Reviews

Darke Reviews | Warcraft (2016)

Posted by

2

Tired of me yet? 3 movies. 3 days. 3 reviews. The roller coaster that is my life has had my butt in a theatre all this week, even the guy checking me in at the movies tonight asked me, “hey weren’t you in that same theatre last night?” Thanks Ben. Now…we have a movie based on a video game. Probably one of the most popular video games ever made, though myself I have never played it. I know plenty of people who did, my game was City of Heroes, and I was a one game kinda gal. So much like with books, I have no experience, no background, no anything about the lore here to make me like it more or less based on changes made to achieve film. This is the extent to which I know Warcraft: Slaughter Your World.

Of course, we cannot forget that video games have a sordid history in being converted to film, with far more misses than hits as Hollywood really just doesn’t respect the material even if it is there. Don’t get me started on Uwe Boll, he might challenge me to a boxing match.

Does Warcraft break the mold or are audiences going to need heals after seeing it?

Based on the characters by Blizzard game designer Chris Metzen, Warcraft was adapted to the screen by screenwriters Charles Leavitt (In the Heart of the Sea, Seventh Son, K-PAX) and Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code). While I did not personally see Heart of the Sea, I heard pretty consistently it was a slog, I know that Seventh Son was so bad they pushed it out a full year from its initial release date and hoped no one would notice. Jones for his part does have the critically acclaimed Moon in 2009, Source Code was pretty bland. Why am I focusing on these failures so much? Because they hold one of the most, if not the most significant flaw of the film. I can feel it’s running time. What is worse it felt *longer* than it actually was, like extended cut Return of the King long.

Story wise, it’s ok. Having no familiarity with the terminology beyond Horde and Alliance didn’t really hamper me. I pretty much was able to figure out everything in time with the movie and they (wisely) did not over explain anything. Point in fact, they barely explain anything at all. This is a strength of the film, letting the story flow pretty naturally and hope the audience follows along with it. The downside of that is that it has a lot of ground to cover so the film ends up stuffed to the gills with material. Had it had exposition as well….? Yeeesh.  There are a few beats of the film that fall flat and a hole or two you could fly a Dragon through; conversely, there are moments that had everyone laugh, cheer, or go “oooh” with a wince. Which means they drew the audience in – this is good.

Continuing into our bag of holding, we have other mixed blessings. I was only able to stand a single human in the entire movie. One. The friggin mage. Ben Schnetzer (The Book Thief) plays Khadgar, and while a little flat I at least found I liked his character at least. Travis Fimmel (Ragnar from Vikings) as Anduin Lothar is just insufferable; which may be how he is written, but the man can act and he was all over the place which I lay on Jones head in directing. Dominic Cooper (Preacher, Dracula Untold) as King Llane Wrynn was mostly wasted, but gave a solid performance. Even Ben Foster (3:10 to Yuma, Pandorum) didn’t quite deliver as I know he can in the role of the warlock Medivh.

The same, cannot be said of the Orcs. Toby Kebbell (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) absolutely sells it as Durotan leader of one of the Orc tribes. Daniel Wu (Europa Report) also nails the voice and mo cap work as the evil Gul’dan. Clancy Brown could have phoned in his performance of the warband leader Blackhand, but didn’t and we are all thankful. Paula Patton (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, 2 Guns)  starts off strong as Garona, but gets a little simpering into Act III which was bothersome for an otherwise awesome character, but overall she was a solid performance.

As with the game, since you could play either side they have to show both sides, with the Horde side being “evil” but not…bad? Due to that and who they focused on as characters I found myself preferring the Horde arc and characters a thousand times more than I did the Alliance side.

The one technical aspect I was worried about I needn’t have been. I forgot I was looking at Motion Capture CGI creations on more than one occasion through the film. It wasn’t flawless, but it was amazingly well done computer work to render what they did so consistently and be able to do so in wide daylight shots. The scenery, while being almost entirely CG was expansive and to the credit of the writers of both game and film, really sold me on a world that I could envision. They may have failed in other areas, but they did give me a living, breathing world that I could see, understand, and even would want to interact with. The fights are both watchable and in some cases brutal, but there was a distinct lack of hyperactive shaky cam.

TL; DR?

The movie is a solid…”It’s ok.”. There are so many nods and winks to game and lore fans, even I who knows little could see them. It runs long and flattens in the wrong spots sadly. It is absolutely not the worst video game film ever made. It would, and should, make it into anyone’s top 5 on production value alone. The money sunk into this shows and I am happier for it. It bored me at times, but when it wasn’t I was engaged.

I’d like to say I liked it more, but I didn’t. The fans around me did though. It *is* good, and above a meh. If I had been engaged by the characters on both sides more I think I would rate it higher. I do think it will make bank though.

Should you see it?

If you aren’t seeing Now You See Me 2? Sure. Matinee only 3-D optional.  If you are a fan of the game and lore: See it. 3-D. It was worth it in that aspect.

Will Jessica buy it?

Honestly? Yeah probably. It is something to throw on in the background while you are focusing on other things. You’ll look up and smile at a moment or pause to watch a fight.

Which side would you pick?

My brain says Horde, but my heart goes Night Elf.

What’s next?

I get next week off as only Central Intelligence and Finding Dory are coming out. Reviews return with The Neon Demon and Independence Day Resurgence. Followed quickly by Legend of Tarzan and Ghostbusters.

Darke Reviews | Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows (2016)

Posted by

0

Busy week – review 2 for your reading pleasure. I had to go back and re-read the original review of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles from 2014 and verify if I liked it as much as I thought I did back then and how I feel about it now. More or less – yep still holds up. The things that annoyed me then, annoy me now. Things I liked and smiled at then, I smile at now. I still haven’t been able to find the AMV from the 2003 reboot of the series that was so friggin epic, and still haven’t read the comics. I do remember most every episode of the original animated series and much like last time I will do my best to remove the Nostalgia Glasses.

Ok, more like 30 years ago. Yes...30.

Ok, more like 30 years ago. Yes…30.

How does this one go?

Acceptance. You must accept to continue this review. Accept that this is in fact made for kids first and foremost. We, who grew up with the Turtles may find elements that we appreciate. Nods and jokes, moments, and looks, but this is for kids.

