Darke Reviews | The Hunt (2020)

So this is what all the controversy was about? Originally slated to be released on September 27, 2019 the movie was pulled after the shootings that had occurred in both Texas and Ohio back in August of 2019. This was the right call to make, as I had previously mentioned in my Death Wish 2018 review. I will be honest, I can easily quote my opening of that review here and the context would remain the same, and so I shall.

*sigh* Movies do not exist in a vacuum. They exist as snap shots of culture, whether in the form of parody (comedy), our fears (horror), our hopes (science fiction), or in some cases wish fulfillment (action). These of course are generalizations of the genres and what they represent as you look at the passage of time. Not every movie fits neatly into that or you can mix and match to your hearts content. I’ve talked about how this applies specifically to horror movies in other reviews and that there’s a cultural shift to the idea of home invasion being one of the major themes in modern horror. The faceless killers, the victims, and eventually the final girl. There’s even a half dozen movies this year in that particular subgenre of horror to reinforce this.

 

That has not changed. What does is context and story.

What do I mean?

The Hunt is the newest variation in the well past the glue factory beaten horse of “The Most Dangerous Game” – Hint. It’s MAN. The short story was written in 1924, the first movie adaptation was in 1932. The making of the movie is as interesting than the actual movie. The essence of the story is Rich People hunt other People because reasons. The reasons vary from story to story, but the prey rarely does. Most of the time it’s prisoners, the poor, the homeless, or the otherwise desperate. This movie written by Damon Lindelof (Watchmen, World War Z, Tomorrowland, and dozens of other projects) and Nick Cuse (Watchmen, Maniac) changes it up a bit, just barely. The Rich this time are “Ultra PC Liberal Elites” *shuddering at having written that sentence* who are hunting conspiracy theorists, internet trolls, and people who made fun of them on social media. No seriously. Thats the plot. Gather the prey, drop them in a field Hunger Games style, and …thats it. On Jason Blum (Blumhouse Productions) budget.

I spent the better part of the movie trying to figure out who the movie was for. If it was supposed to be making fun of everyone Mel Brooks style, it forgot to be funny. If it was supposed to be a lampoon, it didn’t remember who the target was. If it was Satire it forgot to actually be ironic and have a message. Who is the mass audience that would be coming to see this. Sure Blumhouse probably made this with a budget of three packets of Pixie Stix, a roll of duct tape, and one live pig, so if anyone saw it it might break even. Might. Instead you have a muddled mess with mildly entertaining death scenes that Spinal Tap would give the thumps up to. I am pretty sure the movie wasn’t taking itself too seriously, but then I go why not? If you are going to make this – take it seriously. If you aren’t going to take it seriously, make it funny. You have to pick…one. At least one.

Betty Gilpin (Stuber, GLOW) is one of the hunted and makes it work and honestly is rather entertaining. There’s an edge she rides with the character between stoicism and sarcasm that really is the highlight of the movie. I could talk about anyone else, but…there really isn’t a point. They are so two dimensional a piece of paper has more depth to it.

TL;DR?

This movie should have absolutely been delayed. I stand by the decision on that. That being said, the concept that this movie glorifies hunting people or gun violence shows me no one actually watched it. Gun violence is part of the movie, but unlike Death Wish which romanticized it, this…exists. That might be the kindest thing I can say about it. It exists.

Some of the headlines are pure hyperbole – “Designed to stoke division in this country”. Yeah no WSJ. “Gory Battle Royale”. I’ve actually seen Battle Royale, this doesn’t even rate in the top 30 gory movies of its kind. “Shows Hollywood for what it really is, demented and evil” – Fox news. I don’t even know where to begin on this one on how wrong it is. “Exploitative rather than opinionated” – the Daily Mail. I swear these headlines really are clickbait and I watched a different movie.

The actual controversy around it was sound and fury constituting nothing and may have only existed as part of the movies marketing mechanism, which it’s clear the poster for it’s actual release intended to use.

There’s nothing particularly “wrong” with the movie other than it isn’t half as clever as it thinks it is. It’s not as gory was people claim it is (one scene exception).  It wanted to be witty but amounts to little more than an ill placed whoopee cushion where everyone kinda chuckles but no one had a good time.

Should I see it?

No. It’s not even worth the curiosity fee.

Would you see it again?

Only if one of my reviewer friends gives me a hot take I missed entirely and when I can watch it for free on Netflix.

So …not buying it.

No. No I am not

You’re usually more wordy than this on a movie you hate.

I don’t hate it. I am just confused by it. I literally hit my friends up in discord going “what did I just watch?”. This isn’t like The Lighthouse or High Rise where I know what I watched was good but I can’t make heads or tails out of how I feel about it. This is a movie that exists, had its moments largely thanks to Betty Gilpin, but just left me very very confused as to what it wanted to be and was trying to do.

Who knows maybe Bloodshot tomorrow will be something….I doubt it, but I can hope.

