20160417: Comedy Review--The Big Short

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deutschebank meets FrontPoint

The Three Acts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistics:

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

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

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

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

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

Final Rating: 8/10

20160417: YA Review--Scorch Trials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

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

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

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

One line summary: YA group struggles to avoid enslavement

Statistics:

Cinematography: 9/10 Lots of good visuals.

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

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

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

Final Rating: 6/10

20160404: Drama Review--Silver Linings Playbook

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

Genres: Drama   Country of origin: USA.

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

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

image courtesy of The Movie Database

The Three Acts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One line summary: Vastly overrated drivel.

Statistics:

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

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

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

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

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

Final rating: 4/10  OK, barely. 

Pre-emptive considerations.

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

20160318: RomCom Review--Must Love Dogs

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

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

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

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

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One line summary: Pleasant feel-good romantic comedy.

Statistics:

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

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

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

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

Final rating: 8/10

20160316: Horror Review--Hangar 10

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

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

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

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

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

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

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

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

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

Resolution: Will the aliens get them?

One line summary: Look for gold, find aliens.

Statistics:

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

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

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

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

Final rating: 1/10

Spoiler alert:

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

20160315: Thriller Review--The Traveler

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

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

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

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

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One line summary: Cops pay for guilty secret.

Statistics:

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

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

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

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

Final rating: 4/10

Elimination order: spoiler alert

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

20160314: Comedy Review--Man Up

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

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

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

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution: Chemistry.

One line summary: Blind date with the wrong person.

Statistics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final rating: 8/10 

20160306: Animation Review--Hell and Back

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

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

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

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

image courtesy of TMDb

The Three Acts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One line summary: WTH meets WTF.

Statistics:

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

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

Voice Acting: 10/10 Full marks.

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

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

20160228: Fantasy Review--Fire City End of Days

Name: Fire City: End of Days (2015)
IMDb: link to Fire City page

Genres: Fantasy.   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Tobias Jelinek as Atum Vine,  Keely Aloña as Sara, Danielle Chuchran as Cornelia, Kimberley Leemans as Amber, Eric Edwards as Ford, Derrick L. McMillon as Andre, Kristin Minter as Jane, Harry Shum Jr as Frank, Jen Oda as Lisa, Brionne Davis as Tripp, Simon Sorrells as Mace, Pele Kizy as Helo, Bob Burns as Archie, Kathy Burns as Ruth.

Directed by: Tom Woodruff, Jr.  Written by: Michael Hayes and  Brian Lubocki.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
In a poor rental building reside humans and demons.  The humans are not aware of the demons, who feed off the misery of the humans.

On the human side, in one apartment are Frank and Lisa.  Frank has rage issues and beats up Lisa now and then.  In another apartment are 11 year old Sara, daughter of Jane.  Jane is a chronic drunk who periodically passes out before sexually satisfying live-in boyfriend Andre, who is not Sara's father.  Archie lives in a third apartment with Ruth, but treats his despair regarding his life with alcohol and Amber's attention on the side.

On the demon side, Tripp, Mace, and Helo are the same demon type and live together somewhat contentiously in one apartment.  The bulky demon Ford is older and studies 'demon science' whatever that is, and spends a lot of time trying to manufacture good luck for himself.  Cornelia lives by herself, is an 'interpreter', and has lots of paraphernalia for divination.  Amber lives alone, and feeds off the despair of men when she has sex with them.

The protagonist is Atum Vine who appears as human to the humans; to them he's the super.  The demons see him as a demon, and see him as the one who guarantees misery, or lacking that, some fresh drugs.

Delineation of conflicts:
Very early in the film, Sara runs from Andre, who traps her in the basement.  He is enraged that Jane has passed out, and threatens Sara with rape.  Vine intervenes since this might disrupt the balance.  Vine does not like the cops in his building, for one thing.

Unfortunately for the demons, the real reason that Vine intervened was that he felt compassion for Sara.  That odd change in this demon heart breaks everything.

There is a lot of consternation over this, especially after Cornelia diagnoses that Vine is the problem.  Then it hits the fan.

Resolution: Despite resistance from all other demon parties, Vine needs to create a new balance.  Will he get any help on this?