Good, let’s move on.

Director Dave Green (Earth to Echo) replaces Jonathan Liebesman at the helm, which sadly is to the movies disservice. Watching the film I saw naught but a puppet to Platinum Dunes studios, which as a Producer gives them say, but the reality here is I feel this was ghost directed by Michael Bay himself. I remember seeing Earth to Echo and while it tried to be E.T. it mostly just came as Google marketing campaign with mediocre editing and camera work. It wasn’t *bad* but it wasn’t memorable enough for me to even do a solid review of it. This lacked…well anything. It really was mostly style with so little substance to it that I watched a few children in the audience get bored. It might be the inability to hold a shot for more than 6 seconds and literally no sense of framing or blocking. The camera work was 100% Bay though who cannot pass a rotating shot if his life depended on it.

From a script perspective the original writers from the last film, Andre Nemec and Josh Appelbaum return sans Evan Daugherty. They still completely get the four brothers and who they are, which is good. My complaint of too much Will Arnett and Megan Fox in the last movie was apparently addressed as their roles are lesser. Sadly Arnett still gets more screen time than he deserves and Fox not enough with the script as written. The plot is unsurprisingly simplistic (see Acceptance above) and is fairly run in the mill for it’s intended audience. Nothing good, nothing bad, it exists. They didn’t make a mistake and change Bebop and Rocksteady much at all, which was a good thing and while we will talk about Tyler Perry in a minute, Baxter Stockman was pretty surprisingly solid. Warning – do not think during this movie. It is not wise. If you think, you could drive a Technodrome through some of the holes. I think they also tried to do too much and could have better set up sequel bait. Two plots didn’t need to be in here.

Acting? Alan Ritchson (Raph), Noel Fisher  (Mikey), Jeremy Howard (Donatello), and Pete Ploszek (Leo) all return as the titular characters, with Ploszek actually getting to voice Leonardo this time. The change was unnoticable, and much like in Hellboy 2 letting Doug Jones do the voice of Abe, in retrospect is clearly an improvement. Fox doesn’t get to do much this time around – like at all. I kinda wish she did as the moments they give her with the boys actually work and make it feel like she is friends with them. Granted, I’d prefer to see her kick a lil more butt after two years with Ninja as friends, much like we got in a few of the animated series. Arnett…exists. I suppose my intolerance for his character matches my intolerance for the character of Vernon Fenwick. Too much of him for when he is on screen and even more Tyler Perry who is …*sigh*. Why so much focus on Stockman when you have Brian Tee as the Shredder? This was wasteful of a good actor vs …someone who I think was trying to be Neil DeGrasse Tyson and failing. I suppose when I look back (see Acceptance again) Perry acted as if he knew he was in a kids movie, no one else really did. This was disjoined.Stephen Amell does give something other than Oliver Queen in his performance as Casey Jones, which is no surprise to this girl.  All in all – it was what it was. I can’t say it was “oh damn did you see that scene and it’s delivery?” or even a “kids are going to love that scene because so and so nailed it…in a way for them.”  Except maybe for WWE star Sheamus as Rocksteady, and Gary Anthony Williams as Bebop. They just made me smile without rolling my eyes too much (some humor I don’t get, this is known).

The effects were about on par with the last one. No…actually they were better. Thanks to Bebop and Rocksteady. They *really* got these two right. The transformation was really well done and their overall animation and interaction with the world around them was just as well done. The Turtles looked good.  Krang was definitely a more modern take on him, pretty sure I saw this variant in an amv, but the core principles of him were there. The look of the head on the robot made me smile. Seeing the Technodrome made me smile. There was a lot in this department that did bring the nostalgia back. Sadly the camera work took me out of it since I could barely tell what was happening. I also get the sense as I picked on the director earlier some scenes were clearly directed differently. The Garbage Truck scene good. Others…not so much. I am also reminded of the 90’s movies where they were told the Turtles couldn’t actually use their weapons, which more or less showed up here too. There’s a few moments, but not nearly enough.

TL;DR?

This one wasn’t for me. I know this. There were moments and plenty of them that were, but overall this is definitely a kids film. There’s an 11 year old girl me who would eat this up. Hell even maybe 15 year old me would. It’s an ok film on the very low end of ok as an adult. As a kid? It’s above average but that’s about it. That’s it, the TMNT 2 review. It’s better than what we got in the 90s, but that is faint praise.

Should you see it?

Well since this review is about 5 days late, you probably already have or aren’t going to anyway. Short answer: Unless you are a die hard Turtle fan, nah. It’ll be fine on Netflix or HBO. If you’ve got kids who want to see it it won’t be *that* painful for you..

Will I buy it?

My magic 8 ball says undecided. Ask later. Probably not though. I’ve gotten pickier about what I put in the collection since I ran out of space.

Stay tuned, tomorrow comes Warcraft!

 

 

Darke Reviews | Now You See Me 2 (2016)

Posted by

2

Ok, so I asked permission from those running the screening tonight and I was given a greenlight to write this. Lionsgate Marketing held a screening for this film tonight and I decided to forgo much needed sleep and attend this. Now if you haven’t seen the first film, you are missing out. Much as I said in the last review, how does one write a spoiler free review of a movie about Magic and Misdirection? Illusion and Mystery? Quite simple really – I look for the blind spot and use it to my advantage. Now clearly I am a fan of the first film, it’s on my list of 20+ views. The real question you ask yourself now

Should I see it? What will she tell me?

The movie is based on the characters created by Boaz Yakin and Edward Ricourt, who do not return for this picture. The third horseman Ed Solomon (Men in Black, Bill & Ted) returns, which means technically the first film violates my rule of three, this does not. Joining Ed is writer and producer, Peter “Pete” Chiarelli (The Proposal, Eagle Eye).  These two had a tough challenge in setting up a mystery that continues the narrative arc of not just the original film, but the characters themselves. They had to do it within a world that made you, just for a moment, believe in magic again. I would like to say they succeeded mostly. So I shall. They succeeded – mostly. They avoided a few painful narrative pitfalls and tropes, while happily engaging others in a way that reminded me of the first film at times. They also had an uneviable task of writing out one actress (Isla Fisher) and in another (Lizzy Caplan) to join the Horsemen. Unlike other replacements, this was simply due to Fisher being pregnant and otherwise unable to perform the role of Henley. There are a few missteps in characters as the movie migrates into act 3 that I land on their lap, but it’s really solid otherwise. It made me, and the entire theatre, laugh on the right beats and “oooh” at the others.

