Author: AmusedintheDark

Darke Reviews | Victor Frankenstein (2015)

Posted by

1

I love the tag line, Witness the Origin of a Monster and his creation. This was billed as horror film believe it or not, though I was expecting something along the lines of Stephen Sommers The Mummy when I walked in, so more along the lines of a horror comedy, this was reinforced by the PG-13 rating, the trailer above, and just the general tone of the two leads as they were pitching the film. Now obviously I am a fan of all things Horror, and even had the opportunity to watch the original in the theatre – and highly recommend it.

“It’s alive, it’s alive. In the name of God I know what it feels like to be God…” is the original line uttered by the mad Doctor; just how mad was this one?

The movie was written entirely for the screen by Max Landis (Chronicle, American Ultra) and directed by Paul McGuigan best known for such films as Push and Lucky Number Slevin; which are two entirely underrated films. Suffice to stay these two have a limited body of work, but what work they do have I really enjoy. Now, I did state I was expecting the Mummy, but what I got was closer to Sherlock Holmes meets The Wolfman (2010).  An interesting view of that wet gritty London atmosphere during the turn of the century we get to see more of each year as films come out for that period. The film, unlike Lucky Number Slevin, is not subtle; nor does it try to be. It keeps it’s tongue dancing at it’s cheek without sticking it firmly there. It takes itself seriously, but not too seriously. There is an interesting balance that I am still not 100% sure worked. One thing I did find that worked rather well is the characters of Victor (McAvoy) and that of Inspector Turpin (Andrew Scott). These two are brilliant opposite sides of the same coin. Supremely intelligent to the point they nearly dwarf those around them. Perceptive, driven, and most of all firmly believing they are in the right. What makes them opposite is that Turpin is a man of faith as as a well as the man of the Law. Frankenstein is a man of Science and a man who no longer believes in God. They show the extremes of both sides….and that both sides can have unreasonable extremes.

I don’t consider it a spoiler to say that Victor Frankenstein is a man of extremes. The story is over a century old, it’s iconic, it’s part of our culture and even parlance as the mad scientist started with him. How they portray the madness that grips him and what drives him is what varies from film to film. A God complex in the original work is pretty much standard, but the levels of madness, depravity, and obsession change from narrative to narrative. This one truly touches on the near mental illness levels of obsessive compulsive behavior, or even perhaps addiction, which McAvoy (X-Men Days of Future Past, Wanted)  runs with like he’s being chased by Usain Bolt. What separates this from other similar works is the focus on Igor, as played by Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter, Horns). Most movies focus on the Man and the Monster. This one focuses on the Man and his Assistant and Partner. They make Igor more than a hunched servant uttering “yes master” or simply doing the bidding of the Doctor. He is an integral part of the project and the moral compass of the film. The chemistry between Radcliffe and McAvoy is beyond the pale and I have a feeling that Tumblr ships are sailing as I write this review.

Who knew that with a few small tweaks that this could be a romantic comedy between the two?

From a technical standpoint the movie begins to run into issues. It plays a little close to the Sherlock films side of things and has some enormous pacing issues. The movie runs short at 1 hour 49 minutes, but even with that the pace is just a touch too plodding to really sit back and let myself have a good time. This isn’t to say that I didn’t, but there were moments where it ran too slow and my interest waned. It hurts the movie quite a bit. There are jumps of logic and timing that really just do not work. That said, they use a brilliant technique to avoid too much gore. I was really pleased to see it and did not find it distracting in the slightest. I would be remiss if I didn’t discuss The Creature. It was large. It was in charge. It was not CG. It did look like some CG overlay in a shot or two, but otherwise it was impressive when you finally get to see it.

TL;DR?

I had fun. My friend and I were laughing at the end, mostly at the two mains and how much fun it looked like they had. There are some really subtle references to the original classic, and even a few to Young Frankenstein. It isn’t a great film as the pacing truly hurt it, but it wasn’t a bad one. I can’t put my finger on what was missing, but something was. It’s kinda a mess, but nothing in the movie particularly annoyed me, except that it just felt overall kinda “Welp”.

If you are looking for something this year to watch other than Hunger Games, until December 18th, this might be it.I wish that I could give a strong recommendation, but I can’t.

 

Potential reviews coming that might be worth something:

  • Legend (Tom Hardy)
  • Krampus (by the makers of Trick R Treat)

 

Darke Reviews – The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2

Posted by

1

“I volunteer as tribute!”

If you were to have a vote on the top 10 iconic lines from film in the past decade, or even this millenia, surely this should make it near the top. It is a powerful line and powerful moment that introduced us to the world of Panem and Katniss Everdeen, the girl on fire. That was a mere three years ago, I have to admit I was shocked when I remembered how recent it was, as it feels like we’ve been living with Katniss and Peeta far longer. Studios have been looking for a franchise to come along and be as strong as this one; with only middling successes with Divergent and Maze Runner, which let’s face it pale by comparison.

So three years and approximately, 1.1 billion dollars later – where do we stand?

