429 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 64% on the meter; 40% liked it from 642 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.5/5.0 from 6,530 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Claire Denis.
6. Starring: Vincent Linden as Marco Silvestri, Chiarra Mastrioanni as Raphaëlle, Julie Bataille as Sandra, Michel Subor as Edouard Laporte, Lola Chretin as Justine.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Marco is the captain of a supertanker.  He's at sea and life is good.


2. Pull the chain on that.  Marco's sister Sandra calls him back in desperation: her husband has committed suicide, her daughter Justine is in a tailspin, and the family business is not going well.  Sandra accuses wealthy business man Edouard Laporte as the cause of these ill fortunes.  So Marco, in his own particular way, goes after Edouard.


3. Marco's fortunes diminish, and he discovers a number of discouraging truths about his family.  This gets more evident when a young man offers to sell Justine back to him for 5000 francs.


4. Will Marco pull himself and his family out of this downward spiral, or will external forces be too great for that?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Told slowly in noir style, to a harsh conclusion.
2. Three stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 For much of the screen time, there was not enough light or too much light, odd choices of camera angles, strange depth of field choices...in other words, much of the noir package.  The filming of the car ride with passengers and drivers high on drugs was quite emblematic of this.  I did not find this helpful or illustrative, even though this is a dark tale.


2. Sound: 7/10 OK, redeemed by the sound track with the closing credits.


3. Acting: 6/10


4. Screenplay: 6/10 A bit lurching for my taste.  The film jumps from segment to segment to segment, with time references not all that clear, with one message.  All the characters are flawed and disgusting.  Got it: noir.

20140722: Thriller Review--Cybergeddon

Cybergeddon

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American/Canadian live action television series revisited for Netflix as a feature length film, 2012, NR, 90 minutes, thriller, mystery, crime.
2. IMDB: 6.8/10.0 from 287 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: no results at all.
4. Netflix: 3.5/5.0 from 87,447 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Diego Velasco.
6. Starring: Missy Peregrym as Chloe Jocelyn, Kick Gurry as Chase 'Rabbit' Rosen, Manny Montana as Frank Parker, Olivier Martinez as Gustav Dobreff,


2. Setup and Plot
1. Chloe works for the FBI in counter-cyber-crime.  Cool.  Gustav, an old enemy, sets her up as the one who spreads a virus.


2. Chloe breaks out of detention, and springs Rabbit (hacker whom she had caught before) from jail.  She enlists her former partner, Frank.  Gustav hates Chloe for posing as his daughter to get him in jail.


3. As the movie proceeds, the stakes for Chloe keep getting higher in terms of possible long-term losses.  First her reputation, then her liberty, then her mother's life, and finally something worse: all could be lost, unless victory is snatched from the jaws of defeat.


4. Will Chloe and her unlikely friends come through for the good of the world?  Are they able to defeat the mastermind Gustav?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Lack of chemistry and a weak script doom this thriller.
2. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 The camera/CGI mix worked well for a while, but toward the end, shaky cam plus poor and ancient graphics (UNIX command shell screens???) were a huge let down.


2. Sound: 5/10 The music over the final credits was good.


3. Acting: 2/10 The less said, the better.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 A story does get told, but the linkage between plot points breaks all too often.  A thriller needs to sell the idea that the stakes are high and the protagonists might be up to the tasks at hand.  This was not accomplished.

20140713: Animation Review--Marksmen

Marksmen

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American animated television mini-series, 2013, NR, 85 minutes, action, animation.
2. IMDB: Under 5 ratings.  Estimated budget, 500,000 USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: no records at all.
4. Netflix: 2.2/5.0 from 3,253 audience ratings.
5. Written and directed by: Michael Benaroya.
6. Voice actors: Bruce Barker, Tom Kennedy.


2. Setup and Plot
1. A post-apocalyptic war breaks out between two cities (New San Diego and Lone Star, TX) following the collapse of the old US government.


2. New San Diego has some high tech, drones, satellites (the few remaining), and uses solar for energy.  Lone Star uses oil and guns.  Lone Star appears to be running out of oil, and so decides to conquer NSD.


3. Lone Star's treachery gains them an early advantage, but NSD's tech superiority catches them up.  Maintenance problems (post apocalypse, after all) foul up both sides.


4. Who comes out on top, or do both sides lose?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Poor animation meets Pyrrhic victory in post-apocalyptic Southwest.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Art/Animation: 2/10 Horrible.  Panning over still layers with clumsy assembly.  Character faces never move.  Uninteresting, uninspired, ugly, and primitive.


2. Sound: 4/10 Sometimes adds to the story.


3. Voice Acting: 4/10  Some of it was OK, but most was not worth listening to.


4. Story: 2/10 A good 8 minutes of story stretched well past breaking to 85 minutes.  Fighting, betrayal, destroy scarce resources, repeat.