Jon M. Chu was given the task this time to direct, replacing Louis Leterrier. Chu is best known for his work in the Step Up series (2 and 3), the much (deservedly) maligned Jem and the Holograms, and the surprisingly enjoyable GI Joe Retaliation (this is the second one where ice doesn’t sink). Knowing this explains a few of the beats of the film and one of the glaring flaws to me, which is the camera work. I don’t know if it was him or the director of photography, but there were a few shots in the movie that left me a little disoriented from the sweeping camera moves and distorted angles which didn’t really add. His background does explain why the rain sequence shown in the trailer reminds me of Step Up 2’s finale when seen in full. Not a complaint as the dance is epic, just an observation. The change in director does change the tone of the beats and pacing somewhat, but it doesn’t harm the film in an relative way. I have a sense, however, that the budget of 75 million from the first was not given here, something is just off in the film that makes it feel a touch cheaper and that is not the fault of Chu. It’s quite possible I am wrong and they used every bloody penny and then some to achieve what they did across the multiple filming locations.

Let’s talk acting shall we?

Jesse Eisenberg (Daniel Atlas), Woody Harrelson (Merritt McKinney), Mark Ruffalo (Dylan Rhodes), Dave Franco (Jack Wilder), Michael Caine (Arthur Tressler), Morgan Freeman (Thaddeus Bradley), all return. All do well in their parts and this is not really a surprise to anyone who watched the first. Mélanie Laurent was missed in this one, without the explanation that was given Fisher’s character. New members to the cast are Daniel Radcliffe, whom I enjoyed in his role and wanted more of him through the film because the boy can be damn charming. Jay Chou (Green Hornet, True Legend) is painfully underused in the film. It was good to see Sanaa Lathan (Alien vs Predator, Blade) again , though much like Chou her role was limited. It’s sad to see them both given so little, but it does retain the focus where it needs to be on the core characters of the film as they come back for a last trick for their lives.

From a technical perspective I’ve targeted the camera work and just something about the film itself that feels lesser somehow. That aside, the tricks are worth it. David Copperfield, yes *the* David Copperfield served as a producer on this film and it shows. I heard a gentleman after the film say there were four professional magicians in the audience and they said most of the tricks they saw could be done. That says something as we are constantly assaulted by things that are not done in camera, yet many of these tricks were and that effort shows. True CG was used to fill in the blanks and to pull off some of the tricks, but that doesn’t change the quality of it from an entertainment perspective.

TL;DR?

As I said on exiting the film, this is a solid sequel. It isn’t better than the first, but it holds up really well. I liked what I saw. I was entertained and as I have said many times before and will continue to do so. Movies serve a purpose for us. Some are to educate. Some are to make us think. Others are there for the entertainment and joy they bring. This is the last of the choices presented and it does what it needs to do and I had a good time. I do plan to pay money to see it again to put my 10 bucks to it’s box office haul.

I would have preferred the original title though: Now You See Me – The Second Act.

Should you see it?

If you like the first? Absolutely. If you didn’t watch the first, see it then watch. It is a good matinee flick and alternative fair to TMNT or Warcraft this weekend.

Will Jess buy it? 

Yep! BluRay even.

What’s next for reviews?

A much overdue The Highrise, TMNT (tomorrow night after I see it), Warcraft (Thursday night).

Darke Reviews | X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

Posted by

5

I am a child of the 80’s, which means I was adopted by the 90’s and accepted by the new millennium. This means I had the blessing to enjoy the 1992 X-Men Cartoon. How can you not get hyped from this?

I was working in a comic-shop when Wolverine had the Adamantium ripped from his body. I was reading the Secret Wars, saw the Beyonder, Boom Boom, and Angel becoming Archangel all within my lifetime. While I am not as versed as many geeks on all the in’s and out’s and arcs of all the characters; I know most of them. I have my favourites, such as Kitty Pryde (thank you Pryde of the X-Men), Majik, Nightcrawler, Gambit, etc. Never got on the Wolverine band wagon. I’ve watched every X-Men movie in the theatre since 2000. I know the differences between the theatrical arcs, the comic arcs, and the animated arcs and can judge them safely and fairly independently.

How did we land on this one?

Bryan Singer, who gave us the original two X-Men films and the last one, returns to the directors chair and does his best to give each of the characters time. His choice to give each character development time and try to spend a few precious moments with each of the mains. It’s a trend of his and serves him well through this one, but not perfectly. I partially blame this on the four writers involved, which means this movie does hit the Rule of Three. Each writer has experience in the franchise, from Singer himself, Michael Dougherty (Trick R Treat, X-2), Dan Harris (X-2, Superman Returns), and Simon Kinberg (X-3, Fantastic 4). When I consider this and the sordid and combined history it explains a lot. Plot wise, the movie is a bit of a hot mess. It’s a little over the place, doesn’t have focus, and really should have been two movies to give everyone an appropriate level of development. There *is* development of characters, but mostly focused on the new ones that have to be introduced – of which there are (too?) many.

It makes sense though as we have had two full movies prior to get to know Magneto, Charles, Beast, and Mystique.  We get the beautifully timed return of cinema favorite Evan Peters turn as Peter Maximoff, aka Quicksilver who had the best and most memorable moment from the last film.  We are introduced now to those who will be expected to carry us forward into the next generation of movies for this franchise. Sophie (Game of Thrones) Turner as Jean Grey, Tye (Scouts Guide to the Apocalypse) Sheridan as Scott “Cyclops” Summers, Kodi (Let Me In) Smit-McPhee as Kurt “Nightcrawler” Wagner, and Alexandra Shipp as Ororo “Storm” Munroe. Each one of these young(er) actors does really good with the time they have on screen to give you the iconic characters we know and love; but at an earlier stage of their lives. I did easily see the people they would become in the people they displayed in this film.