One line summary: Chaos generated by a demon with a kind heart.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 6/10 Most of the video was pretty poor, as in VHS poor.  The one exception was the long full-frontal nude scene featuring the Amber character attempting a seduction.  That was bright, well focused, and nicely framed.  Go figure.  The set design was mostly dinge and grunge, but that fit in with the demons eat despair theme early on.

Sound: 5/10 Meh.  Nothing to write home about

Acting: 6/10 The 1950s rubber suits turned me off for quite a while, but the actors' abilities shone through after a while.  The actors behind Vine, Cornelia, and Sara were especially good.  Quite a few other performances were muted by the rubber suits, though.

Screenplay: 7/10 It's hard to let go of the rubbers suits, but this was a good story otherwise nicely told.

Final rating: 6/10 The film had a much better story than the set design and costumes would indicate.  The movie is definitely not for kids.

20160227: Mystery Review--After

Name: After (2012)
IMDb: link to After page

Genres: Mystery   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Steven Strait as Freddy, Karolina Wydra as Ana.

Directed by: Ryan Smith.  Written by: Jason Parish.

The initial tableaux:
Nurse Ana and graphic novelist Freddy ride an almost deserted bus back to their common home town of Pearl.  As it turns out, both live on Canon street.  There's an accident, but both seem to wake up the next morning.  The kicker is that there is no telephone service and no other people.

Delineation of conflicts:
The protagonists have to realize that they are dead.  The two leads here are more stupid than most. Instead of being an 18 minute film, this dog lasts for 90 minutes.

This is an old horror cliche dating back at least to the Twilight Zone, the early version in black and white.  More recently, The Frozen (also 2012) did it again.

Early in their explorations of Pearl and environs, they see a storm that surrounds the town on all sides.  It moves in at 0.08 miles per hour, so they have about two or three days total.  Attempts to penetrate the slow dark storm are rebuffed soundly.

Resolution: Do they find an escape?  Be sure to watch the final 3 minutes.

One line summary: Remake of a Twilight Zone episode.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 4/10 Like The Veil (2016) which I watched recently, this film is cursed by a reduced palette.  This one consists of white (not much), green, grey, black, and occasional blue.  Ugly, but matches the stupidity of the script.  At least the framing and focus were usually pretty good.

Sound: 4/10 I could hear the two actors.  The incidental music was a touch eerie, but not all that special.

Acting: 6/10 I don't recall these actors, but I thought they were good enough for the material.

Screenplay: 2/10 Why even write this?  Well, it was green lit, so it was made, and plenty of people have never seen the Twilight Zone.  The last 3 minutes were a bit of a departure, but hardly worth the first 87 which was nothing new in the least.

Final Rating: 4/10

20160227: Fantasy Review--The Taoist Wizard

Name: The Taoist Wizard [alternate title: Woo-Chi] (2009)
IMDb: link to The Taoist Wizard page

Genres: Action, Adventure, Comedy, Fantasy.   Country of origin: Republic of Korea.

Cast: Kang Dong-won as Jeon Woo-chi, Yeom Jeong-Ah as the Actress, Kim Yun-Seok as Hwa Dam, Song Young-Chang as Buddhist Monk.

Written and directed by: Dong-hun Choi.

The initial tableaux:
A short tale is told of demons being contained by a flute being played.  It was to be played for 3000 consecutive days, but the player miscounted.

So we have a comedy.

The monsters get loose and take possession of the flute.  Transfers of mastery among humans fails repeatedly.

The incomplete Tao wizard Woo-Chi causes a lot of trouble to obtain the obtain the flute.  His master saves his neck and gets the flute.  A second master, Hwa-dam, fights him for the flute, which is broken in the process.  Since it is split, perhaps the monsters will be contained.

The master of Woo-Chi is killed by Hwa-dam, but Woo-Chi is blamed for it.  He is cursed to imprisonment for 500 years, and awakens in the present.  The break occurs at 46 minutes into the 135 minute film.

We switch to current times; the monsters are present, the flute is still broken.

Delineation of conflicts:
The monsters would like to be free and remain free using the restored flute.  The guardians, or whatever, of the flute free Woo-Chi from his prison inside a painting.  He is not interested in defeating the monsters and restoring the flute.  The guardians, the Shin-shun, work on his ego, which has plenty of soft spots.  The monsters try to kill all of them to get the two pieces of the flute.