Darke Reviews | The Invisible Man (2020)

I jokingly referred to this as Gaslighting the Movie when I saw the trailer. I’ve been debating, until watching it, how to do a Claude Rains joke, or if someone asks me “Did you see the Invisible Man?” making a crack “of course not, he’s invisible.” This is not the movie to make those jokes. Now, I have no confirmation of this, but this also feels like a movie that might have been shelved for a bit, as part of Universal (the movie’s distributor) and their ill planned (but not ill advised if we’re being honest) attempt at a Dark Universe. There was of course “The Mummy” in 2017 and my undying hatred of it and its ham fisted attempt at a solid launch of this Universe. Dracula Untold back in 2014 which had a shoe horned ending to try to insert it in the DU. Looking back at the classics, we’re only missing a few, Phantom, The Wolf Man, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and The Invisible Man.

The character of the Invisible Man first appeared in 1897 with a short story by H.G. Wells. It was further and widely popularized by the 1933 classic produced by Carl Laemmle Jr., directed by James Whale, and staring Claude Raines. The first two names are important because they *WERE* the Universal Monster makers. This movie was so iconic, as many of these were, that it spawned many sequels and other interpretations. I would say one of the more successful and well known attempts at a remake or re-imagining was in 2000 with the Kevin Bacon lead Hollow Man. This iteration introduces the sexual predator aspect, which brings us to our movie tonight.

Trigger Warning – Sexual Predation, Domestic Abuse, Gaslighting

Yeah, no quippy question today. The movie was storied, screenplayed, and directed by Leigh Whannel, who brought us much of this centuries modern horror. He is the writer of Saw, and two sequels, the Dead Silence remake, Insidiious and two sequels, and 2018’s Upgrade; which he also directed. I was not a fan of Upgrade, though many critics and others were. With this one Whannel has left his gore hound and supernatural horror background and continued his exploration of science horror as he did with Upgrade. Ironically, one of the major set pieces here is the same house from that movie. So if you do watch this and watched that – that’s where you’ve seen it before.

*sigh*

Ok, my joke title isn’t. This movie’s opening sequence is probably one of the most anxiety inducing scenes I have seen in an extraordinarily long time. While I myself have never been the victim of physical abuse, I know more than a few people who have and listened to others. I do know Narcissitic types and gaslighting, and other mental and emotional abuse techniques from having them used on me more times than I can count, and probably more than I was aware of if my reaction to this movie is any indication. The first seven to ten minutes of this two hour film are nothing but watching someone escape from their abuser. There’s barely a line of dialogue, the musical queues are light, but the camera control is on point. You watch as this woman, Cecilia Kass (Handmaids Tale Elisabeth Moss) clearly is trying to escape someone she is terrified of. The movie doesn’t waste any time showing you what she went through, or even telling you, it skips to the escape. The tension is real here, or was to me, with it continuing to build even through her actual escape. THEN the movie shows you what she was running from in just a few short seconds.

The rest of the movie plays like this. You spend the entire time watching this woman get broken down -after- she escapes her abuser. After it appears he is dead (not a spoiler, its in the trailer). Watching as someone or something manipulates her world and those around her to make her look more and more irrational to a situation. Full props must go to Ms. Moss here. She plays the descent like Nero played the fiddle. Aldis Hodge (Turn, Underground) and Storm Reid (A Wrinkle in Time) show up and play it all straight, but are completely overshadowed by Moss.

The tension and anxiety I felt going through the first act and a half of the movie were palpable. Enough that a few times I considered leaving. Not because I was scared, but because the movie made me uncomfortable. There are different kinds of horror, and this type, this type did not need to make the monster invisible to have him be the monster he is. He was all too real a Monster before hand and there are too many people in relationships with such monsters. That’s the power of this movie. Not the method in which he became invisible, or even the fact that he is, its that this kind of evil is real and doesn’t get tied up in a bow in 120 minutes.

If anything the last half of the movie becomes easier to watch, but this is where the plot holes form the largest. While there are a handful in the beginning, and they are significant, the last of them is large enough I could drive the USS Nimitz through it. This is also where IQ’s drop significantly with some of our protagonists. There are important questions that *are not answered* that leave me scratching my head even now.

TL;DR?

The Invisible Man is a rather well made modern horror. Easily made on the cheap, with a $9 million budget, production studio Blumhouses MO, the movie can’t help but turn a profit this weekend at the box office. It is well shot, though Whannel did clearly want to get a few “Upgrade” style camera move shots in.  I would say a solid quarter of the running time the movie is shot with Moss in a medium shot where you can see her and the entire room she’s in. No one HAS to be there, but her acting and the movie lets you think there is without a single drop of effect. Shots like that pepper through this film and build significant tension that never quite gets released. I would say the movie only even has one actual jump scare in it.

