JJ79 Blog

Do or Die (2003)

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Do or Die Production Year

"Do or Die" is not your typical Sci Fi Channel flick. There are no creepy crawlies popping out of the shadows or hideously bad acting to overcome. No, the story is actually science fiction in its truest form: the story extrapolates a possible future based on current technology, throwing humanity into the middle in order to figure out how we´d react.

At some point in the near future, the people of the world fall into one of two categories: clean and infected. The infected people are segregated away from the cleans, left to suffer with a rapid aging disease if they don´t take daily doses of a drug called anZanol. When Ruth Hennessey (Polly Shannon) finds herself pregnant and her husband Jack (Anthony Lemke)-an infected man passing as clean-is killed, she is thrown into a world of deceit and exploitation.

Let´s be upfront, okay. According to writer/director/executive producer David Jackson, the total budget for this 90 minute television movie was $2 million. That sounds like a huge sum of movie, but consider what needs to be created for the production. Make-up effects, futuristic locations, action set pieces, costumes…and that´s just in front of the camera. I mean absolutely no disrespect when I call "Do or Die" a low budget sci fi film. Jackson does everything he can to stretch the money he has to create a socially conscious and entertaining story. One has to wonder, though, in the end, what the production would have been like with more money, say, $5 million?

But we shouldn´t dwell on that. Instead, we should give props to the filmmakers for defying convention (and stereotype) to deliver a socially relevant tale. After all, that is what sci fi is supposed to do, right? The script makes a point several times to show the marked differences between the cleans and infecteds. Above and beyond the nasty looks and circumspect comments, each group is segregated in the world. One lives in a beautiful suburbia, the other in a near ghetto. The stigma attached to the infected population is most closesly reminiscent of AIDS patients, especially at the outset out of the disease. Though Jackson never says it explicitly in the commentary track, it's hard to believe it didn't play a part in writing the script.

And that makes the story engaging, at least for a little bit. It's a classic story of man's inhumanity toward man, similar to "Children of Men." The disease isn't contagious, as far as the movie tells us; the cleans simply don't want to know people who aren't like them. What Jackson does, as did Gene Roddenberry and a host of other writers before him, is put a mirror up to society in the guise of the future, making the lesson easier to swallow. It is true, though, the script tends to hit the audience over the head with the message. There's no subtlety about it. Not with the camera shots or the dialogue. Jackson constructs the film in such a way there is never room for doubt. The people are either "good" or "bad," no two ways about it.

Therein lies the downfall, of sorts, in "Do or Die." It's too easy. Maybe the fear was anything more complex wouldn't fit into the Sci Fi Channel's lineup or the film was already skirting the edges of "science fiction." There's also a strong possibility the constraints of a movie of the week forced Jackson to make story cuts. The story doesn't flow the way it should; it jerks and lurches into motion like a car on its last legs. There's a sense of the narrative biding time until the final half hour when all the revelations and action sequences can take place. For instance, the first half is nearly consumed with slowly turning Ruth into a fighter (as opposed to a mother, wife or lover). There's a Sarah Connor aspect to watching her give birth and then get back into shape. I have no doubt this is a comparison Jackson was trying to achieve.

But then the focus comes off her rather abruptly, leaving the audience with a "complicated" mystery which isn't all that complicated when you think about it. Pharmaceutical czar Ethan Grant (Nigel Bennett) has built an empire based on the drug. Doesn't it stand to reason (spoiler, maybe?) he doesn't want that to go away? Moreover, villains in these types of movies usually have the lamest motivations or secrets masquerading as motivation.

It would be easy to point out all the flaws in something like "Do or Die." The acting isn't great, sequences meant to titillate are overused, characters act out of character. But there's the underlying idea which carries us as much as it can. And really, in a Sci Fi Channel movie, I´m shocked to mention the narrative.

VIDEO:
All things considered, I´ll take it. We´re provided with a 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer which doesn´t look half bad. Sure, it´s not the most detailed or exquisite picture I´ve ever seen; the image is generally grainy and there is a distinct lack of detail is dark colors. The rest of the palette works relatively well, with the clean Citizone´s warm colors coming across nicely when compared to the sterile blue of the Bluelands.

