BasedonaBook

Darke Reviews | The Maze Runner (2014)

Posted by

4

Oh Dystopia how we love thee. Young Adult books you provide us so many to choose from and continue to be a font of these stories for as far as the eyes can read. Now, when I was a little girl we had our own YA novels. I don’t remember these dystopic futures nearly as much then. Maybe I should have read more YA and less King or Barker? I do remember Z for Zachariah, which was a particular favorite of mine. I suppose my generation of 80s kids didn’t need dystopia since we were afraid of being nuked by the ‘Reds’. We actually thought Red Dawn was a possibility as kids. So where does our need for Dystopia vs. Utopia come from? Are we so jaded as a people in the west that we believe the only possible outcome is a total collapse of everything we know? That our generation has pooched things so badly that it will take rebels of a future generation to fix our screw ups and make the world (or what’s left of it a better place?).

I don’t know. I think this is a rant/discussion to come that I hope I can get some folks to weigh in on.

In the meanwhile, we have yet another entry into the YA dystopian future genre. As screenwriters and studios must option any book coming out this one was no exception showing the creative well in Hollywood is running dry whilst the writers continue to do what they do best in the book industry. The James Dashner novel was released in 2009 the book had some critical acclaim and seems to be loved by its fan base. Per the usual, I have not read it. This will be a review based on movie alone. It is worth mentioning the book series is just that a series; specifically a trilogy.

The movie starts down the wrong track immediately as it has the three writers rule in full effect. For those not familiar, the 3+ Writers Rule is something I have noticed where when you begin to add more than two writers to any film the quality of the film degrades. It doesn’t always hold true, but does more often than I should be comfortable with and enough that I noticed it as I wrote these reviews. The writers in question are T.S. Nowlin who has nothing before this and is credited with revisions to the Fantastic Four (2015) film.  Grant Pierce Myers, another first timer to screenwriting and Noah Oppenheim the producer of The Today show (its a news show folks), who also has no writing credits of his own. This is one of those times where I have to think the studio isn’t even trying.  Throwing not one, two , but three inexperienced screenwriters at a YA novel? You do not get another Hunger Games doing that. The two writers there, excluding Collins herself, had a decade in the industry first.

This mish mash of writing styles and just writing made its way to the screen.  This, in addition to a first time director Wes Ball explains why the movie is a general hot mess. It falls into the same trap as so many other YA attempts before it where it doesn’t know its own tone, intent, or characters. You want me to feel they are at risk? Make me care about them. You want me to feel anything? Care. Seriously, I wanted to scream at the screen a few times “FINISH A SENTENCE” or “JUST EXPLAIN WHAT YOU SAID.” These kind of tropes repeat so much in the film it began to get annoying.  I don’t need you to hand answers to *me* on a silver platter. I am a bright girl, I can figure them out. The lack of explanations given in this movie are just lazy. Things exist, but leave me questioning why no one else is questioning or explaining to our protagonist what is going on. It’s like being in the maze does more than wipe your memory but drops your ability to interact on any meaningful level.

They make a huge point of our main character Thomas being curious. Yet, he never seems to ask the questions he should be asking or if he does no one answers. I want to throttle people. Oh sure he has no issue defying rules (like every other YA protagonist), but he does so in such a way he is blindly charging without understanding. I appreciate his curiosity and risk taking. I’d like to think I’d do the same, but I really needed him to tie someone down to get answers before jumping in head first – when answers WERE available to some of the questions.

From an acting standpoint Dylan O’Brien (Stiles from MTVs Teen Wolf…one of the only reasons to watch that show) carries the movie. He does it well. No matter how annoyed I was with the other characters, the writing, or even parts of the story, he was enjoyable to watch. I liked him. I wish I could say the same about the others. The rest played out like Lord of the Flies in a concrete jungle rather than island. Heck, there’s even a pig head in one scene.

Thomas Brodie-Sangster seems to be playing a reincarnation of his Game of Thrones character Jojen Reed. He was sweet, but otherwise really seemed to be playing Jojen again. Will Poulter as Gally plays his stereotype to a T. I swear to all I pray to that at one point he was actually the same kid who played Buzz McAllister in Home Alone. Don’t believe me – check this: Gally vs Buzz. There must be something about that look.

From an FX standpoint, there’s just enough practical to make me miss some of the CG work. The creature designs are a nice new hybrid I don’t recall seeing anything like. The Maze itself is kind of interesting in its layers and levels and was overall enjoyable. Not bad here. The camera work is steady cam with no shaky cam that I recall and good colours as well.

TL:DR?

If you are a fan of the book, you will likely see this movie anyway. Enjoy.

If you are not a fan of the book, I give this movie a solid Meh.

I really didn’t care at the end. It thankfully keeps out any romantic elements, which garners some praise, but otherwise doesn’t really drive me to care who lives or dies. That is sort of a fail and ultimately along with a moment to moment cut style renders the movie only ‘Watchable’ but not “Why are you still reading this and not with your butt in a seat.”

Matinee if you must. Redbox/Netflix if you were curious.

As always, comments welcome. I do encourage people to share their own opinion of the film or notes from their book experience on films. My reviews will be spoiler free, but I make no such promises about comments.

Darke Reviews | A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014)

Posted by

0

Welcome to the first original review on the brand new site.  I checked all my logs and I have yet to do a review of a September release. This raises some questions about the worthiness of anything released in this month and if its worth seeing at all. True we are coming right off of the summer. People are done with vacations, school is back in session, and honestly of all the months in the year September is the least interesting. Sorry Virgo’s, you know its true. It is neither fall, nor still quite summer. September just is. So what does it say then that we have two releases this week that at least piqued my interest?

