Darke Reviews | The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Alright as we begin this review let me remind people of the rules:

  1. No spoilers from me. Even if I want to.
  2. I don’t typically read the book. It’s rare when I do. This lets me judge a movie strictly on its merits as a film.

So where do I judge this film? I don’t think it will be long into this review before you know how, but let us go through the motions. I say go through the motions as much with Hunger Games, you are either 3 or 5 movies in and thus committed to this franchise. I have absolutely no illusions I will keep anyone from seeing this or encourage someone to see it who is not already invested. The reality is I was just as invested, which is why I saw this. I am freelance, no one pays me. I see what I want, when I want, and review what I want. Phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty budget.

I think there was a time that Peter Jackson was heralded as being the savior of the Fantasy Genre. We have come here not to praise Jackson, but to bury him. Bury him in the mounds of money he has made on our faith. Bury him under the weight of his own misguided creativity. Jackson has stepped over the line from savior to damnation. He has saved us from films such as Eragon only to deliver us into the hands of a three movie franchise for something that at most should have been two. George Lucas has stepped aside from franchise and good will destroying madman to allow the King of Hobbits to take the throne. Any goodwill that Jackson built with the first franchise has long since been thrust into the fires of Mt. Doom. The movie with Jackson at the helm and at the pen, fails on so many levels.

But if you are still with me, allow me to explain:

Peter Jackson is director, producer, and screenplay writer.  With his collaborators (and wife) Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Guillermo del Toro. This is a fantastic combination for two things – cranking out the works of Tolkien into something digestible to the mass market and not being able to say no to each others ideas. I am sure there was some disagreement in the writing circle, thats inescapable. But if you are a writer like me, your friends can be the worst people to have read your work. They will support bad ideas (usually) and tell you how great it is when what you really need is the one friend who says “No.” I don’t think this crew had that. I don’t think they put limits on themselves and the studio certainly wasn’t about to after the dragons hoarde of money they have raked in over the past decade.

Background done, the movie fails on the simple level of evocative storytelling. A writer must have an understanding of the rollercoaster that is their story. There are rises and falls. Beats and pauses. This movie lacks that. I grew up in Maryland with my grandparents and due to that I watched probably more war movies from the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s than most kids my age. I have seen all the greats. I have seen all the new greats in that genre as well. What they all have in common is the action beats are interrupted by relatively long pauses to let you breathe, to let you grasp what is going on, and most importantly to make you care and get to know the characters that are in this plight. Let me take you to Saving Private Ryan for a moment. A modern classic and that is an opinion that is hard to argue. I would be willing to bet most people have a character they remember and like. For me it was the sniper. I got him and his death was powerful and meaningful. Another film. Enemy At the Gates, under rated movie of Russians vs. Germans about one of the greatest snipers that has ever lived. Again everyone on both sides you get to know them and care or wish for their death. Classic film from a time before mine – Battle of the Bulge. Fantastic (in more ways than one) movie. You meet both sides and even can learn sympathy for some of the Germans in it, which is nigh unheard of at the time.

Not so here. I couldn’t tell you who half of the people were in the over an hour of battle this movie gives you. I also couldn’t care. Filli, Killi – which is which? It doesn’t matter. The movie doesn’t let you care. There was no stake in this film. There was no passion to the story to let me care beyond a cursory level if *anyone* lived or died. The movie had no risk because you knew some characters couldn’t die. The ones beyond that you couldn’t care about, with few exceptions thanks to the actors. The story didn’t do them justice.

Second major failure. If you want to introduce things not in the book, by all means do so. I *encourage* it. You will be damned if you mirror the book near perfect (Zack Snyder) or deviate wildly (Jackson here). Might as well take the risk and do something fascinating; just make sure it is fascinating and for the love of all that you hold dear – have a plan. If you want to introduce all these new elements make sure you know what to do with them when you have to wrap the bow around the whole package. There were too many stories started here and so few of them were closed. There won’t be another film so why leave them hanging?

Now these two failures combined pretty much left me bored and not caring. There are other factors I will get too in a minute. The movie succeeds in two places. The first is Martin Freeman. I know he is not at risk, but at all times he makes me care. He manages to strike the chords that make me feel something while watching this. His acting is fantastic end to end without ever missing a beat that he is on screen. The second is Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel. Yes I know she is created for the film, but again she actually makes me care.  I wish there was more to her and for her to work with because it actually worked.

No one else did. Really. They didn’t. Even Armitage a Thorin just doesn’t really do it. He gets close, but he almost tries too hard.

From a technical standpoint please allow me to say: DEAR GOD WHAT HAPPENED TO BIGATURES?! CGI IS NOT THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!!!! It along with your high frame rate and 3D makes every single flaw look even worse. It isn’t good. If Manu Bennet (who is awesome in person) is wearing a make up while playing Azog its a really bad make up because it looks CG. If the make up is only enhanced by CG, then they failed. It looked bad. It looked really bad. Honestly, not a single shot in the movie looked good. They were trying too hard. They tried so hard they hit the ridiculous barrier. It wasn’t SyFy movie of the week bad, but it was way too much money spent on it bad. With all that WETA digital has done over the years, they apparently have not mastered light. It made every shot “enhanced” by the artificial light look worse. The CG horseback ride, was easy to see the green screen!

Creature design. What. The. Frak. It was patently ridiculous. I remember the first time you gave us a Cave Troll. It was bloody terrifying, even if it doesn’t hold up. The Battle of Helms deep?

TL;DR

As I said before you will see this anyway if you were going to. If you were on the fence, please heed my advice – Don’t see it.

I don’t actually hate the film, but I can’t give it more than an Ok. It didn’t make me smile. It didn’t actually entertain with only a handful of scenes as an exception. It gave me a solid meh and only a few eye watering moments to show for it.

If you absolutely must see this movie; if it is a moral imperative of Chris Knight proportions then go see it. Avoid the high resolution/frame rate, there were times it almost made me nauseous. 3D is ok, but you can save SOME money by catching the 2D and I don’t think you’ll be too upset.

So there it is…the end of a trilogy (hexology?). It started epic and ends with a whimper.

