MovieReview

Darke Reviews | Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Posted by

1

So I did the math on the way home. Took the day off and spent the better part of it at the theatre. Granted I slept til 1:30 then headed over, but yeesh. Was it worth it though? Double Feature of Avengers and then Age of Ultron, discounts on food and drink. Conversation with another movie geek on the comics, animated movies, and general geektitude. Yep all of it was worth it. It was weird hearing people in the audience who hadn’t seen Avengers first and odd to note things that raised questions in the first Avengers in light of Winter Soldier. But…did Age of Ultron live up to the hype?

Let’s be honest folks – you are going to see it anyway regardless of this review. This easily falls into the #seeitanyway category. Let me see if I can keep to my usual spoiler free territory.

Written and directed by geek god Joss Whedon, the film picks up an indeterminate amount of time after the events of all the previous films. It starts mid-stride with the Avengers continuing to try to find Loki’s staff in the wake of the events of Avengers. It’s clear they’ve worked together awhile on various missions enough so that they have clear roles and methods in how they work with each others powers, or lack there of. A new threat of their own making rises in the form of Ultron. An AI with a goal and the Avengers must overcome their internal issues and external ones to win the day, will they?

Lets talk the cast a moment. Our favorites return in the roles that we love them for. Chris Evans is once again on point as Captain America, he still has his ghosts, but as Dr. Irskin asked of him – be a good man. RDJ of course returns as Iron Man with no real acknowledgement of the events of Iron Man 3 one way or the other. I think we are better for that. He was made to play Tony Stark, but it is clear that he is both comfortable and tired of the role. Mark Ruffalo is given significantly more time as Bruce Banner and is allowed to show more than he did in the previous film. I still believe he is a secretly genius casting and he does well with what he is given. Chris Hemsworth takes Thor out for his 4th outing and doesn’t do much new or at all I suppose. ScarJo gets her own 4th showing as Black Widow, the assassin and spy, and is actually given more depth this time with the barest glimpse into her background.  Jeremy Renners complaints were clearly heard after the last movie and has a lot more time as Hawkeye with some significant divergence from his comic roots. They don’t hurt, but they are surprising. Samuel L Jackson, Don Cheadle, Anthony Mackie, Stellan Skarsgard, Paul Bettany, Cobie Smulders all become proof positive that the writer and producers heard the complaints about Iron Man 3 and went ‘oh yeah, all of these guys exists and you know should be here…even briefly’. Sadly we get no Paltrow or Portman as Pepper and Jane; which we do hear some snark about in film – it’s nice. Of course we also have the introduction of Aaron Taylor Johnson (Kick Ass, Godzilla) as Pietro Maximoff, who can’t be called Quicksilver due to rights issues, and his twin sister Wanda Maximoff, more commonly known as the Scarlet Witch, played by Elizabeth Olsen (Godzilla, Old Boy). Ultron is gifted with the voice of our favorite man in a fedora from Blacklist, James Spader. I swear this man could read a phone book and make it sound delicious.

Whew….was that too busy?

That there is the movies problem. It’s taken me twenty minutes to think about this and a good twenty minutes talking with my partner in crime this evening. The problem here is the film is too busy. Too big. We aren’t given a chance to breathe, save one scene. The scene we are ostensibly supposed to be able to revel in the quiet, is just too tense to enjoy the moment. It’s off putting rather than relaxing. The tension was ramped up and kept at a certain level that left you bordering on uncomfortable. It all was too much. Too many locations, too many fights, too many cuts. Too busy.

Things that need explanation are left painfully vague or explained too quick to sink in. There is expectation you have seen everything to this point and if you haven’t you may scratch your head at a few scenes. It’s clear there are significant cuts and edits to the film as well as a few scenes from the trailer are noticeably missing. I think Joss stumbled on this one, it’s not a failure, but it is a clear stumble. He wrote himself into corners he didn’t know how to write himself out of elegantly or cleanly. When he did give himself a needed out, the outs came off awkward. While I am rarely one to encourage films to be split into two, I think there was enough material here that this could have or should have been. It wasn’t in the plan so it couldn’t be and the narrative pays for it. I feel, I believe the studio interfered more this time as well. Joss is far from perfect, but there’s just something wrong about the entire picture on a level I can’t quite put my finger on. It is almost as if they were trying to capture the same lightning in a bottle they had with the first Avengers and didn’t quite stick the landing.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve overly expounded on the problems here, but the movie is still solid. You will continue to love and hate the characters as appropriate. The fight sequences are solid in their own right. The movie properly zooms into comic book physics without batting an eye and we are ok with all of this. The movie still has humor in the right places and darkness in the others. The famous Hammer and party sequence are everything I hoped they would be. Spaders voice work and mo cap of Ultron is in a word incredible. The man’s presence can be felt even if he himself is not on screen.

TL;DR

The movie lands solidly in the better than average to as low as the “it’s ok” realm. I might (probably) watch it again to see if my opinions on it shift the needle in either direction. This is still likely to be one of the biggest movies of the year, though Furious Seven has set a benchmark that will make it hard for other films to hit. This one, probably will though – and deserves to. The movie **is** good, don’t get me wrong, but it isn’t quite as good as the last Avengers and doesn’t quite have the same magic.

If you were going to see it – see it! You’d ignore the review or not want to read it anyway (despite me being spoiler free when possible)

If you were on the fence – eh…see it Matinee.

If you were curious – I’d ask what rock you’ve been living under and why you haven’t seen the others. You definitely don’t want to start on this however, and you’d likely feel lost as there’s enough history required for this one to not make this a first timers film.

 

Coming Soon

Review season has begun, I get the next week off after that. Mad Max and Pitch Perfect in the same weekend – thankfully not vying for the same audiences. Tomorrowland follows with San Andreas the week after (though that review will be late due to Phoenix Comicon). The rest of summer after that looks to be hit and miss. Here’s hoping folks.

Sunday, you might get a special throwback review…Big Trouble In Little China has a screening at one of my local theatres.