AUDIO:
Like the video presentation, the audio doesn´t present any major issues. Sound is relegated to the front speakers courtesy of the English 2.0 track. In the first five minute, I was blown away (no pun intended) with an explosion. It sounded more forceful than it had any right to. While nothing else in the movie really caught my attention, the sound effects and dialogue are both carried with respectable levels of fidelity. There are no subtitles included.

EXTRAS:
Aside from the single screen of other Sci Fi Essentials titles, there is the aforementioned audio commentary with David Jackson. Because he wears so many hats in the production, the track is rarely silent. He recounts stories dating back to when the story was originally written (it was called "The Cure"), buying back the rights to the story, the Canadian shoot and the limitations of the budget, among other topics. An interesting sidenote: Jackson was a production assistant for Roger Corman, king of low budget flicks. This experience helped immensely on this project. The feature is broken down into 12 chapters.

PARTING THOUGHTS:
An honest attempt at telling a relevant story trumps any missteps a production can make. That´s my general philosophy when it comes to "Do or Die." It´s not perfect, but it tries. Which is more than can be said for a lot of other movies.

Posted Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:37 PM by JJ79 | with 0 comments

Baby Broker (1981)

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Baby Broker: Born to Be Sold (1981)

There was a time when the major networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) all had movie of the week divisions. A movie of the week, some might recall, is a 90 to 120-minute production made explicitly for broadcast on television. They are analogous to today´s direct to DVD features, with a relatively small budget, superficial story and one or two name actors. In the case of 1981´s "Born to be Sold" (DVD title "Baby Broker"), Lynda Carter, Dean Stockwell and Harold Gould star in a story about a social worker who becomes involved in a baby-for-sale business.

Based on the novel "The Baby Brokers" and based on inspired by true stories (according to the crawl at the end of the film, anyway), "Baby Broker" tries to enlighten the audience about a social topic which hasn´t been fully covered in the media. In the world of the early 1980s, it may have been seen as a groundbreaking, provocative drama. For a 2008 audience, though, where the bar has been raised almost impossibly high by basic and pay cable, not to mention DTV features and regular TV series, it comes off as being too easy.

That´s the best word for the 95 minute production. Easy. When 14 year old Cindy (Donna Wilkes) runs away from a home for pregnant girls looking to sell their babies, she has Kate Carlin´s (Carter) phone number apparently memorized and some money for a pay phone in her pocket. To be sure, a coincidence or two like this doesn´t mean the film is no good. However, when the story relies on narrative cheats like this for the duration of the running time, there is a problem.

In its defense, though, I must reiterate two basic points: "Baby Broker" is a television movie designed to run in a very finite amount of time. The script is never afforded enough time to flesh out the characters and situation to any great degree. They are merely pawns running through the situation. Secondly, the film is based on a book. How well it adheres to the source material is an open question. If the action unfolded in this manner in the original, I really can´t quibble with carrying it over into the film version, now can I?

Regardless, in this melodrama, it is Lynda Carter who carries the production. She does the best she can with the available material to get us to buy into the story. Carter projects a thoughtfulness and caring while maintaining a relatively even emotional center throughout. In her defense, though, this isn´t a story about her, nor does it require extensive backstory. Like Cindy and the rest of the characters on screen, Carlin is a chess piece moved around the board.

It´s that board which is the problem, as I´ve already mentioned. The connective tissue which would inform the audience about what´s coming next-especially in the finale-isn´t there. A brief scene laying the groundwork for the climax is included, though the players aren´t introduced and the entire explanation of the "plan" is rushed through without a normal level of explanation. There is a general feeling some scenes exist "just because" at the expense of other ones.

For instance, does it really matter is Carlin´s job is "on the line" when that particular plot point is not given an iota of importance in the remainder of the film? And what about Dean Stockwell, reduced to the role of a thug. Yes, he is Robert Westfield´s (Gould) supposed partner in the babies for sale game, yet he disappears for the bulk of the running time, only to reappear to be the Big Bad Man. Aside from money, there is not motivation provided for any of the characters.