A film like this is only as good as it’s villains and for that we go to Oscar (Poe from Force Awakens) Isaac as En Sabah Nur, best known to readers as Apocalypse. He does better than he has any right to as the legendary character. Though this is one of the points the script and direction fail. The actor delivers, but the other two elements fail him, giving so little to work with and so little ability to really “Act” when not being the exposition fairy. Which leads to another one of the problems as there is next to no development or even real idea of the secondary characters who were so painfully underused I wonder why they bothered to have them other than to say they did. The roles were well cast, but not utilized to full potential.

From a technical perspective, I am going to jump on my editors horse again. Hold. A. Shot. Learn it. You don’t need to cut every 12.5 seconds to keep it engaging. You don’t need to have sudden painful shifts to other locations for yet another introduction. You don’t need to have second unit returning to a single location shot, with actors clearly looking posed, that it takes you from the movie. There are a few beats like that in the film, they may be funny, they may just be confusing, but they change the tone and undermine rather than underscore the emotion of a beat you are trying to establish otherwise. Beyond the editing and camera work, the Make Up was top notch. He was *not* Ivan Ooze. 10 points to be struck from the Publicist House for using an unfinished effects shot in a PR piece making an otherwise blue character look silly. The CG was CG, but this had to be larger than life and most of what could have been practical is not feasible to even consider trying to be practical. It does suffer from pacing issues, and I have a sense studio interference played a hand in some scenes being added or kept.

 

TL:DR?

It’s good! I enjoyed it. Much like I said about Civil War being an antithesis to Batman v Superman, this has many of the same characteristics. It has some flaws, but the whole piece when put together created an enjoyable mess. There were familiar characters with new faces, comfortable characters with old faces; and that is what makes this movie work. The characters we know and love were put on screen again. Not just on screen, but *right*. These very clearly were our modern mythology given flesh. We have our iconic legends with 5o+ years displayed as they should be , but in a way we haven’t really seen.

The action is solid. The acting is solid. It’s just a good, fun, popcorn movie. The movie earns it’s PG-13 rating though. There’s more violence here than I have seen in *any* X-film in the past sixteen years. This isn’t a bad thing, it reminds me of my 80’s movies a bit.

Do you Recommend it?

Yes. It’s good. You won’t get what you did out of Civil War here, but you shouldn’t expect to.

Will you buy it when it comes out on Blu Ray?

Absolutely.

Should I stay to the end of the credits?

Only if you know your characters, otherwise meh.

 

Darke Reviews | Captain America : Civil War (2016)

Posted by

5

I really wanted to get this in last night so it would be available for those of you who read this, I also had a desperate need to sleep so I could function at work today. Last night I saw the second of two movies this year of at least three that cover the topic of “What oversite do these super powered beings need?”. Last night I saw the second of two movies this year where two ostensible allies turn on each other to create what should be an epic fight. Last night I saw the second of two movies that have a clash of ideologies and attempt to boil these down to their simplistic terms for wide consumption in an average 2 hour and 29 minute run time. Last night I saw the second of two films where experienced directors and writers try to add new characters to a complex universe of existing characters in a way that should feel seamless and invisible to the audience. Last night I saw what is both intense and diversive source material translated to the screen for (again) a second time.

Last night I saw Civil War, but should you?

Let’s face it most of you have already seen it or plan to see it and may only be reading this to satisfy curiosity or to verify your own thoughts. So be it. So let me put this up front before the detail, before the TL;DR…

This is my third favorite Marvel Cinematic Universe film, behind The Avengers and Winter Soldier. This needs to be said before I go into the details…you will see why shortly. Also, there may be someone in the 100 of you who read this that say “oh she hates DC” after the lambasting I gave Batman V Superman.

False

Nearly all of my comic collection is DC, or DC Vertigo. I have all of the DC Animated Universe films. I prefer the DC characters to the Marvel ones time after time. DC has more iconic characters to me, more Legendary characters to me. The Marvel universe tends to make things more human more often than not in my experience with it, even when it gets silly. Yet time and time and time again, the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies trump DC. I really don’t know what is going on over at WB Cinematics department, but they really need to stop. Stop and look at why they fail critically and create movies that people are divisive on how good they are. For the most part Marvel movies go from a solid “meh” to “oh my god what awesomeness have my eyes witnessed.” The weakest Marvel movies are forgettable, with only one having a touch of divisive hate growing within it (Ultron). DC’s last two outings into the Cinematic have ranged from “die in a slow fire surrounded by the screams of those you have inflicted this upon” to “that was awesome.”

This is important to discuss as we get into this review as these two films (BvS/Civil War) have very similar themes with vastly different executions and levels of success. This is going to be difficult without spoilers, so bear with me.

The movie was written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, both of whom are responsible for (in the best way) Captain America: The First Avenger, The Winter Soldier, and now this. The directors, Joe and Anthony Russo of the critically hailed Civil War were brought back as well. They handled, perhaps as well as it can be, the subject matter of – Do heroes need oversite? Who is right to judge them or even control them? Who are they responsible for and accountable to. While I have issues with the *how* the questions were handled and the evidence presented, I am not entirely certain it could be done better. They let the characters debate it, they let the time be spent within this film to have a conversation on the culmination of the other films. This is good storytelling people. With few exceptions the storytelling here is an absolute logical progression from Iron Man to Civil War. The writers and directors made wise choices where they did not have forced hands, and I can see those moments too, and I am pressed to tell you what could have been excised from the films running time.

Even the addition of the new character T’Challa, aka The Black Panther was handled in a way that let me buy his decision making. It was brief yet concise enough that in 5 minutes I got him. I got his world view just enough to sate me for this film and what story it needed without me going “that makes no sense.” If anything a flaw is the villain of the piece, Helmut Zemo. He’s forgettable. I suppose that is justified as well let’s face it, no one cares. They want the fight at the airport. It could have been an opportunity to create or utilize someone who could be used for sometime, even in Agents of Shield. Marvel does fail at this topic each film that doesn’t contain Loki. Memorable, effective villains.