Darke Reviews – Ex Machina (2015)

Posted by

7

This is a little known, but often lauded film, I have been waiting for. In multiple previous reviews I have slammed the films for having a fear of science and more importantly a fear of AI. Transcendence is one the more recent criminals in this vein. I have a near unique perspective where I am just as eager to look at and love the past as I am the future. I am not afraid of science.  I am not afraid of any advances and point in fact I resent those that hold us back from even more. Too many sci fi movies these days seem to be based on a fear response rather than hope or driving us to better ourselves, our world, and our technology.

So please pardon me if I wax a bit philosophical as I write this review, the movie asks some very important questions in the right ways.

Let’s switch things up a bit and get into the acting, this film runs on a minimal cast. While not as small as say Moon, for the better part of the film there are 3 main actors who must do all the work; those being Oscar Isaac as Nathan, Domhnall Gleeson as Caleb, and Alicia Vikander as Ava. Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis, Robin Hood, Drive and soon to be in Age of Apocalypse) plays scientific genius Nathan the man with a compound in a remote area of either Canada or Norway. I appreciate his take on the eccentric billionaire. There’s something roguish and even brutish about his performance yet with a calculating intelligence that drives him and his protege Caleb forward. It is a surprisingly detestable character yet he captures your attention much in the way Tony Stark does. Gleeson (Bill Weasley from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows) is nearly the opposite. For all the extrovert force that Nathan is, Gleeson’s performance as Caleb is almost wall flowerish. It is a well controlled and constructed performance that allows you to buy into his decision making and approach through the film His body language is on point during his Turing test conversations with Ava. Vikander (Seventh Son, Anna Karenina, Man from UNCLE), may have the hardest performance. Where the boys must be equally demanding of the camera during their shots both energetic and quiet; Vikander’s Ava must capture the camera and your attention with something else. Every motion she makes must look as if she is a machine pretending to be human but so human she passes. This is more difficult than it sounds yet she achieves it in her own body language. Her face alone is allowed full expression yet her body tells you as much in how she moves and positions herself. It’s really quite remarkable.

The technical prowess in which the actors performed must get some credit from the writer and director Alex Garland. Garland, who previously gave us the genre redefining 28 Days Later, the lack luster Sunshine, and criminally underrated Dredd, is in top form here. It’s clear the man knows how to shoot a film and get a performance from his cast. The three films I mentioned are clearly watching a man come to understand his gifts behind the camera and with a crew with each one building on the successes and failures of the other. That leaves us with Ex Machina. Nothing is wasted in the film. Not a single shot is without some level of purpose be it literal or metaphorical. Every camera angle is where it should be for maximum effect. It truly is a technically amazing film from a cinematic point of view. While I know there is much that was in the can that hit the editing room floor, as there is with any film, we are given the purest essence of film making. Music, Light, Shadow, Color, Negatives, all interplay perfectly.

Before I talk story and the questions, I do need to say as good as the movie is – it still falls into some traps that I found displeasing. The character of Nathan, while breaking many stereotypes, hits enough of the wrong ones to bother. While the movie does not directly objectify the female cast members there is an overabundance of shots that made me think someone from Game of Thrones was involved. Obviously I have no issue with the female form, as I am in the process of giving myself one, but there’s just something off putting in the delivery here. It is largely clinical if you narrow your eyes at the movie, but a moments though and it becomes uncomfortable again. This is probably the one major flaw of the film. It’s enough of a flaw that if you genderswap any of the characters the film likely may not be made or retain the rating it did under the iron thumb of the MPAA; which is an entirely different problem in how American’s view film, much less those psychotics over at the MPAA.

From a story stand point, Nathan hires Caleb to be a living Turing Test for Ava. For those who don’t know, (though the movie explains), the Turing Test is a method in which a human tests a computerized system to determine if they can tell they are working with a computer. This is normally done as something blind, but the nature of this experiment requires it not to be. Caleb is flown in and brought to a massive remote compound and meets Ava, a fully functional AI. She deliberately looks like a machine in order to see if she can make Caleb (and the audience) forget that fact.

There are so many good questions the movie asks and it spends just a little less time on the topic than I am happy with. This is a minor flaw, as the movie delves into the philosophical topics around AI and Robotics, but doesn’t commit to them lest it lose the audience entirely. I fear that is the issue, the risk of boring the wider audience with a certain amount of techo-babble and philosophy. What it does ask creates powerful questions that we ourselves can look at and have conversations about? Questions about Gender and Sexuality; though the movie does mostly classify under the binary format, the larger conversation could be had. Questions about wants, needs, loves, lies that we tell each other and ourselves. Most importantly the movie asks us if we are human, can we truly define that? Can we define what separates us from a truly advanced AI or what really would pass the Turing Test? The movie wisely and thankfully doesn’t make us fear AI save a throw away line of evolutionary/revolutionary theory, but embraces that it is an inevitable future and what that could mean. This had me excited as the trailers kept their word. here. The trailers however, sell the movie short giving it a horror vibe or perhaps a bit of a sexual objectification vibe. I could go on for hours about the conversations that could be had from watching this film and delving deeper into the questions it literally and metaphorically asks.

TL;DR

This movie is not for everyone. I would love to give the Darke Seal of Approval (I need a seal of approval first) and that everyone should see it, but I can’t.

There is no action here, this truly is a thinking persons film. IF you want to grab a drink and chat with friends in the spring night air after seeing the movie – this is a good film for you. It is both visually stunning and mentally stimulating. For my SciFi, Philosophy, and Psychology lovers, you really need to see this film.

All others, I couldn’t say you would enjoy it. You might and if this review has made you the least bit curious then I say find a matinee and see it; otherwise give it a pass.

The movie satisfied me greatly in that it doesn’t fear AI and the scientific advances that come from it. It deserves to be a critical darling if not a box office one. There is a lot of subtlety and nuance in the film and I hope you feel the same.