Let us begin the exploration of that question with A Walk Among the Tombstones.

Based on a book (what isn’t these days?) by Lawrence Block who based on his writing work for the silver and small screen has a love for the detective genre. This particular novel of his was adapted for the screen by Scott Frank. Frank has an interesting blend of screen play work prior to this with mob movies (Get Shorty), crime thrillers (Out of Sight), sci fi (Minority Report), capers (The Lookout), family films (Marley and Me) and even comic books (The Wolverine – the good one). I have absolutely no idea what to make of this man as he is all over the map.  If anything based on the works I have seen he does like writing stories that have actual character moments or an attempt at them anyway and seems to enjoy unusual social interactions.

This also marks Franks first theatrical directors credit, with only The Lookout in 2007 as his other feature film credit. I feel the need to say it now that Scott Frank may be best behind the page, not the camera.

Let me explain, still within my spoiler free realm (difficult for a mystery). The story first and foremost is a mystery with Liam Neeson as a retired cop playing PI. He is hired by the brother of someone in his AA circle to find the mans wife who was taken, ransom paid, and killed anyway. This is a full on classic private eye movie with the investigator in question working his way to the source of the crime and facing off with them.

I think I wish this film had been done in black and white. It may have added color, as counterintuitive as it is.  The movie has a solid R rating, but doesn’t show us anything and the hints of what it does show don’t carry any real weight. I wasn’t horrified. I wasn’t discomforted. They wanted to talk about something wrong and something broken but I don’t feel that they went far enough. Thats where black and white could have added atmosphere to the movie to give it more weight than the off and on rain did. They might have even been able to go further and hint at more horrific acts perpetrated by our bad guys. I am not asking for gore but better teases. Better innuendo that leaves my mind pondering just how bad it really was.

Granted, I could be desensitized after 30 years of watching movies that I can remember. But the lack of risk in the film combined with way too many shots of Liam Neeson just walking created more yawns than it did tension. It threw the pacing off as things happened and didn’t throughout the film with no perceived threat to the protagonist or even auxiliary characters. Another problem the film faced in the pacing department was the stories of those auxiliary characters eating up more screen time than I cared about. I suppose they could have been there to humanize Neeson’s character, but I’d have needed to care about any of them for that to work.

This isn’t to say their acting was bad. Neeson was surprisingly restrained in this film and despite what was billed (more on that in a sec) was not playing Brian Mills.  No one else other than Brian ‘Astro’ Bradley (Earth to Echo) did anything of note worth mentioning acting wise. Astro was plucky, but just nearly annoyingly so. The other actors for their parts did well enough, but I don’t think the direction was there for them to elevate the performance into anything memorable. Even our killers felt flat.

Now, I want to talk about the trailer a second. You cannot show Liam Neeson on a portable/cellular phone threatening someone or being even remotely menacing without intentionally making people think the movie is another Taken riff. This was false advertising to get your butts into the seats. To see Neeson play Mills yet again. This is not the movie we are getting. This is a slow paced murder mystery. Congratulations studio you may have duped your audience successfully, but I do not think they will forget it. This means your other trailers begin to have less weight the more trickery you try.

This film has three total action beats. Thats it. So…

TL;DR?

A Walk Among the Tombstones really should have been called a Meander through the Tombstones Eventually. This is a slow burn mystery that lacks the impact or even originality of other films before it. I remember watching 8mm (I may do a review of that in October) and being somewhat intrigued/disturbed by a private investigators descent into a world far darker than he was prepared for.

This film doesn’t do that. It just doesn’t seem to want to care even though I think its trying to.

I can’t bring myself to care either.

If you were at all curious, you can probably wait til Redbox.

If you are a Neeson completist – do yourself a favor and see it in Matinee.

 

As always, please feel free to chime in below with your own thoughts should you see the film.

 

Darke Reviews | The November Man (2014)

Posted by

1

What? Didn’t hear about this one? Not many did. This is the result of studios dumping films they don’t anticipate will be successful at the end of August. It’s why Guardians of the Galaxy continues to do so well, it has no competition. It also helps that it is good. Schools are coming back into session (or already are…Arizona is weird), final family vacations, etc all contribute to lower box office in this time. The weekend before labor day is particularly notorious for well – studio garbage.

Let’s look at last year this time: One Direction: This is Us, Instructions Not Include, and Getaway. The prior week had The Worlds End and You’re Next, both of which barely eeked into the top 10 on labor day weekend. The total for the top 10 last year was only ~$26 million. That – to Hollywood – isn’t good and not worth investing in. This year doesn’t look to be shaping up much better with The November Man, As Above So Below being the only two new openings in wide release with Ghostbusters (30th anniversary) coming back to theatres. I love my Ghostbusters, you should too. It will be sad, however, if it dominates the weekend – which it might!

So that bit of info understood – should you spend money on November Man this weekend?

I have to admit, the trailers failed this one. I thought I was getting a poor version of the Mechanic (either version, but Bronson/Jan Michael Vincent’s is better). At best it seemed to be a watered down version of Bourne or Spy Game. I’d like to say I was pleasantly disappointed.