All of that being said…I drove home and was still feeling unclean having watched it. Normally when I write these reviews I listen to music or nothing at all to let me focus on the writing. Anything with actual dialogue can be distracting, but here I had to put on a nice safe horror movie like “You’re Next” to feel better.

Wow, should I watch this?

If any of my trigger warnings were relevant to you. No. No you should not. I am having a hard time recommending this movie. Despite some glaring plotholes, it really is well acted and well shot and does make you feel. You feel her fear, her anxiety, and the tension.

Would you watch it again?

Not for a long time.

Buying it? 

I really do not know.

You don’t usually ‘feel’ like this about a movie.

I know. I am a little surprised myself. While the IQ’s dropping and plotholes annoyed me the emotional resonance of the rest of the movie hit hard enough and well enough that I consider it an overall success. Just…its a little too real for my tastes with that opening.

I just can’t shake that people will be entertained by this and not get the horror isn’t the invisibility, its the abuser and the victim no one believes.

Darke Reviews | Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)

It actually took me almost two hours to decide what to write about this one. Most of us are familiar with the abomination that was the original trailer. Just in case you wanted nightmares tonight here you go:

 

This trailer formed one of the few universal truths on the internet, that being Sonic was a horrifying CG mess. The studio all but immediately vowed to fix it without changing the release date. Now if you don’t know much about the industry you’d think “so whats the big deal, its just CG.” I wish that were the case. As it stands most studios are dealing with 11th hour production changes, after already burning the midnight oil and their staff, and are also generally the lowest bid to complete the effects. A not insignificant number of smaller studios go out of business after some productions. So when we complain about horrific CG, like say the Black Panther final fight, that would be an 11th hour (read weeks/days before the release to get it fixed). CATS, which I refused to see even on curiosity (irony?) was in editing up until hours before the premier.

I told you that to tell you this. The studio who picked up fixing Sonic, “Moving Pictures Company” (MPC) and turned THAT into this…shut down its entire studio in Vancouver this December. That’s after the redesign work and the positive comments from the internet from their work. (source: CinemaBlend). Why? Because they barely made a profit from the work.

Image result for sonic before and after

 

All of this is important to understand when you consider the movie as a whole. It means that one of two things happened with the production. Someone at the head of the studio thought original design was perfect and didn’t need any updates; which implies they didn’t listen to anyone with an inkling of sense or they really didn’t care. Option 2, less likely, but far more insidious, is that they dropped a horrific trailer and knew it was bad but wanted the press. Then spent the money to fix it. The first is more likely and quite honestly more expected. We’ve seen it time and time again and will continue to do so.

What I don’t get is why? Paramount, the studio who is the lead on this production, barely has a leg to stand on box office wise. Not a single movie last year of their eleven broke $100 million. Rocketman was closest at $96 million and is in 32nd place in total gross.. They completely have destroyed any faith in most of their major IPs, like Transformers and Star Trek. This years bets aren’t looking so hot for them either with The Rhythm Section being a massive bomb (still disagree, but facts are facts) and only pulling in 5 million so far (ouch). Like a Boss with a whopping 22 million isn’t exactly stellar when a movie like Knives Out, in its 5th week by New Years, has pulled in 29 million this year. They have 16 movies this year and they have to be banking on the fact that A Quiet Place II does something and Top Gun: Maverick does as well. I mean one of their productions is a new GI Joe movie?

I am talking about all of this to try to help you and myself make sense of what myself and one of my Dark Court watched today. I thought the first twenty minutes or so were actually pretty solid. Good intro for Sonic. Good intro for James Marsden, who this movie owes it’s life to. Comical introduction of Robotnik was ok until he spoke. I leaned over to the member of my Court and was like “ok this movie knows what it is” with a Leslie Neilsen esque Airplane style joint chiefs meeting that checked off more cliches in two minutes than some movies do in two hours. I was wrong. I was so so wrong.  Marsden is the most charming thing in the movie. Sonic is entirely puntable 90% of the time, and the 10% is actually very bearable. If it weren’t for the new look this would be even more of a train wreck than it is.

I am not sure what writers Josh Miller and Patrick Casey (writers of Transylmania, a vampire movie I won’t even watch) were going for. Buddy Cop? Family Road Trip? Pure Kids stuff? A plot? They achieved none of these things. Writing is hard. Trust me I get that, but you have friends, you have others look at it. Hopefully someone goes “so …..I have some questions” and you take that and go. This did not happen. I could maybe fault Jeff Fowler the director in his first cinematic picture, but something tells me he had studio notes, a horrible script, and no one who could help him. Like the direction in the movie is not the worst and Jim Carey when told to combine all his various previous life personalities has to be hard to direct, especially if starstruck, but…yeah.

TL;DR

This movie is a bleeding hot mess. It is not a good movie. It’s not even an adequate movie. I won’t lie and say I wasn’t entertained. There are a few moments of joy and smiles to be found sure, but when those moments are gone the movie is pure cringe. I wish I knew why studios had no faith in Video Game movies. Many popular games in the past few decades have quite a bit of lore and story to them and studios want to ignore it. Yeah there’s actually a story to sonic beyond running and collecting rings.