 

 

 

Darke Reviews | Furious 7 (2015)

Posted by

0

Furious 7.  As I have said in previous reviews when you are this invested in a franchise it is already a forgone conclusion that you are seeing this film. So how do I review it? Do I review it? Well of course I do. It’s worth mentioning as I open this that there was a clip in the pre movie commercials of Vin Diesel being asked if he thinks this is the best of the franchise. His response brought a tear to my eye.

“Whenever we went to a movie premier, I would turn to Paul and ask was it the best? He would look to me and tell me the best is still in the can. I am hoping to hear from him, somehow that he thinks this one is the best.” These men were brothers in real life as much as they were in the films. Even Paul’s mother knew it and is quoted by Diesel as saying “I thought they needed my strength but realized when I got there and broke down before his family, that it was I who needed theirs.”His mother hugged me and said I am so sorry … I said sorry? You’re the mother who lost a son? … She said yes, but you lost your other half.”

So how was the movie?

The writer on the franchise since Tokyo Drift , Chris Morgan, returns to give us what will likely be the last of the series. If Fast 5 was a love letter to Oceans 11 with cars and Furious 6 was a love letter to shark jumping everywhere, then this film is the love letter to Mission Impossible, while it jumps a shark with friggin lasers on their heads. It is gloriously over the top and embraces it with a smile and a Corona. The natural charm and chemistry of the returning cast members makes every ridiculous scene work. Morgan is also wise enough to give us slow moments where the characters can interact and show why we have stuck with them for the six previous movies. It’s not just long looks, but comes down to the performances and delivery which means Morgan needs some help from the cast

I won’t go too long here. Vin Diesel returns as Dominic Toretto who continues to stubborn and street prophet his way through the movies. Walker’s role is probably more reduced than originally intended, but the moments he gets with Mia (Jordana Brewster) sell every single time. Michelle Rodriguez continues as Letty and is both beautiful and one of the baddest women we have on screen. The meme of keep your pop icons, we have our own should equally apply to this woman. Tyrese keeps earning that paycheck as CinemaSins says and sadly continues to be the weakest part of the family. Chris ‘Ludacris’ Bridges is once again epic as Tej and a highlight for the film. Dwayne Johnson was born to be in this franchise and clearly has a blast with every single scene chewing line.

Joining this film is Statham as Lee Christmas, er the Driver, er …Deckard Shaw. Oh heck with it. Jason Statham is Jason Statham. Djimon Hounsou comes in as a secondary villain along with Tony Jaa and a brief but wicked appearance of Ronda Rousey. Kurt Russell makes his own appearance as Nobody taking a page from the Rock and looking to chew scenery. In my private fiction I think he was secretly Jack Burton 20 years later. Our movies McGuffin is a person this time, Nathalie Emmanuel, better known as Missandei from Game of Thrones. It was nice to hear her in her own speaking voice rather than her clipped precise tones from the show.

James Wan, best known for Saw, The Conjuring, and Insidious is replacing Justin Lin at the helm. I think that might be where the seams begin to show. He just doesn’t have what Lin did. This isn’t to say he was horrible, but he isn’t as gifted with the camera or ensemble as Lin. There’s some weird camera tricks used that detract from the film and there just is not enough love for certain characters that I think comes down to the director more than anything else. Granted, he still directed the heck out of the film while the shark continued to do it’s double half back flip with a triple twist. He does run this far more as an over the top Mission Impossible action film than a car movie, but that comes across as an observation than a complaint.

From the technicals CG is CG. Physics is bound, gagged, slapped around, and hung up in an oubliette – and we don’t care! Seriously we don’t. You shouldn’t. The movie is absolutely ridiculous and makes no sense from a biologic, architectural, or engineering standpoint. Gravity? HA! Injuries? Don’t make me laugh. Actually the movie did more than a few times and I was thankful for it.

TL;DR?

The final film in the Fast franchise is so beautifully over the top any flaws it has, which there are a few, don’t seem to matter. This is one of the first movies this year I can feel comfortable saying “Go See it”

– If you are invested already – you didn’t need my review.

– If you weren’t invested – you also didn’t need it. You weren’t going to see it anyway. Seeing it before the others is a disservice to the series.

The movie is good. It is beefcake. It is cheesecake. It is ridiculous and I love it for all of it. 14 years of these movies and the series can rest now. It earned it and got a good send off.

 

PS

Rollover spoiler –

I did cry at the end from the reshoots they added to address Paul Walkers death. Diesels send off for him was as much to the character of Brian as it was to Paul himself. It was moving and heartfelt. I am not sure what the original ending was, nor does it matter. This was good and I am glad they did it the way they did.

– end spoiler

Darke Reviews | Insurgent (2015)

Posted by

3

I love March. It marks the beginning of the end for the toughest time in the 9-5 and the beginning of movies worth watching in the theatres – at least it usually is. This year is really not off to a good start and I just looked at April and with one major exception (Furious 7) there is next to nothing until Age of Ultron. I also seem to be among the few who did not like Cinderella last week; at least until the Walker brothers discussed it recently. So this week we got the sequel to last years Divergent.

Does Insurgent live up to it’s name and break the trend?

First, let me compare a bit to last years review. My friend at the coffee bar at the theatre told me there was a near full house for earlier showings yet my show was near empty. This time, the house was nearly full in one of the largest rooms they have there; which tells me this one grew despite the mediocre ratings the first one got. I still haven’t read the books, though they do look nice in my library – which means this review is still going to talk about the work from a purely cinematic standpoint. My last review talked about dystopian teen fiction at length for a bit.

Divergent took the tact of giving us a movie about class-ism or elitism and threw it out the window by giving us a main character who isn’t of any caste. It’s a pleasant twist. Insurgent continues the story of Tris Prior, a divergent, picking up days/weeks after the events of the last movie. This time the story is as much internal as it is external dealing with Tris facing her demons within and without. I rather enjoyed the conceit as we have a world where that can actually be a real thing to you.