There's a subplot about a young woman whom Woo-Chi meets in the past.  He also thinks he meets her again in the present.  This was not done well at all, but got all too many minutes of screen time.

Resolution: Who cares?

One line summary: Terribly ineffective Tao wizard.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 8/10 Mostly OK.  For a relatively low-budget film, the SFX looked fine.  I wish Hollywood delivered such bang for the dollar.  The standard camera work looked good.

Sound: 8/10 The music was decidedly funnier than the dialog.

Acting: 2/10 Plus one for the actor who played Hwa-Dam; plus one for the actor who played Woo-Chi's master.  If I never see any of the others again, it will be too soon.

Screenplay: 0/10 Stealing from Naruto?  It is difficult to sustain any interest in such a story.  The tipping point for me was around 67 minutes into the film during a tremendously boring and stupidly designed fight scene.  The prolog was distressingly long, and the longer section in the present was much too long and uninteresting.

Final rating: 1/10 

20160227: Drama Review---A Picture of You

Name: A Picture of You (2013)
IMDb: link to A Picture of You page

Genres: Drama   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Jo Mei as Jen, Andrew Pang as Kyle, Teyonah Parris as Mika, Lucas Dixon as Doug, Jodi Long as Judy (mother of Jen and Kyle).

Written and directed by: J. P. Chan.    Story by: Jo Mei and J. P. Chan.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Brother Kyle and sister Jen travel from New York City to clean up details in rural Pennsylvania after the death of their mother.  Kyle and Jen are estranged at best.  Nothing goes all that smoothly as they traverse the house room by room.

Delineation of conflicts:
Kyle took care of Judy as her health declined and as his divorce from Sara was in grim stages.  Jen skipped most of that.  Kyle does not forget, and Jen basically does not care.  Kyle ends up packing all the house except the library since the self-involved Jen wants to look at every page in every book, and there are hundreds of books: Judy was a local college professor in some sort of humanities discipline.

Judy was the only Asian in many square miles of only blue-eyed Northern Europeans.  Both Kyle and Jen make the joke 'Did you just racially profile me?' when the locals (who all loved Judy) easily identify them as Judy's children.  This is tiresome after a while.  Plus there was more of that hierarchy of sort of language.

Kyle is resentful of Jen's narcissism, and does not much care for her friends.

The siblings see some quite personal photos of their mother on her computer.  First they want to keep it quiet, but then Jen gets the strong urge to find out who the other party might be.

Resolution: The brother and sister patch things up a bit, and they know a bit more about their mother.

One line summary: Relentlessly boring vanity film.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 5/10 Barely better than VHS.  Throw in bad framing and odd focusing choices, and I was ready to skip this slow, slow boat to nowhere.

Sound: 5/10 I could hear the dialog, but it often sounded hollow.  Foley was largely absent.  Mood music was next to absent, and often consisted of one instrument playing for five or so bars.

Acting: 4/10 Jo Mei's acting sucked rocks; may I never see her again.  Andrew Pang was fine.  Lucas Dixon and Teyonah Parris were reasonable, anyway.

Screenplay: 4/10 Just a tad too self-aware.  By the time the boring nonsense flowed downhill into the glorification of using weed, I was done with the film.  Throw in the weed cliches to keep the flow going downhill.  As per usual, trying to keep secrets does not usually bear good fruit.

Final rating: 4/10 Jen's narcissism.  Endless.  Pointless.

20160226: Horror Review--The Veil

Name: The Veil (2016)
IMDb: link to The Veil page

Genres: Drama   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Thomas Jane as Jim Jacobs (obvious reference to Jim Jones), Jessica Alba as Maggie Price, Lily Rabe as Sarah Hope, Jack de Sena as Christian (Maggie's brother), Shannon Woodward as Jill.

Directed by: Phil Joanou.  Written by: Robert Ben Garant.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Jim Jacobs runs a cult camp at Heaven's Veil Ranch, circa 1982.  He's a self-appointed mage who does miraculous healing and the like.  He does meditation, astral projections, telekinesis, and whatever else will inspire loyalty.  His big draw, though, is promising techniques to gain eternal life.