20140714: Fantasy Review--Prisoners of the Sun

Prisoners of the Sun

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American/German live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 89 minutes, fantasy.
2. IMDB: 3.6/10.0 from 464 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 18 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' and 0% liked it from 3 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Roger Christian.
5. Starring: John Rhys-Davies as Prof. Hayden Masterton, David Charvet as Doug Adler, Carmen Chaplin as Sarah Masterton/Princess Amanphur, Emily Holmes as Claire Becket, Nick Moran as Adam Prime, Michael Higgs as Peter Levitz, Joss Ackland as Prof. Mendella, Gulshan Grover as Rohit.


2. Setup and Plot
1. We start from an 'ancient astronaut' theory.  The 'Osiris' were (plural) a group of space faring aliens who wished to overtake Earth in ancient Egypt.  A cunning pharaoh put them down and imprisoned them.  He locked them beneath a pyramid.  This includes an elusive key.  Every 5000 years, the Osiris can contact home and get re-inforcements.  That time is about up again.


2. The key surfaces on the black market.  Professors Masterton and Mendella seek to find the key and unlock the secrets.  Peter Levitz gets the key first and frames Masterton for murder, so we have a good start in intrigue and conflict.  Levitz is looking for treasure, Masterton is looking for knowledge, Adler replaces Mendella and does not seem up to the job at first.  The ancient forces in the pyramid have their own motives.  Sarah seems to have some destiny to fulfill.


3. The pyramid is breached by Masterton's team, which is now swollen with local representatives and members of the military.  The entrance is marked with a curse, and nearby within there are dangerous insects.  That, of course, is not all, and more deaths occur.  Even worse, they are soon sealed in the tomb.  Adler and Rohit take point on finding the path for the group.  They make their way to Princess Amanphur's tomb.  At the bottom of this, they apply the key.


4. Then the path goes on, and the real discoveries start.  There is an active mummy 'guardian' in the tomb.  Masterton has unannounced plans for his daughter.  There are working alien artifacts deep in the tomb as the 5000 year cycle comes to an end.


5. Will Masterton's intentions come into fruition, or will the masterstroke of the pharaoh 5000 years before hold sway?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary:  Modern archaeology seeks out ancient astronauts.
2. Two stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 The camera work is rather nice.  The related CGI was another matter; some was OK, but other parts were just poor.


2. Sound: 6/10  Fairly good, but could have added more to the overall feeling of suspense or danger.


3. Acting: 4/10 David Charvet (Baywatch) as a PhD?  Give me a break!  Carmen Chaplin was moderately good.


4. Screenplay: 3/10 This was old, tired, recycled material with a layer of not impressive new CGI.  The ending was abrupt, and the exposition of motivations was too slim.

20140712: SciFi Review--Asteroid vs Earth

Asteroid vs Earth

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2014, NR, 91 minutes, scifi, action, adventure.
2. IMDB: 3.2/10.0 from 137 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No Critic Reviews,' and no audience ratings either.
4. Directed by: Christopher Ray.
5. Starring: Tia Carrere as Marissa Knox, Robert Davi as General Masterson, Tim Russ as Captain Rogers, Jason Brooks as Lt. Commander Chase Seward, Darin Cooper as Chief of the Boat (COB), Charles Byun as  Kitsias.


2. Setup and Plot
1. A group of enormous asteroids heads toward earth.  The young intern Kitsias does some projections, and discovers a projected impact in around ten days that will end life of earth.  Kitsias determines that deflecting the asteroids will fail, while moving the earth from its current orbit might succeed.


2. The US military, led by General Masterson, dragoons Marissa Knox, an expert in the Yap Trench, to implement Kitsias' plan.  USS Polk takes her toward the trench, but the submarine encounters all sorts of difficulties, most of which were caused by the crew itself.


3. Masterson continues to work with European and Russian space representatives to monitor how the deflection attempt is going.  The short answer is that it made things worse than before.


4. Just how bad do things get before the ultimate crisis?  Will anyone survive it?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Another bad disaster film from Asylum.
2. One stars of five


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 5/10 The camera work was excellent, but the CGI sucked rocks.


2. Sound: 5/10 Neither good nor bad, nor interesting, nor relevant.


3. Acting: 4/10 I still like Tia Carrere and Robert Davi, but what were they doing with these other actors?


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Very discouraging in its depth of badness.  Much of the dialog as nonsensical, and the internal contradictions seemed endless.  Aside from those two discouraging issues, the film was not engaging.

20140710: Action Review--SAGA: Curse of the Shadow

SAGA: Curse of the Shadow (Curse of the Dragon Slayer)

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated , 105 minutes, action, adventure, fantasy.
2. IMDB: 4.9/10.0 from 1768 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet...' and 34% liked it from 81 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.0/5.0 from 134,953 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: John Lyde
6. Starring: Danielle Chuchran as Nemyt Akaia, Richard McWilliams as Keltus the Wanderer, Paul D. Hunt as Kullimon the Black, Adam Abram as Fangtor Bloodmoon, James C. Morris as Gyramuck/Maggut Gulbrow, Eve Mauro as Tarsa, Danny James as General Drennon, Kyle Paul as Mulgrut, James Gaisford as Kethku, Bailee Mykell Cowperthwaite as Prophetess (body), Stephanie Breinholt as Prophetess (voice), Michelle Aiden as Delorus the Mermaid, Clare Niederpruem as Mulva the Mermaid, Christel Edwards Anthony as Gipple the Mermaid.