 

 

 

Darke Reviews | The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part I (2014)|

Most of you are readily familiar with my reviews, for those new to the page bear with me. I love writing reviews. They are a hobby which I want to turn into something more. There are movies of course which I watch and wonder “whats the point?”. In some cases it is because it is so bad no one wants to see it. In some cases it is so obscure even if you wanted to see it you couldn’t. There are some films, which despite my best efforts you will see *coughs* Bayformers *coughs* and Hollywood will take as a check to make another despite anything else. Then there are movies like Mockingjay.

In Hollywoods ever growing quest for a chance to milk a franchise for every drop of its sweet, precious, blood they have taken to a new trend of splitting the finale film into two. Twilight, Harry Potter, Hunger Games, and even Marvel is doing it with the Infinity War. Though it has not yet been announced the Divergent finale, Allegiant will probably be split in two. I would be surprised if it wasn’t. Don’t get me started on the Hobbit where we took one movie and made it into three. Of the ones made already, Hobbit included, the first of the films tends to have an issue.

It’s dull.

Not saying it is a bad movie, but that they use the film to lay all the groundwork for the epic finale. There’s enough action you are not entirely bored. You are already invested in the characters thus far and for once you do get a deeper amount of time with most of them, but at the same time they lack a certain punch. They lack a real weight because you know they aren’t over. Mockingjay is no different. Oh there’s some action here, but not to the level or intensity we’ve gotten used to. This one tries for more emotional punches and a lot of focus on Katniss after the events of the past two movies.

The story of course is by Suzanne Collins who also adapted it for the screen. There’s two screenplay credits with The Town’s Peter Craig and Danny Strong. Strong was Jonathan on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but has also become a talented writer with Lee Daniels’ The Butler as a written by credit. So with the idea of this particular story needing to be told in mind, these two men are a perfect choice. They do have a keen sense of drama and how to use action to accent it and that is what Mockingjay is – a drama with action added to ease the tension that is building for us until Part II.

Good writing only takes you part of the way with Francis Lawrence taking up the directors chair again after his success on Catching Fire. I also think we get to see his weak points a bit more, much like we did with I Am Legend. We have a very solid film here, with very solid – well – everything. The movie is just lacking something and I think thats a combination of the director, writer, and producers not having a clean and clear idea on how to appropriately split the movie into two. We also have enough tonal shifts and pacing issues in the movie to make it a bit jarring at times. The opening to close shifts just a bit too much and it runs a bit too long in the tooth.

Saving it from these technical, production, and directorial issues are the actors. Ok. Actor. Jennifer Lawrence. 1 Academy award, two nominations and two Golden Globes, with one additional nomination make us think she might be a good actress. This movie reminds us she is. She carries the film and is beautifully doing what she does. Every emotion feels real. Nothing is phoned in or left to chance with her. She just is that good and has no choice but to carry the movie as the rest of the cast, while good, don’t have nearly enough development or screen time. I would have rather seen more of Woody Harrelson’s Haymitch, Elizabeth Banks Effie, and certainly more of Sam Claflin’s Finnick. That boy exudes charisma even when he is pulling it all in. Hutcherson, Hemsworth, Sutherland, Hoffman, Moore, and Tucci all do well enough and really could phone it in if they wanted to. Hutcherson does get a few beats and I enjoyed what I saw there. For my Natalie Dormer fans, yeah there is not enough Cressida, but what we do get is excellent and a huge departure from her Tyrell role. All of the actors do well with what they were given. I can’t say I am a fan of Hemsworth but honestly, I am finding more and more I am not a fan of the Hemsworth clan outside of Thor. All of the power in the film resides with Lawrence. Banks and Harrelson get some shining moments that I wanted so much more of that I was disappointed I didn’t get it.

Not much to talk on the technicals. Nothing new, but at the same time nothing bad either. Actually, I type corrected. The make up effects. Flawless. Not surprised with Ve Neill in charge. Season 1 Face/Off winner Conor McCullagh gets a credit as Key Make Up Artist, with my personal favourite Face/Off contestant Laura Dandridge having a special make up effects artist credit.  Glen Hetricks Optic Nerve studios was also involved. We are all better for it. There are a few choice shots were some amazing talent were needed and the effects are subtle going through it so they were worth mention. I know this is a review of Hunger Games, but I have to give credit to Face/Off for actually furthering careers of really talented people.

TL;DR?

As I said before, there are movies like Mockingjay. Face it, you are already invested and nothing in my review will stop you from seeing it. Nor should anything in my review stop you from seeing it. You need to for the finale which by all accounts should be filled with enough action and intensity to make you want to cry.

If you haven’t gotten into Hunger Games before, this one is NOT the one to start with. Then again who starts with the 3rd movie out of four?

Otherwise, yeah go see it and be the completionist. It is a solid film but suffers what I now dub The Deathly Hollows curse. Good but not great. Solid, but not quite fun or entertaining. It exists as a filler and placeholder for additional material coming soon to a theatre near you. I did enjoy it, but I wasn’t blown away by any one thing.

So there we go. May the odds be ever in your favor.

 

Darke Reviews – Horns (2014)

First, as in before we get into the review, let me give you the teaser that got me interested in this film in the first place.  Since most of you have not likely even heard of this film, it can provide a good grounding.

Ok, now that this is established the trailer sold me on a certain mood for the film and a certain tone that I should expect. Daniel Radcliffe seems to be rocking the American accent and well, lets face it the horns look interesting.  I had no idea it was based on a book (until the trailer spelled it out and still hadn’t heard of it), but then again what isn’t these days. Sadly this film is largely indy and only has had limited release so even if most of you want to see it after the review you may not be able to. I have been waiting weeks to see this and one of the art house style theatres in Tucson was actually showing it. I had to admit I was surprised. So my surprise aside in the fact it was being shown, do I regret seeing it?

The story is written by Stephen Kings son, Joseph Hillstrom King, aka Joe Hill. That said it explains why the movie was set in a place that could be Maine, but could have been the pacific northwest. Now when I say story, I mean the novel and story credit. The screenplay, under Hill’s eyes was adapted by a man named Keith Bunin who has almost literally done nothing else in the industry.

The story focuses on Ig “Iggy” Parrish, a boy in love with a girl in a town that doesn’t want him – especially after her brutal murder. He swears he didn’t commit the murder and no one but one of his best friends since childhood believes him. After a particularly bad night Ig wakes up with …well Horns. Not just that but they seem to have power over others, power he hopes he can use to find the person truly responsible for the death of his one true love Merrin.