That´s the problem with "Baby Broker." Despite tackling a worthwhile subject with competent actors designed to shed light on a serious problem, the story can´t work the audience into enough of an emotional lather to really care. The more interesting story to be told would be from the perspective of the pregnant teenagers or even attorney Westfield. How is it he cooks the books, so to speak, to cover mental illness and other barriers to adoption. Similarly, how does he find both the family who want a child and the people who want to get rid of them.

"Baby Broker" focuses solely on getting to a certain end point; it doesn´t take the time to make sure everyone is still following along. It´s a limitation of the genre as a whole and not necessarily of this particular production.

VIDEO:
The fullscreen transfer looks, to be honest, hideous. The best analogy I can make is it´s VHS quality. And perhaps that´s a bit too nice. Grain permeates every single scene, while white and black spots regularly pop up. Certain scenes are entirely too dark; the converse is true, also. Light pouring in through windows radiates into the action at times, causing an ethereal glow to them. Details are hard to come by because of the grain. I´d doubt any work went into the restoration of the picture. There is an odd white dashed line across the very top of the frame throughout the entire movie, as if the picture has been moved down ever so slightly. I can´t imagine quality control didn´t catch it.

AUDIO:
The English mono track doesn´t contain as many flaws as its technical counterpart, but it still could use some work. The sound field is flat without any dynamic effects to speak of (but that´s also to be expected). Dialogue is occasionally overrun by the synthesizer-heavy score while higher octave noises find themselves distorted at roughly the same frequency. A handful of scenes feature audio drop outs during establishing shots; it´s obvious since people are walking up stairs with no foley accompaniment. No subtitles are included.

EXTRAS:
The feature is divided into 12 chapters. Otherwise, unsurprisingly, no extras.

PARTING THOUGHTS:
"Baby Broker" wants to be an Afterschool Special for grown-ups, altering them to new dangers in the world. To a certain extent, it succeeds in that quest. More than anything else, though, it is a relic of a bygone time and a way of scheduling for television networks. There´s nothing new in the film and it doesn´t increase our understanding of the black market baby selling business. That may be its biggest detriment.

Posted Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:48 PM by JJ79 | with 0 comments

Summer Scars (2007)

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Summer Scars (2007)

Anytime a film boasts "Based on True Events," you have to go into them with a certain amount of skepticism. When a thriller is allegedly based on actual events, take it with an even bigger grain of salt. However, when it comes to British thriller "Summer Scars," I tend to believe the hype. Director Julian Richards goes out his way, in both the feature length commentary and making of featurette, to reiterate the events in this film actually happened, only a bit differently than presented. When he was a youth, Richards and a group of friends were held "hostage" by a drifter of some sort. None of the real life kids-nor the ones in the film-wound up being hurt.

Essentially, that is the building block of "Summer Scars." A group of young hooligans find themselves at the mercy of a mentally unstable man (Kevin Howarth), who makes them rethink the path they´re taking with their lives. What makes this film stand out from the dozens of other young teenager thriller/horror films is the nature of the horror. Vagabond Peter doesn´t string them up from trees by their toes or slice and dice the kids. Rather, it´s mostly psychological terror and it all comes in the last 15 to 20 minutes of the production. ("Summer Scars" only runs 67 minutes, a fact we´ll discuss in a moment.)

In all fairness, though, Peter does draw a pellet gun on any number of the kids and threatens to shoot at least two of them, yet this isn´t what he revels in. For the majority of the running time, he fancies himself some sort of teacher, a prophet perhaps with something to teach all of them, from handicapped Ben to ringleader Bingo.
I´ve heard directors say working with young actors is the hardest thing they had ever done.

More than divas or Oscar winners, they can be argumentative, difficult to direct and, on top of that, aren´t known for their outstanding performances. What Richards has done in this film is assemble a solid group of young actors to fill out his characters. From the very beginning, when we witness a moped being stolen, there´s never a sense anyone is actually acting, only being themselves. (Indeed, Richards mentions this about Jonathan Jones in the featurette.) Ciaran Joyce´s Bingo doubts himself behind his confident eyes, an obvious quality from the outset. We´re drawn to him anyway, even if he is the lead bully. The director compares him to a young River Phoenix, an apt analogy if you consider "Stand By Me." He also mentions the names Heather Graham and Donnie Wahlberg in discussing his cast.

