BasedonaBook

Darke Reviews | The Hunger Games (2012)

Posted by

2

I thought I would take a page from folks like CinemaSins and do a review on an earlier movie when its sequel or remake is coming out. With a viewing tomorrow at 8:30 of Catching Fire, I thought I would review the first of the films. There will be spoilers – the statute of limitations is long since gone by and while I have read the book I thought it was close enough to not need a comparison. I read the book after the movie, much like I plan to do with Catching Fire. Also I got some feedback on the fact I don’t talk as much about the actors and such because of my desire to avoid spoilers in my newer reviews. I want to try something a little different if I can ( and you notice). Let me know what you think in the comments below.

Let’s talk Story:

The movie takes place in a dystopian future in the land of Panem. Roughly 74 years ago a war ended between the Capitol and its 13 districts. One was wiped out entirely leaving the twelve, but in case that wasn’t enough the lovely individuals who run the government decided as a lesson we are going to make each of the 12 districts that are left sacrifice one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 every year. It’s a Thunderdome like battle, where only one child lives after slaughtering the others. If you win though, you get to live a life of luxury, so they say. To add to the fun Capitol broadcasts it across all of Panem for the districts to watch on a nearly mandatory basis – and the people of Capitol really think nothing is wrong with it. In the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to be her districts “Tribute” to save the life of her sister. She and the son of a baker, Peeta Mellark, are shipped away to Capitol to prepare for all the glitz and glamour of the Hunger Games before an almost certain death. The build-up includes full make overs by stylist Cinna, training by a former victor from their district named Haymitch, and the joy of talk show appearances with host Ceasar Flickman. When it’s all said and done Katniss must enter the Games and do what she must to survive.

Suzanne Collins, the author of the books, is actually listed as a screenplay credit and it doesn’t hurt that the book was written to be easily translated into a screenplay from novel, which is more rare than you would think. The forethought in writing shows in the final product that makes it to screen. Writers Billy Ray and Gary Ross (who also directed) have some credits as well and if I had to guess they were responsible for some necessary adaptations and final on screen changes to dialogue and sets. I really want to talk about this as per the normal rules I have to watch a film prior to the review. People have been complimenting Enders Game on it’s realistic portrayal of children put in danger and in high tension situations pushed on them by the adults and how both deal with it. While the books for Enders did this a long time ago and the movie did it well, I have to say I think Hunger Games does it a bit better in film. Hold on, hold on.

Look at the execution of the characters, the performances of which I will get to soon enough. Katniss, a young girl forced to adulthood by a nigh catatonic mother, a deceased father and a sister to take care of. She has skills as a hunter, a survivalist and generally is a rebel but quiet about it. She volunteers to be part of a thing that she mocks and loathes to protect her sister. This is a death sentence, but its worth it to her for her family. She resigns herself to death and only plays the game of popularity begrudgingly. In a conversation with Peeta, who has also resigned himself, he is willing to die but doesn’t want to change who he is to survive the games. Katniss’s reply – “I can’t afford to think like that.” There is a tremendous amount of weight in that line and the actors delivery. You have a sixteen year old girl who knows she must and will do anything to survive no matter what it takes with the odds so very much not in her favor. Then as the Games progress she never loses the vulnerability of being human, despite competitors who barely are. The film allows us those quiet moments of pain (which some mock, but I enjoy), grief and loss as a beautiful counterpoint to the action, the romance (faked or not), and manipulations of those around her. The story is not gentle on the characters and it really does not pull punches either. Haymitch even remarks when someone threatens Kat with punishment – “They already have been. What else are they going to do them?” I think that in Enders some of those quiet elements were lost in the spectacle and the pacing where Hunger Games took the time needed to show the characters breaking and being reforged.

Those decisions likely game from director Gary Ross, probably best known for emotionally deep films such as Big, Pleasantville and Seabiscuit. With Pleasantville especially he manages to draw some incredibly emotional performances from his cast and does so in black and white. It has both heart and humor. Hunger Games lacks a lot of humor aside from a snark here or there for your consideration, but has the heart. Matched with it is a profound visual style and orchestration of this dystopian future and a type of horror that comes with putting children in peril. Sadly some of his choices are not perfect and many complain about the shaky cam throughout the film. On my first five watching’s of the movie, I only noticed it back in District 12. This time I did notice that it was throughout the majority of the film with the intent to show the instability of Katniss’s emotions as she’s put through the events. It doesn’t work. It actually made me nauseous the first time I saw it. It’s probably the single most complained about element of the film and hopefully director Francis Lawrence learns from that in Catching Fire. I doubt it, but a girl can dream.
One other visual effect fails in such a spectacular way I must reference the “million dollar wolves” of The Day After Tomorrow. The director of that film laments in the commentary about the “wolves” that attack the protagonists at the end of the film whilst they run from the cold. The dogs at the end of this film are atrocious. That is being generous. I know what was in the book was even worse by description and Collins herself regrets it. This creation though surprises me that someone on a VFX team thought “these look good enough, if we make it night, no one will notice how bad they look.” The problem is you bothered to use the wire frames for the dogs as another establishing shot so we could see how bad the design is before you added the skins and texture mapping; which was botched. Quite literally every other effect I love. The Girl on fire sequence, the dress, the hover train, the dome, the fire in the woods are all good. Even the distortion of her perceptions after the Tracker Jackers was well done.

Now for the acting.

Nearly the entire movie rests on the shoulders of Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss. She is the perfect young (21 at the time) actress to carry that burden. She had very few major acting roles prior. True X-Men First Class and her try at Mystique came out the year prior, so some geeks already knew her, but this movie made her a household name, an icon, and role model to quite a few girls out there, myself included. She does so much with her body language through the film to keep Katniss from being a two dimensional bad ass. She IS bad ass, but she’s made relatable by Lawrences performance. You can identify with her when she mourns Rue and can be just as amazed a few minutes prior when she reflexively and naturally fires a bow. She makes it look natural and effortless. The closest comparison I can think of is how Ryan Reynolds performed in Smokin’ Aces with a level of complexity to the character and ability to shift between Snark, Pain and someone who WILL Survive. She even makes the romance between Katniss and Peeta something that, if you didn’t have the books as a guide, you could believe to be true until the moment that she makes it uncertain. This is all the actresses’ ability to deliver and she succeeds.