Rather than keep the writers from the last film, three new writers come in. That’s usually not a good thing as my rule of three comes into play. I haven’t mentioned the rule for awhile and have some new readers. If you get to three or more writers for a film there is a degradation in the quality of the film. Too many writers, rewrites, and cooks in the kitchen and it tends to show in the final work. It does here too. Newcomer Brian Duffield was involved, working with Akiva Goldsman (Winter’s Tale, Angels & Demons, I Am Legend), and Mark Bomback (The Wolverine, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes). I can’t tell what Duffield did for this movie as I have nothing to compare against. Goldsman brought his ability to write someone facing their own psychology, while Bomback brought a sense of reasonably well written action. By their powers combined, however, we get a bit of a mess.

The movie, much like the first, meanders a bit too much and has some odd pacing and tonal switches. It wants to address some things and then decides not to. It gives you threats then promptly ignores most of them. Like the first I have an overwhelming sense of meh for what I watched; and yet an interest to see what they do next. I am not sure how that works more than the movie falling to Middle of the Trilogy syndrome where it comes across as mostly filler but provides a set up for a more interesting finale.

I think the writers are not solely to blame for me not caring too much, as the director is the one who brought us one of the most bilious, refuse laden, nausea inducing films I have ever watched R.I.P.D.. I have such contempt for that film and likely find Robert Schwentke to blame for any flaws in films he works on. While, again, I have not read the books, I blame the director for me being deeply annoyed with most of the characters in the film. I blame the director for wasting Shailene Woodley as Tris.

I do not blame Shailene (Fault in our Stars), she actually does a good job. I understand her logic. I understand her fears. She makes sense and every decision – makes sense. That is so rare and most of that comes from the actor being able to pull off the nuance of emotions. Sadly something happened between the last movie and this one (I’ll blame Schwentke) with Woodley and her romantic co star Theo James (Underworld 4) who plays Four. I could be missing something but for the better part of the film I don’t feel chemistry between them, which is sad as much of the film needs that. There are exceptions, but not nearly enough.

Kate Winslet, as Jeanine, is one cat short of being a Bond villain.  Jai Courtney still annoys me and I am reasonably certain they used a cardboard cut out in two scenes with him and they turned in a better performance than the actor. Ansel Elgort (also Fault in our Stars) does well with what he has, but I don’t think he has much. Miles Teller (Footloose, Whiplash, and the upcoming Fantastic Four) is surprisingly enjoyable; even when he’s a jerk. He just makes his character work. The rest of the cast is entirely not worth mentioning – which is unfortunate.

From a technical perspective I’ve already hinted at some pacing issues. There are horrifically bad CGI birds that keep coming. When CinemaSins gets their hands on this, I fully expect at least one Birdemic joke; they are that bad. They are also totally unexplainable from the cinematic narrative. Someone who read the book might be able to explain them but from someone who only has the cinema to go from they make no sense. Most of the green screen is hidden and the action is pretty good. It isn’t perfect from a CG perspective but it does better than most.

TL;DR

Once again I find myself in the category of meh. I don’t think I had high hopes for this one. It proved me right as it is clearly a middle less interesting film that serves no point than to prepare us for something new with Allegiant.

If you liked the first one, or have at least seen the first one. Continue the story. Give it a watch, you won’t feel your time is wasted. There are some genuinely good moments amidst the ok ones.

If you haven’t watched the first, you’ll want to before watching this. If you don’t you may care even less.

There’s nothing major to see here. This isn’t the game changer for 2015 we were looking for. I don’t suppose I believed it would be, but it would have been nice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Darke Reviews – Cinderella (2015)

Posted by

3

I apologize to all my readers for the hiatus, we’ve had a bit of a dry spell with movies and my 9-5 ( 6 to 5?) takes dominance in this time of year. Have to afford all these movie tickets somehow neh? I remember my reaction for this particular films teaser with just a long tracking shot of the glass slipper and hearing that Kenneth Branagh was expected to direct. Overall though I did not have a lot of faith in the live action version of the film as Disney is hit and miss with me on their conversions. Alice in Wonderland was garbage and I enjoyed Maleficent as examples. I was cautious about this film and have made an active choice to avoid reading anything about its production including casting. I find out in the 11th hour that Helena Bonham Carter is in the role of the fairy godmother and my heart sinks a bit.

So where does Cinderella fall? Does the slipper fit and is it magic?

This might be one of the most adapted stories ever (Dracula holds the title last I checked) and has been made and remade ad nauseum for decades with varying degrees of success. In America the concept of a “Cinderella story” is a cultural norm that nearly everyone knows regardless of seeing the original animated. This is one of the Disney flagships with Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. The original three princesses that in my opinion have defined the studio as much as the Mouse has. Who does Disney hand the reigns to adapt the story for the big screen to? Chris Weitz, the man behind the box office bomb The Golden Compass and the direct of the Twilight sequel New Moon. Excuse me while I examine the water in the Mouse House and wonder what the production team was thinking. Alright, it’s been eight years since his last script, he could have gotten better right? I am not sure. The story does next to nothing new, it almost does less than nothing new and that is a feat in and of itself. Should I blame the writer if he was told to just make the original film over again?

Does blame fall on the directors chair instead? Kenneth Branagh’s career began to boost to life with Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein (a veritable catapult to the mainstream), Othello, and Hamlet. With that pedigree the man should easily be able to take a fairy tale and bring it to life. He is a near expert at the period piece conversion from writing to screen with the Bard being his go to guy. Yet, these are the drama’s of Shakespeare. Not his fantasies, not his comedies.  So instead of giving the writer the brunt of my disdain I send it Branagh’s way. Sure he has been nominated for the Oscar and Golden Globe a combined 8 times, but not every director is successful on every film. Again I feel the studio had some pretty tight reigns on him, yet within those constraints he still failed.