At least some of the comfort in front of the camera can be attributed to Richards filming and editing rehearsal footage with the actors in order to get a better idea of how the actual shoot would go. By doing this, the seven actors and characters are afforded the chance to become comfortable in front of the camera, with their co-stars and in the location. The raw innocence which comes through their performances is a by-product of the process.

"Summer Scars" is a slow burn for a film genre feasting on copious gore and the downright grotesque. Even the coup de grace, humiliating for everyone concerned but not nearly as bad as what might have been, is non-explicit. Not that it ever could or should have been, considering the ages of the actors involved. It took a certain amount of balls (no pun intended) for screenwriter Al Wilson to take the story in this direction. Unexpected, but not out of place, it is a catalyst for the group to grow up.

About that running time: in the commentary, Richards and producer Sabina Sattar talk a little bit about not padding the film with unnecessary scenes. The screenplay and finished film brings us into the story, hits all the notes it wants to and then lets us go. There was some talk of extending the movie to a full 90 minutes; the idea was vetoed to keep the action contained and suspenseful. Here is an example of filmmakers making a product that they believe in and not trying to simply make a running time.

The only true let down in the film is the finale. Something about it doesn´t sit quite right with me. It may be a needlessly flashy camera shot or the tag scene roughly 30 seconds into the credits. Quite simply-and without ruining it-it doesn´t feel organic to the rest of the story. That remains a minor quibble, though, in a production which successfully throws the standard thriller conventions out the window.

VIDEO:
This is a 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer and, to be honest, it looks like it should. Richards makes a point to tell us the look of the film matches up with the gritty working class characters. To that end, the picture is grainy-though never distractingly so. Rather, it adds a level of reality to the production, as if we´re watching a documentary of some kind. Whether from the filming techniques or the mastering, scenery in action scenes appears to blur, especially early on. Certain blacks hold no detail while others are relatively deep.

AUDIO:
Only one option here, an English 2.0 mix. To be truthful, it does what it has to do without being spectacular. Speakers are generally full and dialogue easy to understand; it must be said, though, that with the British accents, the mix does tend to overstep the words in certain parts of the production. I was particularly impressed with the ambient forest sounds coming in during quieter scenes. No distortion in voices is apparent. There is no option for subtitles.

EXTRAS:
We have the aforementioned featurette (29:45) mostly featuring Richards talking about his cast and interviews with the stars. Most of the information here is repeated in the commentary track. Between Sattar and Richards, there are precious few dry moments in the affair. Pick either the featurette or the commentary for your behind the scenes fix; you don´t need both.

Twelve still pictures are included (automatic advancement, 1:00), followed by a plethora of trailers for TLA product: "Summer Scars" (2:28), "Dante´s Infero" (2:14), "Hell´s Ground" (4:09), "Pistoleros" (2:13) and "The Living and the Dead" (2:05). The feature is broken down into 12 chapters.

PARTING THOUGHTS:
TLA Releasing´s "Danger After Dark" line has included off kilter thrillers ("The Living and the Dead"), explicit stories ("Strange Circus") and the revolutionary ("Hell´s Ground"). It should be no shock "Summer Scars" fits right in with these other films. Beware: it is not what you think it is.

Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:29 PM by JJ79 | with 0 comments

I Dreamt Under the Water (2008)

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

I Dreamt Under the Water (2007)

After the supposed love of his life, Alex, dies after a night of drugs, Antonin finds his world crumbling around him. His mother leaves to move back with her family and the young man finds himself hustling on the streets of Paris. But all is not as it seems when he meets Juliette. Though Antonin loves her and she claims to love him, there is a seedy part of her past and present which isn´t out in the open, something that will rock Antonin to his core.

I can´t wrap my head around "I Dreamt Under the Water." Does it want to be a look at the downward spiral a young man goes through when everything he knows is gone? Does it want to be a meditation between being gay and bisexual? Is its sole intent to titillate and tease the audience without ever delivering the goods? Or does the French film aspire to be more than all of those combined, failing in the process? Judging by the theatrical trailer included in the bonus features, I´d have to conclude titillation was at the forefront of the film´s purpose.