Acting wise, everyone is wearing a comfortable hat and glove. You get them and understand them, even newer characters such as Paul Bettany’s Vision, Elizabeth Olson as the Scarlet Witch, and Emily VanCamp as Sharon Carter, and the return of William Hurt as Thunderbolt Ross. Every performance, and I do mean every, has the right weight. The right emotion. The right levity. It’s all right.  Chadwick Boseman (42, Get On Up) absolutely nails T’Challa and I can’t wait for his reported standalone film.  Each actor lets you come along with them an why they make the decisions they do. Scripts and direction can only take you so far. the actors bring you the rest of the way.

From a technical aspect.

LESS

SHAKY

CAM

I remember watching the fights in Winter Soldier. I loved them. I remember watching Scar Jo in Iron Man 2 and Avengers and loved it. I wanted to watch some of the fights here and couldn’t due to excessive camera movement and cuts when you have actors who can actually do these things. It was not Paul Greengrass/Found Footage bad, but it was bad in the first fight. The transitions were….rough. Cinema Sins is going to have a field day with those. They were music video kinda rough.

All of that aside.

Holy. Hell. Fighting in Act III? Yes. Please. More. This is everything we wanted and more. DC take notes. Preferably in a way you can understand later. Hire someone to hold them for you. This is how you do it. They were energetic. They were fun. They were even visceral at times. They were near perfect.

TL;DR?

This movie is absolutely the reverse of Batman V Superman. I have issues, significant ones, with one or two beats of the film. Overall though the movie is incredible. It is solid and well done throughout. It runs a bit long, but again I don’t know where to trim aside from the insertion of one character which *looks and feels* shoehorned in. I can tell this was added after and while the character is good, the introduction is very very off and looks it. I did smile at a lampshade though.

The movie is serious when it needs to be. It HAS HUMOUR when it needs it. Good humor too. It isn’t dark and dreary. It touches dark themes but keeps it all touchable and not too boring.

Should you see it?

Yes. A dozen times yes.

Will I buy it on BluRay?

It’s too early to pre order, or I would have.

Will I see it again?

Actually…maybe? There’s some things I want to see if I judged too harshly.

 

Congrats Hollywood, you have a Blockbuster that deserves it and kicks off the summer very very nicely.

Darke Reviews | The Huntsman: Winter’s War (2016)

Posted by

2

Unsurprisingly I have a weakness for my fellow Ice Queens. I also have not been shy about my weakness for the amazingly talented and versatile Jessica Chastain. Then Hollywood gives us the sequel no one asked for from a movie four years ago, but with two enticing elements to a girl like me. Snow White and the Huntsman only made $155 million domestically ($396mm worldwide) with an estimated production budget of $170 million, and mediocre DVD sales ($50mm). With middling scores across the board (48% Critic/52% Audience) and neither a critical or financial success someone had the bright idea to go “let’s make a prequel…or a sequel. Ah hell let’s make another one.” I am almost sure they pitched it minus Kristen Stewart and her twilight baggage (an undeserved reputation). I am sure they pitched it as a franchise. The thing Hollywood as an industry is thirsty for like a lost traveller in the middle of the Sahara. Looking for the next thing they can split and create with abandon to make boat loads of money.

Did they find it here? Or is this reviewers heart like ice?

One of the writers  (Craig Mazin) is responsible for Scary Movie 3 and 4, Superhero movie and Hangover 3. Evan Spiliotopoulos, the other writer brought us Hercules (the good one) and a series of Disney Sequels no one asked for either. I can easily see Evan’s work on this based on the pacing and tonal controls of Hercules ever present through out, I am trying to figure out where Mazin’s hand comes in. I’d almost be interested to find out what the writing process for this one. The story is relatively cohesive even if it is basic and borrows heavily from other similar fantastical fare. I mean a quest to destroy an all powerful gold object that can corrupt those too near it? It seems…familiar somehow. Beyond the writers comes first time director Cedric Nicolas Troyan, who has worked as a visual effects artist and supervisor on the first Snow White and The Ring, and a second unit director on Maleficent. This background does explain much of the visual splendor the movie offers over substance. Not that it is entirely style over substance, but the visuals for me were quite nice even if many were barely seen.

I would praise the actors here. Charlize Theron is magnificent as the Evil Queen once more with an air of menace that I look forward to see her in more villain roles. Emily Blunt is passable, though it isn’t her acting but what she has been given to work with. Something to lament with the other characters as well. Hemsworth is fun, smiling, and charming. Honestly, I haven’t seen that many smiles in an action movie in  years. This felt more swashbuckling from his performance and I am quite ok with that; though at times he needed a good throat punch. I just wish he had kept the Irish accent the entire film. Chastain kept hers, was magnificent and was magnificently under used. More on that in a spoiler section at the bottom requiring roll over to read. Her chemistry with Hemsworth was good, not great. Nick Frost, Rob Brydon, Sheridan Smith all are at least memorable which is more than I can say about anyone else.

Technical speaking time the movie. One would think that a visual effects supervisor and second unit director might know how to let you watch a fight. One would also be wrong. One would think that he would know how to appropriately frame a shot. One would be wrong again. Now the movie is very pretty, but the shots are quick in places they need to linger. Linger in the places they need to be quick. Are far when they should be close and close when they should be far. It’s inconsistent in this as he gets some right and some wrong, but that inconsistency does make many moments lose impact they could have had and break tension when it could be ramped. The Ice was done in a way I hadn’t seen before and appreciated very much. Overall the Ice Queen was quite beautiful in her power. The set pieces evoked very specific geographic regions of the world and again I found quite beautiful.  In this space the movie got it right.

TL;DR?

Believe it or not the movie is good. It cannot, nor should not, be called great. It was simply ok. Just the right side of mediocre to have moments of entertainment. It does nothing particularly brave or adventurous with it’s plot other than remember to have fun sometimes. It is 100% paint by numbers and the palette is over used, but it isn’t used badly? It *is* better than Snow White.

I am trying to remember when more movies I saw were fun. I don’t expect it from every film, it’s not right for every movie. This needs to happen more often though. Again this is not a great movie by any stretch. Many are going to be bored by it. I have a spoiler corner with some other info below.

Should you see it?

If you have nothing else to do or are curious? Otherwise Redbox it or Netflix it.

Will Jess buy it?

Eh…probably? There’s enough that made me smile and enough beats I really enjoyed to own it.

