Tag Archives: review

Uncategorized

A review of “Game of Thrones,” Season 1

Leave a comment

I liked Season 1 of “Game of Thrones;” I really did.  I don’t yet love the show in the same way that so many other people do, however, and I’d honestly rate this 10-episode season an 8 out of 10.  If that sounds like faint praise for a show that seems universally loved, I concede that my criticisms really reflect my own personal tastes, not to mention my admittedly narrow attention span.

It’s an undeniably well made show, in terms of everything from acting to set design.  Its densely plotted story (with so many characters!) suggests to me that it is probably true to George R. R. Martin’s books, which I have not read.  The show seems like an authentic adaptation that respects the viewer’s intelligence and consequently demands a lot of him or her.

There is a lot to admire, such as the show’s attention to a myriad of details in order to meticulously render Martin’s fantasy universe.  Peter Dinklage is consistently wonderful to watch as Tyrion Lannister.  Aidan Gillen and Conleth Hill are both downright Shakespearian as Littlefinger and Varys, the two duplicitous members of the Court at King’s Landing.  Lena Headey (Cersei Lannister), Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister) and Iain Glen (Jorah Mormont) are also all favorites of mine.  (Glen is none other than the “Resident Evil” films’ original Wesker!  And he has such a damn cool voice.)

The script, direction and production values all usually seem quite good.  The show even has moments of brilliance — the first episode’s opening teaser, in which we witness an attack on the border wall by the icy “White Walker” monsters, was scarier than a hell of a lot of horror movies I’ve seen.

Which brings us to my frustrations, and, yes, they are mostly subjective.  I actually did bring certain appetites as an audience member that weren’t met.   I craved more action, and greater emotional payoff for the dialogue-heavy story arcs that built tension throughout the first season.  (Caveat: I am a fan of both horror movies and war films, and I suspect I’m not exactly the target audience for what is essentially a political thriller in a fantasy context.)

The inaugural episode’s White Walkers were what I was dying to see the most.  And I do think they should have been featured more prominently, from a storytelling perspective.  Otherwise they shouldn’t have served as the teaser-opener for the entire season.  Nor should they have been the plot driver for the storylines connected with the Wall and The Night’s Watch.

We also see extensive preparations for war, and military maneuvering — we even have important scenes taking place at troop encampments.  But there is absolutely no climax for these steadily building plot developments.  I know I sound like a 13 year old, and maybe I am just not sophisticated enough to enjoy the show on its current levels, but I wanted see a battle.  From a storytelling perspective, I suggest it’s a bad creative decision to end the season without allowing us to truly witness a major land engagement.  I do realize that we indeed see one house’s brutal invasion of another’s castle, and that it’s well done.  But it was too brief.  Again, while “Game of Thrones” has all the trappings of a period war series, this is a political thriller in a fantasy context.

As for the Machiavellian politics, I am embarrassed to admit that I got lost early on.  Yes, I’m fully aware that others are able to follow these plot threads quite easily.  (My college chums can.)  I’d just advise another viewer of average intelligence that their enjoyment might be affected by an unusually detailed story that requires their strict attention.

Finally, I do feel that there is a dearth of likeable and identifiable characters.  Nearly every major player is motivated by an ignoble goal (power).  Many betray one another; that’s the show’s favorite plot point.  Sean Bean’s Eddard Stark is only a putative hero, to me.  Yes, he’s fighting for the rightful heir to the throne, but he’s still serving a monarchy; he’s not sticking up for the common man or anything.  (We see loyalty among various characters to various noblemen, but nobody seems to care about the peasants.)  Furthermore, Stark’s actions toward a scared subordinate in the first episode made me unsympathetic to him.  (I don’t care who has vowed to do what — his action in the series premier was unwarranted.)

Jon Snow is well scripted as a “good” character, but the actor portraying him needs to work on his range.  Kit Harrington is decent in the role, but he too often looks like a sad, spurned poet.  (Hey, it’s okay, Snowman, I’ve been there myself.)

Daenerys Targaryen appears to be a “good” character, and I do like her.  She’s thinly rendered, though, despite what seems like an inordinate amount of screen time devoted to her major subplot.  (And this subplot, with its legions of bare-chested barbarians, seems like a slowly paced cousin of the 1990’s “Xena: Warrior Princess.”)  Daenerys seems like an obvious power-fantasy for victimized women.  (Yeah, I know there’s nothing wrong with that.  And, yeah, I know that people say something similar about my beloved comic book movies.)