Let me be clear, had I not been seeing it with someone I may have walked out during the first act from pure boredom. I was bored and even mildly annoyed by what I was being given for too much of the movie. It was unnecessary, bloated, and significantly weaker than many of its cheaper counterparts over the decades. I know the actors here are better than they gave us and that allows me to blame the director for the greatest flaws within the film. How Blanchet moves as Lady Tremaine is right out of a stage production or comedy it is so exaggerated and over the top, but when you compare that to the others around here who are not performing the same way it sets her apart. This weakens one of Disneys greatest villains. The woman is evil. Maleficent is bad, but this woman is supposed to be a tangible evil that makes your skin crawl with only the great Tchernabog to beat her as the most evil. Did we get that? No. Blame I can lay solely at Branagh’s chair.

I am sure someone is reading this and thinking of other reviews they’ve heard or read. I am sure they think I might not like fantasy, fairy tales, or stories like this. Quite the contrary. I *love* a good fairy tale. I love the idea of a fairy godmother. I want to be the fairy tale princess. I need fairy tales in my life and they count among my favorite films. That is why this movie is such a sin to me. For the better part of the movie it is just dull. It has no magic and no life. It just seems to be for no other reason than it can be.

Surely something is good? Yes. Cinderella herself, as played by Downton Abbey’s Lily James and The King in the North – Richard Madden (thats a game of thrones reference). Madden’s smile, sans Stark beard, can light up a room. He defines a prince charming here and is hands down the best character in the movie. James for her part isn’t given a lot of actual interaction with others, but is able to move herself through the picture in a way that allows her to steal the scene most of the time she is on screen. She does have one scene where my eyebrows went up wondering what direction she was being given but she gave whatever it was her all. Blanchet is entirely wasted here. Lady bloody Tremaine and she gets to do nothing. In his supporting role Nonso Anozie (Xaro Xhoan Dazos from Qarth – another Game of Thrones alumni) is another character who is just comfortably enjoyable on screen; while Helena Bonham Carter seemed to channel Jack Sparrow as her role model for the fairy godmother, right down to eye and body motions. It was actually a bit distracting.

Along the distracting lines – the CG work. I expect better. Some was not too bad, but when it was bad it was distractingly so. Places where practical effects would have come across a thousand times better had CG used to their detriment. It doesn’t give me hope for Beauty and the Beast.

TL;DR?

I was nervous about the film. Sure. Sadly the film met those expectations and left me bored or annoyed for the better part of its running time. I have seen many review headlines that are contrary to my opinion and I am glad that they took something from it I didn’t. Neither I nor my partner for this viewing particularly enjoyed it. We found it lacking in many respects with out enough to bring it back up to a pass. It doesn’t do anything interesting or particularly new with the story and that works against it.

If you have kids that want to see it or are curious, matinee it at best. I think the kids may be a bit antsy in all the set up in Act I.

If you were on the fence about it, I have to advise against this movie. If you need a good Cinderella story watch the film Ever After. Drew Barrymore and Angelica Huston are incredible in that movie and it works end to end.

I as always am open to understand what I didn’t see. If you do see this and don’t agree with me – tell me please. I am curious to what you saw that I didn’t. In the meanwhile, I have two more reviews to write from films this week and hopefully some more reviews in the coming weeks as we ramp up once again towards summer blockbuster season.

 

Darke Reviews | Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)

Posted by

4

Every now and again you find a movie that surprises you. One where the trailers failed to grab you, but some early word of mouth got your attention. You weren’t expecting much of it and still were not quite sure of the tone as the film house lights came down and the movie logos began to roll. Suffice to say this year has been a weak year for film thus far, which isn’t terribly surprising when you look at releases through March with the stock of films that are shelved for long periods or the studios have no real faith in. If a Cloverfield comes along and destroys the box office so be it, but more often than not you get an Avatar or Frozen running until something new edges them out like a Lego Movie or  Alice in Wonderland. Kingsman is in the litany of the delayed having originally been scheduled for an October 2014 release. Though the not yet reviewed Seventh Son has it beaten for shelf time by a full year.

Was the movie delayed for a good reason or did the studio make a mistake?

I can’t help but be reminded of another film of Samuel L Jackson’s from 2001 called Formula 51. It was not good, but I had the feeling this movie would remain the same in tone as Jackson was affecting an unusual lisp for…well reasons. It’s odd for me to start with the actors on a review, but Jackson is just so bloody odd in this and honestly a bit distracting from the rest of the film. There were times I wished to yell that he was the weakest link. I’d try to blame the director or the script, but nearly everyone else was spot on. Colin Firth as the elder tailor and mentor was rather engaging; which leaves me finding it funny he was in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy. While I am not familiar with his body of work, having seeing only one of his 75 credits (Shakespeare in Love if you must know), I can see why people gave him accolades for The Kings Speech. The man has a natural subdued charisma that he makes look effortless. Through the film his character talks about being a gentleman and he truly seems to embody that. Michael Caine is serviceable in his role, and Mark Strong (also in T,T,S,S) is magnetic as usual happily taking a back seat to others in the film and letting his natural screen presence be overshadowed when appropriate. The only oddity with him is what sounds to me like a touch of a Scottish accent that isn’t quite natural for him.

The two worth mentioning as standouts are Taron Egerton, our protagonist. For a new comer he shows a certain consistency that many other first time actors lack as he makes his way through the film. Dashing Rogue or Charming Gentleman he is successful in both. For a first time actor to have as much attention on him as he does, he doesn’t break and makes almost every line work and every bit of appropriate emotion. Sofia Boutella also stands out as Samuel L Jackson’s characters partner. There’s an eager gleefulness to her as she works her way through people and the movie, that makes her engaging to watch through and through.

From a story perspective, it is straight from a comic book – literally. The comic written by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons is familiar territory when you put names to works; such as Kick Ass and Wanted. The movie absolutely resonates with the irreverence of both the previous works. It functions both as an homage to the genre of the spy thriller and a near parody at the same time; just as Kick Ass does for the Superhero story. That is to say the movie is as witty as it is ridiculous, but too entertaining at the same time. The movie doesn’t try to be more than what it is and it actually knows it. Where some works try to be self referential and ironic in that they are doing that – they fail. This one does not as it keeps the tongue firmly planted in the cheek the entire time. I think the source material was good, but this tone I’ve been talking about comes from frequent writing partners Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman. The pair previously gave us Stardust, Kick Ass, and X-men First Class which all are very well done films that succeed on a lot of levels as does this one continuing a good trend.