So at its heart the movie is a murder mystery wrapped in young adult horror, romance, and the blackest comedy. Which underlies the problem of the movie. It runs a two full hours and feels it. I don’t know what tone they were going for, but its a mixed bag across all of those genre’s. It is also not subtle in the least, which I don’t know is to blame on the source material or director Alexandre Aja. He too is a mixed bag where I don’t know quite what to expect of his films and now as I write this I think that might be intentional. Aja has previously directed Haute Tension, released in the US as High Tension which was considered fairly good by those who I’ve spoken to about it. At the same time he gave us the 2006 remake of The Hills Have Eyes, Mirrors in 2008 (don’t remember it, no one else does either) and the ever infamous Piranha 3D in 2010. Piranha I think covers a portion of his style quite aptly. There is ridiculous humor, disturbing to look at horror/gore, and then the spring break T&A over the top.

Thats it. He goes over the top. He goes to 11. The downside is, I think, he needs someone to turn the dial back down. The movie starts out this beautifully moody, atmospheric piece of art. It then descends into his fathers tropes of the childhood friends with the requisite “fat kid” who is almost never called by his own name. The flashbacks are, for their part, bright and colourful while the current time frame is always a bit darker and a bit more grey. To this he gets credit in intelligent design choices. He also loses those points for the films lack of anything resembling subtly. Eve’s Diner, with an Apple as the logo? Really?

Direction and bad editing on the film aside, the acting is fantastic. Radcliffe owns the screen. He doesn’t chew scenery like Jeremy Irons does, but instead masters it. You want to watch him, even when he is being emo and moody. He just exudes something special and the movie is all the better for it. His emotional range is top notch, with a perfect accent. He commands pity, rage, and fear in equal measures and also has a certain sexiness to him as well. While I haven’t seen the Woman in Black, this does make me want to watch it.

The supporting cast is solid, but not nearly as interesting. You have Max Minghella (The Darkest Hour, Ides of March) as his best friend and Joe Anderson (Across the Universe, The Grey) as his older addiction laden brother. More famous faces such as James Remar (Django, Korra, and a lot of other things),  Kathleen Quinlan (Hills have Eyes, Event Horizon), David Morse (Treme, Green Mile), and Heather Graham, who I think may be reincarnated Elizabeth Bathory as she does not look 44 in this movie, rounding out the cast. Of course, I also need to talk about Juno Temple (Maleficent, Killer Joe, Jack & Diane). She plays our deceased girl, through flashbacks of course, and has a presence all her own on screen. I don’t know that I felt her and Radcliffe had onscreen chemistry enough for me to buy the romance, but she does a rather good job through the film in conveying all her character goes through.

From a more technical standpoint the Horns look awesome. Not a surprise when Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger worked on them. The enhanced visual effects were not as clean, but anything that was practical – which was a lot – looked fantastic.

TL:DR?

But Jess ( I imagine you asking) should I see it?

Well to be honest, not really. It’s a good film, but not a great film. It had some entertaining beats, but was too slow for too long in others. The humor didn’t always work and because of that a lot of the movies entertainment value falls a bit flat. I don’t know if it needed another polish on the screenplay or a more experienced editor or…I don’t know what precisely would have fixed this movie, but it does need fixing.

If you are a Daniel Radcliffe fan or a fan of the book I think you should be safe to see and enjoy. I was entertained, but I really don’t think everyone will be.

Coming in blind, its a bit of a mess, but you *might* enjoy it. I can’t promise you will (or should) so I can’t say with all my usual confidence avoid it or watch it. It exists as a solid film in the indie realm with some serious starring power in Daniel Radcliffe. I think anyone else in the role the movie dies – and that is a problem.

Horns seems cursed by not knowing what it wants to be. Maybe Alighieri could come and give it a tour next time and it could have been a touch better.

Darke Reviews | The Thing from Another World (1951)

I am ending the month of reviews with the film that I answer the question: “What’s your favourite movie of all time to?” when asked. No it’s not what I put for security questions that ask the same. I am insane, not stupid. I have seen this twice on the big screen by pure luck and enjoy it every time. I avoid the colourized version when possible and suffer through it when not. It’s important to note, when looking at the genre of Sci-Fi this is one of forerunners of the modern alien movies. Coming out in 1951 it was part of the rise of cultural xenophobia and anti russian sentiment growing in the US during the post war environment. We were already at war in Korea during this and the Russians were the boogeymen. The boogeyman can’t be a man though, not really, not then anyway, it had to be something else, something Alien perhaps?

The Day the Earth Stood Still had not come out yet that year, and the genre of science fiction has been around on screen for as long as we’ve had screens. It’s been on the air since well we had airwaves to transmit for entertainment. Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, a little thing called War of the Worlds? Novels of such things have existed even longer with a mother of science fiction in Mary Shelley, and those who followed such as H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. The 30’s saw a rise in pulp fiction, with such literary greats as Robert E Howard and H.P. Lovecraft; or even a certain man (he might even be called super) created by Siegel and Shuster. Yet, with all of this background the idea of alien films was still very new and this is among the earliest and due to two factors more overlooked. The first factor is the Robert Wise production of The Day the Earth Stood Still, one of the top films of the same year. It would be like me asking you what other Sci Fi movie came out the same year as Independence Day, you probably can’t, and that’s ok. Some films are just so big they overshadow the rest.

The second factor leaving this one overlooked and underrated is John Carpenter. In 1982 he released his take on the same story. Both films are based on a story called “Who Goes There?” by John W. Campbell. While, per usual, I haven’t read the original story the Carpenter version is attributed to being more accurate to the xenophobic fear that the story espouses. Carpenters version is also widely praised by cinephiles and fans of both sci fi and horror. It’s practical effects are still a benchmark. With all of this in mind, I do prefer this film.

Let’s talk about the film in the usual way shall we?

The credited director is Christian Nyby, with this as his first film. He then moved to TV and never quite looked back with dozens of TV shows to his credit through 1975. IMDB indicates there is an uncredited director – Howard Hawks, who was also the producer. Hawks worked on some of the greatest war movies and most memorable westerns of all time, with Sergeant York (a joke in the movie I realize now), Air Force, Rio Bravo, and El Dorado; he was even the director on the Marilyn Monroe classic Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953). So the sharp direction, wit, and conversations through the movie. For 1951 it has excellent blocking and timing with the understanding that editing was more difficult back then.