That trailer runs just over 6 ½ minutes in total and is perhaps the most sexually graphic film advertisement for a non-porn production in history. I only mention this now, as opposed to later on in the Extras section to hone in on one point: if you cut together a trailer involving the genitalia of both genders, a transsexual, a close up of a freshly deflowered anus and other such images, doesn´t it stand to reason these body parts should play a major role in the film? To be honest, the trailer piqued my interest. What kind of story was going to be wrapped around all of this?

Co-writer and director Hormoz lacks the gumption to take the story where, I think, he wants it to go. There was a perverse need at some point in the writing process to make the narrative user friendly, to reign in the camera from showing the truly seedy images it wanted to. "I Dreamt Under the Water," at its core, is about sex and drugs and how both mold a person into the being they are. In the absence of the trailer, "Water" might have accomplished the goal. With it, though, the production is a massive let down.

The chief narrative problem is the lack of time given to any one relationship or plot point. We get from the first reel Antonin feels a deeper connection to Alex than just friends, yet we´re never given a reason. Is it purely physical? Is there something in their shared past which draws Antonin to Alex? We know they´ve never actually had sex and Antonin hasn´t had another gay sex experience. There´s no reason to like either of these characters, let alone root for either of them. (Good thing, too, because Alex doesn´t stay in the picture very long.)

The verbal explanation of Antonin´s feelings for Alex never add up to his actions. He doesn´t attend the funeral? (Not a spoiler, read the back of the box.) He does little more than sulk for his dead friend? I don´t get it. If this person is an unrequited love, every fiber of his being should be shaken. It´s not, as far as we can tell. Maybe it´s enough for some audience to take Antonin´s word for it, that he really is distraught and teetering on the edge. The evidence is hard to come by: the young man doesn´t dive into the world of hustling because of the death-its due to his mother leaving-nor does he take up drugs-he is adverse to them, as we see late in the film.

"I Dreamt in the Water" continues like this, with obvious questions never being answered and relationships being forged out of nothing. And that´s why the eerie netherworld it inhabits is so damn frustrating. With an engaging lead actor (Hubert Benhamdine) and a production crew seemingly ready to create a provocative film, the story flat lines in a hurry. There is a distinct lack of warmth, of caring, of empathizing with anyone on screen. The most sympathetic character turns out to be Baptiste, one of Antonin´s tricks and an eventual employer (and boyfriend?).

The look of the film makes up for all of the narrative's problems. There are very few brightly lit scenes in the film, especially near the finale. The object, I suppose, is to make it hard for us to see what´s going on, just as the world is becoming harder for each of the characters to navigate. Despite the darkness, there is also a gritty brilliance to the production design. This isn´t a story about rich-or even middle class-people trying to make it in the world; it´s about the poor, the downtrodden, the ones society has effectively given up on. Hormoz, for his part, makes us feel as though we´re standing next to Antonin at every juncture, seeing what he sees the exact way he sees it. There is no delineation between what the audience knows and what the character knows.

VIDEO:
Whatever I may say about the film itself, the 1.78:1 anamorphic transfer looks good. Not good in the conventional sense, but good as in adding to the overall depressed feel of the film. There is a layer of quite noticeable grain from beginning to end, adding a sense of grittiness to the narrative. It works in this film because of the subject matter. Colors don´t pop off the screen; they´re not designed to. Instead, they are muted, a pall cast over them. One problem of note is an annoying line of distortion on the right hand side of the screen. In dark scenes, it is non existent; it turns green when a red floods that side of the screen.

AUDIO:
I was similarly impressed with the audio track (French 2.0). It´s nothing spectacular, yet it does what it needs to do with a minimum of issues. Dialogue is mostly clean and free of distortion (outside of one yelling match near the end) while the sound elements are mixed at appropriate levels. There is a slight bit of barely audible hissing in quiet scenes; again, it´s nothing to be worried about, really. The English subtitles are big and clear enough to be seen with no problems.

EXTRAS:
The aforementioned trailer for this film is included, along with those for other TLA product: "Bangkok Love Story" (3:16), "The Houseboy" (2:37), "Amnesia: The James Brighton Enigma" (2:48) and "Boy Culture" (1:46).