This isn’t to say they are flawless, with Vaughn at the helm again. There’s just something he misses but I can’t quite put my finger on it. The pacing is off just enough and I can’t be certain but I think he uses a 4 act structure rather than 3 which sets the story and style off from the norm. There are some pacing issues that could have been avoided if there had been a touch more deftness at the helm. Some of the fights are a confused mess through sharp cuts and unusual camera positions. When you can tell what the fight is, you move from first person shooter to near comic book level action sequences to moderate success in the overall film. What does work with the technicals though is that the movie knows it is ridiculous and gives the audience something special for it.

TL;DR

Kingsman is a good movie. It is an acerbic tongue in cheek take on the spy movies without being an outright parody. It is a fun little actioner that has humor and a sense of the absurd that needs to be praised. It goes for over the top without reaching too far, putting it in the just right category. I can honestly say I want to see it again and hope to laugh just as hard. I want to see more films remember how to be fun but still tell a good story. I think we have had enough as a movie going audience of dour, dark, and broody. They have their place, but movies like Kingsman are looking good and leave you feeling good.

The movie is not for everyone as it hits a bit of the ultraviolence at times, so if you want bloodless action give it a pass. It’s not gory, just not bloodless either. Someone remembered what squibs are.

If you were the least bit curious about this movie, go see it. Nom your popcorn and drink your beverage and just enjoy the ride. I know I did.

 

Darke Reviews | Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Posted by

1

So this is a few days late, the 9-5 takes precedence, but was it worth the wait? It’s rather hard for me to avoid reviews of others until I write my own. I’ve also found the people you see a movie with can determine how you feel about it coming out. Last movie saw with one friend, we sang along, laughed, and winced. This one I saw with a friend who is notorious for not enjoying the sci fi genre that much and another who has far less tolerance than I when it comes to what they will accept in a film. Would I have the feelings I have for this without having seen it with them? Honestly…I’ve been thinking about that all day while I try to figure out how to write this review. I suppose it is worth mentioning I went in with some fairly low expectations.

Let me go into why for a moment. The Wachowski siblings are hit and miss. They gave us the Matrix, and its sequels. They also gave us the screenplay for V for Vendetta. They also gave us Speed Racer. Speed Racer gets a lot of hate, it is mixed in that regard as I see it as someone giving us live action anime. It gave me the cartoon I saw as a kid and again as a high schooler as the entirety of the artists in my class became obsessed with Speed Racer. Their work however, when looked at as a body is high in style, with a lot of marks for intent and most of the marks come in low on the execution. The Matrix sequels are proof of that concept as the artistic intent seems to be there, but their inability to execute it resulted in audiences decrying the franchise as a whole. And that dear friends is where the problems of Jupiter Ascending begin to show.

The movie is both written and directed by Andy and Lana; and you can tell. They learned none of the lessons from Matrix 3 and the exposition brigade. Nearly every yawn inducing line from the movie is about political intrigues, families, or space jabber that most folks won’t bother to try to keep up with. I referenced this in a friends post, but the script for this film is like Dune and Battlefield Earth had a baby…..and this movie is the afterbirth. I promise you that the ten minutes spent on space bureaucracy that makes a trip to the MDV after a root canal look positively entertaining could have been better spent on making me give a damn. Aside from horrific monologues, droll political double talk, the movie also suffers from bad science. I can take most films in the sci fi genre presenting me rules so long as they follow them. You cannot tell me how important genetics are to these people and pretty much violate some of the core science of genetics. Look I am not a genetic engineer, much like anyone on the internet I am an armchair scientist with enough information to be dangerous to myself and others. I understand this and try not to talk about things I don’t know and I really wish the writers here had too.

From an acting perspective, I fault no actor here. I lay the blame solely on the directors. Mila Kunis does fine as Jupiter, the typical destined one who has no idea of her destiny until people start trying to kill her. Channing Tatum is wasted as Caine Wise (thats right up there with Cypher Rage in After Earth) a man sent to find and return Jupiter to her family. Comedy he does well. Action he does well. Brooding he does not. Please stop with the brooding. He does not do it well. Also….peroxide blonde – not a good look for him. He does ok with the material, but that’s largely because he does actually have some talent in there. Poor Eddie Redmayne has this released the weekend he gets a BAFTA for Theory of Everything. I know this boy can act…but what the heck was this? If you’ve noticed a trend of confusion in my commentary on the actors it’s because these are good people who do stellar work normally and have jack to work with and are clearly being given the oddest direction imaginable.

The technical flaws don’t end there, but really seem to only begin. The movie has no fundamental tone. It can’t seem to make up it’s mind as to who the central character is to be, what the central focus is to be, or what the outcome is until it happens. It spirals around its own ideas but never coalesces into a cohesive shape of it’s own. Every fight takes about two minutes too long. Every scene is just a bit too busy. Even the resolution to some of the fights is repeated to the point it is almost a joke. I wasn’t kidding about the ten minutes of bureaucracy by the way, that actually happened and was boring. When Harry Potter did it in the first film there was whimsy to it and a sense of amazement even amidst the banality. Here the banality is on display for one and all and is quite possibly infused with a dementor as it sucks the soul out of you.

The one thing the movie has is beautiful visuals. The ships, the space flight, the planets, the creature design, the prosthetics are all top notch. Sadly thats about all I can say.

TL;DR

Had I not seen it with two friends I might have taken a nap at times waiting for the movie to realize what it was or fulfill a promise that I think it wanted to make. I knew going in this would be a style over substance movie as many other Wachowski films are; yet what I couldn’t realize was its attempts at trying to be more would be so bloody awful and dull. It has moments of fun spliced with long runs of nonsense. Even turning off my brain for this one wouldn’t lend enjoyment as I would have likely dozed off.