Josh Hutcherson (Bridge to Terrabithia, Vampires Assistant) lets a male lead be more vulnerable than the female, which is nice. He doesn’t really have much of a personal driving arc in this one and instead plays second fiddle to Katniss and the wallflower who watches his desire from afar. If anything he succeeds at seeming genuine and charming rather than creepy in his adoration of the girl of his dreams (I’m looking at you Twilight). Liam Hemsworth, Chris’s younger brother is flat as Gale Hawthorne, pretty but not much too him. He could stand on screen and that’s enough. When he opens his mouth he’s really kind of a jock jerk if you really listen to the characters lines. Stanley Tucci is absolutely scenery chewing as Caesar Flickman the talk show host with the insane hair; that is not too insane for the people of Capitol. Singer Lenny Kravitz turns in a sublime performance as designer Cinna and brings some of the movies more heartfelt quiet moments with him. Everyone else is passable in their roles, even Donald Sutherland as Satanic Santa, er President Snow; save one.

Woody Harrelson, whom I normally don’t enjoy, plays one of the former victors of the games Haymitch Abernathy. He has the responsibility to teach Peeta and Katniss what it takes to survive, to be likeable so the viewing public may sponsor them and send them emergency gifts and pass on whatever else he may know to give them the best odds. Aside from Katniss, he actually shows a character with one of the most in depth and subtle character arcs in the movie. He starts as a drunkard, bitter, lost and alone; tired of watching children from his district die year after year when he alone lived. As Katniss grows into the symbol she is to become, he begins to grow as well. There are subtle things like him covering a drink cup to avoid additional alcohol that are in the background but still there. He really brought something to this character that I want to see more of in the movie tomorrow.

It’s worth mentioning quite a few folks complained about how this film seems a lot like the Japanese film Battle Royale. It has some elements in common this is true: Dystopian Future, Corrupt Amoral government, children in peril to teach a lesson. There are other aspects which bear similarity as well, but there’s a concept out there where writers at a similar time will write similar stories. I think that is what happened here. Some get more famous than others, but there are always those threads that can be looked at and compared to. While Battle Royale is a good film (sequel not so much) where the two films go and how they focus are two wildly different things and that is all on the writers themselves. I seriously doubt that Suzanne Collins watched BR and thought “Hey let me make a teen friendly, Americanized version of this.” What’s possible, and more likely, is in a conversation someone went “what if” and that someone may have known someone who talked about it based on someone who had seen it. The two films are different and should not be compared and Collins did not rip off BR no matter how much some folks would like to say so.

So at nearly 2100 words so far, and trust me I could keep going I think we’ve hit:

TL;DR

Hunger Games is in my mind an iconic film. It’s this generations Superman (Reeves version folks). Katniss is a character for now that we can let our children want to be. Loyal, loving, and strong. She and the movie are a fantastic modern fairy tale and one I cannot recommend enough.

I have to admit writing that seems odd, but when I really think about it and all I’ve written here I believe it. This is the modern mythology of the 2000s and the new Perseus is a girl named Katniss Everdeen.

Now, I sleep and prepare for tomorrow night and it’s review. Did you like this new more in depth and longer format?

Darke Reviews | Enders Game (2013)

Posted by

1

For those who know my opinion on the writer of this book, his stances and my own choices regarding this film: I have not changed nor violated them. I am, however, working to become a professional reviewer of film. While I can choose to watch or not watch any film I wish and will continue to do so should someone foolishly think they could pay me to watch a movie I do not support, I will need to review it. That day is a long way off, but in the meanwhile, we have a Sci-Fi movie released which had I *not* known about the original author would have likely seen. So I feel I owe it to my readers to cover this film.

All of this disclaimer aside let’s talk about Enders Game the movie.

The movie is based on a critically acclaimed and award winning book released in 1985. The author Orson Scott Card has written twenty two different stories along the arc of Ender and the world around him. The subsequent releases were not always told in chronological order and may not even involve the titular character directly. I cannot comment on the contents of the book, its arc or how much the film is different from the source; though I am told by my best friend it is a good book.

The story itself focuses on a young boy, approximate age 12 in the movie, named Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield – Hugo) . He is a cadet in some form of military academy where every move is monitored. The monitors are Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) and Major Anderson (Viola Davis). After being put through an uncomfortably vicious and devious test by the monitors he is given the chance to attend an advanced school. The ultimate goal in this world is to use the youth and adaptability of children to create the next generation of military leaders in order to defeat an insect like enemy called The Formics who invaded us years ago and nearly destroyed us. Ender is put through even more challenges that grow increasingly difficult and separate him from his support structures. His sister Valentine (Abigail Breslin – Zombie Land), his classmate Petra (Hailee Steinfeld – True Grit), and any other friends he makes. The entire time creating enemies of other classmates. Eventually Ender graduates to command school and is put through even more simulations that pit his computer avatars against avatars of the enemy. Graff is determined to make Ender some form of messiah for the human race capable of ending the war with the Formics.

Ok thats the background and if you think its complex, the movie only does a marginally better job of executing on the principles. I lay that on a screenplay by the movies director Gavin Hood. This is the same director who gave us X-men origins: Wolverine in 2009. The rest of the review will wait for you to finish bashing your head on your desk from being forced to remember that abomination of celluloid. Hood is given the gift of good actors and solid source material that made it hard to screw up. He almost does at times and I am not sold on the ending in any way shape or form. There are some elements mid way through the film that even when fully explained make no bloody sense. There are also significant pacing issues that made me feel like I was in stop and go traffic on a California highway. Thats where actors come in.