2. Setup and Plot

1. Filmed in Utah, with lots of sand, caves, and huge rock formations.


2. Prehistory: the Gods, on some planet, at some time, have put down civilization for some reason, and killed a big portion of humanity.  The Order, led by the Prophets, tries to restore civilization, while the Shadow rises and awaits the awakening of the God of Death.  So, we have a familiar environment for swords, sorcery, battles, revenge, and conflicts on a dying world.


3. We open the narrative with a fight between the female elf bounty hunter Nemyt and the male orc thief Fangtor Bloodmoon.  Nemyt kills Fangtor, but Fangtor curses her body as she delivers the fatal blow with her sword.  The fight scenes here were absolutely terribly done.  Meanwhile, Keltus interrogates a dwarf to discover the motives of the Shadow in the current conflict.  The dwarf tells him of Kullimon's Raiders, who will deliver some artifact ('the Vessel') to the representatives of the God of Death.  Among the orcs, Mulgrut and Kullimon have a bit of a disagreement.  Kullimon loses, and Mulgrut takes leadership of the 'Horde' of ten orcs.  Oi, totally disappointing.


4. When Nemyt goes to collect her bounty reward, she is imprisoned by the local magistrate because of the Mark that Fangtor cursed her with.  Keltus, the Ambassador of the Prophetess, releases her in the hopes that she will aid him find the Bone Vessel.  On the way, they meet up with Kullimon, who has been tied up, bleeding, and left for dead by his erstwhile allies.  The absurd trio advance to get the Vessel, so that the God of Death (Goth Azul) is not awakened.


5. As they advance, they encounter difficulties, and best them, but usually with stiff prices.  When Nemyt meets Mulgrut as representative of the Shadow, things get very dicey, very fast.  The real representative of the Shadow appears, and the hopes of Goth Azul being kept contained slip away.


6. Will the trio reverse the disaster at hand?


3. Conclusions
1. Blood on the camera lens: nonsense.  The fight choreography could have been better.
2. One line summary: Middling good, nicely shot, low-budget fantasy adventure tale.
3. Seven of ten.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Rather good for this sort of tale.  The costumes were a bit better than I expected, at least here and there.


2. Sound: 10/10 Amazingly good.  I seldom experience fantasy films with such excellent musical accompaniment.


3. Acting: 6/10 The actors who play the three protagonists hit their marks and speak their lines.  However, the orc Horde was about as convincing as the Keystone Kops.


4. Screenplay: 6/10 A story was told, and the plot moves along, but the dialog is stilted past the point of believability.   Orcs taking the higher moral stances?  An orc leader singing like he was on Wagon Train?  An orc sounding like Yoda?

20140705: Action Review--Captain America the First Avenger

Captain America: the First Avenger

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, rated PG13, 124 minutes, action, sci-fi.
2. IMDB: 6.8/10.0 from 304,699 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 140 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 79% on the meter; 73% liked it from 175,646 audience ratings.
4. I watched this on FX (cable television), complete with commercials, instead of my more usual online streaming.
5. Directed by: Joe Johnston.
6. Starring: Chris Evans as Captain America/Steve Rogers, Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter, Tommy Lee Jones as Colonel Chester Phillips, Hugo Weaving as Johann Schmidt/Red Skull, Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark, Stanley Tucci as Dr. Abraham Erskine.


2. Setup and Plot

1. Set in 1942, first in the eastern USA, then in the European theatre of World War II, Allies versus Nazis.  The scrawny and sickly Steve Rogers tries to enlist in the military so as to go to war in Europe.  He gets rejected repeatedly.  Dr. Erskine notices his moxie, however, and arranges for him to be inducted anyway for purposes of human experimentation.  The experiment works, and the CGI Steve Rogers gets 'changed' into the real-life Chris Evans.


2. The opposite number to Dr. Erskine and his group is HYDRA, a Nazi group that does weapons research, among other things.  HYDRA assassinates Dr. Erskine, and blows up part of his laboratory.  Steve deals with the assassin successfully, and gains public notoriety.  Colonel Phillips is impressed, but only mildly so.  The military recruits Steve to do USO shows with female singer/dancers to sell war bonds.  Steve is good at this, but it does not get him much respect.


3. At one point, Steve goes AWOL and brings about the liberating of 400 prisoners.  Steve gets a more real wartime role, plus special equipment from Howard Stark, the predecessor of Tony Stark.  Steve gains more respect with Colonel Phillips and other Allied commanders.


4. Steve and his personal allies take on HYDRA, which breaks away from the Nazis.  How will that turn out?  Will Steve stop HYDRA's direct attack on the USA?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: The ultra-capable first Avenger is constructed from an Army reject.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 8/10 Well-shot for the most part, though the CGI on the early Steve Rogers was pretty bad.


2. Sound: 8/10 No particular problems.


3. Acting: 7/10 I liked Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci.  Chris Evans was better by far than he was in Fantastic Four.


4. Screenplay: 9/10 Exposition of motivation and logical progression of plot were well-constructed for an action/scifi piece.