With all of these criticisms, it may sound as though I didn’t enjoy “Game of Thrones.”  To the contrary, I did.  If you like fantasy and are looking for something well made and different, I’d recommend you try this.  I think maybe I’m just trying to justify my more modest enthusiasm for one of contemporary pop culture’s sacred cows.

 

Uncategorized

A quick pan of “The Witch” (2015)

Leave a comment

I’ve read that renowned horror author Brian Keene criticized the popular audience backlash against 2015’s “The Witch,” saying that “90 percent of the people in the theater … will be too stupid to understand” it.  Well, maybe I am among the stupid 90 percent.  I’d name this movie as the most disappointing horror film in recent memory, and I’d rate it a 2 out of 10.

I … think I understand it.  I just didn’t like it much.  It is alternately boring and sad.  It is boring far more often than it is sad.  When it is sad, it isn’t the cathartic, meaningful, artistic “sad.”  It’s just kind of a grimace-inducing downer.  There are problems with pacing, tension and story structure.  The movie only gets interesting during its closing several minutes.

These problems, however, are overshadowed by the movie’s biggest flaw — most of the (literal) Puritans populating this period story are so unlikable that you’d care little about what happens to them.  They are verbosely, tiresomely God-obsessed.  I myself might strike a deal with the devil if he’d silence the two creepy tots, and maybe the shrewish, hysterically shrill mother (Kate Dickie), too.  He wouldn’t have to kill them or anything — muting them would suffice.

Yes, the film does succeed somewhat in establishing mood and tone.  But the result is still nothing to write home about.  This isn’t “It Follows” (2014).

The film has two things going for it.  One, as other reviewers have noted, it achieves authenticity quite well.  The sets, costumes and dialogue were so meticulously developed that I actually did believe we were in 17th Century New England.  Two, Anya-Taylor Joy wonderfully performs the role of young Tomasina.

Those two things do not redeem the film, however.  I’d skip this.

 

 

MV5BMTY4MTU2NjMyNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzUwMDk4NzE@._V1_UY1200_CR90,0,630,1200_AL_

Uncategorized

A review of “X-Men: Apocalypse” (2016)

Leave a comment

At the start of “X-Men: Apocalypse” (2016) I was worried that I was finally beginning to experience a degree of “viewer fatigue” in connection with the beloved franchise.  This would be the ninth film since the X-Men first hit the big screen in 2000, if you count this year’s “Deadpool,” and its somewhat formulaic setup felt by-the-numbers.  Once again, a diverse, earnest, international group of young people unite under Charles Xavier’s leadership to combat an even greater threat than the one presented by the last film.  (This time it’s “Apocalypse,” a Big Bad with truly godlike powers.)  And they save the day despite their youth, their inexperience, their self-doubt or the suspicions of a prejudiced humanity.)  How exciting can the arrival of Angel (Ben Hardy) and Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee) be if these were already key reveals in past movies?  And … the cameo?

There are script problems.  The whole thing is cluttered with too many major characters.  Many are thinly drawn; a few make inexplicable, major decisions that affect the plot.  Fan favorites like Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) get too little attention to make their ardent fanbases happy, I think.  The villain looks like a middle-aged and particularly grumpy member of Blue Man Group.

And, yet … I still frikkin’ loved this.  I’d grudgingly give it a 9 out of 10, simply because I enjoyed it so much.  It’s the X-Men.  It’s a big-budget, globally staged smackdown with great special effects, and it was obviously made by people who love the source material and tried to stay true to it, despite its inevitably campy nature and its implausibility.  Characters like Havoc (Lucas Till) and Psylocke (Olivia Munn) are fun to watch.  (Am I the only one who nostalgically remembers the latter character from the 90’s comic books?)  There is even a really nice stab at self-referential humor poking fun at the earlier films.

This movie had two things going for it that really made me want to see it a second time around.  The first is Quicksilver.  The X-Men movies will probably never equal the skillfully made blockbusters of that other Marvel universe, but I’ll be damned if the franchise doesn’t totally beat them out in rendering this character.  (Yes, this is indeed the same character in the comics who inspired Scarlet Witch’s brother in “Avengers: Age of Ultron” (2015).)  Evan Peters brings great charisma to the role; the special effects connected with his action sequences are beautiful and goddam perfect.  He’s easily cooler and more likable than any other teen superhero I can remember — and that includes Tom Holland’s excellent new Spider-Man.