The movie is absolutely dependent upon its children. Sixteen year old Asa Butterfield must carry this film on his shoulders. It lives and dies on his ability to cover the complexity of Ender. He shows the stress the character is placed under in one moment and then shifts to a calculating and tactical genius in the next. There are times he doesn’t work as well, where the character comes across just a bit too strong and others insufferably weak. It could be due to the age of the character, the way the character was written, bad directing or bad acting. I can’t say specifically, but it is a flaw. Sadly both his female costars (Breslin/Steinfeld), whom are both Oscar nominated for previous works, are given precious little screen time. They do well with what they have and again this may be directorial or story that keeps them out. I wish I could have seen more of both young women as they are quite talented and make the most of the time they are given.

As far as the adults. Hrm. I am torn. I want to say they did well. It’s Harrison Ford for crying out loud. Viola Davis and even Ben Kingsley. This performance almost lets me forgive BK for Iron Man 3 earlier this year. Almost. There’s just something about them in this movie that feels too much. Just a bit over the top and a bit shallow at the same time. The actors are fine, there’s just something intangibly wrong with it.

The technicals on this one are fine. The “Game” visuals are entertaining as is the 3D training battle ground.

TL;DR

I cannot in good conscience say to anyone see this movie as I want to deny Orson Scott Card any residuals. That being said, the movie was engaging until the last fifteen minutes and surprisingly entertaining. Those last few minutes are critical and completely destroy any goodwill the previous two hours brought.

Overall – the movie is an ok entry into the Sci-Fi genre this year. We’ve had better and we’ve had worse. It exists and some folks will truly enjoy it. Others don’t share my opinions on the author and do not have the same issues I do with seeing it.

For those folks, I respect your opinion and right to have them, I will say see it as a Matinee. I really do believe the end of this one hurts the overall narrative. (even if it was in the book, it was really ham handed).

Anyone else…

Curious – Cheap Seats (most of the money then goes to the house not the studio)
On the Fence? – Netflix
The rest of ya’ll – Give it an absolute pass.
Tomorrow night I review one of the most anticipated movies of the fall – Thor 2: The Dark World

Darke Reviews | Let The Right One In (2008)/Let Me In (2010)

Posted by

4

As one of the more interesting vampire movies in the recent years I wanted to talk about the Swedish film Let the Right One in, and it’s Americanized remake Let Me In. I watched both movies simultaneously tonight, writing this review as I watched.

This falls into a recent trend of films to be made in another country and then be remade within the States. The Japanese have taken the brunt of this foreign film exploitation; and lets be honest folks that’s what it is, the Norwegians are now experiencing it as well (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Troll Hunter). We, as in Hollywood, are letting other countries create new ideas, new takes on old ideas and rather than try to distribute THAT film here, the producers hire a team of monkeys, er writers and directors to remake and re-imagine the film within a few years of its release. A vast majority of the ghost stories we’ve had, starting with the Ring, were originally Japanese. Why not actually let us watch that one in a theatre? Sadly the answer my friends is us. The audience doesn’t want subtitles, they want faces they recognize even if the foreign actors are remarkable, I am sure there are other reasons that are just as BS.

So how do these two films compare? American vs Swedish? Interestingly. I warn you now to avoid spoilers (contrary to my norm) skip to the TL;DR.

The story focuses on a young boy (Oskar/Owen) living in a run down apartment complex, who sees a girl (Eli/Abby) his age moving in . He is bullied at school, being raised by his mother alone. He spends his time not in school alone outside in the snow in the complex courtyard playing with a rubix cube or stabbing trees imagining the tree is a bully. The boy and girl quickly become friends and he uncovers her secret, that she is a vampire. As their relationship grows, the girls relationship with her caretaker begins to wane. Things at school escalate with the bullies and the boy, while things further deteriorate around the girl and the body count rises.

The story is the same, though the names change. The US version is nearly a shot for shot remake of the Swedish. There are, however, some interesting choices between the two.

As expected, or should be, the Swedish version plays out more dramatically beat for beat. The american one starts out far more dramatically with an ambulance racing through the highlands of New Mexico dealing with an acid burn victim, while the Swedish version begin focused on Oskar alone and establishing his awkwardness. I suppose Matt Reeves (Cloverfield), director and writer – see what I mean from yesterday? – felt that a more romantic/dramatic start would disengage his audience and he needed to create an artificial bit of excitement to start. The US version also does not stay 100% practical and that is a massive failing of the film, where the CGI attack by Abby is no where near as intense or visceral as Eli’s practical one. It’s proof once again that CG is not better than a good make up or skill in shooting.

Lets talk about the actors and characters a bit, but I want to this in reverse order starting with the bit parts.

The Bullies. I hate Bullies, I laugh when they are mutilated, eviscerated and otherwise punished brutally in film. It brings me no end of joy. So while the nature of the bullies in the US version are more deserving of their fate, they are also two dimensional entities that you can have absolutely no sympathy for. The Swedish version, while they are still inhuman in their own right and have earned their Karma and pay it, have some depth. They pause, they have moments where the three of them are not all “complete” villains.

The Caretaker. Still a better love story than twilight. No seriously, it’s a love story between him and his vampire. In all the years and vampire films I’ve watched I have never seen one handle this so interestingly and creatively. While the man is clearly in his late forties in both films, if not mid fifties, there he is the caretaker to a twelve year old. To an outsider he would be the parent, but to a careful observer and viewer you see that they are more than that. He hunts for her nightly, killing people and bringing their blood for her to feed on. He is getting old however and making mistakes. In some of his final moments you get a true grasp of his relationship with the girl. Tenders touches from her, eyes closed and a sense of peace from him. His final acts, after a final failure is sacrifice. His love for her is that complete that he would not only pour acid on his face, but
then to let her feed from him because she had been unable to. It almost makes my black heart melt.