Instead we’re given yet another “Masters of the Universe” where we put our character on Earth, ignore anything of interest from the original material and create…this.

I was told by the Manager of the theatre he is hearing good things. Maybe if it was from kids, who were having a good time in this. There is just not enough meat here for an adult to enjoy so I am asking who is this movie for?

Should I see it?

If I thought the animators would see even a penny for their work – I would say yes. Since I am not sure – thats a no from me

Would you see it again?

I barely want to remember seeing it now.

So…not buying it.

That would be correct.

Is it really that bad?

It didn’t anger me. It’s just badly put together. I am more annoyed and confused by it than hating it. It exists. It’s on the same caliber as Super Marios Bros and He-Man, but still better than anything Uwe Boll did.

Here – the trailer for the good cartoon. I am going to find my happy place in my crypt.

 

 

 

 

BIrdsofPrey

Darke Reviews | Birds of Prey (2020)

Ahem, the full title: Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn). 1992 was a good year for the comic industry, a brand new character was introduced that would rehape an entire mythos simply by existing. Batman the Animated Series was on air, was impressive in its style and decades ahead of its time. It became the definitive Batman for many of us with his rules and his choices, and the voice of Kevin Conroy. Then Paul Dini and Bruce Timm went “let’s give Joker a proper side kick.” – and we got Harley Quinn. She was popular on the show and continued to become a recurring character and a character in her own right with motivations and growth. Then the comics got a hold of her, then toxic fan boys, then somewhere along the line someone somewhere realized Joker x Harley is not a good thing and she once again came into her own. Now she has her own movie after a blow out performance in Suicide Squad. I still stand by my review on that one. It’s not as bad as people say. I still rate it above most of the DC collection

Would you be crazy to see this DC movie?

Let us for a moment and pause to appreciate that we have Christina Hodson (Bumblebee, Shut In) on script and producer credit and Cathy Yan as the director in her first major cinematic work. That’s right folks, a woman on script, a woman in the directors chair, and all of your protagonists are women. This is important. This is rare. You don’t see this in most genre’s especially action or superhero movies that have major theatrical releases. Since 1977 there have been four. Four out of over a hundred films and only one of them previously had women on the script (Captain Marvel). Here’s the list by the way.

  • Rachel Talalay – Tank Girl (1995)
  • Lexi Alexander – Punisher War Zone (2008)
  • Patty Jenkins – Wonder Woman (2017)
  • Anna Boden – Captain Marvel (2019)

That’s it. Now I liked Hodson’s work on Bumblebee, which gave us probably the most faithful Transformers movie since 1986. Then with Yan in the directors chair you get something different working with a script about women directed by a woman. This is a hard topic to explain, so bear with me as this is important for the context of the movie. Harley is a highly sexualized character, like ridiculously so. So when you think of how you’ve seen her in movies, you have her in tight hot pants bending at the waist to show off her butt – to who exactly? That is sexualization. Now compare that to this movie where in one sequence, while wearing a white shirt sprinklers go off. Many of my readers are rolling their eyes now going “oh god…”. Except what you are expecting doesn’t happen. It *doesn’t* turn into a wet T shirt contest with Margot Robbie. It actually becomes one of the more interesting fight scenes in the film. It’s all in the how the camera moves and follows her and the action. It’s centered on frame or on her face, or goddess forbid, the action.

Another example, Jurnee Smollett-Bell as Black Canary. Her first appearance in the film is on stage singing in a seedy nightclub. Let’s play direct this scene. Do you

A: Do a long slow pan up from her heels, over the back of her legs, turning the camera at her hips to accentuate the hips and butt, staying on side angle as you raise to her chest, turning again after those curves are shown and then maybe show her face in some beauty make up, holding the microphone to her mouth seductively as she sings.

or

B. Silohuette at first. Then an over the shoulder from the back looking at the room, then cut to her from the shoulders up singing.

If you picked B, then you went the Cathy Yan route. 96 times out of a hundred you get option A. Option A also includes extended shot of her walking if you are Joss Whedon. Don’t ask just trust me.

This particular segue is important to the discussion of the movie because in it the characters ARE beautiful, they are sexy, but it isn’t sexualized. They feel like this is what they WOULD wear and its empowering to them. It does all of the above and more through the movie without once literally saying “Girl power”.  It’s overt sure, but it’s never once stated and that matters.