The script was written by Charles Lederer, who had been writing for two decades prior, and worked with Hawks on several films after. Probably one of the most famous films he worked on was the original Ocean’s Eleven and Mutiny on the Bounty. I think it was this man that probably inspired most of what I like about the film, the dialogue. While analyzing it as an adaptation of the source material it is a fail, for a standalone story it works. It captures the paranoia growing through the country well enough and again is one of the forerunners of alien invasion movies. It also brilliantly doesn’t demonize anyone as so many of the movies in Sci Fi from the 50s and 60’s do. There is a strong anti science sentiment, mostly due to the realization of the nuclear bombs power and that science delivered it, contrasted by scientists still saving us. It’s an interesting mix in film at the time with very strong fear of the nuclear age and those who delivered it to us. This movie lets science show it’s curiosity as much as it’s caution with several of the scientists arguing amongst themselves as to how to proceed, and I admire that. Along with this, we get a strong female who has a sexual identity of her own that helps drive the backstory/lovestory between her and the main protagonist. It’s not forced, in fact it feels very real and natural as written. The rest of the dialogue through the film almost reminds me of Aaron Sorkin on the West Wing, it is witty, quick, and relies on strong chemistry with the cast.

I wish I could say more about the cast beyond that strong chemistry. Everyone in the film is fantastic, don’t get me wrong. Kenneth Toney (Capt. Hendry), Margaret Sheridan (Nikki), Robert Cornthwaite (Dr. Arthur Carrington), and Dewey Martin (Bob..seriously); all of them were great. They played their parts well, felt like a real crew who knew each other and it was warm despite the climate. The relationship between Hendry and Nikki was absolutely believable and honestly a bit racy for the 50s; especially where he lets her tie him up for a date. Carrington’s obsession with science is portrayed as reasonable at first and grows less so, but at the same time you cannot help but appreciate his arguments – Cornthwaite is responsible for that.  Bob is every sergeant story I have ever heard since. He knows all, sees all, and a good captain and officers wisely listen. They do. They even joke about it. It works.

There is of course, James Arness, who is our visitor. His name, unlike the others who vanished in to relative obscurity even with long careers, is known as Matt Dillon in Gunsmoke. They used his 6’7″ (2.01 meter) frame to full advantage which made him an imposing monster on screen.

I can’t say much about the technical aspects, it’s 1951. What they do – works rather well.

TL;DR

This is one of the great sci fi movies of all time and it doesn’t get nearly enough love. If you want to check it out, I highly recommend it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Darke Reviews | Hellraiser (1987)|

This film really feels like it came out earlier than it did. For some reason my brain kept thinking this came out in the early 80’s rather than the late 80’s. Granted some of the fashion in the film does actually date it fairly well. I recently had an opportunity read some interview transcripts regarding the making of this film, courtesy of io9. This makes the film yet another one of the classic great films shot on a low budget (less than $1mm) and considered an indie film. I think that is worthy of some commentary.

Some of the greatest horror movies come from what is not seen vs. what is seen. My best friend, generally dislikes horror, but much of it comes from having a face you can see. It stops being as scary. To quote an underrated movie, “If he has a voice he has a throat, if he has a throat, he has a body.”   These independent, low budget films, can’t afford to show much. The directors and crew need to get creative on how to build the tension and make things scary. Pinhead, by example, probably has less than 8 minutes on screen total out of the films 94 minute running time. Jaws, another example of a monster that is barely shown. Granted Jaws is due to technical issues, but the lack of vision of the monster forced Spielberg to get creative with other kills. This made the film scarier.

Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Jaws, Hellraiser, Psycho, Friday the 13th, all of these films are considered iconic, classic, staples of modern horror. Every other film in their genre is compared to them and as you begin to add budget to them and sequels the quality diminishes.Is the secret to successful horror a distinct lack of budget?

Look at the modern day films, such as Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity, both extremely cheap to make and both insanely successful in the box office. Both rely on what they don’t show you and because of that are scarier. As they progress, ok lets focus on PA here, Blair Witch 2 was …godawful, they become less intense and less effective in arousing a fear emotion from us. The bigger the budget, the less scary movies become as the director is able to follow whim than be limited by it. Those limitations are what pushes the creative minds to achieve success. Even Michael Bay worked better with less budget, check out the video for Meatloafs I would do anything for Love as an example.

So Hellraiser? Is it scary?

Well, it is from one of the most beautifully deranged minds in horror, Clive Barker. Based on one of his own stories The Hellbound Heart, which was nearly the title but the studio was afraid someone would think it was a romance. Boy would they have been surprised. He is both writer and director, so any changes from the original story really are on him and those limitations I spoke to earlier.

The movie starts out with the story of Frank, a man so depraved that life itself holds no sensation for him and he explores something to find new heights of pleasure and pain. For this he pays a price, as all things come with one. We cut to some time later when Franks brother Larry and his wife Julia move into his old home. Though Julia has some very specific memories of the place and Frank. Larry’s daughter Kirsty is also moving back close to home and stops by for a visit. A small accident and a little blood later and Frank is freed from his prison and much like the Mummy needs to pull himself back together to be whole again. Julia agrees to help, but as all murder plots go things begin to unravel as the bodies stack up.

Notice, no mention of the monsters? There’s a reason for that. They play such a small part in the film, but are special to the horror. They are the Cenobites, the guardians of a place not dissimilar to hell, a place where pleasure and pain become one. They have such weight on screen their physical presence, even without dialogue tells you all you need to know. But then they do give them dialogue, the figure now known as Pinhead, but then Cenobite leader makes Hell almost tempting as it is terrifying. I don’t normally put quotes from films in a review but honestly…how do you not get chills from some of these lines?

“Oh, no tears please. It’s a waste of good suffering.”

“Explorers…in the further regions of experience. Demons to some. Angels to others.”