Let’s face it. I could stop the review here. If you’ve seen the others, you will be seeing this as well. I could (and will) go on about technical aspects of the film, but regardless of what I say anyone who is engaged this far with the franchise isn’t about to stop now. So this review won’t be a breakdown of the director (Francis Lawrence), writers (Suzanne Collins, Peter Craig, Danny Strong), or even the actors really. I want to talk about how I felt watching the movie. Things I realized.

I was mildly invested at the beginning after the lackluster feeling Part I left me with, but at the same time I have 6 hours + with these characters most of whom I like.  I had a conversation before the film about who I like and don’t, and while Gale drew the short straw as someone I dislike and Peeta was close second, Haymitch, Cinna, Finnick, Beetee, Johanna topped the list as my favorites. Where was Katniss? Well earlier in the week there was another Facebook conversation about Katniss, and I can be quoted as:

She IS a prop. She is also a survivor, she will do whatever it takes to live, but the reason she is important in the narrative is that she is the Noble Sacrifice. The martyr. She is 100% done with the world by the end of the first film. She still is a prop for other people with little action of her own volition other than defiance. That said, I enjoy the movies. The first book is ok. Is she a bad icon? Yes. But she’s one of the few film icons girls really have and there are traits worth praising.

I may have been mistaken. I think she is one of the truly strongest young female characters in film. She is a survivor. She started taking initiative. She took agency for her own life at every opportunity. Yes she needed help, but so do we all. What matters most about Katniss – she is one of the few characters we get that feels human. While Jennifer Lawrence was 23 when the first film came out Katniss wasn’t. She was still a child. She was a victim who refused to let herself be a victim. She was a child. She was a child who watched an even younger child be murdered in front of her and REFLEXIVELY killed another human being. They let that show. A few in character years later and she is breaking. There’s a speech near the beginning of the film that I adore as it tells you everything you need to know about her for the rest of the film. Jennifer Lawrence sells every bloody moment of pain, of fear, of weakness, of rage, and of being “done”. It’s all there in her performance.

Most importantly she is human. She reacts like a human. She reacts like a good person. She is one of the most “Real” characters in film. That needs to be celebrated.

So where does Katniss sit now as the franchise comes to an end? She’s still not my favorite overall, but she’s up there. I think this movie changed a lot of my opinion on her as I finally watched her character finish her arc. I was satisfied. I felt that things were complete.

For their part, everyone else’s arc concluded the way I think they should have. Each actor did a good job conveying what they needed to and each had enough charisma on screen to make me care one way or another.

On my more typical technical aspects, I think the movie may have been ten minutes too long. A few shots just lingered into awkwardness. A few shots felt extraneous.  The effects were top end from make up experts such as Ve Neil (Face/Off), and others who have won on Face/Off as part of the crew. The opening effect is one of the most solid I’ve ever seen and the movie really doesn’t let up on those practical effects the rest of the running time. The CG Hounds were…ok. They looked like left over stock footage from the garbage that was I Am Legend. I forgive them, a rare thing with effects work,  as they are meant to be artificial.

TL;DR?

The movie is 100% Serviceable. It’s the ending that needed to happen. It has no real surprises. It’s the right conclusion for the right arc. It WORKS. More film writers should watch this to learn how to nail the final act; something so many many fail at.

It didn’t have an emotional gut punch like other films do, but I also have no regrets here. I have no real qualms with this film. I don’t think it’s the greatest. I don’t think it’s the most fun. It is what it needs to be.

It should be watched. It was a good movie. Not just ok, but actually good.

 

Darke Reviews | Spectre (2015)

Posted by

2

As a complete aside before we begin the review, do people not know how not to bathe in cologne or perfume? Seriously the past two times I’ve had to be with people in public places this week someone sat near me who positively reeked of some sort of fragrance and gave me a borderline headache. Unsurprisingly I was surrounded by men in this movie, there were a total of five other women in the showing I was in. Back on topic of course we have the latest installment of the Bond franchise since the reboot nine years ago with Casino Royale, this will be the last installment for Daniel Craig as the actor is done with the role.

Is this the send off her deserved?

The first thing to address is the writing, let us now apply the rule of three. We have three story credits, and an additional credit on screenplay. We have Robert Wade (Die Another Day, Casino Royale), Neal Purvis (The World Is Not Enough, Quantum of Solace), John Logan (Last Samurai, Star Trek Nemesis) on the story and screenplay. All three of these men have worked on most of the last five Bond films. They have also worked on multiple high profile projects of rather good quality and others….less so. Adding to the screenplay credit is Jez Butterworth, writer on two good (Black Mass, Edge of Tomorrow). All of these men have a long history of relatively solid films with coherent plots and stories I actually cared about and what happened.

So what happened here? I cared for nothing. No one mattered. Nothing mattered. It was all off camera or so distant as to be unrelatable. Motivation? What’s that? Seriously, there is none. NONE. Nothing in this movie matters or makes sense. Sure the trigger does. But so little else does. The seductions do not work. The interplay does not work. Decision making on the part of the characters makes little sense. This thing is a bloody mess. I saw glimpses of things that could have been and then lost it as the following scenes progressed.