Yeah, right.

The trick is, one has to die first before getting the big dividend.  Indeed, every one at Heaven's Veil does die back in 1982, save for Sarah Hope.

Spin forward to the present, roughly.  Sarah Hope is recruited by Maggie Price and her brother Christian to do a documentary on the Ranch.  Maggie's father was the FBI agent in charge of investigating the Veil, and he ended up hanging himself when Maggie was three years old.

Delineation of conflicts:
As one might expect, things start to go badly soon after the film starts.

The caretaker of Heaven's Veil was not all that welcoming.  Film crew member Ed takes the group's van and kills himself by running into a tree at high speed.  The group is more than a bit isolated by distance, since they are now all on foot.

Sarah finds the more secret parts of the place, which include multiple films of the inner workings of Jim Jacobs' group.  The filmmakers hope to find out what the driving forces were behind the mass death at Heaven's Veil.  Does something or someone at the Veil want those secrets kept secret?

Resolution: The film jumped the shark around 53:00 in.  The transition from somewhat reasonable thriller to wholesale supernatural bullshit was sudden.  The turnabout at the end was well-written, but I had long since quit caring.

One line summary: Fools go where they should not.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 9/10 Early on, the visuals are odd (the palette seems to be composed of mixtures of white, green, brown, and black), but beautifully focused and framed.  As the film progresses, black comes to dominate increasingly.

Sound: 8/10 The voices of the actors are clear enough.  The music is on the subdued side, which I counted as a plus.

Acting: 5/10 Yikes.  The one and only star in the film, Thomas Jane, was in creepy mode which is one of his strengths.  Jessica Alba I could have done without; this was one more film ruined by her presence.  Lily Rabe was a bit better.  The actors who played the film crew did reasonable jobs right up to the places where the screenplay deserted them.

Screenplay: 5/10 The take on everlasting life was entertaining, but the methods of getting there were just ludicrous.  Also, in the end, it seemed like merely one more fake possession film.

Final rating: 6/10  Most of the +6 is for Thomas Jane's performance and the cinematography.

20160220: Horror Review--The Diabolical

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

Genres: Horror   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Ali Larter as Madison, Merrin Dungey as Mrs. Wallace, Patrick Fischler as Austin, Arjun Gupta as Nikolai, Joe Egender as Carl, Max Rose as Jacob, Chloe Perrin as Haley, Wilmer Calderon as Miguel, Trey Holland as Nestor.

Directed by: Alistair Legrand.  Written by: Luke Harvis,  Alistair Legrand.

Madison and Jacob

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Madison reads an article on the Internet about whether or not to file for bankruptcy.  She's interrupted by an apparition.  She calls in paranormal investigators who do find something.  However, they immediately run away and recommend that she leaves as well, without further explanation.

The father Mark passed away in the somewhat recent past. Young son Jacob is under investigation for violent behaviour.  Both kids go to camp during the day.  A large company wants to buy out Madison's mortgage.

Delineation of conflicts:
Madison needs money.  Jacob needs calm and stability.  Science teacher Nikolai wants to help Jacob learn physics, but also get inside Madison's pants.  Madison and the children want the poltergeist or ghost phenomena to stop.  Whatever is behind the phenomena wants something, but what?

Resolution: What resolution?

One line summary: Bad film on all fronts.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 3/10 The main photography was OK, but the SFX were just terrible.

Sound: 5/10 Nothing special.

Acting: 3/10 Ali Larter was reasonably good part of the time, but the other actors, not so much.

Screenplay: 0/10 Dull, beginning to end.

The dialog was often awkward.  The real bogeyman turned out to be more than a bit cliche.  The story does not seem to be able to decide what it is trying to be.  Paranormal scares?  Slasher film?  Science gone bad? Police procedural?  Time passage fouled up?

Those were problematic enough, but it was also difficult to figure where reality touches on the film.  The cops and paramedics show up after two deaths.  Do they have any effect inside the house? Is anyone held accountable? Apparently not.

How did it do in creating horror, or tension, or engagement, or even scares?  Not well at all.  The word 'Diabolical' in the title would suggest devil or demon, but there were none as far as I could see.  Perhaps the worst for me was that the film just ends without any particular resolution.