It’s just excellent. Sadly, most of the acting strength comes from those few minutes of Doug Bradley on screen as Pinhead. Andrew Robinson as Larry, Claire Higgins as Julia, and Sean Chapman/Oliver Smith as Frank do ok. They don’t sell me anything, other than the build up. I almost feel as if they are going through the motions. Frank probably is one of the more terrifying villains with his look through the movie. Kirsty is our typical Last Girl though, strong in ways she didn’t know she could be. She reminds me much of Nancy from Nightmare on Elm Street. She’s a survivor and when the cenobites show the first time, her mind saves her not any muscle.

From a technical standpoint, the movie is one of the more grotesque out there. The lack of budget forced much in the way of practical effects and we are thankful. Every effect surrounding Frank is a thing of exquisite grotesquery. The Cenobites are iconic images that at one point Barker thought might be too silly in bright light. Even the final creature, the machinist, while you can tell is a puppet by some respects is far more terrifying than a CG version of it ever could be.

TL;DR

Hellraiser is one of the scariest films ever made in the creature feature department. It gives us a manifestation of hell that we can understand and are afraid of. The thought of suffering is bad, but seeing a potential option for its outcome is unpleasant. It is a gore flick don’t get me wrong and some effects do not hold up all these years later (and some didn’t hold up then); but it is an iconic film of horror.

Should you watch it though? Honestly, this one is only for the fans of gore in their movies. Psychological horror fans probably won’t get nearly as much out of it.

Hellraiser is an icon for a reason and it will stand the test of time, but it is certainly not for everyone.

So…what is your pleasure?

 

 

 

Darke Reviews | Psycho (1960)

I have to admit, I had never seen this movie fully until this day. Oh sure, it was impossible to not be aware of all that comes with it. There’s no twist for it anymore, there’s no real surprise. While there is some argument over what a slasher film is, I will give my definition first:

A film in which the primary weapon used for murder is a bladed hand instrument that can be use in a motion that strikes across the victim (you know a slash). Stabbing is also a method in which the victims may be expirated.

We don’t call it the stabbing genre though. We call them slashers. While Halloween is sometimes attributed as the first Slasher, it’s body count can help support that, Texas Chainsaw Massacre came out four years prior. There had been films in the 40’s and 50’s that dealt with murder, but perhaps the one that inspired the rest since then – Psycho. Because of the nature of this film and it’s influence on modern cinema, I really want to spend some serious time discussing it. So I give you fair warning now, if you just want to know about seeing it – go to the TL;DR; otherwise, let’s talk Psycho.

Consider yourself spoiled. It’s been five decades.

I want to open this with the trailer. I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything like it before or anything since. Let me share first –

Hitchcock himself, just talking on screen. He tells us about the motel, so unassuming, then moves to us to the house. Even the music is light hearted as he speaks about diabolical acts. He then tells us about the movie, I don’t mean lightly – HE DESCRIBES THE DETAILS; all of them, then…he stops. Teasing us with descriptions. He keeps hinting and how horrible it all is. How gruesome and even indescribable some events are. Through out this trailer he masters the concept of the tease, he begins to talk about something then cuts himself off – it is magnificent. The unfinished descriptions leave us wondering, but also tell us when and where to pay attention in the film. He also speaks of this as if it were real. It is absolutely brilliant. Again, to my knowledge nothing before, nothing since. I don’t know that anyone could do it now. I don’t know that anyone is that skilled a director to even try. I am sure some might consider it, but would the studios allow such a thing? Probably not, but I almost want someone to try.

Of course, the trailer just gets us in. Then there is a script by Joseph Stefano pretty much an unknown at the time, but would go on to write and produce for one of the greatest sci-fi/horror shows of all time, the Outer Limits. The script may have been written by Stefano, but it was based on a novel by Robert Bloch one year prior, thus proving Hollywood has always been basing their films on a book. Bloch would also go on to write for Hitchcock himself, on Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Now, not having read the book yet, as is normal for me, I am going strictly by Wiki here. I know how dangerous that is, but the final screenplay is pretty much lock step with the story. It is worth mentioning the story could be inspired by the, at the time recent, arrest of Ed Gein, one of the most famous American serial killers. Texas Chainsaw Massacre was also inspired by Gein, as was Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs. Though it is said Bloch did not research the Gein case beyond the news, it does also prove how much art may imitate reality when the stories are locked at side by side. As an aside, I know way too much about serial killers.

To sell this sort of story you need good actors. We’ve seen in recent decades, now 54 years later, what happens if you try this without mediocre or bad actors. Let’s work up the chain shall we?

John Gavin (Spartacus,  is our start, playing Sam Loomis the fly by night lover of Marion Crane. He is a man we in the modern age that many can relate to. He has debts from his family, debts from an ex wife he needs to pay alimony to, and a woman he loves that he wants to be a better man for. For the 60s, this is fairly racy, as he is not quite having an affair since neither him nor his lover Marion are married, but there’s is a secret relationship which is at its tipping point. He is perhaps the catalyst for the story as much as anything else and it is because of him we reach a, I suppose the word here is, satisfactory ending to the film. He ends up being the one to stop our killer, but not alone. This leads us to Vera Miles, as Lila Crane, the sister to Marion. She is gorgeous, honestly one of the prettiest women I have ever seen. She is also, as Lila, single minded and focused in attempting to find her sister. She will do what it takes to do so and really only has a weak moment when she confronts something that is worth having a freak out over. She also reprised her role in the sequel twenty three years later. She was a force on screen in the film and able to drive those around her. Though this may be her only real characteristic, it is worth mentioning.

The two left of course are Janet Leigh, as Marion Crane. She already was a name in Hollywood having worked with greats such as Errol Flynn, Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart, Kirk Douglas, Frank Sinatra, John Wayne, and Tony Curtis.  Of course, as mentioned in The Fog, she is the mother of Jamie Lee Curtis. Much like Miles, she is also one of the most beautiful women to have ever graced the silver screen. The first 45 minutes of movie focuses on nothing but her. She owns it, every scene. Every bit of dialogue, internal monologue, and blocking. She dominates. She is a near perfect actress in this film, worthy of her Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination and Golden Globe win for this part. So much of the film relies on her and her expressions and it works. Even the opening with her in naught but a bra and a slip – racy at the time and rarely seen but she made it natural. Then..there is her exit stage right.