The movie is based on the November Man book series by Bill Granger, specifically book 7 “There Are No Spies”. Based on a quick read of the synopsis the words based on are used liberally here. Adapting the novel was Michael Finch (Predators, Agent 47) and Karl Gajdusek (Oblivion and the quickly cancelled Last Resort series). They don’t have a lot of work under their belt and quite honestly it shows. The plot is kind of a muddy mess. It feels like they didn’t know which story elements they wanted to use and took it to a 5 year old to cut and paste as a kindergarten project. This isn’t to say what they wrote was bad, but that when watching it as a whole it is a bit of a sloppy mess.

The movie gives us a familiar story of an over the hill spy (Pierce Brosnan) retired from the game, but pulled back in for one final mission by his old boss. In a world of Spy vs Spy he must outwit his own protege (Luke Bracey) and save a high value target (Olga Kurylenko) who is the key to information that is useful to all sides in this.

Not original I know. It actually feels very cold war, for those that remember it, even if it is referencing more modern conflicts such as the Chechen-Russian war. They don’t ever quite bring me to care if anyone lives or dies. Succeeds or fails. So for a spy thriller they failed in the tension department.

That might fall on director Roger Donaldson, who had previously tried his hand at spies in 2003’s The Recruit (which bombed). He is also familiar with Brosnan from their work on Dante’s Peak in 97 – which also failed. He does have an appropriate bit of flair so while the story falls flat and fails to bring me to care; I find myself enjoying it and the shots he picked. Even the performances he got from his actors, well most of them.

Brosnan does well as Devereaux, our retired spy. He has the certain ennui required for it. He also has the damage and baggage. A few actors could have done it, but I think perhaps a Bond actor does it better than most. Even his action beats are good and the fatigue coming out of them. Relative new comer Luke Bracey (GI Joe: Retaliation, The Best of Me) plays the protege. He’s just ok. I think the role doesn’t give him a lot to work with and he mostly stares his way through the film. There might be something there, but it did not show up here. It’s worth noting he is currently slated to be the new Keanu in the Point Break remake.

The female leads in the film are actually noteworthy. Olga Kurlyenko, whom I adore, from Oblivion and Centurion plays the prize. She isn’t completely helpless though! She has fire in her. She’s a survivor and they let it show. There is also a female assassin in the film Amila Terzimehic who has both good and bad going for her. The good is she is an intelligent, kick butt assassin who uses her brain as things play out. The bad is they don’t use her nearly enough in the film, though based on her IMDB page material was cut that had her in it.

From a technical standpoint, the movie doesn’t do much particularly new but also doesn’t fall to the Greengrass sins of shaky cam. I found myself enjoying the action beats when they occured and the overall pacing was pretty good. The movie doesn’t feel like it’s two hour running time.

TL;DR?

So at the end of the night, I enjoyed this movie. It isn’t great. It isn’t new or original. It exists quietly in the spy thriller genre and won’t make any waves and has no real weight to it. It just is.

Yet, I still enjoyed it. I still smiled a few times and looked over to the friend I was watching it with who was enjoying it as well.

So if you have nothing better to do this weekend and want a bit of Spy vs Spy action – give this a shot. Otherwise, go see Ghostbusters (which I am going to do a review of as well)!

This is a three review weekend folks….so one down, two to come.

Darke Reviews | If I Stay (2014)

Posted by

1

Everyone knows my general rules on comedies, but have you ever noticed I don’t do romances? Drama’s are rare? The real reason here for the romantic drama’s or general drama’s is while they may be well acted, well written, even well directed – they don’t interest me. They don’t trigger an emotional response to go see it. This isn’t a denigration of the movie or even the genre, but simply where my tastes tend to run. I need something that gets my pulse going or maybe makes me smile.

So why in all that I find holy did I see “If I Stay”?

Let me open with something personal – I should so not have seen this movie after the recent ending of a long term relationship. I should not have seen this after closing off so many bridges in my blood family life, or at least reminders of why they exist.

Why did I see it?

Let me get into the acting right away then. Chloë Grace Moretz. If you’ve talked to me in person you already know what I think of this young actress. If you have not, then let me explain to you that she is one of the best actresses of her age in Hollywood today. At 17 she already has 50 acting credits to her name. She really came onto the scene in 2010 with Kick-Ass as the infamous Hit Girl. Since then she has covered the gambit of role types from comedy, to action, to horror, to voice acting, to childrens movies. This is her turn in true Romance. Once again she impresses.

Moretz (as Mia) carries the movies on her shoulders like a pro. She is believable in her role and brings all the emotions she needs. She makes you laugh, she makes you smile, she makes you cry, and she makes your heart ache. She gets assistance from a list of actors most folks have never heard of. Jamie Blackley as her boyfriend Adam, Joshua Leonard as her father, Liana Liberato as her BFF Kim, and Mireille Enos (Gangster Squad and The KIlling) as her mother. Everyones turn against Moretz brings a complete performance.

This is the family many of us wish we had. This is the kind of romance and love that comes only a few times in a lifetime, if at all, and we want it. That makes the movie all the more painful as it unfolds. The tears don’t start much until act three. There are some before, but know that tears will come. Thats the sign of a good story.

Based on the book of the same title by Gayle Forman released in 2009, it was adapted for the screen by Shauna Cross. Cross was the writer of Whip It, also back in 2009. A critically praised by overlooked film with some strong women in Roller Derby. I am happy to see Cross return to the screen with this one. The story does a good job on its pacing, its emotions, and the vignettes of life as it plays out. Even Mia and Adam’s relationship, while still having the Hollywood touch, has a good pacing to it. It takes the time it needs. It feels natural, even as it blossoms it feels right. I remember what that was like and to me they nailed it.