PARTING THOUGHTS:
I don´t understand how "I Dreamt Under the Water" is being touted as sexually frank, brutal or savage. It´s more by the numbers, not daring enough, all hype and no payoff. The underlying relationship-Alex and Antonin-is never explained or exploited for any story value. Their scenes together are remarkably few and dialogue-free, making it even harder for the audience to create a bond between them. I haven´t even discussed Juliette or Baptiste in any real detail and they both merit more screen time than Alex.

Posted Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:50 PM by JJ79 | with 0 comments

Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow (2008)

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

Under discussion:

Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow (2008)

The Marvel Animated movies live in a universe unto themselves, where the rules of storytelling and building tension don't exist. Take the newest entry, Next Avengers. The 78 minute production is little more than one battle after another after another after...well, you get the idea. That's not completely bad, mind you, but when the story is working largely with characters the audience doesn't know, there has to be an attempt to build empathy between those on screen and the audience. The only old faces we see here are Tony Stark (aka Iron Man), Bruce Banner (aka Hulk) and Betty Ross. The children of the Avengers, the enemy...all brand new to this universe.

After the Avengers fall to a being called Ultron, Tony Stark saves their children from doom by sequestering them in an arctic hideout. Unfortunately, one day far too soon, Ultron finds them, forcing the kids to grow up faster than Stark intended. In doing so, Ultron unleashes a brand new force...and when Iron Man and Hulk join the battle, can Ultron retain control of the world?

There seems to be a missing movie between Ultimate Avengers 2 and this outing in which we see the romantic pairings happen, kids be born and the Avengers die. We're told of this backstory at the outset of Heroes of Tomorrow, which is all well and good, though it is a story worth pursuing unto itself. But even aside from that nitpick, the entire plot feels like a rerun, something we've seen before. And for good reason: these kids have to learn in a hurry how to be their own people, not to live in the shadow of their parents and think quickly. I could have sworn we saw that in the first two Avengers films...

Writer Christopher Yost says in the extras this was an attempt to bring in the younger viewers to the universe. By making the main characters kids, there is a natural bonding to children in the audience. A funny thing happens, though, as the movie wears on. The adults start to understand the characters on screen and like them, even if only a little bit. A common complaint, though, can be leveled at this film: it goes by too fast and focuses on the action instead of the characters. Despite a beautiful visual look, Next Avengers comes off being warmed over Avengers.

Posted Monday, September 22, 2008 6:27 PM by JJ79 | with 0 comments

Re-Cycle (2006)

2 out of 2 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

Under discussion:

Re-Cycle (2006)

The Pang brothers (Oxide and Danny) have a flair for the visual, as evidenced by two-thirds of "Re-Cycle." Writer Tsui Ting-Yin (Angelica Lee) is thrust into the world of the abandoned , bringing her face to face with old toys, her ancestors and discarded stories. This dreamscape is a stunning visual representation similar to that of hell in "What Dreams May Come." Stairways lead to nowhere as Ting-Yin finds herself confronting a decision she made eight years ago.

"Re-Cycle" is classified as a horror movie, but as with the best in any genre, the film and filmmakers twist the definition to redefine the genre. Yes, the film is designed to scare the bejesus out of the audience at times, but it also wants us to think. What exactly happens to the objects we discard? The rocking horses from our childhood or a blender thrown out because a new one took its place, for instance. Unusable characters from stories, dead family members, forgotten loves…they all inhabit the same universe. That is the greater message the Pang´s are trying to bring out.

Indeed, when the action switches from a conventional thriller featuring human shapes slinking behind doors and around the corner, "Re-Cycle" finds its legs. The first third or so is designed to build Ting-Yin and, to be perfectly honest, it´s a bit of a drag. We´ve seen the movie the Pang´s put on screen before, the one where the main character is terrorized or scares herself silly. Simply, it´s not fun. Marginally scary, but not noteworthy.

What had been done here is to make a cursory nod towards traditional horror and twisted the idea on its head. And it works wonderfully, but not for the reasons which immediately spring to mind. What the story does is put us in the position of being thrown away, not needed anymore. It´s a place we don´t think of very often, considering the objects we throw away are inanimate. That place relies very heavily on the melding of computer graphics and existing sets.