The shower. That magnificent scene which all other slashers must compare to at some level. Leigh, never took a shower again after viewing it, it was how vulnerable she felt, how vulnerable we are there that drove her this way. Not the filming as some report. She has to sell her death on screen and does so with the hand (or scream) of a master.

This of course leads us to the master of the house. Anthony Perkins

AnthonyPerkins

A face only a mother could love right?

 

It is impossible to not know that face and what movie he goes with. His performance is iconic. He is able to sell us both the dutiful motel owner, the loyal son, and of course Psycho. He is just so much the gentleman, but when the light hits just right you see the glint of madness. Of course, we all go a little mad sometimes, right? It’s both a reserved and manic performance. He demonstrates the insanity perfectly and because of this the final scene is *not* offensive. The police quickly go to “he’s a transvestite” and the doctor quickly corrects them saying no. This is often overlooked, the psychological break within his mind is shown so well, so perfectly by Hitchcock and Perkins that such distortion of the psyche is sometimes culturally benchmarked against this movie. This is what we go to, and unfortunately, as a culture it is for the worst. Despite the film saying what kind of madness it is, we associate the man in a dress one step away from a killer. I blame society not the script.

From a technical aspect, it cannot be understated that Psycho was filmed in black and white intentionally. We love our colour films these days, but there is an artistry to black and white. You have to understand colour to use it. The way to light things and how to make shadows fall on the face are so perfectly done. There is a reason this movie is such a classic and cultural touchstone decades later.

TL;DR?

The movie is a masterpiece. I’ve owned a copy of the poster for years, despite not having seen the film just because of how iconic it is. If you really enjoy the slasher genre and you want to see where it all began – watch this film.

If you celebrate classic cinema and have not seen it, as I had not, watch this film.

If such things are not your forte, I would say – try this film. Appreciate the art, but if you still don’t enjoy it there is nothing wrong with that.

This is a film great. It belongs in the top of any “greatest works of film making” list. It may not make someone’s favourite film list, but thats taste and preferences, regardless of artistry. I am glad I got to see it on the big screen, today.

Psycho – a must see film within anyones life time.

 

Darke Reviews | Book of Life (2014)

I brought you a special review tonight, a book. This is a special book, a book that should be read (shown to your children). It’s even got sports in it! Are you kidding? Fencing, Fighting, Death, Giants, Monsters, Chases, Escapes, True Love, Miracles. Doesn’t sound too bad does it?

I do not use the above words lightly. I need you to understand this. If you know the words I used, you know how special they are. What they imply. I thought long and hard on the drive home tonight and realized the implications hold.

The Book of Life is a movie that defies modern day Hollywood. I have teased the rant to come on the issue of whitewashing in Hollywood. The issues of casting caucasians in the part where someone of another ethnicity either should have been cast as appropriate to the story or could have been cast with no detriment (and possible improvement). This is nearly the opposite in every respect and it shows.

First we have the movie produced by native Mexican deity of film making Guillermo del Toro (that explains a casting choice too now that I think of it). The director, Jorge R. Gutierrez has worked as an animator before this picture, and this makes his first big screen production in the directors chair – AND a screenplay credit. I am impressed. Sometimes this is a sin. Today it is a blessing. There is also a co writer credit for Douglas Langdale. Upon review of his previous writing credits I can only assume he has learned much over the years since the Return of Jafar.

The story focuses on the relationship between three friends, Manolo (The guitarist), Joaquin (the hero), and Maria (the firebrand). The two boys want to wind the hand of Maria, who is content with being in control over her own life and making her own choices. Little do they know their lives are the focus of a bet by two deities of the dead, La Muerte and Xibalba, over the fate of all mankind.

Remember the whitewashing issue I mentioned? Yeah here – most of the cast is actually hispanic, in a movie focused around a religious day for hispanic culture. SHOCKER. Yes, some argument could be made for commercializing the Day of the Dead, but that’s happening  en masse, at least this seems to show it some measure of respect. We have Diego Luna as Manolo, Zoe Saldana As Maria. Also we have Kate del Castillo (IMDB says she is one of Mexico’s most acclaimed and popular actresses), Hector Elizondo, Danny “Machete” Trejo, Gabriel “Hot and Fluffy” Iglesias, Cheech Marin, and famed and epic opera singer Plácido Domingo.

Yes, there are some casting choices that don’t fit the rest of the theme, but they don’t distract and they don’t annoy. Channing Tatum works in his usual fashion and honestly is as funny as he ever is. Christina Applegate still has one of the most beautiful voices around. Ron Perlman (DelToro connection) is …well Ron Perlman and therefor awesome. Ice Cube, perhaps, is the weakest casting in the voices and most distracting. Its right up there with Steven Tyler in Epic.

From a technical standpoint, the movie in 3D works. It is absolutely gorgeous in every single respect. Colour, lighting, sound, animation, aesthetics. It is near flawless. I could not get over how gorgeous (or comically absurd) the character designs were. How well the colors and depth of field were used through the film. The specific design choice to make the characters similar to wooden marionettes was brilliant within the context of the story being told. Aside from the odd gag, it worked beautifully.

TL;DR?

Yes, Fury comes out this weekend. I have to see it tomorrow. I don’t want to. I want to see this again.

I want everyone to see this film. EVERYONE. It is family friendly for certain at nearly all ages. There’s a lot for adults here. There’s a lot for dates here – the story of love and how its handled work well enough to make me cry at times.

On that – the movie did make me cry. It got to me. It also made me laugh and laugh hard at other bits. It didn’t anger me with how they handled Saldana’s character. Even the rivalry between the friends didn’t play out as bad as it could have.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again when it matters – the movie made me smile. It made me feel warm. It entertained on many levels and that is what movies are here for.

So yes, please go see Book of Life this weekend if you can. It’s what Hollywood looks at.  If you can’t see it this weekend, please at least see it.

It is so worth it.

 

PS – I am serious, I do consider that opening film I referenced a good comparison here. Right or wrong, its what I feel.

Seven Devils all around you...