The second thing that make me want to watch it again is the action sequences.  The finale is damn fun.  I think it must be difficult to write, stage, direct and physically perform a melee among a group of combatants with various superhuman abilities and varying degrees of power.  But the climax here works.  It’s an entertaining battle that feels like it was lifted perfectly from the comics, and it ought to please fans of the genre.

Anyway, I obviously do recommend this.  Check it out.

 

cf7kkqeuuaeqame

Uncategorized

A very short review of “Afflicted” (2014)

Leave a comment

First, a clarification — there appear to be maybe a half dozen films or shorts entitled some variation of “Afflicted;” I am referring here to the outstanding 2014 found-footage vampire film.

Second, some advice — if you skip this because of an aversion to found-footage horror movies, you’re cheating yourself.  This was fantastic.  I’d give it a 9 out of 10.

It’s a creative tour-de-force for young filmmakers Clif Prowse and Derek Lee, who not only wrote and directed the movie, but also starred (quite capably) as its two leads.

It begins well, but not with brilliance.  It’s too reminiscent, at first, of a similar recent found-footage film in which affable young men develop superpowers with frightening consequences — 2012’s wonderful “Chronicle.”  Also, certain plot points are predictable.  (Gasp! Derek is suddenly burned by sunlight!)

Then we get an unexpected plot turn, and the film gets much, much better.  I won’t say much for fear of spoilers, but this is a fresh, entirely fun take on the vampire genre, with some special effects and action sequences that are pretty impressive for a low budget film.

And do watch through the entire credits.  There is both a mid-credits scene and a post-credits scene that are absolutely worth it. The latter casts the story in a completely new light.

Check this out, horror fans.  You won’t be disappointed.

 

MV5BMjEzOTczNzA0NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTgwNTYyMTE@._V1_SX640_SY720_

Uncategorized

My review of “Captain America: Civil War” (2016)

Leave a comment

“Captain America: Civil War” (2016) is nearly everything I hoped it would be; it’s easily on par, if not better, than the first two “Avengers” movies.  (And I can’t help but think of this as the third “Avengers.”  Yes, Cap’s name is in the title, but this is necessarily an ensemble story about the divided superteam.)  I’d give it a 9 out of 10.

I honestly just need to be very vague in this review … this is such an eagerly awaited film, and I want to be extra cautious about spoilers.  No, there are no twists in the movie, but there are surprising character and plot elements.

The movie surprised me in a couple of ways.  One, this film appears to follow the original 2006 comic book crossover only very loosely.  (I have not read it, but I know the story.)  There is no “Superhero Registration Act” that would directly affect countless people in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  It’s much narrower than that — a demand by the United Nations for direct oversight of The Avengers.

Two, this is definitely the darkest and most adult outing with The Avengers so far.  Don’t get me wrong — the levity and gee-whiz comic book fun that is the MCU’s trademark is still there, and it’s no Christopher Nolan movie.  But the movie’s central story device is set in motion by the question of who should be held accountable for civilian deaths.  And so many individual major characters are motivated by grief or rage.

This is notable throughout the film, for example, in the characterization of Tony Stark, and his portrayal by Robert Downey, Jr.  He’s no longer a wisecracking billionaire playboy who all the guys want to be.  Instead, he’s a troubled, pensive leader who often seems out of his depth.  We watch as his team and the events surrounding him spin out of control, and we no longer want to trade places with him.  He’s more sympathetic.  But he simultaneously fails to engender the viewer loyalty that he so quickly and easily won in every other Marvel movie he’s appeared in.

And yet … he isn’t, as I had suspected, a cardboard adversary for Captain America’s underdog to stand up to.  There are some sad things going on in his life, both during the events of this movie and in “Iron Man 3” (2013), and his failings and poor decisions are perfectly understandable.  (I won’t say more, besides that viewers will definitely get a different spin on “Iron Man 3” after this movie.)  And Downey displays a great range in playing this far sadder Tony.

One character in the movie even makes a quip about “The Empire Strikes Back” (1980), and it feels like a meta reference, as that film is regarded as the darkest in the “Star Wars” original trilogy.  (And their are story structure similarities as well.)