The blame must go to the director as well, Sam Mendes. Again this is confusing to me as he is behind Skyfall and Road to Perdition. I would go on about how little sense the direction here makes, but I am not sure how. Characters who should be more than they are do nothing. Characters we want to see more of vanish. Decisions and dialogue and performances just fall flat. There’s one line where it’s delivered so badly and with such blandness that Kristin Stewart in Twilight would have looked like a Jeremy Irons or John Malkovich caricature with the amount of emotion displayed. It’s almost like he didn’t care, the writers didn’t care, and the actors didn’t care.

I mean I love Monica Bellucci and Christoph Waltz. They are fantastic in everything I see them in. Lea Seydoux, gorgeous and amazingly expressive and subtle. Dave “Drax the Destroyer” Bautista is the heavy in this one and works. He uses his physical presence to the fullest effect. Yet none of it matters. Craig is going through the motions little else.

What makes it worse? I’ve seen this plot already and it was done better in Skyfall and in Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. It was done better, more interestingly, and just….more fun. This movie is boring. The pacing is so wrong. The action sequences are totally uninspired and run too long. Scenes that should be climactic aren’t. The symbolism during two scenes is so intense it’s like Mendes came into the movie theatre and shouted “look. look at the symbolism, embrace it. Embrace how clever I am and your father smells of elderberries.” Yes. It was insulting.

TL;DR?

This may turn out to be an unpopular opinion this weekend, I haven’t checked against those who have seen it already; but…

I actively dislike this movie. I was bored. I was annoyed. I was uninvested. This is a bad movie. It isn’t just a bad Bond movie, but it is a bad movie. I don’t know what went wrong.

I wanted, expected to be meh as the credits rolled, but it turned into a tauntaun scream of irritation as I talked about it with a friend on the drive home.

I cannot recommend this film except to people I dislike.

Darke Reviews – The Last Witch Hunter (2015)

Posted by

3

Thanks to Tucson Comic-con having made a deal with Lionsgate, I had the opportunity to see this movie on Tuesday. Plenty of geeks in the audience and a row of local professional reviewers behind me. More than a few geeks were discussing their Star Wars Force Awakens tickets, or lack there of, but the general mood of the theatre was fairly positive. Talked to the pro’s a bit, desperately wanted to plug my site and didn’t, tried to sell them on Crimson Peak. The lights didn’t dim, the sound didn’t come on, but then they fixed that and the movie started.

How was it though?

Let’s begin with one very basic conceit, all rumors and stories seem to indicate the character was based on/inspired by a Dungeons and Dragons character of Vin Diesel. The man is a geek and is proud of it. So this knowledge going in made me more inclined to be favorable to the movie. It does risk the ire of the three writer rule with Cory Goodman, Matt Sazama, and a name so odd if it isn’t a pseudonym I almost feel bad: Burk Sharpless. Goodman’s only other writing project was the critically panned Priest. Sazama and Sharpless provided us Dracula Untold. So we have three writers who don’t do particularly good with deep stories, but enjoy a specific type of atmospheric and supernatural film and this shows in the final product.

Hellboy, Constantine, Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, and Beautiful Creatures all could fit in the world they crafted without even batting an eye. Honestly, I would watch the hell out of that universe if given an opportunity. Part of that comes from the vision of the director Breck Eisner. Eisner has very little in the way of directing credits, but can tout such films as Sahara and The Crazies. He doesn’t do much new or really draw much out of his actors that wasn’t already there, but at least he committed to the story. A few of the set pieces made me smile and want to visit them and if he had a hand in that, then he did ok. That’s the best I can give there.

I wish I could say more on the acting, but it’s pretty flat overall. No one reaches, no one does more than the bare minimum they are capable of. Michael Caine is the wise mentor. Elijah Wood is the young protege. Rose Leslie (Ygritte from Game of Thrones) gets to do more than she did in the show, but not too much. It’s a weak characterization given to someone who can do more. The same can be said of Diesel, there’s just no passion to the role, no weight, no effort. He goes through the motions, which is disappointing considering what I mentioned earlier. Maybe he was just too comfortable? The acting isn’t bad, that’s important to note, it just isn’t special or particularly strong or memorable.

Now, while I praised the world building which I did enjoy quite a bit, the overall plot and characterizations are relatively bland, rushed, and ultimately hollow. I cared about Leslie’s character Chloe because I have a crush on the actress, little else from the script made me care. She’s also got the veneer of feminism. She appears to be a strong, independent, and powerful character; yet barely does much on her own. Disappointing. Same can be said of Diesel’s character, which had so much potential but it was wasted by the script itself. The story had such potential for him.

From a technical and visual standpoint, the movie is ok. Most of the effects are solid enough and rather well done. It with the world building mentioned earlier was pretty immersive and kept me interested when other elements were drawing me out.  Others…just a few grades up from SyFy movie of the week. On par with some of the earlier films mentioned, such as Priest or Dracula Untold. At an editors view it takes too long on some shots and not nearly long enough on others. Amateur tip: We know you are in New York. You made that clear. We do not need long aerial shots of people driving across any of the bridges. That was a few seconds that could have gone elsewhere, like not doing a clear pick up shot on a backlot that doesn’t match the rest of the location you are supposed to be at.