Our main cast of characters are women of all ages and colors, another thing different from literally every other comic book movie out there. Again, this is important. REPRESENTATION MATTERS. You have Margot Robbie reprising her iconic turn as Harley Quinn and getting to run the show full Deadpool style. Jurnee Smollett-Bell (Underground, True Blood) as Black Canary reminding us that Canary is a street fighter first, super powered voice second.  Mary Elizabeth Winstead (10 Cloverfield Lane, Gemini Man) as The Huntress, possibly the least developed of the characters, but making that work to her advantage. Rosie Perez (Untamed Heart, White Men Can’t Jump) comes out swinging as Detective Renee Montoya and Ella Jay Basco (goddaughter to Dante Basco!) in her first cinematic role as Cassandra Cain. Every single one of these wonderful women own their roles, the screen, and perform. It’s fantastic that each gets their time on screen and gives definition to the characters.  Of course there is also Ewan McGregor as Black Mask deciding that the scenery needed to be chewed. He would not be one upped by the manic Harley Quinn and boy did he take it to Jeremy Irons levels and you will hate his character for it. Chris Messina (Argo, Devil) also decided this was the direction to go with his take on Victor Zsasz. This is not a Zsasz I have seen before and it was …perfect for this movie.

We can also take a moment, but just a moment to talk about the fight choreography. Have you ever complained about not knowing what is going on in the fight because of quick cuts or weird angles or shaky cam? Watch this movie. It has none of those problems. They put our heroines (..and Harley) front and center in the action and they do a lot of in frame in camera stunt work and fighting with a single focused camera. Its a thing of beauty to watch multiple fights like that. The music is on point, with a special nod to a cover of Hit Me With Your Best Shot by Adona. It’s not perfect though. There are some pacing issues at times and maybe five total minutes could have been paired down. Atmosphere is hit or miss depending on the scene, mostly hit.

TL;DR?

I had my entire Dark Court with me tonight. We were highly entertained. We sat after the movie talking about our favourite scenes and all the things that really made the movie for us. I will warn there’s a trigger warning I need to give around two scenes that may be difficult for those who have experienced sexual harassment and assault. I can say the way in which they are shot does not translate to a male power fantasy or helpless woman who needs to be saved/can’t save herself, the trauma of the victim. Both are uncomfortable scenes and made show this is not acceptable without being exploitative of the victim. Another touch you wouldn’t have gotten without Yan at the helm.

Birds of Prey, as launched by Harley Quinn is a very good movie and also happens to have characters from comics in it. Good fight sequences, no blue beams from the sky, low key, street level film and it was a breath of fresh air. I still want my Gotham City Sirens with Harley and Ivy , but this…this is a good start and I want it to do well.

Should I see it then?

You’d be crazy not to. Seriously, its good and entertaining. Again there are flaws, but nothing the whole of the movie doesn’t overcome.

Would you see it again?

Full price even.

Buying it?

Do you have to ask?

I always do.

Then yes. Yes I am

Anything else to add on this one?

These are not spoilers, but things that will please fans of Harley and her comic runs

“Babies!” (ok there’s only one but you just wanna snuffle Bruce)

Bernie the Beaver.

Carnival Hammer

So much..more.

 

RhythmSection

Darke Reviews | The Rhythm Section (2020)

An interesting trailer. Noted girl crush Blake Lively. The Sleigh Bells covering Lead Belly “In the Pines” aka “Where did you Sleep last night” with a modern pulsing beat. I admit I was hooked from shot one. I wasn’t quite sure what I was going to get from it.

Sure, it looks to be a pulse pounding action thriller like a Jason Bourne movie. Perhaps something like American Assassin a few years ago? Barbara Broccoli is a producer and the Broccoli estate *IS* the James Bond film franchise.

So what’s under the surface?

Begin as we often do with written by, screenplay, and executive produced by Mark Burnell. Burnell is taking his novels to the big screen in a way few authors actually do with direct script control making the movie *his*. The film is based on his own book series around our central character Stephanie Patrick (Lively). An truly ordinary woman on a path of self-destruction after her family is tragically killed in a plane crash. When Stephanie discovers that the crash was not an accident, she enters a dark, complex world to seek revenge on those responsible and find her own redemption. This is not a super woman, she has no special set of skills, nothing that makes her more than an above average college student consumed by her grief after the loss of her family. A line in the movie calls her a cliche, which to some extent she is. She’s so wholly been destroyed by her depression and guilt she’s at the bottom when the story begins. I am torn on this portrayal, but it’s only part of the movie. The rest is a spiral and its hard to tell if its up or down for her as she enters the world of espionage.

If anything, this is not Bourne, Bond, or even Atomic Blonde. This is La Femme Nikita without the glitz and glamour. It reminded me of both the original Nikita (1990) and Point of No Return (1993), watching as a true nobody gets deeper and deeper into a world she isn’t ready for by any stretch of the imagination. Some of the feel comes from director Reed Morano (The Handmaid’s Tale, I Think we’re alone now) and her knowledge of how to get intensity with both camera and actor. Morano has over 50 credits as a cinematogrpaher since 1999 and it shows with her choices to use natural(ish) lighting in more than few scenes, how to use her angles, and fish eyes to maximum effort through the movie, even as it slowly transitions to stable and clean as the movie progresses. It’s hard not to feel in the moment when the camera operator is in the passenger seat of a car during a chase sequence with constant pans and very clever cuts between driver, the road, and what chases the driver. Much like last nights Gretel & Hansel distortion is the name of the game and the game is played well here.