But don’t get me wrong — “Captain America: Civil War” still brings loads of fun.  It’s an effects-laden, geeky, hero-against-hero, superteam gangfight that is straight out of every Marvel fan’s dreams.  (And, needless to say, it’s far better than its analog this year from DC.)  Tom Holland might be the best Spider-Man yet.  The action is damn pleasing, and the one-liners made me laugh out loud.  (“Made ya look.”)

The bromances (including the broken ones) seemed real to me.  I found myself liking and caring about … Winter Soldier, of all people, and I kept hoping things worked out with his friendship with Cap.  (Sebastian Stan impressed me in the role for the first time.)

What didn’t I like?  Well, I had some small criticisms.  I submit that Black Panther was a complete misfire.  The character concept is boring (he’s an African Bruce Wayne), he seems like an ethnic caricature, and he absolutely is shoehorned into the plot.  When his tough female subordinate physically threatens Black Widow, he smugly opines that a fight between them “would be amusing.”  It felt creepy and sexualized, and maybe like something out of a 1970’s blaxploitation film.  He’s also pretty blandly played by Chadwick Boseman.

Spiderman, too, seems shoehorned in as fan service.  I loved seeing him in the movie, but i wish he’d been written in differently.  (Would Stark really recruit a highschooler to combat seasoned soldiers, one of whom is a superpowered psychotic assassin?)

Next is a criticism that is just a matter of personal taste.  I myself would have preferred a movie that was even darker.  Just think for a minute about the basic story.  We have civilian casualties driving the world’s governments to seek control over its superheroes — then the heroes themselves fighting each other with what must at least be considered possibly deadly force.

That’s a story pretty much brimming over with pathos, if you ask me.  But the movie underplays those plot elements considerably.  We hardly see the civilian casualties that are supposed to drive the plot — and when we do, they’re glimpsed briefly in news footage.  And all but three of the heroes (Tony, Black Panther and Winter Soldier) display any of the anger or sense of betrayal that you would expect from a violent “civil war” among former friends.  And it is violent … members of either faction fire missiles at, or try to crush, their opponents.  Does the MCU’s characteristic banter belong anywhere here?

Finally, this could have been an idea-driven movie like the latter two “Dark Knight” films.  But only Cap and Iron Man seem to genuinely fight about ideology.  Others fight according to personal or professional loyalty, personal revenge, or just because they are a “fan” of either Cap or Tony.  And neither does the script articulate their positions especially well.  Wouldn’t it be perfectly in character for Cap to quote Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin?  “Those who would exchange their liberty for a little temporary safety” and all that?

Oh, well.  I’m probably asking too much from a superhero movie.

This was a hell of a lot of fun.  Go see it.

 

timthumb

Uncategorized

A very short review of “Thinner” (1996)

Leave a comment

“Thinner” (1996) was a fun enough outing; I’d give it an 8 out of 10.  You can easily tell that this story originated with Stephen King.  Only he can take an antiquated plot device like a gypsy curse and actually make it frightening.

I do get the sense that screenwriters Michael McDowell and Tom Holland stuck closely to the original novel (which I have not read).  It seems like a character-focused story; I’ll bet the original prose really explored the incongruous friendship between Robert John Burke’s mild-mannered attorney and Joe Mantegna’s apparently psychotic mobster.  I’ll bet that King’s unique style would have perfectly rendered certain plot points in the movie, such as one key conversation being overheard early on.

I feel like an idiot … For the life of me, I thought that actress Kari Wuhrer was Marissa Tomei.  Her resemblance in this movie is striking.  I can’t be the only one who made that mistake, can I?  Anyway, I really panned Wuhrer’s performance in 2005’s disappointing “Hellraiser: Deader.”  But she is damn terrific here in her role as the beautiful banshee adversary — she damn near steals the movie.  Also outstanding is Michael Constantine as her haggard, curse-casting gypsy father.

 

thinner

Uncategorized

A quick review of “Wolf Creek 2” (2013)

Leave a comment

Is “Wolf  Creek 2” (2013) a well made film?  Yes.  It’s exceptionally well made.  Would  I recommend it?  I’m not sure.