20140624: Horror Review--Paranormal Asylum

Paranormal Asylum: the Revenge of Typhoid Mary

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 88 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 2.3/10.0 from 325 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' and 60% liked it from 105 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.7/5.0 from 120,779 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Nimrod Zalmanowitz
6. Starring: Nathan Spiteri as Andy, Cameron Chiusano as Dan, Laura Gilreath as Michelle, Rosalind Ashford as Ghost, Jenny Lee Mitchell as Typhoid Mary, Paul Bright as Dr. Brooks, Boomer Tibbs as George Sheffield, Aaron Mathias as Mark Goodwin, Grace Evans as Evelin.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Dan, Andy, and Michelle (Andy's girlfriend), decide to make a documentary about the real-life Typhoid Mary, and the final months of her life.  They find some of the places where she stayed and met descendents of some of the people who knew her.  They set up equipment to record events.


2. Michelle, while alone, tries a seance, and this does not go well.  Dan keeps seeing ghostly figures.  At least at first Andy does not see them.


3. There's a thread about the origin of modern psychotropic drugs; the film makers pursue this for their documentary.  There is a thread about Michelle being possessed, and the consequences of this.


4. Will any of the protagonists survive this encounter?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Poor ghost story, poor as found film, poor as paranormal.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 2/10 There were handheld problems here and there.  The fakery with the ghosts was just plain bad, and there was so much of it.  Even the day light 'normal' scenes were de-colorized to look faked.


2. Sound: 3/10 Annoying from beginning to end.  It sounds dubbed.


3. Acting: 0/10


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Hm, the usual for this type of film: no resolution in any thread.  No 'moving on' for any of the ghosts, or whatever they are.  No toe hold for logic or rational processes.  Lack of exposition of motivations.  No humour of any sort.

20140623: Review--Codependent Lesbian Space Alien

Codependent Lesbian Space Alien Seeks Same

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2011, unrated, 76 minutes.  Comedy.  Fail.
2. IMDB: 5.9/10.0 from 158 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 89% on the meter; 62% liked it from 491 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.2/5.0 from 1,369 audience ratings.
5. Written, directed, produced by: Madeleine Olnek.
6. Starring: Lisa Haas as Jane, Susan Zeigler as Zoinx, Dennis Davis as Senior Agent, Alex Karpovsky as Rookie Agent, Jackie Monahan as Zylar, Cynthia Kaplan as Barr.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Inhabitants of an alien planet decide that their ozone depletion can only be solved by one or two of their race having their hearts broken.  Zoinx and Zylar are dispatched to Earth to have their hearts broken.  Zoinx meets Jane and eventually gets to know her somewhat.


2. Two men-in-black types observe this process, and attempt to blur the memories of any sightings.  It seems, though, that no intervention is needed; nobody notices anything in this film.


3. Jokes are made about new foods: alcoholic beverages, coffee, desserts.  Jokes are made about culture clashes.  All jokes failed.


4. The aliens go home by means that challenge the lower bounds of all SFX.  This was one of the worst SFX films ever made.  In the right hands, that might have been funny.


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Seventy-six minutes of not funny.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 2/10 Greyscale, so-so in quality.  The quality dropped off when the camera work switched to shaky cam.


2. Sound: 2/10 Irritating electronic music.  Irritating alien voices.  Irritating background rap music.


3. Acting: 0/10


4. Screenplay: 0/10 Nothing comedic, nothing engaging, nothing informative, nothing touching.

20140622: Animation Review--Vampire Bund

Dance in the Vampire Bund

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Japanese animated episodic television series, 2010, rated TV-MA, animation, action, drama. Twelve episodes, 24 minutes each.
2. IMDB: 7.0/10.0 from 271 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: no results, at all.
4. Netflix: 3.9/5.0 from 370,639 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Akiyuki Shinbo.
6. Starring: Monica Rial as Mina Tepesh, Alpha Lagrange as Akira Kobaragi.  For much more detail, see wikipedia.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Take the TV-MA rating seriously.


2. Mina Tepesh presents herself as the queen of contemporary vampires.  She appeals on television for a Vampire Bund, that is, real estate where vampires can be free to be vampires.  As a being who has had a long life, and who understands things like compound interest and capital appreciation, Mina's personal and family wealth is enormous.  She uses this to pressure legislators to go along with her plans.


3. There are humans who are in favour of the proposed Bund, and those who are opposed to it.  Similarly, there are vampires in favour, and vampires against the proposal.  This goes back and forth throughout the series.


4. Mina has a connection with Akira, a teenaged human.  Akira is also a werewolf, and sometime earlier in his life he vowed to protect Mina as best he could.  About the time Akira took his vow, he also lost a big chunk of his memory.


5. So, the series is about the conflicts mentioned above, about Akira protecting Mina, and about Akira regaining his memory.  Toward the end of the series, the elders of three ruling vampire clans descend upon Mina, and force her to own up to a promise she made to the clans in the past.


6. As the series draws to a close, everything is revisited, and everything cast into doubt.  The clan leaders set up a fight between Akira and their own chosen assassins.  If Akira wins, Mina can continue; if not, they force her into submission about rule of the vampires.