 

Nothing coming out next week that I can see, but I may catch a showing of RWBY on the big screen and potentially Alien as well. So that may warrant some writing.

SPOILER CORNER.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

TURN BACK NOW.

Still here?

You sure?

Alright. Rollover.

There is one major flaw to the movie aside from it’s pacing. Missed opportunity. Three powerful badass women. Hemsworth’s constant mugging. You had an opportunity boys behind the pen and the camera and you missed it. You didn’t take the chance to let the girls be as powerful as the boys. They were badass, but the boy wins the day. You had an opportunity to do something new. That is ultimately what sums up the movie is a missed opportunity. The one major fight sequence where Chastain is alone and you don’t do anything with it and can’t prove it’s her. Then after that she barely does anything other than look badass and “never miss”.  *sigh* I won’t forgive the movie for it and it does need to be held accountable, but at least there are three powerful women a girl can look to and go “I wanna be her.” So that is a win…maybe?

 

Darke Reviews | The Jungle Book (2016)

Posted by

1

A quiet year for my reviews so far with this as my seventh review in a time where I should normally have maybe ten or twelve. Some movies have left me with such ennui that I couldn’t even bring myself to write about them (Allegiant, London Has Fallen). Others have left me with seething disappointment (BvS: Dawn of Justice). Then came along The Jungle Book, another in a line of Disney adapting their classic animated, and other properties to live action. Alice in Wonderland was….bleh, Cinderella was a bore, Maleficent was good, The Lone Ranger was a putrid pile, and Prince of Persia was a train wreck. There have been other adaptations of this with the 1994 Steven Sommers adaptation (his filmography tends to bring me smiles), starring Jason Scott Lee and Lena Heady and Andy Serkis is planning his own adaptation. Most folks however are familiar with the 1967 classic animated one, if not the film you know the soundtrack.

How did this adaptation go?

The script is adapted from the Rudyard Kipling book, as all are, by Justin Marks who has nothing of quality to his credit on the big screen. With his sole film being Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, ironically in light of the new photo from the Ghost in the Shell, that movie has come up in conversation recently as simply being bad. Then again in this situation he merely need to take what a master has written and adapt it to the screen under the careful eye of director Jon Favreau; who is thankfully best known for being the director of Iron Man. The producers on this one are a hot mess of “Wow” and “whoa…”. Yet somehow they brought it all together and told a cohesive story, free of many tropes (not all), appropriately emotional and dramatic, and capable of building tension and smiles.

Some of that credit goes to the cast of course. Bill Murray as Baloo, I am still not sure was the right choice, worked really well. Ben Kingsley brought the appropriate gravitas to Bagheera. Lupita Nyong’o and Giancarlo Esposito as Raksha and Akela the wolves that served as Mowgli’s parents brought the heart. Scarlet Johansson was serviceable as Kaa, though many could have done what she did and had the same impact. Christopher Walken’s King Louis is memorable. Idris Elba. Idris frikkin Elba. When I first saw the trailer I was worried about his voice matching appropriately to the role, something felt off. Whatever it was – is gone. He was amazing. He was terrifying. It was magnificent. So many movies have weak villains these days and this film that is not a problem. He has real weight on screen and brought his natural commanding presence through as Shere Khan.

10 year old Neel Sethi has a huge task. He is the only live actor in this film against some tremendous voice actors and otherwise CGI experience. I cannot say he delivers every line like a pro, but damnit if he doesn’t try. He is just so earnest in his delivery of every single line that I want to believe him. A lesser actor would come across annoying with the same delivery, but he makes it charming. I suppose that is all he has to do though to play the part right? I mean I listened to his dialogue and how he presented it and went “ok so he’s 10.” I consider that a success.

Let’s talk technicals shall we? The movie is gorgeous. As many other reviewers will tell you CG must be used properly. If it is you can’t tell what is and is not computer generated. While intellectually I knew the animals were, the movie made me forget. I cannot tell you from scene to scene with 100% certainty what was real and what was not. This is how you do it right. This is how you balance your colours to make it look like it’s real even when it is not. This is a lesson so many others fail at with hyper or desaturation to try to muddy the edges. They didn’t do that here. It was near perfect.

TL;DR?

I liked this movie. As I write about it I like it more. As I talked about it today, I liked it more. This is a good movie. It’s got repeat value. It’s not “Oh my god I am going to see this again tomorrow night…” but I really just enjoyed this work.

Should you see it?

Yes. Yes you should. Especially if you have kids.

Will Jess buy it?

Very much so.

Darke Reviews | Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Posted by

6

I was wrong about many things over the years. I have even been questioning my own reviews of late as so many mediocre movies continue to come out and I don’t have the energy to write about them. To write about another film that is so middling and ‘meh’ that it isn’t even worth the energy or time to write about it. I’ve even wondered if watching movies knowing I will review them has soured me to good films. Then I think about films like The VVitch, Victor Frankenstein, The Last Witch Hunter, Krampus, and realized that it’s not me. Noticed I left off films like Deadpool and The Force Awakens? It’s because they are both critical and financial successes. They are too obvious a target to say “see I still like movies!”. The other four films are something new, something different and something to be celebrated as they try to rise and claw and bite into the sun of something more than mediocrity. Now we are living in the Snyder-Verse when we talk about the DC Cinematic Universe. This is an important distinction to make as their Animated Universe films are some of the best comic films being made these days. The Cinematic though? People seem divided.

I called it the Snyder-Verse specifically after a comment he recently made about Grant Gustin not being right for The Flash.

I just don’t think [Gustin] was a good fit. I’m very strict with this universe and I just don’t see a version where… that (tone is) not our world.

Even if Grant Gustin is my favorite guy in the world, and he’s very good, we made a commitment to the multiverse, so it’s just not a thing that’s possible.

Source: http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-zack-snyder-never-considered-grant-gustins-flash-fo-1766285179

My thoughts on Mr. Snyder.