Darke Reviews | Beautiful Creatures (2013) Revisited

When I first started the reviews I wasn’t as professional and far less verbose with the Beautiful Creatures review coming in at a mere 354 words. My average now is closer to between 700 and 1000 words. Also when I saw this movie the first time, it attracted me enough to its style and world that I broke one of my rules. I read the book. No, thats not quite right, I devoured the books. I ordered the first book when I got home from the film, then in a single night read it. I ordered the remaining three books and read each one in a night. As we begin this review let me preface it with this statement: This book series would have made a fantastic movie!! I loved it. Ok I loved 3 of the 4 but that’s par for the course with trilogies that turn into quadrilogies. This is not a condemnation of the movie, but a mere statement that I am able to – in this case – judge each independently.

So yes, this is another one of the films Hollywood has tried to shuffle out in the young adult genre to find the next Twilight or Hunger Games. It had a rather awesome ad campaign which introduced me to the awesome sound of Florence and the Machine, at least made me aware of them. Seven Devils *shivers*

 

 

Adapted for the screen and directed by relative newcomer to the chair Richard LaGravenese. LaGravenese was no stranger to the writers chair being involved in the screenplay of the acclaimed Fisher King, Horse Whisperer, and Bridges of Madison County. He was even nominated for an Academy award for Fisher King. He understands quite a bit about human nature and the importance of the right dialogue to establish your characters. The importance of chemistry and charisma with the characters is as important. For these reasons, he gets a pass on most, but not all, of the changes from the original source material. Quite a bit of the original material would have been difficult to shoot on the best of days and other elements with the budget they had would have, to put it bluntly, looked as bad as the wolves in the Day After Tomorrow or something just slightly better than what SyFy does. Even the removing and combining of characters is accepted within the narrative considering the roles some of them played.

The source material from Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl is rich and beautiful and southern. Granted I am partial as being a girl from South Carolina for the first part of my life. I love the southern life. I love southern charm. I love (most) of small town southern culture. The majority of this was captured on film, until Act III. The changes here are to put it mildly so bloody annoying in comparison. From a pure film narrative, they work, don’t get me wrong; but from book to screen they fail on every conceivable level.

What makes this movie work though is pure chemistry and charm. There’s a line in the film that fits the nature of the two leads “you can’t help it can you / drooling with charm”. It does. It does so much. Most of this is because of Alden Ehrenreich as Ethan Wate and Alice Englert as Lena Duchannes. Alden sadly, has not done much since, but was in the truly bizarre film Twixt. Englert has had similar lack of career evolution since then. Alone in the film each one is worth watching. Together they have chemistry unlike anything I’ve seen in a young adult film. Twilight, we know is an abomination when it comes to the love story, and the reserved nature of Jennifer Lawrence in Hunger Games makes the chemistry hard at times. Alden nails the southern boy wanting to get out of town, the shock of what he finds out, and the power of true love. Englert, she played the character so well I fell in love with the character as much as Ethan. Her fear, her hesitation, her desperation, her almost goth vibe – nailed. Together though, I rarely see a couple look and feel so natural – no matter the genre.

The supporting cast is nearly as incredible. Jeremy Irons chews scenery as the master he is in the role of Macon Ravenwood. Seriously, if you need to learn the definition of chewing scenery – watch him here, especially with his own southern accent. Viola Davis ( who you can watch chew scenery in How to Get Away with Murder) comes in equally strong as Amma. Two time Oscar winner Emma Thompson as Mrs. Lincoln seems determined to try to show up Irons in the scenery diet. She almost succeeds a few times. Emmy Rossum (Phantom of the Opera, Poseidon) and Thomas Mann (Project X, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters) are relegated to side kick roles. Aside from sexy vamp, there’s little to say about Rossum here. Mann thankfully has shown up more in other films and is largely forgettable here relegated to Ethans best friend.

Ok, most of the effects are kinda weak. They aren’t the best but they are not the worst either. I have a partial love for the tornadoes seen in one of the trailers.Make up and wardrobe nailed it, until act 3.  There’s some ridiculousness there that gives me a headache just thinking about it.

TL;DR

I love this movie. It is totally unappreciated and deeply underrated. It isn’t a great film, it was not the second coming of YA in film – though I wish it had been. When I was in Ennis last winter it happened to be on TV and me and my coworker who I did not expect to like it both watched. He really likes the film. The two people I saw it with initially, both went in highly dubious and came out enjoying it – probably not as much as I did but still enjoyed it. While this one isnt at Frozen levels of obsession for me, it is still pretty high on my list.

As I said in the first review – see it. Embrace it. Love it. Beautiful Creatures is worth the watch.

You can also read the books – they are worth it too.

 

 

Darke Reviews – Gone Girl (2014)

As promised I am getting this review done. Sorry it is a few days late, but I had some surgery last week and was pretty much told to not move much for a bit. Do I regret not seeing this the opening weekend? Not really. It looks like plenty of people went and saw it, letting it take the weekend by a hair over the horror movie prequel Annabelle (probably not seeing it).

http://boxofficemojo.com/

Source Box office Mojo

So should you see it now that I have and can talk about it.

The movie is in the based on a book category by writer Gillian Flynn, who also has the sole screenplay credit. I will be honest, I am trying to remember when that’s happened before and the name involved wasnt Stephen King. (Ok I looked it up after writing that sentence, Anne Rice has book/screenplay credit on 1994’s Interview with the Vampire).  It’s rare the author not only options her book, but gets to write the screenplay and no others come in to “touch it up”. That being said this means any and all changes are approved by the author to some extent. As per usual I can’t comment on the book, but the woman next to me said the movie was actually darker than the source material. I find that fascinating, but not entirely surprising. As someone who also writes, if given the option I would make edits to my work after the fact if converting it for the screen. Change the little things, or even big things, I might not have seen in my first thousand passes through the writing process.

On top of the pure writer element to the movie, the director is David Fincher. I suppose this should have told me what I was getting into with the movie when examining his credits before this, at least once he realized what he can do directing. I will try not to hold Alien 3 against him. Fincher is the man responsible for Se7en, Fight Club, The Social Network, and the americanized remake of Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. That last one is the one I want to call attention to. I am writing a review about a murder/dissappearance mystery and cannot give spoilers. You realize how insanely hard that is? Not even a hint? While watching the movie, however, I was reminded of the Niels Arden Oplev (aka original) version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. It took your brain places you don’t normally go and makes you uncomfortable while there. This movie actually can do the same.