7. So how does this pan out?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Vampires seek a homeland and acceptance in animated Japan.
2. Seven of ten.


4. Scores
1. Art/Animation: 7/10 Quite a bit of the art was fabulous; some was a bit too abstract and weird.


2. Sound: 6/10 Typical action stuff, but neither great nor poor.


3. Voice Acting: 8/10 No particular problems.  Often good, sometimes a little screechy.


4. Story: 6/10 There are a number of issues, mostly about motivation.  Just what was the reason that Akira is so devoted to Mina?  The suggestion that Mina might not be the 'real' vampire queen was not resolved.  The reference to cloning was interesting, but I would have liked to have seen more detail about that.  The strong, repeated statements that there was another queen candidate in the wings was never quite brought to fruition.  The comedy vignettes about the maids shown after the credits were usually pretty funny.

20140621: Horror Review--Sin Reaper

Sin Reaper

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. German live action feature length film, 2012, rated R, 94 minutes, horror.
2. IMDB: 3.1/10.0 from 151 audience ratings. Estimated budget, 1.2 million euros.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No reviews yet,' and 25% liked it from 5 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.5/5.0 from 7,726 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Sebastian Bartolitius.
6. Starring: Helen Mutch as Samantha Walker, Lance Henriksen as Dr. Douglas Hoffman, Hazuki Kato as Jenny Kaylin, Patrick J. Thomas as Sasha Jones, Paulina Bachmann as Melanie Pregler, Andrew James Porter as R. J. Williams, Alexander Kirsch as Daniel Yulin.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film opens to a dream, then the writing down of the dream, then the discussion of the dream between the young woman Helen, and her analyst, Dr. Hoffman.  Helen also does automatic drawing now and then, including after vivid dream.  The opening dream concerned a young woman in the time of the Crusades being murdered by a Knight's Templar in armour.  Helen's discussions with Hoffman are as vague and inconclusive as one might expect from a man who prescribes mind-numbing drugs.


2. One thing definite from Hoffman was a set of photographs that match some of Helen's automatic drawings.  Based on this match, Helen accepts tickets from Hoffman to travel to the castle depicted in the photographs.  Hoffman's hope is that Helen finds the sources of Helen's dreams.


3. The castle that Helen seeks has become a museum maintained by Yulin and a colleague.  Yulin kicks out Helen, whose curiosity is instantly engaged that much more.  She hires some of the locals to break into the place.  As it turns out, the museum is in financial troubles, and insurance fraud is contemplated to bail out the museum.  Helen's escapade gets resistance from those about to commit the fraud.


4. Just to tie up the whole story, someone dresses up in Templar armour (and weapon, the 'sin reaper') from the museum exhibits and starts killing people involved in the double break in.  So, will an explanation emerge from the carnage of the opening sequence?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Bad dubbing, bad screenplay, neither scary nor suspenseful.
2. One star of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 Some of it is fine, a lot of it is just plain poorly done, particularly the night photography.


2. Sound: 3/10 The voice track to the audio sucked rocks.  Lance Henriksen's voice and accent were fine, for instance, but not so much in sync with the movements of his face.  The accents were to shudder at.  Helen was supposedly an American, but her accent was broad and English.  The English sub-titles for the German sentences looked more or less OK, but the dubbed English for the German speakers was between unintentionally humourous and stupid.


3. Acting: 2/10 Lance Henriksen's performance was OK, but the lip-sync editing failure rather spoiled that.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Oh, goodness.  The three threads I noted did not mesh up all that well.  The dream of a past life seemed at first just the delusions of an ill mind.  The unification at the end seemed a bit weak.  With a good director at the helm, this should have been chilling or hard-core scary.  As it was, it seemed boring and tedious; I could barely wait for the film to end.  The thread of a troubled mind trying to be made healthy was just lost.  The thread of insurance fraud seemed a red herring at best, and seemed to have little to do the rest of the film.

20140617: Comedy Review--Grand Budapest Hotel

Grand Budapest Hotel

1. Fundamentals, reception.

1. American/German live action feature length film, 2014, PG13, 100 minutes, comedy.
2. IMDB: 8.3/10.0 from 90,986 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 92% on the meter; 89% liked it from 63,065 audience ratings.
4. I watched this on iTunes, 20140617.
5. Directed by: Wes Anderson.
6. Starring: Ralph Fiennes as M. Gustave H., F. Murray Abraham as the elder Zero (Mr. Moustafa), Adrien Brody as Dmitri, Willem Dafoe as Jopling, Jeff Goldbloom as Deputy Kovacs, Harvey Keitel as Ludwig, Jude Law as Young Writer, Bill Murray as M. Ivan, Edward Norton as Henckels, Saoirse Ronan as Agatha, Jason Schwartzman as M. Jean, Lea Seydoux as Clothilde, Tilde Swinton as Madame D., Tom Wilkinson as Author, Owen Wilson as M. Chuck, Tony Revolori as Zero.


2. Setup and Plot

1. We start the film with an Author, in his later years, doing a video recording.  He then promises to tell the audience how he came to know a particular story.