TL;DR?

If this is your genre – Romance/Drama’s – WATCH THIS.

Even through the tears it made me smile, it made me want. It made me miss the touch of another. It made me cry for the characters loss and the for Mia as it all plays out. If the movie can evoke such deep emotion as well as this one did – then it did its job.

I was never bored and the movie kept me hooked. This one is a good one folks.

Oh yeah – bring the tissues!

Darke Reviews | The Giver (2014)

Posted by

0

From the acclaimed book – that I had never heard of until now. Though apparently it came out in my junior year of high school and was praised by fans and reviewers alike. I suppose one of the little joys in my life is what I did read isn’t often adapted. When it is, I know it will be done badly. There’s a meme that goes around “don’t judge a book by its movie.” This may be true. Actually it is very true. The same, however, can be said about the movies too. They deserve the same independent thought and treatment and criticality as any book. The important word there is, of course, independent. Judge each piece of art on it’s own merits.

So where does The Giver land?

Lets start with the story. Dystopian Utopia where we have reached an Orwellian nightmare of Harrison Bergeron and 1984. Everyone has their role in society. Everyone is equal. Everyone but a single role – The Receiver of Memory. See in order to create harmony the leaders of this new society rising from the ‘Ruin” erased all memory, all emotion, all individuality. See with that we can have peace.

Have you seen this movie before? Perhaps read it? Yes. Honestly, the movie does absolutely nothing original with the story. It contains all the same tropes we’ve seen since Vonnegut and Orwell wrote about them in their respective works. The loss of all that makes us human will deliver us unto a state of surviving without living. A near automaton like society of living, breathing, non-thinking, non-feeling entities. Sadly, I have not even reached spoiler territory as all of this is shown in the trailers.

First time writer, MIchael MItnick, is one of the two parties responsible for the script. Aiding him is another relative newcomer to the silver screen. Robert B. Weide. Weide, unlike MItnick, has some published writing work, mostly in the documentary field. Including one on Vonnegut, which explains much of what I see in this work  I cannot speak for Lois Lowry’s original material, but what I do see is: Equilibrium, Bergeron, Divergent, and 1984 put into a blender for a nice puree with this as a result. I don’t want to say it is bad, but it does nothing for me as a story. It does nothing new. It does nothing I haven’t really seen or experienced a dozen times before over the past decade of Dystopian futures. It doesn’t do anything I haven’t read in far better, far more controversial satires of society from Vonnegut and Orwell.

Some of my ambivalence must be laid on the feet, hands, and eyes of director Phillip Noyce. This director who has given us Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, and Salt probably gives his most mediocre attempt. The passion, the angles, the emotion is as missing from this as it is from the characters in the film. With the three films he gave us previously there were successful  tones of a society of acceptance and rebelliousness against certain governmental entities. This movie lacks all of that. I mean they rear their head, but they don’t MEAN anything. I hate to use the Caps like that but its hollow. I don’t know if its just that he doesn’t know how to do the same thing for teens and tweens as he does for adults or that the studio had too much of  a say in what to do with this to try to make it another Hunger Games.  I’d like to think it was the studio, but I really do not know. I just know this is is not his best work and I have come to expect more from some people.

The acting?

I am reasonably sure now Jeff Bridges takes every wise mentor role that comes along. Some more sane than others, this one lands on the more sane side of things with an ever increasing lack of audible understanding of what he is saying. Meryl Streep is the physical manifestation of authority in this one and may have lost a bet or had a child who loved the book. One of Bon Temp’s favorite vampires, Alexander Skarsgard, is completely forgettable in this and proof that while a good actor (and good looking) a mediocre script and boring character still cannot be saved. Katie Holmes is just as bland. I suppose that’s intentional, but why use real talent when you don’t want them to actually do anything requiring range? Unless their talents are required for minimalism – in which case, ok?

The three young characters are played by Odeya Rush (We Are What We Are), Cameron Monaghan (Vampire Academy), and Brenton Thwaites. Thwaites seems to be having an interesting year with important roles in Oculus, Maleficent, and The Signal. Having seen two of the three films I can say the boy is actually able to show some range and has a bit of unrefined talent. If he is given a shot, especially after what was expected of him in this – there could be something there. The other two are, much like the other actors given so little to work with that their performances are as flat as the rest of the film. Rush shows a little, but again it is so little and so simplistic I can’t say how well she did.

The camera work and colour options elected in the film were overall pretty good from a technical standpoint. The pacing is pretty decent and kept me interested and not nodding off. So where does that leave us?

TL;DR:

The movie is a solid meh. If the books are great as they say fantastic. The movie does absolutely nothing good or fascinating. There’s a dozen other films out in the past few years that hit all of these issues in a much more interesting and deep manner. It wants to be something but it ultimately fails.

A pair of teenage girls who were in the movie said they really liked it so that’s something I suppose.

I cannot recommend this film. If you want a dystopian teen movie go watch Divergent or Hunger Games (again)

Darke Reviews | Noah (2014)

Posted by

0

I was raised Roman Catholic, within the United States, so it goes without saying I am familiar with the story of Noah. Much like a friend of mine in Ennis, I am also a student of religion. While not as studious as I was once in my early years I am passingly familiar with more of the archaic texts and myths surrounding that particular religion. Even my middle name is based on one of these stories. So I went into Noah with a little more appreciation for what they *could* do with it. I suppose with that, I should not have been surprised with what they did do.