Lets talk about the boy. Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) and Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee). Hedebrants Oskar comes across more damaged. There’s a pleasure in his eyes when he finally stands up to the bullies. An eagerness as he stabs the trees mimicking the taunts of the bullies. There’s also a certain eagerness to which he embraces Eli, even as he tries to deny their relationship. The broken nature even shows as he torments her briefly to find out what happens if she isn’t invited in, though that scene is tempered by his care for her. Smit-McPhee comes across more of a victim throughout, eternally vulnerable and even as he stands up to the bullies there’s no real strength there and no hidden sadism. Though for cinematic reasons he puts Abby through the same lack of invite, there is no sense that it was even for a moment malicious. In fact he looks as if he’s about to jack rabbit the entire time until the very last minute. Even during a moment where the theoretical worm turns, Hedebrant plays the stronger boy willing to draw a blade to defend and simply turn his back on a murder. Smit-McPhee plays the same scene weaker, pleading and even trembling. Both boys play the vulnerable, weak love interest to their girl rather well and the inexorable slide into her grasp is entertaining to watch; which makes their final decision complete and logical from the way the story has been executed.

On to the girl, Eli (Lina Leandersson) and Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz – yes my favourite young actress). For the purposes of the story and relationship (that gets it’s own section this time), Chloë acts as well as ever but the nature of her looks weaken one of the plot points in the relationship. Lina’s performance is actually a bit darker due to her androgynous features. She looks twelve and neither pure girl nor pure boy and is a bit more haunting as she carries out several of the kills. Both girls deliver a remarkable performance as a vampire, but Lina is given the option to use her body language and a minimal amount of effects to achieve monsterousness, while Chloë is not afforded the same. Though she, much like in Carrie, has the body language down and performs fully has some of her performance masked by too much blood and too much CG overlay on her make up.

The romance needs to be talked about here as much as anything. It was controversial for several reasons when the original Swedish version came out. I was worried when I saw the US release if they would do the same. There’s an entire series of dialogue half way through the film, where she joins the boy in his bed in the middle of the night. She had already asked him if he would like her if she was not a girl; now he asks her to go steady to an interesting reply.

“I’m not a girl.”
“You’re not?”
“Does that bother you?”
“No.”

Now as she is prepubescent there’s debate as to what she means. Is it that she isn’t actually a girl, is it that she is but doesn’t consider herself one as she never even reached her teens, or the fact that she is a vampire makes her gender-less in her own mind? The conversation alone and it’s implications, much less his response, make it an interesting film. The options are also questions that are never answered which is a nice change of pace. It’s also fascinating to wonder as you look at the movie and understand the Caretaker that while the boy cares for her; you must ask yourself if she cares for him. Is she manipulating him to get her needs or are her emotions in such flux because of being eternally twelve? Again questions never answered and best left to interpretation. Even through the end of the film where the Caretaker cycle begins anew you just don’t know. Ultimately the viewer must decide, is it love or is it a monster – perhaps both.

TL;DR
\/uuuu\/

While your tastes may vary and I do like both films, the Swedish version is superior in many elements. It shows a better finesse and love for the story than the US version. The US version is sufficient and still good, but they missed the memo on show don’t tell – especially in the final pool sequence. The children all act well, with Chloë 12 at the time of filming.

I can comfortably recommend both and think vampire fans will enjoy (if you haven’t already seen).

No hints for tomorrow, since its a film I haven’t seen – it will be the Conjuring.

Darke Reviews | Interview with a Vampire (1994)

Posted by

1

As I write this review I reflect on the imagery and dialogue choices within the film, how they talk about the two lives – one before and one after. This is of particular note to me as the year I was born was the year the original novel by Anne Rice was released. As with most children the year they graduate high school is the year their new, second life begins; and that is the year that the film was released the oh so lovely 1994. This movie changed the face of modern vampire films as much as Dracula did back in 1931. It goes in waves, we are delivered the monstrous vampire (Nosferatu) then the romantic bloodsucker as Lugosi did. The 80s and early nineties vampire films were a turn from the 70s sexploitation and had become the rebellious monster (Lost Boys). We once again as a lover of the things with fangs, yearned to be seduced again, yearned to be romanced.

Along comes Interview with a Vampire.

The screenplay for the film was written by Anne Rice herself, so any changes to the story she had written eighteen years before can be forgiven as she had evolved as a writer over those years and had fallen in love with her personal demon Lestat. This is the story of Louis, a southern plantation owner begging for death. Death comes in the form of Lestate deLioncourt, who gleefully offers him death or…something more. The film centers around Louis coming to terms with his own existence and what it means to be a vampire. The introduction of a vampiric daughter, Claudia, the betrayal of his own dark father, his journey to find more of his kind are highlights of a rather large scale story told in a personal way. Louis pain reaches new heights as he finally comes to term with his own vampirism but that awareness has such sweet suffering. All of it based around the concept that he is giving the story to a small time journalist and this is the biography he has wanted to get off of his chest.

The director Neil Jordan, best known for The Crying Game, could probably call this his masterpiece. Nearly every decision made and performance reached is on him. The movie is staggering in the amount of sheer gothic visual imagery it contains. Even the musical cues are powerful throughout. The key performances are nuanced and executed well, which falls on a director as much as any actor. It also proves that yes, with the right director a child actor can perform to the caliber of her adult co stars. Please take note M. Night Shamalama-ding-dong.

Lets talk about the actors a bit. When first announced, as a fan of the books, I was incensed at the casting of Tom Cruise as Lestat. Anne Rice herself was less than pleased. When I saw the movie however, he did play one facet of the magnificent bastard that Lestat is. He played it well. I think Townsends’ Lestat is better, but Cruise did a remarkable job. The role of Lestat was a huge departure from his usual A list roles and mainstream films. Others still pan him to this day, but the reality is he did a really good job at playing the Lestat as written in the novel on screen.