2. We switch back to 1968, when the Young Writer was staying at the Grand Budapest Hotel, which was in its fading, twilight years.  The Young Writer meets Mr. Moustafa, who tells him the story of how he came to own the Grand Budapest Hotel.


3. We switch back to 1932; the new Lobby Boy (Zero) begins his tutelage with M. Gustave.  Gustave likes older, rich, blonde women, and he romances them.  In particular, Madame D. is quite fond of him.  She is on a trip, and has a presentiment of death.  Sure enough, she dies in the town where she traveled to.  Gustave and Zero hurry to see her, and are there in time to hear the reading of the will.  The surprise is that she willed the priceless painting 'Boy with Apple' to Gustave.  The family is furious, and Gustave is accused of her murder, but not before Zero and he secreted the painting.


4. Mr. Moustafa pauses to describe his relationship to Agatha, who works in the bakery of the hotel.  Agatha helps in the escape of Mr. Gustave.  Then Moustafa returns to the investigation of Madame D's death, and the process of bringing the probate to a legally sound close.


5. Mr. Gustave, with the aid of Zero and four fellow prisoners, escapes prison.  Gustave reaches for help from his fellow concierge friends.


6. In the counter-theme, Dmitri and his cohort Jopling, pursue Gustave for the sake of the painting, mostly.


7. Will anyone find Serge, supposedly the real culprit in the death of Madame D. ?   Do we get to know how Zero gets enough money to buy the Grand Budapest?  Will Zero and Agatha ever get together legally?  What will become of Dmitri and Jopling?  Will Henckles re-capture Gustave or Zero?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Funny, touching, bizarre, and well worth the watch.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores

1. Cinematography: 10/10 Fine job.


2. Sound: 10/10 Well done.  Sometimes wildly inappropriate but usually good for a laugh or two.


3. Acting: 10/10  What a cast!  Great jobs by most involved.  No bad performances.


4. Screenplay: 6/10 The main plot is so stupid it is beyond belief, but one assumes that was on purpose.  I got several belly laughs, dozens of smiles, and double handful of chuckles.

20140615: Drama Review--Monuments Men

Monuments Men

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American/German live action feature length film, 2014, PG13, 118 minutes, drama.
2. IMDB: 6.1/10.0 from 47,192 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 70 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 32% on the meter; 46% liked it from 64,600 audience ratings.
4. I watched this on iTunes streaming.
5. Written and directed by: George Clooney.
6. Starring: George Clooney as Frank Stokes, Matt Damon as James Granger, Bill Murray as Richard Campbell, John Goodman as Walter Garfield, Cate Blanchett as Claire Simone, Jean Dujardin as Jean Claude Clermont, Hugh Bonneville as Donald Jeffries, Bob Balaban as Preston Savitz, Dmitri Leonidas as Sam Epstein, Justus von Dohnanyi as Viktor Stahl, Holger Handke as Colonel Wegner.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Frank convinces James, Richard, John, Jean Claude, and Donald to form the Monuments Men, a group dedicated to finding art looted by the Nazis and returning it, if possible, to rightful owners.  Most of them are middle-aged, but have to go through boot camp.  They are not instantly respected by regular army.


2. There are several detective stories to follow, and there are losses in war.  They find a number of salt mines filled with art works.  The Nazis also destroy a good bit of it, and the Russians 'liberate' a fair chunk of it themselves.  Their support from the military grows when they discover a huge cache of gold bullion.


3. Some of their last finds were of sculpture, which they find in a castle in Germany.  James' interactions with Claire, a combination collaborator, resistance fighter, art historian, and cataloger, yield a manifest that helps them later on.


4. How much of the obstruction by the Nazis and the Russians can they overcome?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Beautiful story of recovering art from Nazi looting in WWII.
2. Five stars of five.


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


2. Sound: 8/10 Good to excellent.


3. Acting: 10/10 Quite good performances by a stellar cast.


4. Screenplay: 10/10 Nice story telling.

20140614: Action Review--Company of Heroes

Company of Heroes

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, rated R, 100 minutes, action, drama.
2. IMDB: 5.1/10.0 from 3,760 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No Reviews Yet,' and 38% liked it from 417 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 3.7/5.0 from 204,392 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Don Michael Paul.
6. Starring: Tom Sizemore as Dean Ranson, Chad Michael Collins as Nate Burroughs, Vinnie Jones as Brent Willoughby, Neal McDonough as Lt. Joe Conti, Dmitri Diatchenko as Ivan Pozarski, Juergen Prochnow as Luca Gruenewald.


2. Setup and Plot
1. The film opens in World War II, European theatre, December of 1944, Belgium in particular.  On a routine patrol, a squad loses their sniper to German sniper fire.  When they return to base, they get a cake walk assignment to deliver Christmas hams to a forward operating position.  The Allied forces are confident; Belgium was taken months ago.


2. The bigger group taking the hams includes Dean Ranson, who used to be a lieutenant before his squad got wiped out in fifteen minutes.  Now he's a cook.  Conti is the lieutenant in charge.  Nate, who killed the German sniper in the first scene, becomes Conti's new sniper.  The hams and several men are soon lost to a German attack featuring mortar fire, snipers, and machine guns.  Nate proves himself again.