The movie was written by it’s director Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Black Swan, The Wrestler) and Ari Handel (The Fountain and producer on DA’s other films). This writer / director combo leads to what I am going to start calling “Cinematic Nolan Syndrome” or CNS in some. Sadly it manifests here. It presents itself as a plodding story full of self indulgence and a man behind the scenes jumping up and down, waving his arms. While jumping around like a hyperkinetic bonobo, the man is also yelling look at me!, I am an artiste! Am I not avant-garde? am I not edgy! I have an eye that no others do. I can do things with film no others do!

CNS seems to be present here. The script is painfully self righteous in its condemnation of industry and the nature of man. The religious overtones are quickly lost to the depredations of the writing and a need to show even on some level that faith itself is bad. The movie only cursorily gives the option of hope and mercy as if trying to make you wish for it and go “ok only because you asked we’ve added it…”. It felt actually a bit condescending when the beats finally reared their much needed head.

Yet, I don’t actually hate the film. There have been far worse this year and more to come I am sure. So what saved it?

First, lets talk technicals. As much as I mocked him earlier for his artistry, Aronofsky *is* actually talented. He does have an eye for visuals, utilizing both subtle color choices and nuanced background imagery and iconography. I found it entrancing that, within the conciet of this film, one could see heaven even in the day. The use of sharp, vibrant orange hues with raw black silhouettes, shows a director who understands that shape is an art all to itself. It relies on the actors to use their own bodies as a brush to tell you something without expression you can see. It works surprisingly well with a talented hand in this model. It even adds a bit of condemnation to other directors who feel the need to show too much, that audiences will not “get it”. Trust me, we aren’t all that dumb.

The CGI work, however, leaves a little to be desired. It is not Pompeii or Hercules horrible, but it’s pretty close. There is an entire sequence of characters that while fascinating were on some level wrong. There’s just something clearly off in the renders that keeps much of the graphics from doing what they need and they temporarily eject you from the film when they do appear.

The actors. Yet another mixed bag. The movie has an amazing cast of talent both young and old. Statesmen of acting, such as Russell Crowe, Anthony Hopkins, Ray winstone, and even Jennifer Connelly stands an equal amongst these men. The next generation shows itself in Douglas Booth, Logan Lerman, and Emma Watson. Let me start off with the simple fact Crowe is not a reason to see this film. Even Winstone and Hopkins, while present and elevating an otherwise mediocre script are spending considerable effort to do so. Crowe himself is …himself. He’s a walking train wreck of blandness even when he is trying to emote.

The real stars here are Connelly and Watson. The *only* time I gave a damn was when they were speaking. When they were acting. They delivered and consistently upstaged everyone with a passionate rawness we need more of. Their tears, when they appeared, were not cute or quaint. They were not hollywood tears. They were the tears of people. They were messy, they were all over the place and they were filled with emotion. Their faces were those of yourself, your wife, your daughter when they cried in pain, in joy and in terror. Their rage was something to behold, even as impotent as it was. Please hollywood, let these two women get more work. There is such potential here for real actors that are still capable of depth and not going through the motions

On another technical front, the movie suffers from horrific pacing issues. It feels it’s length and just when you think it should be done, it continues. Seriously guys? Do you think you are Return of the King. One movie a decade with 20 minute endings is enough.

TL;DR?

Noah is a mixed bag. It should be better. It could be better. There’s mythology used that most are unfamiliar with, but never explored. There’s acting, but so much effort is spent working with something mediocre the greats are too tired to give more. It’s graphically pretty and elegant yet clumsy and off putting.

The film is a movie at war with its own nature. It’s a beautiful dichotomy in what it is trying to tell you about human nature and it’s own execution.

Where does that finally land it?

Meh. It’s simply ok and I really cannot bring myself to say see it at all. If you must then catch it as a matinee. It’s a two and a half hour slog made only redeemable by Watson and Connelly.
Later this week , one of my most anticipated films of the year. Captain America: Winter Soldier.

Darke Reviews | Vampire Academy (2014)

Posted by

2

I am the Vampire Princess, when a vampire movie comes out into the theatres I have no choice but to see it. It’s a moral (amoral?) obligation for me, that means I even had to see all the twilights on the silver screen and did so. I find myself continually amazed at how a studio is completely incapable of understanding source material or the gem they have with a vampire property. The trailers for this film put that lack of understanding on a silver platter. watching the clips that were designed to make you want to see this film – I mean thats what a trailer is for right – told you there was a producer selling it as Clueless with Fangs. There was another one selling it as Buffy. Another selling it as City of Bones at school and with fangs.  When there is that lack of understanding from a producer and film editor level  it tells you what to expect all the while telling you not to see a movie. Even the posters fail to sell the film – “They suck at school?” REALLY?

So here we are, Vampire Academy based on the acclaimed YA series by Richelle Mead. Per usual folks, I have not read the book series. Unlike usual, I will be doing so. I need to know what I Was supposed to be getting, rather than what I got. Daniel Waters, elder brother of the director Mark Waters. I actually like the writing filmography of Daniel. Heathers, Hudson Hawk, Batman Returns and Demolition Man. The thing here is, none of them are really that good. They all show a distinct lack of subtlety and upon thinking of it further a hate for teenagers. You can tell he loathes them in how he writes their dialogue and gives them their personalities. This may be a trait shared by his brother Mark, who gave us Mean Girls, Freaky Friday (2003), and Mr. Poppers Penguins. Both of these men have a habitual way of treating the teen girl. So why were they given the writing and directing?