In all honesty, the visuals are the reason to spend nearly two hours with "Re-Cycle." It´s a hyper-stylized world filled with levels of abandonment. A run down town, a cemetery, pieces of an amusement park, all with their own color schemes, not to mention hazards. And herein lies a problem. This film is presented in its original Cantonese language. As such, the English subtitles provide an imperfect translation to the limited dialogue in the film. And because of the overreliance on the visual aspect of the film to explain exactly what we´re seeing, much of the "Re-Cycle" is left for the audience to decipher.

We don´t necessarily "get" the subtleties the Pang´s present in the level with ancestor abandonment, for example. There´s an abstract concept at work no one bothers to identify, explain or even talk about. I´m not even entirely sure there´s anything here outside the desire to showcase the translation of the imagination to the screen. There´s a flimsy plot-if it can actually be called a plot-which leaves one crucial piece of information out of an early conversation that would explain the rest of the film. (I´m referring to the dinner scene, in particular.) Ting-Yin doesn´t follow any kind of coherent storyline; she doesn´t begin at any place emotionally with a clear destination in mind.

Even at nearly two hours, "Re-Cycle" isn´t anything more than a chase film, maybe a quest picture depending on how we define it. It´s a story with a definite end point, a "treasure" to keep our eye on. Our main character wants to get home. It´s a false objective, though. She isn´t trying to learn about herself or stuck in the past. At least not in any way we can see. So in the next to final scene, the big emotional payoff, the story melding together doesn´t mean anything to us. It feels like an artificial climax to the film not grounded in anything we´ve seen to this point.

There is a potentially riveting concept wrapped in CGI flashiness at work in "Re-Cycle." Everyone involved simply became to happy with what they could do, hoping it would cover up the deficiencies in the story.

VIDEO:
This is a tough one. The 2.35:1 anamorphic transfer fails to pop off the screen in any manner, no matter the locale or color palette. I´d chalk it up to the layer of very visible grain throughout the film, but I never got the feeling anything we saw was supposed to jump out at us. This is very nearly a color-deficient film, working in shades of brown, gray, yellow and-in one sequence-red. Details are hard to come by, thanks to the distortion. Blacks aren´t allowed to reach their full depth either, coming off as some form of gray instead.

AUDIO:
Now here´s something we don´t normally see from Image Entertainment: a DTS track on a release. Coupled with the Cantonese 5.1 and 2.0 mixes, "Re-Cycle" sounds very good. Obviously, the DTS is the preferred way to go, though there isn´t much difference with the regular 5.1 variation. None of them get much to do until we enter the Abandoned Land, so to speak. Once there, the speakers rumble to life time and again, bringing forward deep bass and every conceivable noise to make us jump in our seats. I can´t criticize the audio performance in any way. English and Spanish subtitles are included.

EXTRAS:
It´s odd. With as many layers the brothers tried to put into "Re-Cycle" and the amount of technical know-how which went into the visuals, the extras are relatively bare. (The extras have a collective "play all" function.) The first thing listed in the Special Features menu is the original theatrical trailer (1:28). Of note is the lack of dialogue and an English voiceover to summarize the film. Then there´s a poorly named "Making Of" (15:44), a collection of film clips and filmmaker interviews with next-to-no useful information about the film itself. Additionally, the clips and soundbites are reused multiple times, along with a generic bumper with the name of the film. I wonder if these were originally used to promote the film on television and were packaged together for the DVD.

A series of deleted scenes (8:46, 5 in total) comes next. One in particular seems to have made it rather far in the editing process: the abandoned love sequence. It has final music, lacks any camera identifiers and looks ready to drop into the finished product. A quick "CG Rendering Comparisions" (1:40) flies by much too quickly, with shots of the incomplete sets with a green screen and then adding the CGI layers on top of it. The last two features-"Cast and Crew Q and A" (8:25) and "Gala Premiere" (16:17)-are useless features designed to hype the movie and it´s accomplishments. Trailers begin when the disc is started: "Then She Found Me" (2:33), "Far North" (1:38), "Taxi to the Darkside" (2:26) and "Crashing" (1:40).

PARTING THOUGHTS:
There is enormous potential within the "Re-Cycle" story, all of which takes a backseat to the admittedly beautiful looking visuals. It´s a waste, pure and simple in the grand scheme of things: a tale of two different movies never coming together to form a coherent whole.