3. The protagonists battle on, make new allies along the way, and encounter a number of tough fights.  They work with Willoughby, a British agent, and Pozarski, who claims to be a Polish prisoner of the Nazis.  Of course, he's not.  As the film continues, the small group takes on a mission for the OSS, which involved a Nazi 'super weapon' under development, and the rescue of one of its developers, Dr. Gruenewald.


4. Will they be able to stop the use of the super weapon and rescue Dr. Gruewald?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Mostly solid piece on the Battle of the Bulge toward the end of WWII.
2. Three stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 6/10 Lens flare.  Was Jar Jar Abrams about?  Sloppy, bumpy, jumpy shaky cam work was disruptive when it appeared.  The CGI for the WWII aircraft was sometimes noticeably bad.


2. Sound: 8/10 Nice and rich.  Music was a bit florid, though.


3. Acting: 7/10 Reasonably good.  I liked Tom Sizemore's earthy work, Chad Collins' performance, and the presence of Vinnie Jones.


4. Screenplay: 5/10 The shift from competent low-level infantry work to high-level spying in enemy territory was well over the top.  The segment of getting the bomb before the Nazis use it was a bit more engaging, but not all that believable either.  The cliche ending pieces (you have done us a great service, but you do not get to talk about it, plus visiting the father's grave) were well done but still cliches.

20140613: Horror Review--World War Z

World War Z

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action feature length film, 2013, UR, 122 minutes (long cut), horror, zombies.
2. IMDB: 7.1/10.0 from 300,721 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 190 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 67% on the meter; 73% liked it from 295,125 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Marc Forster.
5. Starring: Brad Pitt as Gerry Lane, Mireille Enos as Karin Lane, Daniella Kertesz as Segen, James Badge Dale as Captain Speke, Ludi Boeken as Jurgen Warmbrunn, Matthew Fox as parajumper, Sterling Jerins as Constance Lane, Abigail Hargrove as Rachel Lane, Fana Mokoena as Thierry Umutoni.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Parents Gerry and Mireille have a nice life, and the day starts normally.  While taking their two daughters Constance and Abigail to school, the normal seeming traffic jam mutates into a full-blown disaster.  They encounter full-fledged zombies who are very fast and very strong.  The time interval between a zombie's bite and the victim turning seems to be about 12 seconds.


2. Gerry is a former UN investigator/facilitator who got people or information out of hotspots around the world, often with help from US Special Forces of one sort or another.  So the US/UN extracts him and his family after he makes his way to New Jersey.  The escape from the zombies is close, and young Tomas helps them in the final steps.  Tomas gets extracted with Gerry's family.


3. Gerry is sent to North Korea with an epidemiologist.  This does not go well, but Gerry does meet a CIA agent who gives him the next clue: the Israelis seem to be succeeding in repelling the zombies.  So Gerry and the elite military go to Israel.  On the way, they see a nuclear explosion in the far distance, and Gerry's contact with Karin is broken by the EMP.


4. Israel's wall worked, more or less, but they did not understand that zombies are attracted by noise.  Celebratory songs amplified by a PA system incite the zombies to scale the 45 foot walls, one undead body over another.  Gerry does learn that zombies were detected in India well before the incidents in Korea.  He heads to India, even though he has been told in no uncertain terms that India is a 'black hole' in terms of information flux.  Gerry gets on the literal last plane out of Israel.  He loses his UN escort, but gains Segen, an Israeli soldier whose hand he cut off...to save her from becoming a zombie.


5. Gerry takes the Belarus flight that he is on to the last remaining airport open, which is in Cardiff, Wales, UK.  Unfortunately, a zombie hid himself on the plane's lavatory, and soon starts infecting people.  Gerry gets a new set of difficulties, including a plane crash and a metal spike through his gut.  He and Segen trudge forward.


6. Will Gerry make it to the WHO research facility?  Will the information, which he has expressed to no one, come to light, and be put to good use?  Will his family be safe?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Smart plot about fast zombies that convert humans quickly.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Mostly excellent, though some of the dark fight scenes were


2. Sound: 8/10 No problems; though it might have been more effective for creepiness and suspense.


3. Acting: 10/10 Excellent.


4. Screenplay: 9/10 I liked it: action, suspense, quick thinking in difficult circumstances, and a plot that moved right along.  The final segments, concerning the workaround to the apocalypse, were quite fine.

20140611: SciFi Review--Splice

Splice

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Canadian/French live action feature length film, 2009, rated R, 104 minutes, horror, sci-fi.
2. IMDB: 5.8/10.0 from 68,173 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 26 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 74% on the meter; 37% liked it from 250,630 audience ratings.
4. I saw this film on the Syfy network, instead of my usual sources.  This took 150 minutes.
5. Directed by Vincenzo Natali, screenplay by Vincenzo Natali and Antoinette Terry.
6. Starring: Adrian Brody as Clive Nicoli, Sarah Polley as Elsa Kast, Delphine Chaneac as Dren, Brandon McGibbon as Gavin Nicoli, Simona Maicanescu as Joan Chorot, David Hewlett as William Barlow.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Clive and Elsa have good success as gene splicers, and have produced two low level creatures, Fred and Ginger.  All seems good at the beginning of the film.