Brat Pitt (no I am not going to list his credits, if you dont know who he is, check your pulse), plays our main character Louis. Lets be fair, I don’t like Louis as a vampire or a human. I suppose thats what makes Pitts performance so outstanding is that he at least can make you put up with him for two hours. He covers the range of emotions well, but more importantly understands the changes happening to Louis as the decades become centuries. There is a subtle, but noticable shift in the character that Pitt executes on perfectly.

Both Pitt and Cruise however are upstaged by fledgling actress and twelve year old Kristen Dunst. She played the aforementioned dark daughter Claudia. She is a very naughty girl. she actually seems to force both actors to elevate their own performance. She handles the lines she is given and the physical cues she must perform like someone twice her age, if not three times her age. while if you look at her actual age to the age of the actors she plays against some of those dialogues and motions are far more uncomfortable. When you examine the fact that she is playing a fourty year old in the body of a twelve year old it really shows the ability of the actress and makes the scenes that much more powerful.

From a technical standpoint the film is again nearly flawless. The CGI minimal and what there is of it is difficult to notice in all but a handful of shots. The make up work is amazing and holds up twenty years later. The sets, costuming and lighting were spot on through out the film.

This isnt to say its a perfect film. There are some casting choices that bother me to this day even more than Cruise did at the time. Such as the casting of Antonio Banderas as a cherub faced red head with curls named Armand. I will leave you with that character to actor description for a bit. The technicalities of Claudia’s fate defy astronomy as they could only occur a few days a year.

For the TL;DR crowd

It is one of the best vampire films ever made; while it leans more to the dramatic than the horrific it is an honest vampire movie. It isn’t flawless but it is close. It’s drama however does tend to limit it’s rewatch value to a once a year kinda deal. The performances are amazing and that alone is a reason to watch. Again any changes from the source are tacitly approved by the author, which while not always a good thing, needs to be kept in mind for those who would compare novel to screen.

Interview with a Vampire is a must see for anyone at least once.

Tomorrow’s review doesn’t want to end up like Nancy

Darke Reviews | Blood and Chocolate

Posted by

2

Those that know me also know that I love Roleplaying Games, no not those kind, the table top RPG. My particular fancy and general expertise is those of White Wolf. Vampire the Masquerade is of course the top of the collection with quite literally every book. The same publisher also had a game line called Werewolf the Apocalypse. The point to this is that Blood and Chocolate is probably the closest Werewolf movie I have seen to date that conveys much of the right feel to a werewolf game. It is also up there on my list of top werewolf movies ever. Don’t worry American Werewolf in London, The Howling and Dog Soldiers are still above it when it comes to werewolf horror. We aren’t talking about those movies (today anyway), we are talking today about the movie adapation of Annette Curtis Klause Young Adult book.

As expected what do the book and movie have in common? How close of an adaptation is it? Well, having not read the story but reviewed it on Wiki – they have the title and a few characters in common. That said, writers Ehren Kruger (Transformers 2 & 3, Brothers Grimm, The Ring) and Christopher Landon (Paranormal Activity 2, 3, 4) somehow translated and transformed the tale (tail?) of werewolves, humans and love completely from novel to screen. I think based on the summary it is an improvement. Perhaps that is German director Katja vonGarnier’s work with the material, the actors involved and of course a massive change in venue.

Moving from a story set in Maryland to one now set in the heart of Bucharest. It helps to have a city so rich in architecture, sculpture and enviornment that it is a character unto itself. All of the shots have a historic weight to them that brings depth no American locale could. They allow you believe that Werewolves have been among us since before the time of Magyar princes and have gone into hiding as men came to fear these creatures who could shift between wolf and man.

The film tells the story of Vivian (Agnes Bruckner) an american werewolf in Romania. Forced to live there after the death of her entire family she finds herself trapped in a life that she tries to escape through daily runs through the city. The local pack leader, who runs the city like a mob boss, Gabriel (Olivier Martinez) has his eyes on her for the position of his new mate despite a massive age difference and the fact that she has no interest in him. In one of her nights trying to escape her life and find solace in the city she comes across a young american starving artist by the name of Aiden (the yummy Hugh Dancy), who is in Romania studying the stories of the Loup Garou (Werewolves) for a comic book, er graphic novel he is writing. Much in the way of Romeo and Juliet these star crossed lovers do fall for each other and a Mercutio like character named Rafe (Bryan Dick) is sacrificed for the cause. Thankfully thats where the R&J similarities end. The two do find each other and are put through trials that test their love and their survivability.

The portrayl of werewolves in the movie is one of the few that brings the wolf dynamic into it as much as the human. There are many subtle and not so subtle mannerisms, movements, and behaviors that show the wolf as much a part of these people as the human is. It was a real pleasure to watch. While they do not have a hybrid form the transformation from human to wolf is made to be a beautiful, spiritual thing rather than a gory painful one. They loup garou do feel like a pack and it was quite refreshing to see.

The romance told over an indeterminate amount of time (a few days-weeks) but builds and is believable. The werewolves believe humans no longer know of their kind yet Aiden is able to research and find enough that he appears to have been told by poor Vivian. When finally faced with her, and her families, true nature he reacts as I believe a normal person would. He freaks the heck out. He actually tries to run away but is stopped not by her, but by the antagonists. When her harms her in the course of saving himself he finds he does love her and works to save her life as well. He also gets one of the most romantic lines ever in a supernatural romance film – “I’ve spent my entire life dreaming about you, what right do I have to wish you away now.” – Melt –
Effects and make up are ok and what fights there are look good. The music is rather catching and I have already gone on for a bit about the sets. The actors are solid with Hugh Dancy really showing many of them how its done. The story does have a few holes in it that you can drive a yugo through but holds together fairly well.

All in all for the TL;DR crowd?

Blood and Chocolate is an easily watchable and enjoyable supernatural romance. It isn’t horror, but is a good take on the werewolf mythos.

I can recommend this for anyone who likes a good romance, YA fan or supernatural fan. It does not have a lot of violence and next to no blood. The title is ridiculous but the end result is worth it.

Tomorrow’s review knows that the blood is the life.