Final rating: 1/10 

20160220: SciFi Review--I'll Follow You Down

Name: I'll Follow You Down (2013)
IMDb: link to I'll Follow You Down page

Genres: Drama   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Gillian Anderson as Marika, Haley Joel Osment as Erol, Rufus Sewell as Gabriel Whyte, Victor Garber as Sal, Susanna Fournier as Grace, John Paul Ruttan as young Erol, Kiara Glasco as young Gracie.

Written and directed by: Richie Mehta.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Erol's father Gabriel leaves for a routine trip.  When Erol and Marika wait for his return at the airport, he does not arrive.  Marika and Sal search to no avail.

Twelve years pass.  Sal has done a huge amount of background work to replicate an experiment that he knew Gabriel wanted to attempt involving time travel.  Sal enlists Erol's help in finishing the details.

Delineation of conflicts:
Erol's girlfriend Grace is against the attempt, since she thinks their current life will be lost.  Sal wants Erol to continue, since Sal hopes to 'correct' the timeline.  Marika struggles with her loss.

Resolution: Supposing Erol can construct the wormhole, will he be able to convince Gabriel to alter his course?

One line summary: Young genius tries to heal his family by altering time.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 8/10 Looks good.

Sound: 8/10 Just fine.

Acting: 9/10 Sewell, Garber, Osment, and Anderson were all fine.

Screenplay: 8/10 There were a lot of nice touches, and not too many additional what ifs.

Final rating: 8/10 

20160216: Horror Review--Trace

Name: Trace (2015)
IMDb: link to Trace page

Genres: Horror   Country of origin: USA.

Cast: Nick Fink as Nick, August Roads as Duffy, Patrick Giraudi as the voice of Abigor, Samantha Lee as Rebecca, Maddie McGuire as Heather, Jesse Pepe as Parker, Sam Valentine as Jen, Jerod Meagher as Jarek, Herion Mustafaraj as Dr. Konski, Mike Capozzi as Detective Colfax, Jeremiah Benjamin as Gerold Kroft.

Directed by: Ryan Brookhart.  Written by: Jeremiah Benjamin, Mike Capozzi.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
First, the film flashes back to a Soviet research facility in the Kuril Islands, 1992.  The well-funded ongoing work concerned paranormal activity and EVP (electronic voice phenomena).  During the economic slide of the USSR, the research was officially abandoned, but a few scientists continued research while keeping to the underground parts of the facilities.  While supposedly in contact using EVP, one scientist, Victor Konski, is assailed and killed after hearing from 'Abigor.'

Second, we flash forward to Los Angeles in the current day.  Three couples plus Duffy discuss EVP after consuming a number of drinks at the audio studio run by Duffy and Nick.  They go to the basement to listen to this and that, such as the website 'Voices in Static' which mentions Abigor and Professor Konski.

Delineation of conflicts:
The fools try to recreate the calls to Abigor.  Soon enough they get a reply, plus more than they bargained for.  Can they close up this process?

Resolution:
This movie is from the 'How do I close the Hellgate?' subcategory of horror.  The resolution is about how well the remaining humans do at constructing a solution once they figure out a solution needs to be constructed.

One line summary: Open the Hellgate by EVP.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 4/10 While it is not exactly shaky cam, it does list and shimmy fairly often.  The closing credits were much better in terms of visuals than all the rest of the movie.

Sound: 4/10 In terms of voices, it was not all that good.  They seemed thin and hollow. The incidental music was not all that effective in conveying creepiness.  Again, the closing credits were better in terms of sound than all the rest of the movie.

Acting: 1/10 Abysmal.

Screenplay: 1/10 Abigor tells Nick early on "Jarek, Jen, Heather, Parker, Duffy, Nick...order of your death.  Six makes the seventh."  Well, perhaps that was a clue to stay clear, or have someone else look at the recordings, to see what was true.  That was not done.

In better films, the protagonists observe horrific events, and puzzle out their meanings.  Through the learning, they at least try to stage a successful resistance to whatever is trying to hurt or kill them.  They may fail, but at least they face their ends with greater knowledge.

In this film, there seems to be no learning.  There is only complicity with forces that are not understood, where the characters have not even tried to understand or survive.

If dying with a helpless whimper while understanding little or nothing is your thing, then this would be a great film for you.