2. Joan, the leader of the company supporting their research, is pleased with their results to date.  However, she needs (in the business sense) their research to take a different trajectory that will yield profits almost immediately.  This direction is a bit boring scientifically, but will help the corporation's bottom line.


3. Clive and Elsa are not openly insubordinate, but decide to pursue their desired research, which is to create a higher order pair than Fred and Ginger.  While discussing having children one night, the couple get an alarm message from their lab.  They rush over to find that the their experiment has grown at a much faster rate than expected.  The living mass is in danger of dying.  While attempting to save it, Elsa gets bitten.  The experiment is saved, but the pair see that they have to go into full secrecy mode.


4. As the spliced together being grows, their project manager, Barlow, orders their lab re-purposed to be used for research for Joan's new directive.  Clive and Elsa move the creature to a basement area that is little used.  As time moves on, Barlow has this area re-purposed as well, and the creature is moved to the farm where Elsa grew up.  By this time, the creature can walk upright, has learned to spell a bit, and has shown itself to be amphibious.  Elsa names it 'Dren' since the creature had used scrabble tiles to call her a nerd.


5. While the pair deal with Dren's growing up, Joan needs a demo for her investors.  She trots out her A-team, Clive and Elsa, who hope to show the usual pleasant antics of Fred and Ginger.  Clive's brother Gavin has been caring for Fred and Ginger while Clive and Elsa have been absorbed with Dren.  Gavin learns of Dren when he was following his brother; she almost kills him.  Gavin misses that Ginger had changed sex, female to male, before the demo, which is an absolute disaster.


6. Joan has angry investors on her hands, while Barlow is enraged at lack of results. Meanwhile, Clive and Elsa are still knee-deep in dealing with the growing Dren, who is still female.


7. The pair face dilemmas.  Is Dren an experiment, or is she their child?  Moving to the farm brings up all sorts of memories of mother-daughter interactions in Elsa; this creates issues with Dren.  They have invested all sorts of time in Dren, but this is not the work requested.  Barlow grows suspicious, and will eventually sniff things out.  What they have done is revolutionary, but also illegal.  Should they present it anyway? 


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Illegal research brings a world of problems.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 7/10 Mostly fine, but quite a few sections were just too dark to make anything out.


2. Sound: 8/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 9/10 I liked the performances of all the six primary actors.


4. Screenplay: 9/10 There are quite a number of stupid decisions made by the protagonists.  On the other hand, these decisions drive the plot.  The many moral quandaries evoked were interesting to watch unfold.  The ending was one of the most fitting I've seen in a while.

20140610: Horror Review--The Returned

The Returned

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. Spanish/Canadian live action feature length film, 2013, NR, 97 minutes, horror, thriller, zombies.
2. IMDB: 5.8/10.0 from 3,043 audience ratings.  Estimated budget, 5 million USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 58% on the meter; 38% liked it from 483 audience ratings.
4. Directed by: Manuel Carballo.
5. Starring: Emily Hampshire as Kate, Kris Holden-Reid as Alex, Shawn Doyle as Jacob, Claudia Bassols as Amber, Barry Flatman as Hospital Chief, Melina Matthews as Eve.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Twenty years after the zombie apocalypse, there is an edgy steady state.  There is a treatment that holds the zombie virus in check, but it is not a cure.  It needs to be taken everyday, roughly speaking.  The inevitable question is, will the supply give out?


2. So we have another film about the politics of scarcity.  There are anti-zombie protesters, and pro-zombie protesters.  There are political factions to go along with the protesters (or perhaps the other way around).  Even worse, there are groups in the two factions willing to kill to achieve their goals.


3. The mechanism for making the treatment comes from the bodies of recently deceased Returned individuals (those who got the virus, but got the treatment in time).  Since the program became more successful, fewer deaths have occurred among the returned.  Hence the success of the program undermines its continuance.  In another thread, a fully synthetic alternate treatment is being developed.  The problem is, it has not been developed quickly enough to take up the failure of the original program.


4. The film follows Kate, a physician who helps the Returned, and her husband Alex, who is secretly one of the Returned.  A group breaks into the hospital, kills many of the Returned, and steals the database of the names, addresses, and contact information of a large number of the Returned.  This puts Alex in danger.


5. As the supply of treatments fails, Kate and Alex face many challenges to preserve Alex's life and to stay out of military prison camps.  Will they succeed?  Will the new treatments be perfected in time?


3. Conclusions
1. One line summary: Well-written thriller about containing the zombie apocalypse.
2. Four stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 9/10 Very nice camera work.


2. Sound: 8/10 No problems.


3. Acting: 9/10 Good performances all around, especially from Kris Holden-Reid and Emily Hampshire.


4. Screenplay: 8/10 Well-written, with good pacing for a thriller; both thoughtful and gut-wrenching.  This is one of the best zombie films I have seen.