That probably can lay on Bob and Harvey Weinstein. Best known for delivering some of the cheapest films that appear to have a high production value. If you think of the Scream movies, Prophecy (all six of them), Dracula 2000, and so many others like it their fingerprints are on it. They like to pander to the audience and assume the worst of the intelligence level of the modern movie goer. This isn’t to say they don’t have a gem or two out there, but the reality is they don’t respect the art of movie making and it shows with each successive film.

What we were supposed to get, apparently, was a story of two best friends. Teenage girls with responsibilities that really no teen should have laid upon them. One,  the heir Lissa Dragomir to a vampiric empire and the other, Rose Hathaway, sworn to protect her. They’ve been running from this destiny for some time and are finally caught and brought back into the fold of a prep school with fangs. Reacclimation to school life doesn’t go well as Lissa begins to discover the limits of her powers and drags Rose along with her. The entire time still dealing with all the lovely teenage angst that high school brings with it.

The script is a painful mess of cliches and badly written language. I can’t lay all the blame on the actors for how it turned out. I can lay some of it though. Lucy Fry (Lissa) just can’t act. Then they gave her fangs which she never learned to speak around. Gabriel Byrne, seems to want to drain the scenery as he chews it rather than blood. It’s like he didn’t care and it shows in the performance. Going through it none of the performances deliver more than hollow schlock of people too young and too inexperienced to really give the movie any real weight. The closest to a good performance is Zoey Deutch (Beautiful Creatures) as Rose. She is at least somewhat capable of trying to emote. Sadly the lines she’s given and the direction she is given hampers any weight she might have been able to bring.

The only thing going for it is the fact that the vampires have fangs and the sets are somewhat beautiful. Vampires with fangs is under rated these days, and the design of the fangs is somewhat traditional. Most people don’t spend time on fang details but they are as important as any other character when dealing with vampire fiction. They can look ridiculous, they can impair speech, they can be threatening or they can be beautiful. These fall somewhere between the ridiculous and the beautiful. An apparent one size fits all approach was used which made the fangs look bad in some mouths and moderately ok in others.

TL;DR?

Goddess I wanted to like this. I really did. I cannot in good conscience say this film is anything but a hot mess. It should have been better and probably could have. Even the pop cover of Bela Lugosi’s Dead, while interesting, came across  wrong.

I need, the world needs, a good vampire story again. I worry about Dracula Year Zero/Dracula Untold later this year.

Time to get to work on mine and order the books for this one. In the meanwhile, two more reviews coming later this week. 2014 has not been good so far with no signs on the horizon of change.

Darke Reviews | The Monuments Men (2014)

Posted by

0

Been a few weeks since something came out I got to see, so thats the real reason for the delay here. This week is one of two movies for review, the other has more bite to it I hope. The Monuments Men tells a story I’ve not seen in film and certainly wasn’t told about in history class. It has quite a few things going for it in that regard. Telling a story from World War II that hasn’t before is actually quite hard these days. Let’s get into it shall we?

The story is adapted from a book by Robert Edsel titled “The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History”. It tells the story of the MFAA, Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives program, a sadly little known unit established in 1943 to protect the cultural property in war areas during World War II. The screen play was adapted by Clooney himself with character actor and sometimes collaborator Grant Heslov (True Lies, Good Night and Good Luck, Ides of March). The movie focuses on one small group of the department and their attempt to rescue some priceless and personal artifacts from the Nazi’s as the war comes to an end. They face resistance from Nazi’s, Russians, and even their own people as they try to protect something the military itself cared little about during the war. Is a piece of art worth a mans life?

Clooney also directs this film, which combined with the script leaves most of the blame on him where the film goes wrong. Which, sadly, is quite a few places. One of the key functions of story is a narrative arc, with a a rise and fall in events that drives the characters forward through some form of conflict. The movie fails in that basic element of story. Yes, events happen. Yes, there are beats of cliche with moments of sadness or levity, but there is really no dramatic tension.

I wish I could say that there was, but the film just delivers a series of moments losely connected to each other by the plot of trying to find pieces of lot art. Few of the moments have any real weight to them and the moments that do are glossed over in such a hollow way that it loses the intensity it should have. Some are told out a strong dramatic order so that when you should be going “Oh damn…” you are simply shaking your head sadly. Even the few deaths that occur among the members of the cast come across as cliche and something you’ve seen a dozen times before and because of that become little more than a beat that has no meaning.

It’s unfortunate that as the movie pulls together an amazing cast of comedic talent that could have delivered some of the most dramatic performances of their careers. John Goodman, Bill Murray are wasted. Clooney’s own sense of timing seems off as he was focused three ways on script, acting and directing. The only high point is the interactions between Blanchett and Damon. Blanchetts character actually has the most depth of any of them, with the only arc worth a damn.

All of that said, the movie has some very pretty moments and some beautiful art. Art that would have been lost if not for the real men and women of the MFAA. The statues, the paintings, the lives displayed and lost. For all its flaws, of which there are many, the movie does remind us of a dark time in history that is quickly losing its weight in our modern world.

TL;DR?

The Monuments Men is an ok film that tells a story that needed to be told; but as a film it nearly fails. It wants to tell a story bigger than its capable and in that the weaknesses become apparent.

