MovieReview

Darke Reviews | The Fog (2005)

Posted by

0

Oh Hollywood, how do you love to go back to the well. Either through contracts that give up rights (Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street), desperation from their owners, or perhaps some vain hope that it will be better than it was twenty or thirty years ago; you find ways to get the rights to do a remake. Heck, sometimes you rely on the public domain element of films and characters (Dracula). Yet, inexplicably, you are almost nigh incapable of doing these remakes well most notably in the horror genre. With few exceptions, these remakes and reimaginings are almost universally flops, critical failures, and fan failures. Only a handful, in my humble opinion, come close or exceed the original work.

So where does the 2005 remake of The Fog come in?

Lets take the writer, Cooper Layne. He has naught but the Core as his *only* other writing credit. Now while I enjoyed the Core and all its beautiful silliness, it failed. This film, also failed with a whopping 4% on Rotten Tomatoes in comparison to the 68% of the original. Where the first was nuanced and subtle, this one lacks well – any of it. The imply don’t show rules? Out the window. Plot? The first had a pretty concrete story that stood on its own, everything worked right and played right beginning to end.  The plot is mostly the same, but this one adds a ‘timeless’ romance to the narrative for…reasons.

Reasons

I am sure the director, writer, or producers said this exact phrase.

 

Seriously, it has no point. It serves nothing. I think the only reason its here is because Young Adult fiction and films targeted at the Millennial generation assume they are stupid and thats all they want or need in a film. There is rumor the film was greenlit with only 18 pages of script written. 18. That’s maybe 20% of a functional script. Way to go Revolution Studios!

I can’t blame the writer entirely, though I want to. The director also gets his cut as well, so this is me now targeting Rupert Wainwright.  To be perfectly fair, I don’t think Wainwright was prepared for this. He hadn’t figured out his style yet. He had Blank Check (a kids movie), Stigmata ..a rather intense religious supernatural drama, and now he was given a Teen Supernatural Horror? Honestly though, the shots weren’t all bad. Some scenes worked, but if you have a bad script there’s only so much you can do – like rewrite. I blame the director for making a decision to use horrific CG rather than practical.

Yes, all of the effects were god awful. The Fog itself was a total failure and CGI nightmare. I am *almost* certain I could have created better looking fog on my own computer with no training. I have seen SyFy movies of the week with better fog. The showing rather than implying caused such fail it was absolutely laughable. Things happened for no reason and just didn’t carry any weight when most of them did from an FX standpoint. You are spending too much time going “why” rather than “oh cool.” Even the Poster looks like a knock off from The Mummy six years earlier.

Sometimes acting can at least redeem a film, sadly this is not the case. Tom Welling gets the role of Nick Castle and is as wooden as piece of drift wood. I’d say it was a fluke, but I’ve seen enough elements of Smallville I know this is how he usually is. Maggie Grace (Taken, Lost) was just starting her career and does reasonably well, but doesn’t have the experience to deal with the garbage or bring out the best in those around her yet. She does well enough despite the silliness. Selma Blair (Hellboy, Legally Blonde) is no Adrienne Barbeau, of course she has as much garbage to deal with here and it doesn’t work and takes away from the tension. No one else is even worth mentioning. Even the usually fun to watch Rade Serbedzija is humorless and unimpressive – save one scene as he beats someone across the street.

TL;DR?

I actually own this. I was entertained by some aspects, but the reality is this is a bad film. It has a bad ending. It suffers from so many problems that its a shipwreck. The FX are probably the worst sin the movie has and make it near unredeemable. I put this in my collection of bad movies. It is *not* recommended unless you want to watch a bad film. It’s not even in the so bad its good category or so bad you can MST3K it and have fun. It’s just kinda…bad.

So in the realm of Hollywood remakes, this gives a lesson on what not to do in almost every situation it presents.

 

 

Darke Reviews | The Fog (1980)

Posted by

0

I often talk about how atmosphere is one of the most important elements to a creative work, any creative work. Let me give a quite silly example: Picture the Mona Lisa in a circus tent. It no longer carries the weight as if it were in the Louvre. When I spoke of the movie Halloween recently, I talked about how the music was as important to the film as anything else. Give it a different soundtrack or even no soundtrack and much of the important mood setting atmosphere is gone. Also consider the atmosphere Halloween and fall give as a season.  Look at this image from Halloween 3: Season of the Witch. The image alone, with the shades of orange and deep shadows, the witch hat and dim street lights conjure and evoke emotion and images in your head. THIS is the very definition of atmosphere when it pertains to creative works. What does it make you feel when you see the set, the colours, or hear the sounds.

If you don't feel fall and October seeing this, you have no soul! (and I didn't steal it)

If you don’t feel fall and October seeing this, you have no soul! (and I didn’t steal it)

So in 1980 John Carpenter, and his partner, Debra Hill worked together again after the phenomenal success of Halloween to give us The Fog. Now, any of my coastal or moisture ridden geographical location readers know the meteorological event known as fog, is a driving nightmare.  Visibility goes to hell in a handbasket. Sound gets distorted. During the day it will burn off – usually – but in the morning and evenings it becomes interesting as light is distorted and shapes become soft and blurry. A night – well at night, fog becomes a living entity. It swallows things when they move just a little bit away from you. It becomes as if they didn’t exist at all in mere moments when you would expect to see it normally. Normally benign shapes become threatening and light passes through it in all sorts of ways. Look at this photo below, this was just as sunset was happening right before a Ghost Tour. The fog creates something here that wasn’t there…

Want to take a tour? (I did, was awesome, but the fog helped)

Even Stephen King has a story about a similar event in The Mist (one of the few stories to ever scare me). So back to the review, Fog itself invokes feelings and images alone. Add the context of a horror movie which spend so much time at night. Now add a Ghost Story to it. Interested? So were audiences, as this is what Cameron and Hill gave us. Take a small coastal California town and have it be invaded by spectral pirates within the fog (c’mon that sounds too cool), terrorizing its citizens. Shoot on a low budget of the time for $1 million, and spend as much time building atmosphere as you do building story and you have a successful film that lasts decades.