The most polite version of the meme I could find…

I appreciate the fact that Snyder has a vision for the films. Just as Nolan did. I appreciate that the execs at DC/WB are supporting his vision. I even will go so far as to say I can understand his vision for the DCCU. I know what he is trying to achieve. It’s easy to see in the fan service to Jim Lee and Frank Miller. It’s easy to see in the colour palette, the designs, and the characterizations. This movie is going to make a boatload of money unless a miracle happens. So he will be allowed to continue his vision for the verse and the movies will maintain their dour tones.

I really wish that he was struck blind. Metaphorically speaking…

I think his vision sucks. I think that he is really good at lifting material from better writers and visionaries and tries to interpret it as his own. There are no less than six different scenes from Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns in this movie. This is the universe Snyder is putting us in. The Batman costume is literally the same design. Some of the best Bat scenes are here and truth be told they made me smile when I saw them, but what he failed to notice was that was a Batman story first and foremost. The Superman in that story is portrayed like this

Yes it’s cheesy, the comic even mentions it but…

Giants walk this earth.

That is a Superman. That is a man people can look up to. That’s a hero. That is not what we got.

I am tired of mopey, dull, non-heroic Superman. I don’t need him deconstructed. The world doesn’t need him deconstructed. I am not a huge fan of Four Colour comics as a whole, but Superman belongs there. He needs to be larger than life. He *is* larger than life, something Good and something to aspire to. Even Batman is larger than life, and in his purest form something to aspire to. A man who has perfected his body and mind to be one of the best humans on the planet and doing what he does to protect people. (I did say purest form….)

This review has turned into a diatribe against Snyder and his vision rather than the movie.

His vision is the movie.

Long -nearly 3 hours.

Dull.

Dreary.

Hopeless.

There are slight glimmers of brilliance. Slight moments where something becomes more than the director himself is capable of. More than the story is capable of.

Those moments typically involve Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot. Affleck is one of the best visions of the Bat we have had since Keaton in cinematic live action tellings. The costume looks good, his fighting is good, how he operates works so well. He is a tired Bat, but I believed he WAS both Batman and Bruce Wayne. Gadot gave me someone I thought was a nigh immortal Wonder Woman in Man’s world. She was warrior, she was beautiful, she was intelligent and elegant. I am happy with her performance – as I expected to be. Alexander Luthor, as portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg, was hit and miss with more hits than misses. Though the misses are significant and I cannot discuss without hitting spoilers. I liked him. I bought him – mostly. His performance is not nearly as complete, as whole, as Affleck and Gadot.

Technically the movie was a bit of a train wreck. The editor couldn’t keep a single frame in camera for more than 30 seconds. I literally started counting. The CG was strong with this one and the lines were showing. When they got to the titular fight I just didn’t care. It was all spectacle without any emotion or caring put into it. Sure there were beats that had me excited but those only created emotion because someone else had done them better in other material and in another media. There were just too many other technically flawed moments through the movie to give a damn. The Batman story arc is one of the more interesting ones we’ve had in a very very long time. The Superman story arc is more of the same that we got last time with the world being too hard for the poor boy and more moping.

TL;DR?

I am not angry at this film. I am angry at Warner Bros. I am angry at Zack Snyder. I want to hate the film, but I can’t. I blame the people behind the camera. They have failed us.

Sure it’s going to make bank. I wish it wouldn’t. Sure there will be people who forgive it’s flaws and like it. I am not one of those people. We *need* to expect more. To expect better. We need to stop being satisfied with this….whatever this was.

Should you see it?

No. You will anyway, some of you will like it. I bet fans may like moments, but the whole of the film no. No you won’t.

Will I buy it?

In the bargain bin, so I can make a fan edit and remove most all the material involving Superman.

 

I am tired. I am going to keep reviewing films and trying to find the ones that are good. This is not one of them.

Darke Reviews | 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

Posted by

10

I owe you all an apology, I got home from London Has Fallen  last week and didn’t have the energy to write a review that night. The next day I still didn’t. The day after still no. I realized the movie was that mediocre that I had no energy to write it because I didn’t care enough. The action was ok. The effects were on the whole cheap. The tension was laughable. The acting, you don’t watch London Has Fallen for acting. You just watch it to see Gerard Butler kick butt – which he does. So there’s that.

Now during the Superbowl this year they revealed a trailer for a movie almost no one had heard of called 10 Cloverfield Lane. It’s rare in this day and age for a production to stay under the radar. Seeing the first trailer without any media hype a mere month and a half prior to the films release on something with names attached is even more unheard of. Then using the Cloverfield name in conjunction with J.J. Abrams automatically begins to conjures questions?

“Is it a sequel?”

“Is a prequel?”

“Is it tandem?”

“How is it related to the blockbuster first film?”

The producers then use that media buzz to let people talk about the movie – which is a smart play. They also spend their time answering all of those above questions “No it isn’t”. JJ has lied to us before (It’s not Khan) and cannot be trusted in that regard when it comes to a production. Why else call it Cloverfield when you have all the same names attached? “It’s a spiritual successor”, is a cheap answer. My feeling is that they wanted to created an anthology of movies around the “Cloverfield” conceit; which by it’s nature of real people in completely whacked out situations would wear thin. I mean the idea has merit once or twice, but to franchise the concept of Cloverfield can’t possibly work in the long term as a film series as you then need to spend time getting us to care (or not) about the characters then eventually have a reveal to the scale of their situation. Much like Shyamalan and his twists, when people come to expect them they spend the entire movie looking for the twist which then takes the wind out of it when it appears even if it is done intelligently.

400 words in and I haven’t discussed the movie I just watched. I’ve talked Hollywood, a movie I didn’t care to review to warn you to see or away from because it was that mediocre, JJ Abrams, and the concepts of how to build a franchise. I am really avoiding talking about the movie.

I didn’t like it. I wanted to. I really wanted to. I *like* the original Cloverfield. I didn’t get sick watching it. I liked the look of the monster. I cared about the characters and wanted to see Rob get to his girlfriend and them escape the monster. I wanted to see this and see how it ended.

I didn’t care here. The acting was fantastic. John Goodman was in full heavy mode and brought his impressive abilities to bear in a purely one dimensional role. He made it something more by using his physical presence and his acting to try to make it more than what was written. Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s character of Michelle was engaging. She was smart, she was willful, and clever. I have liked her since Wolf Lake, Sky High, and thought her Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim was on point. She didn’t do anything out of character, she didn’t turn into a “Final Girl” she just was. It worked and I liked her. John Gallagher Jr. as Emmet was a solid everyman. I went to school with people like him, I’ve worked with folks like him. The acting was FINE. It was Solid. It was Good.