If you were interested in seeing it, its worth a matinee pass at best. The art alone and the history is worth it.

Otherwise, give this one a pass this weekend and save your money for Valentines day, or some other day where you might need money.

This should be a busy week for reviews, so sit tight folks!!

Darke Reviews | The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Posted by

0

Sorry for the lateness on this one folks, I had every intention to get this out to you yesterday. The usual disclaimers apply here and need to be covered especially as I am aware of some significant changes in the core story. I have not read, nor am likely to read the original book The Hobbit. I have not read the revisions written by Mr. Tolkien that brought the story in line with the Lord of the rings trilogy. I have not read The Silmarillion, from which I understand material was used. This movie will be judged on its cinematic narrative alone and how it flows as part of its own trilogy. Also I am going to remain spoiler free as always.

I am at the moment undecided if this movie breaks the rule of too many writers and still being really good in the script department. We have Peter Jackson and his wife Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, and Guillermo del Toro (HellBoy/Pacific Rim). The first three of this quartet have the entirety of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films as their credits. del Toro, who was originally brought in to direct but left to do Pacific Rim, is a surprising credit. While this work is partially out of his normal realm, when you consider the environment and world of Pans Labrynth it almost feels like elements of that could have been middle earth. While the four have screenplay credits, the bulk of the work was done by Tolkien himself. Adaptation of the core material is difficult in many respects and they did well, not perfect, but well. The problem I find in the writing is that with very few exceptions I dislike the characters and there are too many to care about. More on that in a bit.

Directing of course falls on the shoulders of Peter Jackson himself. The primary complaints I had about An Unexpected Journey seem to have been resolved; where he has decided to stick to a single tonal style. The last one couldn’t decide if it wanted to be for kids, for adolescents, for adults or in the vein of the previous trilogy. A single voice was used here which focused on the similar style choices to the original trilogy. The lighting tends to be a bit brighter in palette with less muting of the colours throughout. It creates an atmosphere that shows the world has not become the bleak place where the armies of Sauron march – yet. The one exception is what I am going to forever call the Donkey Kong moment, where while very fun was almost a bit too silly.

I want to talk more on the technicals for a moment as they were a clear decision he made in this regard. I understand that he wants to push the visual medium of film to the next level and elected to use the 48 frames per second (FPS) as he did in Unexpected Journey. Normal film you watch is done at 24 FPS. By shooting the film this fast it creates a clarity that we are not used to. It’s almost more real than real and its actually a bit jarring for most movie going audiences. It’s too clean and we aren’t used to it yet. Thats one of the problems, the other is because it creates such crystal clarity of image you can see things on screen you don’t want to. You can see lighting rigs at times from the set and elements that are clearly from sets rather than real life actually look fake; which they are but a slower frame rate hides that. Real life, wide angle shots of walking (yes there’s more walking!),  look great. CG imagery and obvious sets, clearly look apart from the reality that is the actors and natural stone and wood. It’s problematic to say the least. The 3D added little to the overall effects and was used more for gimmick than anything.

The CG work is overall more clean than it was in the first. It is still not great and I wish they had trusted practical effects and make up more. Many of the characters that are given a CG overlay truly do not look like part of the world. One day someone will also figure out that moving people in “nimble” ways through CG doesn’t look natural. Ten years or so ago when Neo fought a few hundred Smiths in the apartment basketball court everyone thought the fight was cool, but it was painfully evident when it was computer generated bodies. That effect hasn’t improved and really needs to be avoided until someone gets it right. The skin “looks right” but is off and you can tell it’s not natural.

The other technical flaw and it comes with the high frame rate is camera movements. The pan and sweeps move too fast and that makes it hard on the eyes. They don’t look completely bad, they just are disorienting.

The acting is nothing to write home about. Everyone is “just fine”. It’s hard to be impressed when there are so many characters to keep track of. There are some notable characters in the mix though. Ken Stott’s Balin (the really old looking one) is perhaps the most heart filled of the Dwarves and brings a gentle wisdom and compassion to the screen that had it been lacking would have been detrimental to the film. Aidan Turners Kili (the..cute one?) is probably given more screen time than was written before and I am thankful for it. The story between him and the elven guardsman Tauriel is one of the more interesting stories through the movie and honestly that’s problematic. When you create a new character (Tauriel) and create a story with an existing character and it’s far more interesting than many of the other arcs going on something has failed in the rest of the plot. That being said, Tauriel is someone I’d honestly want to see more of. Legolas addition to the film neither helps nor hurts the narrative much other than a quick nod to the future nearly a century down the line. I think its an odd choice to have him, but if it makes sense in the history I know nothing about so be it.

Now for the part everyone has really been waiting for.

Smaug.

The dragon is awesome. It has scale , it has weight and it has power. Even in 48 FPS because of the lack of natural lighting he is amazing looking. Cumberbatch’s voicing of the creature does add an additional gravitas that only a handful of other actors could have delivered. To say much more risks spoilers and lets face it, you are going to this movie to see the Dragon and I do not think you will be disappointed with what you get.

TL;DR?

Alright Barrel riders, I have to say this one is significantly better than the first. It is not the best film of the year, but it is truly solid film making and still entertaining. I question the need to make three movies, but it has worked thus far.

It’s worth seeing without a doubt.

DO not see it in the High Def 3D, I think it actually takes away for the most part. Save yourself the $5 extra per ticket. 2D should be fine, or if you must regular 3D.

I still recommend this one as being ok for an all ages show, but be wary if the little ones are sensitive to some of the darker/scarier moments the film hits.