TL;DR?

Despite the overall blandness, it is a bit of fun. I did actually enjoy it. Part of that enjoyment was hearing a line of “he’s a 14th level warlock” (only throwaway line I picked up on) and imagining this movie in the same world as other movies I’ve enjoyed. Part of it was the concept of the film, even if it wasn’t executed well. It was just appealing. The audience I was with did seem to enjoy it as they were giving their one liners to the person polling them, “awesome”, “exciting”, “kick ass”.

I just said Fun.

The movie reminds me of watching a group of people give it their all and turn out something mediocre. You appreciate the intent even if the final product isn’t all that good. It reminded me of other things and those things brought a smile to my face; and that’s worth something.

Shortest version: It’s fun, but unless you really want to support it wait til Blu Ray.

 

Cabin in the Woods

Darke Reviews | Cabin in the Woods (2012)

Posted by

2

Another from the request vault for this month. Has it really been three years since this came out? I kind of wish I had seen this one in the theatres, but sadly I didn’t. Overall most modern horror disappoints me, even Joss Whedon’s name on it and the fan reaction to the film. There are few names that will put my butt in a seat in the movies on name alone, Joss is not one of those names. He does so much well, but there are flaws that are getting harder to overlook. All of that being said the question remains:

Should you visit the Cabin in the Woods?

Let’s look at the writers first. Joss Whedon, generally referred to as a geek god, self proclaimed feminist, creator of Buffy, Dollhouse, Firefly, and of course director of Avengers. In addition we have Drew Goddard, who also directs, best known for Cloverfield and recently, The Martian. It’s clear from the filmography that the two men are friends and what the movie makes clear is that they work well together and have an ability to share a vision.

The story, interestingly to me, is both a solid horror film in it’s own right while bordering on parody of the genre as well. It is a near perfect deconstruction of the teen horror genre that quite brilliantly subverts it at the same time. The idea that much of what you see in films for the past forty or fifty years is a test that most fail, save The Final Girl. That every archetype is typically represented in these films, the jock, the scholar, the slut, the virgin, and the fool. Sincerely yours, the Breakfast club.

Each role is taken seriously, and it’s important to note none are shamed. Point in fact the antagonists craft the people to their role where it may not have existed before. I would commend the acting but when you are literally playing an archetype it is difficult to stray. This isn’t to say that Kristen Connolly (Zoo, The Happening), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Anna Hutchinson (Power Rangers 2008), Jesse Williams (Grey’s Anatomy), and Fran Kranz (Dollhouse) don’t do well as our protagonists; it’s just they don’t have to do much. Kranz actually has the most work as the stoner who plays every movie audience ever. He is the audience voice in the film and nearly every line is something we have thought or said watching movies such as this.

Let’s talk effects for a moment. The movies does a lot of work practically.  If you are tired of hearing this, sorry not sorry. Practical always looks better. A good make up effect enhanced lightly by computers works, but the underlying practical make up and prosthetic will always win in my mind until the day I can no longer tell I am looking at a computer enhanced image. I absolutely adore the creature designs that I saw through the film. So lots of kudos to the art department, make up department, prosthetic, and wigs at AFX. When the movies does have to go into the realm of CG it isn’t the greatest 100% of the time, but overall is really solid. The imaginations of the artists were allowed to go full bore and we should thank them all for it.

TL;DR?

If you have not seen Cabin in the Wood by now and are a lover of the horror genre – see it! Honestly, most audiences can take it as it doesn’t tend to go full bore gorefest too much or show too much when it goes into that realm. Part of the easing of that is Whedon’s need to insert humor and sarcasm into particularly tense scenes and serious moments into the moments of levity.

While I would still not let children see it (I would have), teens and higher could absolutely watch it. There are some really great concepts here and a near paint by numbers format that could help people who want to write stories or scripts to take notes from.

I don’t know about you, but I am for another trip to the Cabin. I mean after all what harm can come from reading a book.

Darke Reviews | Crimson Peak (2015)

Posted by

3

So first off, apologies about missing the last few days of reviews, been a touch sick. That being said, we do have a new film that fits right in with the theme of this month with it’s supernatural tones and haunting themes. As we start into the review a confession that I am a Guillermo del Toro fangirl, I’ve loved his entire filmography and still have a few films to watch. This is my most anticipated movie of the fall season from the trailer to now I have been getting hyped. Cast, Director,  all of it. I mean watch this trailer, with PJ Harvey’s cover of Nick Cave’s Red Right hand.

This is a trailer that drove me to watch a film. This did the job of a trailer, I was interested. I was hyped.

Was I too hyped? Was it worth it?