Darke Reviews | Practical Magic (1998)

Posted by

1

Yesterday I mentioned how the fall of 98 was one of my most favorite ever. It was the perfect fall in Florida for me, where it cooled off quickly by late October. Every night on my way home from the late shift at work I was driving through moonlit bogs with low mist rolling across them and the moon reflecting in the water. Type-O Negative or Alucarda blaring through my car speakers. The trees were bare where I was in Fernandina Beach and had I not been in Florida and rather some north eastern small town it would have been a picture perfect October. Nearly every night for a week I was at the local four screen movie theatre watching this movie which struck nearly every chord in me. It had romance, the supernatural, great acting, a good story, and a fantastic soundtrack.

Practical Magic, was helmed by Actor/Director Griffin Dunne (American Werewolf in London) which is an adaptation of the novel by Alice Hoffman. Per the usual, I have not read the book but have also been advised against it. In an unusual twist a movie with three writing credits is done well. We have Adam Brooks, Robin Swicord and Akiva Goldsman on the screenplay credits. Swicord was also responsible for the eminately watchable Memoirs of a Geisha and the acclaimed Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Goldsman is more of a producer (Fringe) these days and has been hit and miss in the writing department (Batman & Robin and Batman Forever, now you know who to send hate mail to). Surprisingly the three individuals pulled together a cohesive story that reads and plays out well with very few holes that I can poke in its execution.

Some of that may come down to an amazing cast who are some of the best in their craft (pun intended). Sandra Bullock, Nicole Kidman, Stockard Channing, and Dianne Wiest are the absolute stars; with Aidan Quinn and Goran Visnjic filling in for the romantic interests. All of the players in this do a remarkable job of selling all the emotions needed to draw you in.

The story moved around two sisters Sally (Bullock) and Gillian (Kidman) who are born to a long line of witches. Sally after a bad run in with magic wants nothing more than to be normal and to raise her daughters to be normal in a life without magic. Gillian on the other hand loves her life and lives it with a wild abandon that leads her into the life of Jimmy Angelov (Visnjic) who had this been a different film could have also been a vampire. Normalcy and Wildness clash when Gillian gets into trouble and Sally comes to the rescue. The two sisters are guided by the aunts that raised them Jet (Weist) and Frances (Channing) as they face the consequences of their actions, their sisterhood and their family’s past.

There are a handful of effects in the film and they are executed well enough but what really stands out as an aid to the story telling is an amazing soundtrack. Stevie Nicks contributes several songs that you can’t help but be drawn into the movie because of. There is something intangible about this film that does just that, draws you into their fantastic world and for me personally I would have loved to be part of that family or live on their island.

TL;DR

If you want a little magic in your life or romance, if you want to believe in the power of love or have a sister or someone that you would move heaven and earth for, this may be a movie for you.

Obviously this one isn’t horrorific so if thats what you want, give it a pass. This is a romantic movie with a supernatural bent that other movies in this genre could take a page from. Including many of the YA stories.

——————————-

Tomorrows movie is a double feature review that wants to give you a hickey before it turns into a Vampire.

 

Darke Reviews | John Carpenters Vampires (1998)

Posted by

0

A few reviews back I said the summer of 92 was one of my favorite of any. The fall of 98 may hold that title for my favorite season of the year. I was gifted with two films I love for vastly different reasons. One tells the tale of a family of witches in a small town on some indeterminate coast. The other creates a genre unto itself, the Vampiric Spaghetti Western. A cowboy movie where the white (ish) hats are the hunters and the vampires are the outlaws. While not literally a western in the John Wayne, Eastwood or Leone it has all the vibes and beats of one, including musical queues. The movie of course is John Carpenters Vampires.

Arguably one of the great masters of modern horror, with 38 writing credits and 28 directing credits to his name John Carpenter (Halloween, The Thing, The Fog) decided to take on the Vampire genre since he had hit everything else over a 40 year career. He decided to direct whilst letting a writer by the name of Don Jakoby (possibly an Alias for someone else) adapt John Steakleys novel Vampire$. In typical studio fashion they interfered with production by cutting the budget by 2/3 just before filming, nice eh?

What ends up on screen however is one of the more pure, entertaining and utterly ridiculous vampire films of the past twenty years. James Woods plays Jack Crow, a vampire hunter on the churches payroll. It’s like Boondock Saints with fangs. That should give you an interesting visual. He and his partner Anthony Montoya (Daniel Baldwin – the one not on 30 rock or Serenity), are tracking down an ancient vampire looking for a relic that will enable him to walk in the sun.

The plot itself, which has nothing to do with the books, isn’t particularly inventive or creative. It does however have some dialogue choices and banter in it unlike anything I’ve heard in a mainstream film then or really since. Woods carries the movie like some sort of Vampire himself, with scenery as his diet. I think he was specifically told to ham it up and just find the top and go a few miles over it. It works. It shouldn’t but because it is Woods it does.

The bad guy has a total of 14 lines of dialogue in the movie. I counted. Its a breath of undead air for a villain to not truly monologue or just talk so much as to lose their menace. A scene with him versus a few hunters is beautifully one sided and executed to a Tarantino/Rodriguez like perfection.

Make up and gore were brought to you in this film by the masters of such work at KNB studios with Berger, Kurtzman and Nicotero being directly involved with the film. You may not know them like I do, but their work is some of the best practical effects in the industry.

There IS a sequel to this one which stars Jon Bon Jovi.

Ok now that you’ve stopped laughing; I have to say while not nearly as ridiculously over the top it is entertaining. JBJ himself is one of the best things in it and they maintain the bad guy of the piece having minimal dialogue (4 lines, just above SAG minimum).

TL;DR

I saw this one three times in the theatres that fall and at least a dozen times since. It is pure unadulterated vampiric fluff and I love them for it. Some movies are bad because they had no love, others are bad on a level that makes you love them. This is the second. It looks and feels like Segio Leone was ghost directing with Carpenter and quite honestly it’s better for it.