I know I will be seeing it again with others and I don’t regret it in the least. Its the movie to see this December with not much coming out to challenge it for weeks to come.

Darke Reviews | The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

Posted by

0

This was probably the most anticipated movie of the fall. Yes, I know Thor 2 came out and Desolation of Smaug is coming, but based on overall buzz this movie was the one to watch and the one to beat. Thankfully, like I mentioned in a previous review theatres are giving “midnight” showings earlier and earlier. Tonight’s began at 8 in nearly every time zone. The usual new release rules apply, no spoilers and the book has not been read. There is an embargo in the comments on spoilers, so if you comment – NO SPOILING For those who need to see this. Granted, any comments I make about the first film are not subject to this.

Catching Fire picks up an indeterminate amount of time after Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark snubbed their nose at 74 years of tradition and survived The Hunger Games together. Things seemed to have settle down in an awkward norm for the Victors until the Tour of the Districts begins. Katniss and Peeta are once more thrust together in order to not only save their own lives but those they care about. President Snow already disturbed by their ability to inspire hope, with the assistance of his new Games Master Plutarch Heavensbee, decides that the 75th Hunger Games will be special. This Quarter Quell will star not innocent children but previous Victors from each district to end the threat of hope Katniss, Peeta and the other survivors can represent. Let the Hunger Games begin and may the odds be ever in your favor.

Yes, I know if you’ve read the story there’s more to it. “Spoilers” /end Riversong.

Let’s talk about the writing, unlike last time Suzanne Collins does not get a screenplay credit; merely the novelization. The writers Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours) and Michael Arndt (ToyStory 3, Little Miss Sunshine) clearly spent time studying the material and the nature of the characters. Their previous works show they have both an understanding of how to make a movie entertaining, gripping and really get into the head space of the mains. While I cannot speak to the adaptive nature of their work yet, I can say that this successfully continues the story. No line seems wasted and all the blocking and scenes work in rather stunning ways. Their script is not dumbed down and successfully builds the right tension in the right places. The storytelling kept me guessing in the right places and made me smile, clap and laugh with the audience in others. It also brought up tears in the right place which is just as important.

Some of that credit needs to go to the director on this project, Francis Lawrence. Probably best known for the critically acclaimed hit I Am Legend and the woefully underrated Constantine. In I Am Legend the director shows he grasps what it takes to take a charismatic actor and let them break down. Let them be strong, let them be vulnerable and show humanity in a world that wants to deny them that. He did apparently listen to the people who criticized the camera work of the first and did not make those mistakes. Actually, in this reviewers opinion he made no mistakes I can tell aside from a few weird pacing issues in the first half of the movie. It drags in a couple of places while rushed in others, but that may be due to the needs of the adaptation- hard to say. I do know that the shots were beautifully orchestrated and the performances of each cast member were perfectly nuanced to deliver the right emotions in the best way possible.

Granted you need talented actors for that and this movie has them. Between films Jennifer Lawrence went and got herself an Oscar for her work in Silver Linings Playbook. She clearly is one of the best new actresses in Hollywood and I am looking forward to watching her career grow. She leaves everything exposed and holds nothing back in this performance of Katniss. She redefines the bar for what it means to be the reluctant hero. She is still as bad ass as ever and never loses her humanity in the process or that vulnerability I loved in the first film. She is doing whatever it takes to survive and shows that she is both smart and attentive to the details. Her loyalty to her friends and family never truly gets diminished. All the while she uses her eyes and expressive face to the fullest and you know what she is feeling and thinking.

Josh Hutcherson (Peeta) is actually given a bit more meat to work with in his interactions with the heroine. Hutcherson makes you believe in Peeta and what he stands for, feels and even pity him at times. Its interesting to see a male character play the role traditionally ascribed to the female in other action pieces. I want to see more of this and other directors, producers and writers to look for Hutcherson to show them the way. All of the returning cast members turn out good performances with Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket actually showing some real character development and making you like someone you all but hated in the first.

The new cast fits in well with some familiar faces such as Jeffrey Wright (Casino Royale) and Amanda Plummer (The Prophecy) making memorable appearances. Sam Claflin (Pirates of Caribbean: On Stranger Tides) is a relatively new actor but is actually nearly instantly endearing as Finnick Odair; a man with motives of his own and secrets to keep. Jena Malone (Contact, Sucker Punch) as Johanna Mason brings some much needed levity to the film and is one of the more interesting characters to watch for all her brutality in both action and word. This review would not be complete without discussing another Oscar Winner, Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Moneyball, Pirate Radio) as Plutarch. There is an archetype in writing known as the magnificent bastard. Hoffmans Plutarch is such an archetype and even Donald Sutherland has trouble sharing the screen with him. Its a credit to the director and the actor that Hoffman doesn’t dominate more, because he easily could.

Much like the director and the camera work the team on Visual Effects learned as well. No single effect took me out and made me roll my eyes. Some things were clearly effects but really in the context of the Games that is almost acceptable.
Alright then TL;DR?

This movie is arguably one of my top 5 movies of the year, perhaps top 3. It handily beats everything from May of this year. It *is* better than Thor and really I have to tell everyone.

See.
This.
Movie.

See it soon and if possible see it often. It has a great story, great acting, and honestly deserves the support we as the audience can give it. This series of movies is what we need to have made with characters like Katniss becoming the norm rather than a rarity.

May the odds be ever in our favor.