Let’s begin with writing. Matthew Robbins, best known as the writer of 1974’s Sugarland Express. He is also the mind behind urban horror tale Mimic, 80’s rebellion icon The Legend of Billie Jean (a personal fav). The man knows how to write character driven stories. He also does a good job with tension, but only a good job; that’s where co-writer del Toro comes in. Nothing will stick out to me more about del Toro than his work on Pan’s Labyrinth a film that any director should be proud of and how people brought young children to it. It was a tumultuous film I look forward to writing a review of soon, but regardless it has such beautiful tension and imagery. Now we combine forces of these two men, who had previously worked on Mimic together. Only good things can come from this right?

We also have del Toro at the helm directing and providing, and I use the term honestly, visionary ideas to the production. I think of what he did with Mimic, Blade II, and Hellboy when given a chance. It’s important to know here that del Toro isn’t just a talented writer, but he has also worked multiple film crews as well, working Art Department, Editorial, Casting, Stunts, and so one. There are few facets of film he does not understand which only makes him a stronger director and that is in play here. I have complained a few times recently how claustrophobic modern film is, where the quality of the camera and the way the sets are shot make films seem small. Here del Toro flips that on it’s head making the film feel both claustrophobic and large at the same time in a an extraordinarily talented way. He made interesting fade choices I haven’t seen since the early days of film that only add to the style and ambience of the finished work.

An excellent director can do miracles when given the right cast and that has been put together. Jessica Chastain I have realized is a magnificent actress, much like a female Gary Oldman. Her roles are so different and so powerful, but she vanishes into them and you forget quickly you are looking at Murph, Commander Lewis, Maggie Beauford, or Maya; here instead she is Lady Lucille Sharpe, a Victorian/Turn of the century lady. Her brother, Thomas, is delivered unto us by Tom Hiddleston, most famous for his Loki performances, but also from a vampire favorite Only Lovers Left Alive. I am ecstatic that he did this as it will hopefully force fangirls, and other fans alike, to no longer think of him just as the man who played Loki. Thor made him famous, but his talent will keep him so I hope. Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, Only Lovers Left Alive) joins her two former castmates as Edith Cushing-Sharpe, a young american girl with dreams of being a writer in the vein of Mary Shelley vs. Jane Austen. Rounding out the cast we have Charlie Hunnam (Pacific Rim / Sons of Anarchy),  Jim Beaver (Supernatural), and the man with incredible fingers, Doug Jones. Few people have seen Jones without a make up effect on him, but suffice to say he is an excellent creature performer.

That also tells you something of the film. There are people, mostly Doug Jones and Javier Botet that play the supernatural elements of the film. For those in the back, Real people. Yes, they are overlaid with computer work, but that is only after the prosthetics and make up is applied. The movie goes as practical as it is capable of for the story it wants to tell and thrives for it as physical performances enhanced by a computer are always better than a performance simply made by the computer in a film like this. The effects are creepy but not too creepy. The trailers will let you manage your expectations of what you can and cannot deal with. Continuing on the technicals, the sets themselves are perfect. I mean that. Perfect. The house is real as far as I am concerned. It is a place I want to go, it is a place I can go. The costuming is stunning as well and tells a story of it’s own.

Now, the story itself? It is a classic ghost story in every sense of the word. This is not a spoiler since if you are surprised it’s a ghost story, clearly you are not paying attention. It is atmospheric. It is pulpy. It is large. It is small. It is dark and it is bright. Not one aspect of the story is wasted or left to chance.

TL;DR?

At almost precisely 2 hours, I cannot say Crimson Peak is a perfect film. I closed the longer part of the review saying not an aspect was wasted or left too chance; yet there is some pacing that could have been addressed. Guillermo does a sublime job of building tension and releasing it as needed, but it’s not quite perfect. I cannot put my finger on it but there’s just something off that didn’t resonate as well. It could be the bad audience I had, the long work day before, or my own expectations being as high as they were.

All of that aside, if you are looking forward to Crimson Peak – see it. See it this weekend. It’s the only one studios care about. We need more of what this film, it’s cast and crew bring to the cinema. This movie is the art we thought it would be.

The trailer says beware Crimson Peak.

I say enter of thy own free will….

 

Darke Reviews | Tremors (1990)

Posted by

2

Another one right in the childhood, I remember starting high school as this one came out. I understand the 5th one just got released on Netflix this month. I vividly remember getting this on VHS and watching it ad nauseum with my grandfather. So going into this, I will say yes – I still like it.

The question is does it hold up and will you?

Rule of Three starts this one off, with a story by S.S. Wilson, Brent Maddock, and Ron Underwood. The screenplay is by Wilson and Maddock. Underwood also directs. What this tells me is that most likely Wilson and Maddock wrote the story and screenplay, sold it to the studio and that Underwood made enough changes during production to get a screenplay credit.

This isn’t a hard jump of logic as Wilson was also the writer on the abomination that is Ghost Dad, and the remaining Tremors films (and short lived TV series) up to part four. When you look at IMDB you see that Maddock has almost the same credits down the line. Now it’s entirely possible these two really just collaborate well, or one of the two names is secretly an Alan Smithee. Underwood  still works s a director on TV on such shows as Once Upon a Time, Grey’s Anatomy, Agent’s of Shield. Tremors was his first theatrical film, following quickly with City Slickers and dying a horrific death at the hands of Pluto Nash; sending him back to TV for the past decade.