My vote, if you have a couple of hours to kill and are in the mood for a non scary vampire film, put this one in. You can pass on the second unless you are really bored.
Tomorrow’s review knows how to make flapjacks in the shape of a saguaro cactus.

Darke Reviews | The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)

Posted by

3

This is the last of my late reviews. Yes, thats right aside from Riddick I saw nothing in September or October so far. As of the writing of this review I have watched this movie three times; so I believe I have a solid grasp on it. It does need to be said, per usual, I have not read the books on which this film is based, I can only judge it on it’s cinematic merits or lack there of. So what do we have here hmm?

A director, Howard Zwart (The Karate Kid 2010), with only one film that is considered remotely successful has been given the keys to what the studio prays can be another Twilight for them. For those less familiar with the studios, what they look for is Franchises and Tent-pole pictures with which to base their year around. Many of their existing franchises are drying up as the books and films have run their course (Potter, Twilight), while others move into risky territory (Marvel Phase 2) and yet others need a reboot after only a few years (Batman). Tent-pole pictures this year have largely collapsed under the weight of their own expectations (Lone Ranger, Man of Steel). That being said the powers that be are looking for the next big thing. Rarely a week goes by where I don’t read about a new young adult novel that hasn’t even been fully published and released being optioned for a movie. That’s right studios are gambling on the whims of young adults on things they don’t even know if they will be popular. I think I’ve got better odds in a Vegas Casino of beating the house.

While they gamble on everything else, Constantin Films also felt the need to bet on an untested writer. Jessica Postigo, a former journalist was tasked with the unenviable job of translating Cassandra Clares works to be ready for screen. How is the source material? I really can’t say personally, however, I admit a soft spot for the writer. Much like me she is an indy writer, specializing in fan fiction, who made it good. I have a vested interest in supporting her as it gives hope to me and lots of other amateur writers like me that we can one day make it big, get published for real and even maybe if you are really lucky have a movie made.

About the movie, how is that final product? Well – actually not bad at all. We have the story of Clary (Clare?), played by Lily Collins (Mirror Mirror) a young New Yorker who enjoys hanging with her friends at local clubs and coffee shops. She also has begun seeing things, symbols hidden in signs and in her dreams. On a night out she sees more than symbols as someone is killed in front of her and no one else can see it. She’s forced to confront her own past and face her own future as part of a world she didn’t know existed. The movie deals with all that comes with it rather well. Collins brings all the right emotions at the right times. She feels genuine in her reactions and for me was easy to identify with and want to be despite it all.

Supporting Clary on her Buffy like journey is the rather adorable Jace – the obvious love interest – (Jamie Campbell Bower), Alec (Kevin Zegers)- Jace’s…something -,and Simon (Robert Sheehan) – Best human friend she has. Filling out the cast is Lena Headey as her mother, Jared Harris as Hodge the mysterious mentor, and our soon to be Dracula, Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Valentine. A twist of beautiful irony has Aiden Turner the vampire from Being Human playing a werewolf. I must pause for a moment to talk about new actor Godfrey Gao who absolutely steals every scene he is in as Magus Bane.

So the acting is “alright” – this won’t win an Oscar any time soon – and the story is good, what about the effects and other technicals? Honestly, they aren’t horrific. It’s the best I can manage here. With a mere 60 million dollar budget and quite a lot of effects needed for this by comparison to other YA films, the effects work. They don’t blow my mind and some of them I’ve seen before in other films. Sets, music and atmosphere however make me ignore all that and truly help bring the audience into the film. where there are plenty of films that feel “wrong” when I look at their atmosphere and dressing this one is actually “right” in every possible way for me.

The movie is not without flaws however, much of which come from the original source material. I said I support Clare, I didn’t say she was the next Shakespeare. Her influences from other genres and works is clear on many pages of the movie. You will see Constantine, Star Wars, Stargate, and yes, even a bit of Twilight as you go through the movie and for the most part it’s not too rough. The music during the upbeat of the romance feels like an episode of anything on the CW. The acting at times, mostly when love triangles come into play is so ham-fisted I kept wondering why I was tasting bacon. Then in other moments it reads perfect and natural, that in itself is a flaw when it cannot keep a consistent tone. The movie does fail on that one pretty spectacularly where in the condensing of so much material from the book it lacks quite a bit of polish.

TL;DR?

At the end of the day, I actually really love this movie. I think I explained why before, but the movie resonates with me on a level not a lot do. So in all honesty I cannot recommend it for everyone.

If you are a fan of the books, it’s an absolute must. (Confirmed by people who have TATTOOS based on the books that were in one of my showings)

If you are a fan of YA books or films, then give it a try. I think you’ll enjoy.

Not a fan of supernatural romance, young adult level fiction, or the CW consider this a wave off ghost rider, the pattern is full.
Tomorrows film doesn’t ever shut up.

Darke Reviews | Queen of the Damned (2002)

Posted by

0

Few times in all the movies have I watched has there ever been a film that is so blatantly a quick, sloppy studio money grab than the adaptation of Anne Rice’s Queen of the Damned. That being said there are even fewer times that such a blatant grab is actually enjoyable for me. Let me explain for those who haven’t seen it.

The year I was born the world was given another gift, Interview with the Vampire. Ten years later Anne Rice followed it with The Vampire Lestat, two after that Queen of the Damned. Somewhere along the way Ms. Rice sold the rights to her books to Warner Bros, who in a rare moment of beautiful handling gave the first of the books to Neil Jordan and he gave us Interview with the Vampire in 1994 (Review to come on that one). The years passed after the critically acclaimed film and the studio found its rights to produce the next movie waning rapidly. With DAYS to spare before expiration they quickly put into production the Queen of the Damned. What happened to the second book? Oh lets get to that…

WB, in its more typical case of mismanaging franchises and scripts, gave the writing to two men who I won’t name since they haven’t apparently worked since who feverishly read the cliff notes versions of the two books and then used trained goldfish to write a script. The source material itself was thrown into a blender and the two books merged to become one. While I have spoken about adapted material before, sometimes at length, the raw amount of ignorance that was shown in this adaptation is nearly criminal. Easily 600 pages of the just over 1,000 were expunged for the film. The sheer number of characters, plots, history and mythology that were lost is too much to mention.