If you are curious, please feel free to check it out, but stick to the matinee and 2D.

Otherwise, give this one a pass. It wanted to be good sci-fi and failed. It tried to be more than it was and was a train wreck of proportions I have not seen since Ghosts of Mars.

 

Theoretically later this week I will go see 7th Son, at least I know that will be bad. This one sadly gave me hope. Silly me.

Darke Reviews | Project Almanac (2015)

Posted by

0

Excellent, another review for 2015. I was starting to get worried I’d make it to Valentines day without another interesting film in theatres around here to review. I also had the added benefit of seeing the film with a friend who appreciated all the facets of the film I did and reacted to many of the same parts as I did. It’s fascinating to enjoy a film with someone like that. The post film discussion as the credits rolled ensured that my views were both challenged and reinforced where required allowing for a better review for you to read or skip to the TL;DR of.

That said, some people may notice the produced by Michael Bay credit in the trailer. This is not a damning factor. Point in fact his influence seems largely absent, unlike TMNT. Post film we also discussed how a production credit by either talent (DelToro) or …whatever Bay is does not indicate the quality of the film. Many other facets must be considered such as budget, writing, acting, and direction. It also depends on how much the studio wishes to interfere with the director and project (see Hellboy or X-Men Origins: Wolverine). Here it appears influence was at the barest minimum from the likes of Bay, however production studio MTV was in full swing and influence with what appears to be a 10 minute music video for some bands and a concert event. Also production consideration from GoPro.

The director is Dean Israelite, who has this movie as his debut feature film. It is worth mentioning that Dean is the cousin of Jonathan Liebesman (director of TMNT); coincidence? I honestly don’t know, I lean towards a strong no. The question is how does he do? The short answer is not bad, but not good. It isn’t that he is a “meh” either, so much as that he has some interesting successes but some areas of the film that fall flat. The Chronicle-esque teen found footage shooting style is inconsistent and as with many found footage films lacks logic at a certain point. There are times no one would be filming what is being filmed and others where its just a bit too smooth and steady to be believable. That is an odd critique given my disdain for shaky camera work, but if you provide me a conceit you need to stick with it and there are times its just too clean to be real and it takes you from the film. A lot of this comes down to his choices and his determination so I must lay the blame with him. The same goes for the performances, which are a mixed bag through no fault of the performers themselves, so much as what they were given and how they were guided to deliver it.

As an example, our MIT applicant David (Jonny Weston) performs solidly throughout and only has a minor bit of de-evolution of his IQ as the plot progresses. His sister Christina (an uncredited Virginia Gardner) is forced to deliver some completely unrealistic lines to be the audience foil. Without verging into spoiler territory I am expected to believe a girl who would go back in time to see Star Wars Episode IV, has zero clue who Dr. Who is? That she, who has a brother who is a certifiable genius and a best friend who might be smarter has no idea what the word temporal means? We also have the ‘girlfriend’ with Jessie Pierce (Sofia Black-D’elia) who serves quite literally no purpose other than to be the girlfriend and to create a romance in the film. While their performances are solid enough, the characterizations of these two women are on the best of days weak and the worst utterly pointless. I almost have the feeling they were added to keep this from being Chronicle again with the focus on the male protagonists alone.

That being said, the writing has successes and flaws as well. First time screenwriters Jason Pagan and Andrew Deutschman may fail on writing females, but they at least succeed at science – somewhat. They are wise enough to not try to explain the temporal mechanics of the time machine and to use hand-wavium to go DARPA and leave it at that. The incessant movie pop culture references are distracting at a point; which I have found in my own writing to be a victim of, shows the signs of novice writers or the studio. Though I suspect a bit of both. They also have clearly watched other films along these same themes such as Primer, Looper, A Sound of Thunder, and Butterfly Effect. They succeed at handling time travel better than half of them and overall tell a better story than that same half. Though I would have preferred to hear a Philadelphia Experiment mention either as pop culture or history – take your pick. From a purely narrative perspective they didn’t do bad with a reasonable rise in escalation and even a nice slow start showing reasonable scientific progress, they just sort of failed on the character design a bit.

TL;DR?

As found footage films go, this isn’t the worst of them. As time travel movies go, it also isn’t the worst. It was actually fun and even a bit honest what teenagers would do with a time travel device which is a bit refreshing. It’s wise enough to not explain its science (which tends to fail) and dumb enough to ignore the science it was trying to show early on.

Ultimately this is a perfectly serviceable and mediocre film which has some fun to it. It’s not great, it isn’t bad, but at least it isn’t a meh.

  • If you were at all interested in it, I would say matinee it at the very most.
  • If you weren’t interested but at vaguely curious Redbox/Netflix it later on.
  • If found footage, MTV films, or time travel aren’t your thing I have no idea why you are reading this review; unless it’s to see if I try to eviscerate it in prose.

That said, I don’t feel I wasted my time or money on the movie and found it a bit fun. Maybe you will too.

Darke Reviews – Taken 3 (2015)

Posted by

1

The first review of 2015. Let me say it begins only marginally better than last year. We begin with a movie that has left many people asking and I quote:

“Are you joking? Taken 3 is a real thing?” and “How?”

So now that the movie is out and people know I am not joking about it’s existence, was the movie in fact a joke?

Let’s start with a script from Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen. The two have worked together before with Kamen giving us movies since 1981’s TAPS, 84’s Karate Kid. With Besson they have given us such gems as The Fifth Element, Taken, and The Transporter. What we can take from this there isn’t a thinly veiled reason to kick ass that they don’t like and want to recycle into the ground. I honestly, do love most of their work, actually almost all of it, there is a certain level of insanity to their stories where you know they were finishing off a magnum of wine each and went “what if we…“. We love them for it.

Well, mostly...

Well, mostly…

 

Ok so plot isn’t their strong suit in the past decade. A reason to watch people kick butt is (thank you Lucy). Which leaves me scratching my head on how they were so bloody dull and unimaginative here. There’s absolutely nothing we have not seen before in other better movies, usually by these two.