Taking the nostalgia glasses off, our story bases itself around the small town of Perfection Nevada, population 14.  Our heroes are Earl (Fred Ward) and Valentine (Kevin Bacon) two local handymen and roustabouts who in their attempt to escape the small town and start a life elsewhere begin to find people on the outskirts of town dead. They quickly learn that subterranean creatures have been attacking and now it turns into a game of survive or die. ‘

It’s a basic creature feature premise, but there’s a lot of factors that make it work. You have interesting small town caricatures, two charismatic heroes, a good location, and a good creature design. The banter seems real, the chemistry between the cast genuine, the comedy beats sell. Every aspect of this movie works when you consider it as an homage to the 50’s and 60’s B-Monster movies. It really lives and breathes like one of these classic (not necessarily good) films. Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward have all the charisma to make this movie work as well.

From a technical standpoint, there are some interesting tricks of the camera that are used to give you monster POV at times which adds to the tension. There is some level of genius on the control to not continually show the monster but to rather give you the impression of their passing. Something I think if this incarnation were made today wouldn’t be done. There’s also, as I have stated numerous times, practical effects. The creatures are 100%practical and puppeteer driven. I can’t find a single computer generated effect, though there is some green screen.

TL;DR

Tremors is a thing of beauty. It is a wonderful horror/comedy creature feature. Nostalgia glasses are off as I write this, but really I find that the movie holds up really well twenty five years later. A large portion of that is due to Bacon, Ward, and the practical effects. It’s a tight story, not particularly scary, that has little to no fat or extraneous scenes.

I really like Tremors and if you haven’t watched it, I recommend it. Even folks who don’t do horror could watch this one.

Darke Reviews – Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009)

Posted by

2

Continuing the countdown of the Underworld series we move now into the third entry of the franchise. Underworld, the story you didn’t really care about. I mean Underworld: The Two Towers. I mean Underworld Werewolves need love too. …gah sorry. Underworld Rise of the Lycans. In Hollywoods quest for mining blood from a stone they have resorted strongly to the prequel; with the Underworld franchise being no exception. This was the franchise film for my ex, she was the werewolf lover and me the vampire lover; which was no end of running jokes in our household.

Is Rise of the Lycans worth the 90 minutes of your time it takes to watch.

Much like last week, we have a total of nine credits under the writing category. Three belong to the original characters, so we get to ignore them. The story is by Len Wiseman , with the addition or Robert Orr and Danny McBride. McBride has a character credit, which leaves us Orr, who has done nothing else save the Jeffrey Dean Morgan thriller The Resident. Screenplay credits, in other words the script, goes to three: McBride (again), Dirk Blackman (how can that be a real name), and Howard McClain. Blackman was the scriptwriter on the the underrated sci fi take of Beowulf called Outlander, but vanished after this. McClain also worked on Outlander as both writer and director, who also vanished after.

Under their pen the story now focuses on the story of Lucian (Michael Sheen) and Sonja (Rhona Mitra) and their Romeo and Juliet like romance under the eye of her father Viktor (Bill Nighy). I am using the Romeo and Juliet romance accurately here. It adds to the story of Tannis (Steven Mackintosh) and introduces us to a still human Raze (Kevin Grevioux). We are now several hundred years in the past for this story, sometime after the trapping of William Corvinus, the first Werewolf, and before the birth of Selene. Time is subjective with this series at best.

We have the direction of former production designer and make up expert Patrick Tatopoulos. You may know him from the early seasons of Face/Off on SyFy, but he also was involved in Stargate, Spawn, Pitch Black, Cursed, The Cave, Silent Hill, Trick R Treat…..the list goes on. This was one of his first, and sadly only, forays into directing. He showed a strong hand at the helm and keeps the overall style of the original films. It has a tight focus overall, but act three quickly reminds me of The Two Towers with Michael Sheen going full Aragorn in his trench coat, the rain, and lots of swords. In typical series fashion it is on the lower end of the budget but they stretch it for all that they can.

The casting keeps all that they could reasonably. Sheen has to carry the movie as an ‘younger’ version of the leader he is to become. Thankfully he has all the charisma to do so; even if some scenes push credulity. Nighy continues to chew scenery like you wouldn’t believe, I am starting to think the heavy blinking is irritation with the contacts, but the man is able to carry himself as a heavy despite his comic background. He is also given the oppotunity to show a few different emotions this time, which he takes with quiet resolve. Playing the role of Sonja is Rhona Mitra (Doomsday, The Last Ship) , and unlike the actress from the first film, Mitra actually fits the description when the line is uttered “you reminded him of his precious Sonja”. As a bit of trivia, and a point of desire to be honest, she refused to remove her fangs during filming instead saying they felt as if they always should have been there. She clearly plays the role of someone who not only physically would remind Viktor, but also personality and general badassness. She does well with the raw physicality of the role and sensuality as well.