By now, it sounds like I despise the movie doesn’t it? I should. Yet I don’t. It deserves it as many other reviewers out there, fans and critics will attest, but I don’t. Why? Because it got some things perfect, for all its many many flaws. Casting about half right but the half that was spot on. Music, while tonally appropriate, beautiful, haunting and again spot on, was dated by the time it came out. Costumes, sets, general look and feel – I love.

Lets talk casting. Stuart Townsend plays our main character of Lestat. Let me be clear, while the earlier incarnation was good it wasn’t quite Lestat. Townsend IS the Lestat I wanted. He was arrogant, he was magnificently beautiful, he was rebellious, and so cock sure he could “I am the vampire Lestat”. Then there is the casting of the titular character, Akasha, played in a way by the taken too soon Aaliyah. When I first heard this casting, there was nerd rage, then I saw the film and I loved her and missed her. I was unsure how “she” could play a force of malevolence and yet she did it. She was sexy, she was dangerous, she was truly the Queen of the Vampires. Vincent Perez and Paul McGann play the slash fic couple, no not really, but they are cast correctly in their roles as Marius the ancient roman vampire and David Talbot of the Talamasca watchers of the supernatural world. Now I did say half right…

Lena Olin, while always solid as an actress is clearly not Maharet the sixteen year old red headed beauty with no eyes. Marguerite Moreau as Jesse performs only slightly less wooden than Kristen Stewart, with a few moments of emotion in an otherwise bland performance.

Musically, I owned the soundtrack before the film even came out. David Draimans music was perfect for the fim and quite honestly in 2002 I don’t think better could have been achieved. Was it the music of the God of Rock and Roll that Lestat became? Eh..not really, but in this day and age vs. 1985 I don’t know that we have true gods of rock anymore.

Director Michael Rymer (later known for Battlestar Galactica) did what he could with the script, budget and time he had. That this movie isn’t SyFy quality is only a testament to him. The shot angles were lovely, sets and costuming everything I want in a vampire film of this nature.

Story, oh let me get back to the story. It’s bad. It’s bad in ways that I didn’t think it could be. They have David Draiman write all these songs to be used for the movie, QUOTE the usage of the song and then say it has lyrics that aren’t actually in it. It falls under the weight of trying too much in too little time and rarely if ever handles a single scene perfect. Much less just right. Townsends, Perez and Aaliyah’s natural charisma are all that make it work. Beautiful moments are saved thanks to the actors (Hello David), and we are taught to appreciate our prey.

So where are we? TL;DR

Queen of the Damned is one of the most flawed vampire movies out there yet is still quite enjoyable. I consider it a guilty pleasure movie that I can actually watch over and over. Unlike another vampire series, this one had good original writing, bad scripting but was saved by good acting.

I do think it’s worth checking out for the vampire aficionado, but most everyone else give it a pass. Audiophiles may dig the sound track so that alone is worth getting for them.

——————–
Hint for tomorrow: You’re not afraid of the dark, are you?

Darke Reviews | Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (2013)

Posted by

0

There are days I don’t get Hollywood. These are days that end in Y.

Why would you make a sequel to a critically and financially maligned movie? Why would you cast a 23 year old as a *young teen*? Why would you wait three years between films. These are the questions I had when I saw the first trailer to Percy Jackson SoM awhile back. Now that I have seen the film I can say with all honesty I still don’t know the answers to any of those questions.

Perhaps it’s because I am not the right age. This movie is clearly targeted at a significantly younger demographic than sat in the theatre last night. Appropriate considering the directors (Thor Freudenthal) other known work is also based on a childrens book series (Diary of a Wimpy Kid). Lets not get into the fact that a man named Thor is directing a movie about greek gods.

The writing never quite delivers on any of the promises it wants to make, again showing its target. When I was a lovely ten year old girl I would have been quite ok with the superficial story telling, plots so thin they are transparent and intrapersonal conflicts that seem to be resolved at the drop of the hat. This my friends is the work of Marc Guggenheim, one of the 4 men in the writing credits of that gem “Green Lantern”.  Same writer and it shows.

But Jess! It’s based on a book. That is true. I happened to be in a showing with half a dozen fan girls of the book. When asked what they thought in comparison to the source material it was a universal “well they fixed this from the first and still got alll this wrong.”

Acting and Casting! That can save even a badly written movie. Alas, we have a 27 year old playing a character in her teens that is nearly as wooden as the acting in Avatar the Last Airbender. Alexandra Daddario’s performance as Annabeth the daughter of Athena fails nearly as much as it did the first time. I really want the writer to go back to basic college mythology and look up Athena. Do it. Really. She emulates nothing. Logan Lerman who actually can act does well enough as the titular character. They all needed to look at the imminent Stanley Tucci who phones in a performance as Mr D; even as uninspired and seemingly bored he still has more talent and charisma than nearly the entire cast combined. Nearly. Nathan Fillion. He plays Hermes also known as Nathan Fillion. Love him. He even was able to get a Castle AND Firefly joke into the movie.

The rest of the film seems to exist. The effects are Made for TV movie level; still better than a SyFy original, but only just. The camera work is there, nothing special other than no shaky cam – so thank you there.

TL;DR?

The movie is a resounding meh. It had entertaining moments, eye rolling moments, thankfully no true groaner or why is this in the film moments. It *is* in fact slightly better than the original, which I have to confess own and enjoy. Unless you are somewhere between 8 and 12, then you might really like it. Unless you’ve read the book.

Overall I enjoyed it but I wouldn’t have missed much waiting til DVD and neither will you. Once again I think Percy will be second best around.