I’d rate it a perfect 10.  Its technical expertise in undeniable.  The cast is roundly excellent.  John Jarratt is absolutely perfect in the role he seems born for.  He’s so effectively menacing as this film’s serial killer that I think I’d find it unnerving even meeting the actor in real life.  The only other actor I think I can say that about is Ted Levine, who so indelibly portrayed Buffalo Bill in “Silence of the Lambs” (1991).

Ryan Corr is damn perfect, as are the actors in smaller roles.  I think Shannon Ashlyn portrays terror better than any other actress I’ve seen.  She isn’t just a horror movie “scream queen;” her performance was so skilled that she rises above such a trite label.  (And I’ve seen a lot of horror movies, people.)

It’s extremely well directed.  The conclusion of an action sequence involving a truck must have looked downright stupid on the page, but damn if Greg McLean doesn’t make it plausible and shocking.

The entire movie is gorgeously shot.  It was enough to make me want to visit Australia … if the story didn’t make want to stay the hell away from Australia.

I just get the impression that some movie studio planned to produce a generic, derivative slasher movie … but just inexplicably employed the best creative talent available for all aspects of its creation.

Now, about my reluctance to recommend this …  Please understand that this film is incredibly dark, even by horror movie standards.  At times it was just too much for me.  I actually stopped playing this on Netflix several times to “take a break with something lighter” by watching “The Walking Dead.”  Yes, you read that right.

The story depicted is just brutal.  There are very few movies that are too dark for me … I think I could count them on one hand.  (And one was 2005’s original “Wolf Creek.”)  And this film is just so masterfully made that its victims seem like real people suffering — something at which the “Saw” films and various other slasher movies rarely succeeded.

I honestly think it might have been so “good” that it went past the point of entertaining me.  Can I honestly recommend a movie that I felt the need to switch off?

You make your own call.  Again — this is exceedingly dark material, even by horror movie standards.  But if you think you’re up to it, watch it.

 

images (1)

Uncategorized

A review of “Goodbye World” (2013)

Leave a comment

“Goodbye World” (2013) is technically a post-apocalyptic drama.  I say “technically” because this sometimes misguided movie contains little tension associated with its apocalyptic event.  (A cyber-attack destroys the technological infrastructure of America and possibly the world.)  Indeed, this catastrophe doesn’t even truly drive the plot — it’s more of a background subplot that fails to even affect the tone of the film.  (The poster you see below is misleading.)

Instead, the film scrutinizes the personal lives of a group of thirtyish college alumnae who have an informal reunion at a mountain cabin — one of their number is a plot-convenient intellectual-turned-survivalist.  They’re portrayed by an (admittedly quite good) ensemble cast.  I think a lot of my friends would smile at “Gotham’s” Jim Gordon (Ben Mckenzie) being a rather meek, feckless husband.  And Caroline Dhavernas here is no longer the alpha female we saw in NBC’s “Hannibal,” but is rather an insecure, overly sensitive young wife who immaturely pines that she was the student “everyone hated.”

And there lies a problem that the movie has … few of these characters are terribly likable.  Only Gaby Hoffmann’s surprisingly tough civil servant made me root for her.  And Kerry Bishe’s perfectly performed, chatty neo-hippy eccentric was also pretty cool … Bishe might have given the best performance in the film.  Finally, Linc Hand is a surprise standout, arriving halfway through in a menacing supporting role.  It’s a far smaller role, but damn if he doesn’t nail it.  (Please, Netflix, cast this guy as Bullseye in Season 3 of “Daredevil.”)

The others all seem either self-absorbed, self-righteous and preachy, or inscrutable and vaguely dumb.  Dhavernas’ character actually steals a child’s teddy bear (which she herself had brought as a gift) and … sets it free in the forest.  It was a belabored character metaphor when written.  Worse, it just seems jarringly weird when it plays out on the screen.

All the characters seem strangely detached about the watershed national or global crisis. Some cursory dialogue is devoted to the imagined welfare of their family, colleagues or other friends; the character interaction is devoted mostly to  marriage issues and personal emotional crises that I have mostly forgotten as of this writing.  And those seem maudlin and slightly selfish compared to the Fall of the United States.  The characters mostly failed at engendering viewer sympathy in me.