Final rating: 1/10 

20160215: Comedy Review--What's in a Name

Name: What's in a Name? (2012)
IMDb: link to What's in a Name? page

Genres: Drama   Country of origin: France.

Cast: Patrick Bruel as Vincent, Valérie Benguigui as Élisabeth, Charles Berling as Pierre, Guillaume de Tonquedec as Claude, Judith El Zein as Anna, Françoise Fabian as Françoise.

Written and directed by: Alexandre de La Patellièrre, Matthieu Delaporte.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
The film starts in the 9th arrondissement in Paris.  Pierre and Élisabeth (called Babu by most) are hosting a small dinner party.  The daughter and son hopefully will stay asleep.  Babu's brother Vincent arrives, and draws interest in the name of his pre-natal son with his wife. Trombonist and long time family friend Claude joins the group.  Considerably later, Vincent's wife Anna arrives.

Delineation of conflicts:
Vincent's choice for the son's name is quite offensive, and a debate rages over it.  Much emotional heat is generated as a result; tempers warm more than a bit.

Later, Vincent admits that the announced name was a joke, but the hurt feelings remain.  Worse, the admission comes only after Vincent and Pierre have wounded each other with words.  The group continues skewering each other with sharp speech.

Resolution: Can the group resume their usual warm relationships?  Several harsh buried truths surface during the verbal fencing.

One line summary: Battle royale with words.

Statistics:

Cinematography: 9/10 Almost all the footage was of interior shots, and was especially well done.

Sound: 8/10 Well done, though a little minimalist.

Acting: 10/10 Fine all around.

Screenplay: 9/10 This film runs like a play: lots of dialog, well planned, well delivered, almost all in one room.  Dialog is the centre of the movie, and it is executed very well.

Final rating: 9/10 

20160215: Horror review--Suicide Club

Name: Suicide Club (2001)
IMDb: link to Suicide Club page

Genres: Horror, mystery   Country of origin: Japan.

Cast: Ryo Ishibashi as Detective Toshiharu Kuroda, Akaji Haro as Detective Murata, Masatoshi Nagase as Detective Shibusawa, Sayaki Hagiwara as Mitsuko, Takashi Nomura as Security Guard Jiro, Mai Hosho as Nurse Atsuko Sawada.

Written and directed by: Shion Sono.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux:
Fifty students jump in front of a train to their bloody deaths.   At the hospital, there is consternation over the news and the rail closures; further, there is a power outage and another death.  The detectives have many issues to sort out.  On a website, red dots seem to count the deaths.

Delineation of conflicts:
Were the deaths an accident, which would be convenient for writing them off, or were they murders, or were they something else?  Who is behind the mysterious websites?  Were the 50 youngsters from the same high school?  The police have a lot to figure out.

On the one hand, we have regular common sense.  On the other hand, we have the formation of local suicide clubs that wish to establish a new record on the total number of simultaneous deaths.  Are the cops immune to this movement?

Conformity and nihilism seem to be working together, hand in glove, but why?  Just what are those skin rolls (very long strips of human skin made of segments stitched together) about?

Resolution: One question for me was whether the film intended to show supernatural causes, or whether it stayed reality based.  If it stays reality based, will the police find the human centre of the problems?

One line summary: What's behind the group suicides?

Statistics:

Cinematography: 4/10 Blurred and soft with the VHS look, with occasional passages of shaky cam.

Sound: 7/10 I could hear the actors clearly, but required the captions and body English.  Music (teen bands, usually) and foley come and go early on.  In the second half, music is more obviously integral to the promotion of nihilism and the worship of death.  The so-so sound quality did not interfere with getting the messages across.

Acting: 6/10 The detectives have the most screen time.  Fortunately, most of them know how to deliver lines.  Many of the actors who play teens and pre-teens were just useless.

Screenplay: 6/10 The exposition of motives was a bit murky for much of the film.  However, that is par for the course in a good mystery. Once the pieces started coming together, I had hopes for a Western climax.  That was not to be; the film ended in ambiguity and without the guilty parties being brought to any sort of justice.  Instead, society seemed unable to protect itself.

Final rating: 6/10 An Asian mystery that was loaded with horrifying passages.