Blake Lively is absolutely amazing in this. I missed Gossip Girl with her, not my thing, but she came to my attention with Green Lantern and her strong desire to play Star Sapphire in the sequel that will never happen. Her first truly memorable turn was in the supernatural romance Age of Adeline (which I owe a review to), then The Shallows where she has to carry a movie alone. A Simple Favor was damn near perfection from her, and the contrasts in camera work and director are clear between the two. Some might say her performance is flat, but I would argue that as subdued and relying on more body language than dialogue. There is a lot going on there. I’d love to talk more about Jude Law or Sterling K Brown in this, but in a movie of spy vs spy….where they are the spies and the support for our star I wish to reveal nothing. They are fantastic actors and do their jobs and do it well.

TL;DR

I didn’t expect La Femme Nikita. I expected American Assassin. I am pleased in my disappointment. This is a well paced, well shot, well acted spy thriller with a fully developed lead character. While I am aware that there are more books in the series the movies doesn’t end on an obvious cliffhanger or stinger for a sequel. Bold move from the filmmakers and I support it. I can’t say there’s a deeper message to the movie, I can’t even say it’s not cliche in its own ways checking off tropes left and right as it does.

What I can say it was gritty in the right ways. This felt, for Hollywood, what a raw amateur with some training from a competent teacher might look like. There’s nuance and weight to it. Is it realistic? Of course not. That wouldn’t be entertaining. It is however entertaining and delivers on promises it didn’t know it made. It also delivered on good fight choreography in a way that you may not even notice at first, but there’s a oner hidden in the movie and I was pleased to realize it AFTER the fact.

So should I see it?

In the drought that is January for movies? Yes. If the genre you like is portrayed here – then yes. Even at full price. I think even the big screen helps with the camera work.

Would you see it again?

Yes. Yes I would.

Buying it?

Without a doubt.

So whats with the title?

It’s related to some in movie dialogue comparing your own pulse and breathing to parts of a band. It’s weird yes, but it works in context. It’s also the novel title so that’s a thing.

 

Darke Reviews | Gretel & Hansel (2020)

I had secretly been asking for this of any power that be that would listen. While I am still awaiting a new vampire renaissance, I still have enough material coming out of various and often dubious quality. I watch as the zombie era desiccates as it should after a time. I see the Werewolves still awaiting their due, I am sure it will come at some point. The one I have been missing for some time and longing for in the dark was The Witches. I am not sure what happened with them after a brief surge in the 80’s. The Craft and Practical Magic did what they could, but alas it was not enough.  I am not talking a movie that is vaguely about Witches (sorry Blair Witch) either, I am talking about movies definitively about the Hollywood and Fairy Tale witch. Perhaps my timelines are blurring a bit where the space between is not as noticed, but since 2016 we have the superlative VVitch, then we had the rise of The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina  now in its 3rd season; and now in the beginning of 2020 we get Gretel & Hansel. I could be hopeful in believing this, but I will take what I can as this is a painfully under served genre.

NOTE: The genre with few exceptions has little to nothing to do with any actual practicing witches. These films should never been conflated with any sense of realism so my term of Hollywood and Fairy Tale witches is important to consider.

With that out of the way should you fall under Gretel’s spell?

The movie was written by Rob Hayes in his first long form and theatrical turn. He has some shorts credited as well as some TV, but this is that first foray into the bigger machine. From a story perspective it is at its simplest a fairy tale with a modern storyteller. Gretel and Hansel are left to their own devices in a time not quite defined, but clearly intended to be 1600-1700’s. In an attempt to find food, shelter, and perhaps a permanent home they end up off the path and in the care of Holda and within her house in the woods. Holda has much to offer both of the children, but all things have a price. Who will pay it and how steep will it be?

You know how from time to time two movies come along that make you think the script was shopped around and while one studio officially turned it down they then had someone else write something similar? Dante’s Peak and Volcano. Armageddon and Deep Impact. Normally that happens in the same year, this happened three years apart. This attempts to invoke the VVitch and could very well be a distant cousin to that film as the ties are close. Perhaps too close? I don’t mind it as much because the stories themselves are different and the temptations offered are more or less real to each other. I suppose my confusion with this one is – what is the message Hayes is trying to tell?