The technicals hold true to Underworld stylings with blue lighting filters, deep shadows, and an overall near black and white look to the film. The abundance of black leather remains surprising, but c’est la vie. When there is CG work it isn’t that great, but it never has been. The best shots are of the physical werewolves. These are some of the best were’s on screen looking large, in charge, and not entirely ridiculous. The challenge with any werewolf is to allow the actor to emote as both the skull and mouth are structured entirely differently, though they do what they can due to the large amount of time needing to focus on the werewolves.

TL;DR?

Lycans is not the weakest of the franchise. They were also painted into a corner with the story somewhat where some elements *must* happen. It also isn’t the best. From a financial standpoint it made its money back, almost in the first weekend and more than doubled it when you look globally.  That said, this also has the weakest financial turn for any of the franchise, with Awakening having the highest.

It isn’t my favorite of the series, but I do enjoy it. So where does that leave us?

If you feel the need to marathon the film series then you can absolutely enjoy this. I don’t think I’d recommend it as a standalone viewing unless you enjoy Underworld as a series. It does standalone with no real need to watch the others, but there’s not enough draw on it’s own either.

To sum up: “That was fun I guess.”

 

 

Darke Reviews – The Hunger (1983)

Posted by

1

Let’s go back to the vault a bit shall we? A little vampire film that took a bite of its generation and sold it to us to the sound of Bauhaus. The early 80’s were rife with films that captured various scenes, both so few captured both the underground Goth and Punk scenes as well as The Hunger. It is an iconic work within the vampire genre without which, in part anyway, we would unlikely have been given Vampire the Masquerade almost a decade later.

Does it stand up thirty years later?

We often complain about how often Hollywood adapts from books, this is not a new problem. Whitley Strieber, who also gave us the werewolf classic Wolfen, wrote the novel for this as well; just two years prior. It was adapted for the screen by  Ivan Davis, who did nothing else really, and Michael Thomas. Thomas on the other hand gave us another 80s cult classic Ladyhawke,  then vanished to relative obscurity until 2011’s Devils Double.  The dialogue is a bit straight forward with little to no actual subtlety in it, but the directness helps create an interesting tone mixed with the performances. No one in my experience actually talks like they do in here, yet it works within this early 80’s / late 70’s aesthetic.

The film toys with the ideas of bad pseudo-science that we all so love from that era with studies into things we now know are just down right silly; yet with a few tweaks could be brought to modernization via such terms as Stem Cells. What would you do to stop aging? What price would you pay? What if the clock had paused but then started again – what would you do? These are some of the questions the movie dances around and doesn’t quite give you the answer but instead leaves you to get invested and decide for yourself.

It takes a good director to build that kind of investment and for that we have the late Tony Scott. The younger brother of Ridley Scott would later go onto give us some of the most well known films of the 80’s and early  90’s. Little films like Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop 2, True Romance, Days of Thunder,  and The Last Boyscout. The Hunger, is his first big Hollywood film. It does show at times, mixed with the style of edgy films at the time. Quick cuts, harsh blue and white lighting, and odd shadows. Unusual blocking mixed with limited sets  that combine claustrophobia and open space at the same time. The film feels shot on a budget, yet the hints of genius make it look like the budget was very well spent.

The actors are forced to do a lot with little. There is a near, hopefully, intentional withdrawal from emotion in the three big performances. Catherine Deneuve and David Bowie (yes David Bowie) play Miriam and John Blaylock, our vampires. Though interestingly, I don’t recall the word being used. Susan Sarandon is our scientist who comes in contact with the pair and ensnared in the life of the Blaylock’s. All three are riveting in their lack of overall emotions yet the passion they are able to bring, especially Sarandon and Deneuve. This is perhaps to me why Cliff De Young comes across so distant from them and jarring in his performance as another scientist and love interest to Sarandon. For all the reservedness of the three mains, he is opposite.  There are almost no other relevant cast members to mention as these four are critical to the story; and Deneuve and Sarandon steal every scene they share with each other and it’s hard to tear your eyes away, not accounting for how 80s Sarandon’s hair is.

From an FX perspective. THIS. DO THIS. I keep harping on how much practical is better than CG. This is why. While the effects are not 100% up to par thirty years later, a combination of practical  and camera work sell what effects there are. Make up effects do the rest and we love the movie for it. The movie knew this too as the credit is titled: Make Up Illusions. The two credits here go to Carl Fullerton and Dick Smith. Fullerton has earned two Oscar nominations in his career, and worked on other films suchas F/X, Wolfen,  and Silence of the Lambs. Recently he seems to be Denzel Washington’s personal make up artist. The late Dick Smith, is legendary in the FX community. His last film was the House on Haunted Hill; while his first was in 1941! I know a number of the major artists who credit Smith and his work for getting them into the industry. I tell you this to tell you how amazing the make up is in the film. Amazing

TL;DR?

I would be lying to myself, and you, if I told you that The Hunger holds up now as an overall product. Effects wise it does, but overall aesthetic, acting, and style it really doesn’t. It *is* better than some of the vampire schlock we get these days though. It’s erotic moments of which there are a few are shot with such care and precision that they are truly erotic.