The screenwriters’ juxtaposition of personal matters and the end of the world also seemed tone deaf.  We follow what the writers hope are educated, successful and endearingly quirky fun people, and we’re asked to worry about their love triangles and spousal communication issues.  But … we’re then asked to view this in the context of a pretty frightening collapse of society, complete with plot elements that are interchangeable with those of AMC’s “The Walking Dead.”  (One secondary character turns violent over the issue of resources, then charismatically justifies his violence to  a crowd using a half-baked ideology that seems to channel “The Governor.”)

I felt like I was watching two movies at once, and not in a good way.  The opening motif is brilliantly creepy — the virus causes cell phones everywhere to receive a text reading the titular “Goodbye World.”  Our laconic, uniformly telegenic protagonists kinda just shrug at it.  And even when suspicions arise in the group about whether one character is connected to the cyber-attack, there is dry, dialogue-driven humor instead of any real consequent tension.  It was like John Hughes wrote a thirtysomething dramedy, but then tried unsuccessfully to sprinkle in the human pathos of one of George A. Romero’s more pessimistic zombie films.

But don’t get me wrong.  This wasn’t even really a bad movie.  I didn’t hate it.  It held my interest, its actors gave good performances, and I am a shameless fan of Dhavernas in particular.  The cinematography was very good too, and the story’s tonal differences were occasionally interesting.  (This is definitely a unique end-of-the-world tale, if nothing else.)

I’d honestly give “Goodbye World” a 7 out of 10.  I think my expectations sitting down with it were just unusually high, seeing Dhavernas attached to what looked like an independent, cerebral, apocalyptic science fiction thriller.  I might even recommend it if you’re in the mood for a really unusual doomsday movie.  Just don’t expect “28 Days Later” (2002) or “The Divide” (2012), and you might like this.

 

Goodbye_World_Theatrical_Poster

hero_GoodbyeWorld-2014-1

Uncategorized

A few quick words on Season 2 of “Daredevil”

Leave a comment

As though you hadn’t guessed, I absolutely loved Netflix’ second season of “Daredevil.”  It might have had a problem with its concluding Elektra storyline, but I’d still rate it a perfect 10 — I just can’t give a lower rating to a season that made me cheer out loud while watching it.

I really loved it that much.  I’ve started to think of this gritty little corner of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as my own “Star Wars” — these are characters that I grew up with, and to whom I’ve developed an emotional attachment, however strange or childlike that may seem to non-fans.  If adults can cheer during the opening crawl of “The Force Awakens,” then I can cheer “KICK THEIR ASSES, MATT!!” when the ninjas of “The Hand” noiselessly and acrobatically swarm Daredevil.

It’s just a superb show.  On one level, it’s a good character drama and legal thriller that can easily please a modern mainstream television audience.  On another level, one of those characters just happens to be a low-level hero in the Marvel Comics universe.

The show succeeds nicely on the first level and goddam brilliantly at the second.The martial arts and costuming are perfect.  John Bernthal is perfectly cast as The Punisher.  It’s a cliche, and something I’ve written here before, as well, but I’ll say it again anyway — Netflix succeeded in bringing some of my favorite comic book characters from page to screen.

My only minor criticism is that the Elektra storyline was muddled, and understandably confusing for those who haven’t read the source material.  (And if memory serves, it wasn’t all that easily understood in the original comics.)

Now bring on Bullseye!!

 

12794707_1719825021587067_5890561489880274871_o

Uncategorized

A few quick words on The CW’s “Containment” (2016)

2 Comments

The poster for The CW’s new “Containment” seems like a ripoff for some exceptional poster art for 2007’s outstanding horror movie, “28 Weeks Later.”  That is just one of a few offhand references that the TV pilot seems to make to the film.  At one point, a panicked character blurts out the phrase “zombie apocalypse,” even though that has nothing to do with the plot.

Whatever.  Judging from the pilot, the new sci-fi thriller seems like a more or less average outing.  It isn’t bad, exactly, but it’s got plenty of room to grow.  Right now it seems like a undistinguished, mainstream television treatment of “Contagion” (2011).  I’d give it a 6 out of 10.

And, hey … just to add to the confusion, last year there was a really good British independent sci-fi-thriller, also entitled “Containment,” that also portrays a fatal disease outbreak.  I reviewed it here at the blog.  It almost seems like The CW is adopting the “mockbuster” strategy of capitalizing on viewers’ confusion of their show with superior properties.

Oh, well.