The visual style and direction of Ozgood “Oz” Perkins started as an actor in a variety of films from different genre’s before taking the directors chair in 2015 with The Blackcoats Daughter. It’s clear to me he has seen the VVitch, but has also seen The Neon Demon. There is a real love here shown for Giallo style movies and high art, style over substance film making. Clear intent is made with distorted focuses, abnormal perspectives, colour palettes both muted and vibrant, and a synthwave soundtrack (by Robin “Rob” Coudert) straight from a Nicolas Winding Refn movie. There is a very real pulse from the music that drives the movie as much as the actors do with it’s own dissonant chords that aren’t done by sharp notes across the strings. The entire aesthetic leaves you just enough off balance that with the stilted dialogue and harsh performances a viewer begins to question dream, reality, or both? Sadly, the questions are answered by modernism. The veritable green curtain is pulled too far and we don’t get to savor some of the key moments because the final cut of the movie was perhaps too direct.

Now I mentioned above harsh acting. This is not bad acting. Quite the contrary, Sophia Lillis (IT, Nancy Drew) has a lot to do here as Gretel. She has to be controlled and controlling. She has to go to what is trying to be unnatural dialogue from that mysterious period and on top of that still be someone we wish to see victorious – however that victory may look. Samuel Leakey, roughly age 8, doesn’t have an easy time of it either. Equally challenging dialogue and a need to be both childish and quiet isn’t easy. The amazing Alice Krige (Star Trek: First Contact, Silent Hill) was made to be the Witch o the Wood. Her presence and experience clearly helped here with both young actors and also bringing a level of menace from moment one that cannot be denied. These performances were harsh but its by design and good acting that they succeeded.

TL;DR

I found Gretel & Hansel a satisfying film. It was the film I was looking for and hoped it would be from the trailer. I also know this will not be everyone’s cup of tea. There is severe style over substance here despite this quote from (Ozgood) Perkins:

“It’s awfully faithful to the original story. It’s got really only three principal characters: Hansel, Gretel, and the Witch. We tried to find a way to make it more of a coming of age story. I wanted Gretel to be somewhat older than Hansel, so it didn’t feel like two twelve-year-olds – rather a sixteen-year-old and an eight-year-old. There was more of a feeling like Gretel having to take Hansel around everywhere she goes, and how that can impede one’s own evolution, how our attachments and the things that we love can sometimes get in the way of our growth.”[Ew.com]

This theme is spelled out too much. The underlying currents within the movie are at odds with one another, despite the metaphor for puberty and finding ones own place in the world. Maybe they intended to leave it to discussion, but with a movie like this I don’t advise it. It will leave most audiences going “ok and?” where they should be going “ok more..”

I want more of this and more like it. I haven’t felt the way I did on the drive home in some time and the charge I felt was good. It only comes when a genre movie hits me right and this one did, but I promise it will miss the mark for most.

Should I see it then?

If this looked of interest to you? Yes. If you enjoy Witch movies ala Hollywood? Yes. Want atmosphere for days and some rather nice visuals? Onward to the Matinee you go.

Would you watch it again?

In theatres? Perhaps with friends who would wander into the woods and wish to stay.

That was cryptic. Are you going to buy it?

Yes.  Yes I am. My shelf of magic movies is too small and this will go nicely.

Were you scared? I mean this looks to be a horror movie.

No. It was far too tame to scare me or disturb me. Others might find some aspects a bit more on the squeamish side. Thematically it’s more dark fantasy than horror to me, but much like with the cold I am hard to impress. I’d love to get some time with the director and discuss with him the authorial intent.

All in all this was a satisfactory outing for me, but won’t do it for far too many to be considered a success story. There are too few jumps and oohs and ahs, and that message just leaves everything too murky despite its visual appeal.

 

 

Darke Reviews | Dolittle (2020)

I think as a child I knew *of* Dr. Dolittle, but I really cannot remember anything with the character itself. I mean I know I knew the Rex Harrison movie from 1967, which apparently was written by the lyrcisist (Leslie Bricusse) for one my favourite musicals ever and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (the good one). I don’t think I ever read, and I know they were never read to me,  the original stories from the 1920’s, but the concept of people talking to animals was always tied to this character “Doctor Dolittle”. We are not discussing the 1998 Eddie Murphy movie or its four sequels. Ever.  That said, the concept of this character does seem pretty eternal and I don’t think there’s a child alive, or child at heart, who didn’t wonder about talking to animals. So when this trailer dropped, I was curious to say the least.

So should you go on a journey?

As mentioned, this character is based on a series of shorts by Hugh Lofting in the 1920’s and this particular iteration has a screenstory credit, and three screenplay credits. Usually a dangerous thing. The screenstory is by Thomas Shepherd, in his first cinematic body of work, and I don’t know the character or stories well enough to tell how his work is there. Two of the other credits go to Doug Mand and Dan Gregor (How I Met your Mother), who based on that shows success have a knack for comedy bits. Then we have our third screenplay credit, which is also our director, Stephen Gaghan, who worked on films like Traffic, Abandon, and Syriana. Clearly an obvious choice for a children’s movie about a man who talks to animals. Yet it worked. If you were to ask me to get technical, the movie is both rushed and slow in its script and pacing. It feels as if it rushes to get to the moment of wonder – and there are many – and then languishes between them before you are given the next. Despite it’s “period-ish” set pieces and existence, the dialogue from many in the cast is rather modern and may date the movie some in coming years. I have a feeling these were more adlibs than actual script. I hope they were anyway.