You just don’t see that these days. A lesbian vampire film would be soft porn at best, without the hint of real, sensual eroticism to it.  The film also was riding the very end of the 70’s Hammer and other such erotic horror with the tune shifting already to films like Vamp and The Lost Boys.

The Hunger is an absolute must see for any vampire aficionado. Horror wise? Not so much. It does present a very specific slice of 80’s life and is still worth seeing overall. This is one I think I would like to see if it could be remade.

 

Darke Reviews | The Mist (2007)

Posted by

0

As we move back to more mainstream horror, let’s go to one of the most prolific and deserving men of the last half of the century, Stephen King. It would be easy to say he is one of the most recognized and important writers of the western world. I am proud to have a collection of most of his early works in hardcover within my library. Today’s review covers one of his stories that affected me the most as a child, The Mist. I had the opportunity to get this as a book on tape (with sound effects) around the age of 9 or 10. I grew up in a place that got mist/fog on a not too irregular basis so the one two punch made for an interesting time the next few times we had it. I’ve read the short story over a dozen times just because how good it is.

That makes this one of the violations of the read it first rules as I was reading this long before I imagined I would be writing reviews.

So how did the movie turn out?

Written and directed by Frank Darabont, who probably is the most successful individual at adapting King’s works with such films as The Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption. TV watchers may know him as the man who gave us The Walking Dead. He shows a brilliant command of moving his actors, the dialogue, and the vision through beat by beat and page by page. King gave a lot to work with, but history has shown us not all King adaptations are made equal (It, The Langoliers, Sleepwalkers); but Darabont not only lifts dialogue from page to screen, but the atmosphere and the scenes page for page. For a film like the Mist the atmosphere is critical. From an additional story standpoint the movie does a good job of showing multiple points of view during such an extreme crisis, those who turn to religion, those who deny at a flat earth level, and those who accept their situation and want to survive it. The discussions of humanity, fear, and human nature while mostly being sound bits are handled better than most films who spend time on it.

Of course good acting is a well to sell that the atmosphere and horror is something to be concerned about. For that Darabont put together an excellent cast of actors. Thomas Jane plays artist David Drayton a guy from the city living in a small Maine (of course) town. A massive storm damages his lake house and that of his neighbor Brent Norton (Andre Braugher: Brooklyn Nine-Nine); so Drayton, his son, and Norton head to town for supplies. A strange mist envelops the grocery store trapping Drayton and everyone inside. Shapes and sounds begin to move in the mist as well as the screams of those caught in it. Selling the horror is a cast of people we know even eight years later, Marcia Gay Harden (Law and Order: SVU) plays the whack-a-doodle Mrs Carmody,Laurie (Andrea – Walking Dead) Holden, Toby (Captain America) Jones, William (Die Hard 2, Iron Man 3) Sadler, Jeffrey DeMunn (Dale – The Walking Dead), Alexa (Clash of Titans) Davalos, Sam (Being Human) Witwer all play their A game to sell the film. While we are discussing the raw number of future Walking Dead, we even have Melissa (Carol) McBride in an unnamed role within the film.

The effects are a wonderful blend of practical and CG. The CG is a bit dated, but it tends to the higher end at the time. If you watch the movie in black and white, which is one of the DVD features they become nearly seamless between practical and computer. Now, this past few days I have been discussing how awesome KNB EFX is.  Once again they are the stars of the effects show with Berger, Kurtzman, and Nicotero at the helm. Seriously Hollywood go to these guys more and go less to your computer departments. Please? Creature design was top notch and original and perfectly in line with the book as well. It is positively Lovecraftian.

The ending, I will not spoil, but need to discuss – so bear with me. King is quoted as wishing he had the balls to do the ending that came from Darabont’s pen. Actually…go to the bottom of the post and roll over the SPOILER section to read more.

TL:DR

The Mist is a master class in horror film-making and book adaptation. Darabont was in top form and well deserving of getting to start the Walking Dead a few years later. Great cast, great effects, great film.

If you are a horror fan you need to see this at a minimum and have it in your collection if at all possible. Take the opportunity to watch it in black and white as well.

 

 

 

SPOILERS – ENDING DISCUSSION

 

DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU’VE WATCHED THIS

 

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Ok, let’s talk the end.

Darabont went with kill your darlings. King went with hope and hopelessness. Both endings are really solid. Darabont pulls off the car and the final beats with an artist’s stroke, but then….then he ruins it. There’s two sides to this. One it increases the sense of hopelessness and the Lovecraftian break of a character’s sanity, but at the same time it also shows that the army comes in and saves the day. It ends the threat. King left the threat, still left you feeling hopeless but stood on the edge of hope. It left you with uncertainty as my friend said. 

To me, I would have preferred a combination of the two. The Kill-Your-Darlings and the chasm of Hope. It would have worked. It would have been better. The Darabont ending is really good and supremely brave to try to do, I don’t believe a studio would try it now. They don’t have it in them. So props for doing it but…..I would have preferred they film the King ending as well.