What they had to work with sucked. There’s no twists. The tension doesn’t hold because they let you see some of the elements too early. They, being Matthew Stuecken (producer of GI Joe Rise of the Cobra and the Mummy 3), Josh Campbell (editor of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Van Helsing), and Damien Chazelle (writer of Whiplash) have invoked the three writer rule.  I lay blame on Dan Trachtenberg, in his big screen directorial debut, as well. They give you too much too soon of the wrong elements and it takes away from the movie. It breaks rather than builds the tension because you become certain of things and those things are only solidified rather than challenged when opportunity presented itself.

I verge into spoiler territory if I say more, and even though I dislike the film I need to keep to the rules.

If the intent here was to give novice writers and directors a chance to tell a story within the guardrails of a type of universe under the watchful eye of successful novices such as Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, Let Me In) and Drew Goddard (The Martian, Cabin in the Woods), and Bryan Burk (Star Wars the Force Awakens), then I feel they failed. They succeeded in the attempt, but they failed in the guidance. I found nothing beyond the acting enjoyable here. The movie struck emotional chords in the performances, but gave nothing else for me to do with them. It was not well constructed or articulated.

If anything I would compare it to…hmm no. That would be a spoiler.

TL;DR?

Don’t see it. Expect more from your sci fi. Expect more from your movies. They need to try harder.

This was an attempt to do something original, for that I could praise it, but when we have things like The VVitch out there which also do original and do it better. We need to expect more.

Do I recommend it? No. Save your money.

 Will I buy it? No.

Next two weeks have a chance to give some enjoyment with Allegiant and Superman v Batman. Here’s hoping.

Darke Reviews – The VVitch (2016)

Posted by

6

I won’t lie, I’ve been looking forward to this for a long time. The trailer captured my interest and had my attention in it’s two minutes and thirty one seconds.  That was in August of last year. half a year later the movie gets a wide release and we finally get it in Tucson. Of course the review is SPOILER FREE!!!

My original Facebook post said this:

Trailers in the Darke – The Witch (2016)

Solid cast. Good atmosphere. A few jump scares. Looks to have good tension.

I am on board.
https://www.facebook.com/TheWitchMov

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQXmlf3Sefg

Now….was I right? Did it live up to my expectations?

Written and directed by Robert Eggers in his first theatrical full feature film appearance. Eggers has worked across the behind the camera in Art Direction, Costume Design, Production Design, and Art departments prior. This explains much of how he was able to capture and evoke something very disturbingly primal in the film. He admits that much of the dialogue and plot come from journals, folk tales, and myths of early colonial New England. It felt it. I heard dialogue choices that felt appropriate, I heard people talking like people…but from another era.  I find myself hard pressed to think of another film in this genre and era that felt right…and oh so wrong at the same time. His script pulls no real punches and should it be found accurate, I would say this made me believe an aspect, a dark one at that, of Puritan colonial life could have looked like this. That a story such as this could inspire black emotions and torment, even if it was for private gain alone.

That I think is what struck me most in the plot and script. I can see all of the beats of a movie, but at the same time, I see a spark. I see that he touches on emotions and beliefs in the microcosm of this family that if explored wider could lead to a Salem, or worse Auto-da-fe. It was bizarrely natural and unnatural at the same time. The time is inferred, the place you only know as “The commonwealth”, leaving much to the imagination but also with acknowledgement that it’s irrelevant for the story. I was reminded of a conversation earlier this week where I mentioned I hated the Scarlet Letter in school, not just because I was forced to read it, but because I hated that Hester conformed to societal norms. This movie feels like the story I wanted to read. What happens when you take a devout family from their home, not once but twice, and force them apart from society? It was a fascinating, if not predictable, study.

Three of the main characters must carry the brunt of the work of the film. Ralph Ineson (a character actor from Game of Thrones, and many other films in sci fi and fantasy) and Kate Dickie (Lysa Arryn from Game of Thrones) are the parents who must ride a certain balance between fanaticism, family, and despair. They do so quite well and strike the balance better than most “significant” actors would. I find their performance more passioned, more honest, and in times more raw than many critical actors performances in similar roles. As the eldest daughter, Anya Taylor-Joy gets the brunt of the work and watching her performance as her character grows through the film kept me in my seat. I would like to see more of what she can offer Hollywood based on the performance here.

From a technical perspective, the movie is as near as I could tell 100% practical. The house, the farm, everything was practical. This goes a long long way when doing a supernatural suspense and horror film to give you the right feelings and evoke the proper tension as it’s all in camera for you. That of course leads to one of the few downfalls of the movie – it is the living definition of slow burn. The burn pays off, but watching the build up, watching the tension keep getting ratcheted higher took effort, and sadly a lot of the time. The music was a little too much sometimes reminding me a touch of Dark Knight with the strained violins.  The camera work on the other hand is on point with great usage of frames for the scenes telling you what you need to know rather than dialogue.

TL;DR?

I find myself surprised. Not at the quality, but that the film was mostly American made. It feels more like a project I would see come out of Spain, Paris, or German cinema. It’s a tight film and feels like Eggers worked for it and simultaneously had clear vision of what he wanted and was passionate about it. I am really happy with this movie. I found myself liking this movie more as I wrote the review. That’s rare!

Do I consider it scary though? No. Suspenseful – yes! It’s also not scary in the traditional sense we’re used to. The jump scares, the gore, that kind of horror? It’s not the only kind. This is a more real and all too relatable kind of horror. It is unsettling at times.

Do I think it worthy of the critical acclaim? Absolutely.

Is Jess going to buy it? YES!

Should you see it?

 If you need something in this supernatural suspense genre, you should watch it. Consider this a superior counter offering to another Conjuring or Insidious. We all complain about not enough original coming out of Hollywood, well here you go. It’s original. It’s not based on a book, a remake, real events, etc etc etc… this is new. Celebrate it.

If this is your genre – please go see this and tell Hollywood we want more! I might go see it again just for that alone.