Perhaps we can blame the director Olivier Megaton, who hasn’t met a tripod or steady cam he has liked. There were moments in the first twenty minutes I wondered if his camera man suffered from some muscular disorder and was attempting to work through it. Even the work that was done with helicopters was so quick and cut that you have no choice but wonder if Josh Trank snuck into the editing room to cut the movie. There is nothing here from the director, nothing at all. Nothing original, nothing interesting, and nothing inspired. It is so paint by numbers that you could sleep through half of it and wake up and not be surprised at well – anything.

The only thing resembling saving this film is the actors. Not because they do anything remarkable, they just act. But you have to understand being able to act with this story, director, and film – AND- remain interesting takes quite a bit of work. Neeson does his usual and wears the role of Bryan Mills like an old suit, preferably one to be thrown out soon or given to good will.  Maggie Grace is surprisingly the bright spot in the film who covers a good range of emotions, but alas is not given as much to do as I want to see from her, especially after the second film. Forest Whitaker joins the cast as a police inspector chasing Mills through the film. The three of them are the strengths of the film and I will let that statement stand.

Again from a technical perspective the film just is flat. The camera work looks as if they filmed during an earthquake. The cuts are atrocious. The stunts are no where near as interesting as the first two films. Even some of the plot contrivances are pathetically ridiculous – more so than the others. Which is hard to beat.

TL;DR

I bagged on the movie pretty hard, but at least I wasn’t bored or particularly irritated. I was mostly just meh. I couldn’t come up with any real emotion in the film except when Grace was on screen hoping they would do more.

Honestly, and this is as close to a spoiler as I get – why did they call it Taken 3 when no one is taken? The trailer tells you the plot and doesn’t deviate.

Talking with two of the lovely people at the theatre after the movie, we agree just call the movie:

Liam Neeson or Liam Neeson Beats Up the World

It would have made more sense and probably done as well at the box office as this one did. If you are even remotely curious, no …still wait. Just don’t see this. The tagline is “It ends here”; and we hope so.

To borrow from the Nostalgia Critic, I watched it so you don’t have to.

Darke Reviews – Into the Woods (2014)

Posted by

2

If you know me personally, you know I love musicals. I’ve seen a fair share on Broadway in NY, and a few at other venues not in the City that Never Sleeps. Wicked, Jekyll & Hyde, Phantom top my list of performances. When it comes to Hollywood adaptations of musicals where do I land? Honestly in the positive. Chicago, Phantom of the Opera (I like it, bite me), Rent, Les Mis, Rock of Ages, the list goes on. Now we have the adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s Into the Woods.

Where do I land here?

Well, surprisingly I have not seen the original source material, heard it, or otherwise been entertained by it. Rather unusual for this drama club girl. The story and screenplay were handled, rather than manhandled by the original writer James Lapine. The music of course is by Stephen Sondheim, who also gave us Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (which was also adapted for film by Tim Burton). The music itself, which is as much a star as anything else has Sondheim’s usual quality to it; which is to say a bit all over the place. It isn’t bad, but has a rather odd lyrical range that doesn’t quite seem to flow – but it works still. If you aren’t familiar with musicals it may strike you odd when you hear the lyrics. Musically the composition is quite beautiful and one of the better arrangements I have heard, but it lacks some energy that other musicals have; I am missing some of the crescendos that I was expecting. A few of the pieces did sound like something from Sweeney Todd in how they built, rose, and fell. Perhaps it was just how Depp was singing that reminded me of his singing of Pretty Women in Sweeney Todd. There are songs (Agony) that were worth the price of admission though, and the rest are all very well done, but Agony is the best.

That comes down to the performances. I didn’t know Chris Pine could sing, but he really can and has a sense of comedic timing and placement that should only be classified as praise worthy. I offer the same compliment to Emily Blunt, who has impressed me twice this year with her performance in Edge of Tomorrow and now her turn as the Bakers Wife here. Both her acting and singing were where they needed to be and allowed her to play off of James Corden as the Baker. Corden is the heart of the movie and so I shall put him in the center of praise for the acting. I am looking over his IMDB page and have seen absolutely nothing he has done, which is surprising considering the billing he received in the trailer was equal to many of the more known stars of the film. I will have to keep an eye out for him as he really did well and pulled off a few difficult moves during the dance numbers. We also have young broadway star Lilla Crawford fresh from the 2012 stage reboot of Annie as Little Red Riding Hood. She reminded me a bit of Maisie Williams at times, which is good; but sadly doesn’t get as much screen or vocal time as I wish. Another performer from the stage is Daniel Huttlestone, who has previously played Gavroche in Les Miserables on stage and in the film (knew he looked familiar). Wrapping up our amazing performers is Meryl Streep and Anna Kendrick. Streep is no stranger to musicals and is just as powerful here as she ever is. Kendrick is pure magic as always. I may have some bias towards here, but she has yet to disappoint me with her performances in straight up acting or her singing (Pitch Perfect). This movie is no exception.

The story for those who are not familiar with it involves the blending of several fairy tales into one cohesive story. To say much more would verge into spoiler territory, but these are very classical retellings of these stories and I was happy to see them. From a technical standpoint, there really isn’t much in the movie that doesn’t hold up. Most shots are clearly a soundstage, but within the context of this film it works as you are taking a stage play and putting it on screen. A few effects here and there, but ultimately it’s really solid. It feels a little long at times, but only clocks in at 2 hours.

TL;DR

The movie is good. I was entertained and in at least one scene laughed rather hard (along with the entire row behind me). That row, who has performed this particular show 3 times, said it was a good adaptation – in fact one of the best. They were laughing and singing and otherwise enjoying themselves. That speaks volumes for the movie in a way no review really can.

So with that, if you enjoy musicals I think you will enjoy Into the Woods.

If these films or plays are not your thing, I would warn you to stay away or stick to a matinee.

At least the year goes out on top after a month of rather disappointing films. Now…should I join the rest of the reviewers out there and do a best and worst films?