From an acting standpoint, ladies and gentlemen, we have witnessed Ben Affleck and his A Game. He is stellar in this movie through all the transitions he must go through, but to be honest I knew he had it in him. He has made some questionable choices in his career putting it mildly, but since his revival with Argo he seems to be on the right track. The person that truly surprised me was Rosamund Pike. When I first saw her in the nail in the coffin of Bond movies Die Another Day I was unimpressed. Then came Doom, my eye brows raised but she was generally bland. I saw the same blandness in Surrogates and Wrath of the Titans. Even in Jack Reacher and The Worlds End I wasn’t seeing much from her. So in the same vein of questionable career choices, while she didn’t burn as spectacularly as Affleck did, she wasn’t really impressing me. I must now issue a formal written apology. The woman can act. I loved her in this. The eyes, the emotion, and the weight she must carry through the flashbacks of her characters life with Affleck. Brilliant.

The supporting cast with such notables as Tyler Perry and the awe- wait for it – some Neil Patrick Harris really were able to bring the rest of the movie together and lift some of the burden from the two mains. Kim Dickens as the Detective and Carrie Coon as Afflecks sister had as much on the table as Affleck and Pike and delivered just as much intelligence and heart as the film needed. It all worked.

As a technical thing, the movie does run nearly three hours and at a certain point it begins to feel it. I am not entirely sure what, if anything, could have been cut but it was worth mentioning.

So I am going to jump to the TL;DR now

Gone Girl is an interesting film. I like where it took my brain. I liked what I saw. I liked what I figured out and what I didn’t. I was disappointed in some things not happening, but I suppose that is what makes the movie so satisfying.

If you need a good film. One that should be Oscar bait, I can really feel comfortable recommending Gone Girl.

 

Darke Reviews | Dracula (1931)

Going back to the classics is fun. Watching how they were shot, how they were scripted and acted. Dracula is no exception to this. When I was a little girl my elementary school and the public library had books on some of the Universal Monsters. I devoured them with special attention to the Wolfman and Dracula, though unsurprisingly Dracula was the one that truly captured my attention then and forever. I tried to read the book around the same time, but as bright as I am told I was, the wording was too dense for me at the tender age of 7. I have long since fixed that and even managed to get my hands on the tome that is the Annotated version. So being able to review this movie, while not quite the best, it is definitive. All other Dracula and Vampire movies after owe something to this.

While not the first time the name graced the silver screen -I am not including the stage plays – , it was the first authorized time. Ok, there is also a little known Hungarian Film “Dracula’s Death” which has a character who thinks he is Dracula in it.  FW Murnau’s Nosferatu was the first film vampire, though this was unauthorized after a suit from Stokers widow and all copies were ordered destroyed. This can also be considered the first supernatural thriller, I will add the addendum, by American hands. Universal studios hit something special when they did it. Little known fact that a Spanish version of the film was shot simultaneously. Now you might be going “alright cool, they made a version in spain at the same time.” Yet, I return with “No! They filmed on the same set.” The american version shot on the stages during the day and the spanish version at night. The spanish version is sometimes considered technically superior and for the time a bit racier and sexier than its American counterpart.

The movie was directed by Tod Browning officially, though behind the scenes stories and comments made by cast and crew indicate there was either a total lack of direction or that Karl Freund, the cinematographer, stepped in. Browning was a go to director for studios having done dozens of films prior, including the Lon Chaney classic London After Midnight. His expertise was in silent film and outsiders. This explains much of the silence within the film and certain choices that were made. Freund for his part was just as important. Tracking shots , high camera dollies, and even the atmosphere within the movie are largely attributed to him. Horror movies in general owe so much to this, both good and bad.

Edna Mode does not approve.

Edna Mode does not approve.

 

Its hard to talk about a story and the writers since everyone knows it. Of course it is inspired by Bram Stokers novel from 1897. Stoker for his part had heard of the man Dracula and used him as a springboard with next to no research and never having been to Romania himself. This accounts for many of the descriptions of places and things within Transylvania not being remotely like how they’ve been filmed. His novel then was adapted for the stage, officially, by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston (Didn’t I mention him recently in the Mummy). Garret Fort has credit for a version of the play script. When it comes to the movie however, this one falls under the movie writer curse: 5 total writers, including the director. There are significant changes from the source material to this of course, no real change there from Hollywood, but the biggest and probably most impactful is the Lugosi look. Dracula was always described as off putting, yet here we have something and someone foreign and handsome.

 

 

Real vs Movie Borgo Pass

The Borgo Pass: Erosion the true terror of Dracula

Lugosi was not the first pick. He wasn’t even the second or third. The original choice was Lon Chaney who died, before production began, due to cancer. Called the Man of A Thousand Faces, his roles in Phantom of the Opera and the Hunchback of Notre Dame made him one an easy pick. I don’t know what he would have looked like in the make up, he was one of the rare actors who truly enjoyed the chair and the prosthetics. Lugosi however with his look, powerful and hypnotic eyes, and trade mark accent ended up with the role and the world has never been the same. Sadly the studio did not offer him a contract after the success of Dracula, as they did with Karloff on Frankenstein and he had trouble being seen outside of a certain genre after. Perhaps one of his greatest single work after shows the mans true talent for acting, The Black Cat, in which he starred  against Karloff himself.

The rest of the cast has Helen Chandler as the ever staring Mina, who was fantastic on stage but did not make much of an impact in movies. David Manners, who also appeared in the Mummy and Frankenstein as John Harker here. Edward Van Sloan as Dr. Van Helsing. Seriously all this man plays is the Doctor who knows it all!  Dwight Frye though is the standout. His Renfield defined the role for almost a century to come. It was as problematic for him as it was for Lugosi in the work field after. He shows the widest range of acting in the film with his eyes, vocal pitch, laugh, and mannerisms are truly iconic.

Even the movie magic of the day was amazing. While obviously not a lot of it holds up today, some tricks like Dracula walking through a spider web really do. Today someone would use some half baked CG work and give us something laughable, this wasn’t. This was alien and new and creepy.

TL;DR?

I highly recommend any cinephiles to see this at least once in their life, if they have not already. If you are a fan of all things vampire like I am this is a must have in your collection.

If you want to see where it all began, absolutely watch this.

Modern movie goers will eye roll at the acting and some interesting flubs in the film, but it is a classic and worth watching – at least once