What amazed me most wasn’t the animals or even the adventure, but the setup. In an opening reminiscent of UP we are introduced to the character and his past deeds for Queen, Country, and Animals alike. THEN the movie begins. A fetch quest to get the McGuffin, to do the thing, against impossible odds, and enemies abound. A heroes journey that you see one beginning and the bottom of another. The movie checks most of the fantasy boxes and is proud of itself in doing so. It does have a right to be. True, its a mixed bag of characterizations and odd choices, but the emotional core of the movie never falters and I will take what is offered.

Characters themselves? The actors behind them. So bloody many. You have Robert Downey Jr. acting his heart out and reminding us he can be so much more than a man in a suit of iron. Sure everyone else I am about to list is fine, but RDJ and the accent he affects have to carry the movie. We count ourselves lucky he can do it and then some. I want to re-title this character “The Anti Toxic Masuclinity Hero” because it’s there and he does it so well. Michael Sheen is a hoot as the blatantly cartoonish Dr. Blair Müdfly, with the umlaut. I always like this man when he is having fun and it appears the direction he was given was to have fun. Then we have the last of our live actors of significance, with Harry Collett as Stubbins who does his best to shine with RDJ and the voice cast and doesn’t do too shabby a job. This isn’t to say he’s successful really, because the voice cast of animals of like a who’s who of personalities, with Emma Thompson (Brave, Harry Potter), Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody, Mr. Robot) , John Cena (Bumblebee) , Kumail Nanjiani (Stuber, Silicon Valley), Octavia Spence (The Help, Hidden Figures), Tom Holland (Spider-Man), Craig Robinson (Hot Tub Time Machine), Ralph Fiennes (Harry Potter, Schindlers List), Selena Gomez (Spring Breakers, Hotel Transylvania), Marion Cotilliard (Dark Knight Rises, Inception), and more. If I was having to say this outloud on my new Youtube channel, I’d be out of breath. It is awesome that we have all these talented actors in this movie, but they are all vying for their moment and thankfully it works out mostly. This is part of what I am sure other reviewers will complain about. This is a very busy movie with characters and it doesn’t work to the movies credit as much as it could or should. It almost, almost detracts for me, but what keeps that from happening is its, to use modern meme language, Pure.

Technically it’s fine. The CG work on the animals works well enough and is A grade, but still CGI. It’s so present though you forget about it and just see another character. I will also give technical props for what I can only see as a jab at 2019 Lion King and emotionless lion cubs. I looked to the member of my Dark Court with me tonight and we both giggled when the little lion cub emoted better than all the animals in that other movie combined. The editing is…a choice. It’s not something I was particularly fond of and again will be a detractor for many.

TL;DR?

The trailer grabbed my attention and I don’t want to say the trailer lied, but it did – a bit. It showed something a bit more dramatic and intense then what was actually delivered. This is truly the first family movie of the year. I mentioned in the full review how the movie felt pure, or genuine and it does. Whether it is or not is another story, but this doesn’t feel like a cash grab. I couldn’t help but feel good watching this movie. I laughed quite a bit and that felt good too.

So I suppose this isn’t just the first family movie of the year, but the first movie that makes you feel good watching it. It’s a sense of escapism at its best, where for just over 90 minutes you are transported to a world where we can talk to animals if we listen and we can solve problems without hurting people. Surprising coming from the Vampire Princess, but even I like to feel good from time to time and don’t need everything to be explosions and darkness. This movie is a very strong response to Toxic Masculinity and we need that. Need it more than ever.

Should I see it then?

Yeah I think you should. Take the partner, take the kids, take other people’s kids. People you know sheesh! This is a good little romp for really all ages.

Would you see it again then?

As always, you buying.

Unlikely, but I will assume you are buying it?

Yes. Yes I am. This is one of those soft movies I can put on when the spoons run out and I can’t even muscle the knives. This is The Great British Bake Off of movies. This is going to be a helluva year and having this in my collection will give me a bit of good to watch from time to time come May.

But is it good?

Ok trying to pin me down I see. I don’t necessarily think so. I do think it hit my Three Writer Rule, I think the adlibs were clear, I do think its a bit slap dash with the editing. Not everything enjoyable has to be good. This isn’t going to be a guilty pleasure, this just is fun and warm. Its comfort food. I think it, without seeing the other here, will be a better film than Bad Boys 3. No I won’t be seeing Bad Boys 3, it just didn’t look good and the humor looked as if it should have died with the franchise a seventeen years ago.

Alright, so January. Bad releases normally…got anything else coming?

I love Mackenzie Davis, but I am not sold on The Turning, so unlikely something next week.

The following week you may get two movies with The Rhythm Section and Gretel & Hansel.