Of course, this also needs good actors as well. Carpenter cast his wife at the time Adrienne Barbeau, who mostly had done TV before, as the “voice” of the movie DJ Stevie Wayne who broadcasts from her lighthouse. Jamie Lee Curtis makes her second film appearance here as one of the film heroines Elizabeth. Carpenter even snagged her mother, the esteemed Janet Leigh, as a role in the film. Heavy Tom Atkins (Halloween 3, Serpico,  Creepshow) plays Nick Castle; the name of the actor who played The Shape in Halloween, our film hero.  Other greats include Hal Holbrook and John Houseman. While the film may have been quickly scripted, shot on a budget, and even been plagued by reshoots, every actor carries their scenes as if it were appropriately life and death.

From a purely technical perspective, the movie is remarkably strong. The use of fog (duh), silhouettes, and super bright white lights does a tremendous job. The fog itself is a living thing and something you become afraid of because you can’t see whats coming, but you know it will be bad. As they were working on a budget so many of the effects and scenes rely on the famous rule of implying without showing. You don’t have to see someone actually killed on screen. A single shape in the right place, a hook hand, and foot steps walking up behind an unsuspecting victim. You know what is about to happen, you find yourself going “No!” and hoping for the best, but know otherwise. This is where some of the best horror comes from – what you can’t see. When you can see something you can fight it. You might have a chance to win. While the effects do work and are strong, they are also dated. I almost want someone to go in and try to clean up or modernize some of the effects on the original film to bring them to more timelessness. I don’t mean to change them, but to clean them. Changing them …well I will talk about that tomorrow.

TL;DR?

The Fog is a beautifully crafted, atmospheric, horror film that is near timeless. It isn’t perfect, it isn’t even “great”. But if you find yourself in the need for a ghost story with real weight and even an outcome that most movies would be afraid of these days, please watch this. It’s a good film for a foggy night. Its a good film for a rainy night. It’s a good film for October.

I don’t know where The Fog would show on my Top 50 horror movies of all time, but it would be up there. It is absolutely worth a shot.

Darke Reviews | Fury (2014)

Posted by

3

Ok, I did want to see Book of Life again, but was at least curious on this one. It was also a friends going away party and he wanted to see this, so my responsibilities as a reviewer and a friend aligned for a change of pace. This one almost – almost – got the tag trailer fail on it. The trailer promised me Band of Brothers in a Tank with a semi decent amount of action and what looked to be a potential romantic subplot somewhere. It was close enough in many respects that it doesn’t fail as hard as others have in the past.

Yes, but if the trailer sold it, should I still see it.

 (TRIGGER WARNING – there is some content discussed that could be sensitive to some readers)

Well that’s a good question to ask. The film was written,produced, and directed by David Ayer. Ayer directed the gritty cop drama with Michael Peña End of Watch and the recent Governator bomb Sabotage. His writing includes, U-571, Fast and the Furious (the first one), Training Day, and Dark Blue The man knows gritty. DC should hire him if they want to keep their track record of gritty, visceral, humourless films. He seems to be particularly good at them, point in fact, he seems to have refined it to an art form by now.  He is unforgiving in his story and characterizations, to the point I was ready to walk out twice during the film. Thats right walk out. Two scenes were so uncomfortable to watch I debated leaving. They weren’t particularly graphic in any way but the psychological violence in them was just over the edge for me. They were flat out disturbing and in many respects somewhat depressing.

Now as much as I hated seeing those screens, they represent a keen awareness of history and behavior during the invasion of Germany towards the end of World War II. I have seen Kelly’s Heroes and the Battle of the Bulge. They were products of their times and had rose coloured glasses on when it came to the Americans liberating and winning during their involvement in the war. Both were excellent and entertaining films, don’t get me wrong, but they didn’t quite capture the horror of war. It’s not what was wanted or needed then. Modern audiences want that realism. They want that dark edge. Congratulations you have it. You have two scenes of strongly implied, but not shown, rape. You have psychological torture and the breaking down of a very green soldier. You have any number of major extremities being removed by large calibre fire. You have the horror of war for just over two hours. Nothing in this film makes it seem glorious or glamourous. It is an unforgiving hell. One specifically designed to strip you of any ideals or humanity. Few punches are pulled.

The acting, I have to give a wow here. Brad Pitt shows how solid an actor he is and that he can control himself and bottle it all in, with most of the strongest elements of his performance from body language.  Jon Bernthal (Walking Dead) takes a huge departure from his previous work and gives an equally visceral performance. Michael Peña continues to impress and I hope continues to do a wide range of films. Logan “Percy Jackson” Lerman showed an improved range over his previous works. The most standout performance goes to the much maligned Shia Lebeouf. I don’t like him on personal and professional grounds. He was nearly unrecognizable in this role due to good acting.

Honestly this film screams Oscar Bait. The acting was excellent, the sets, the production design, all of it was designed to be Oscar worthy.

TL;DR?

It sounds like I really liked the film with all the praise above. This is the difference between professional and emotional attachment to a work. Artistically the movie is a well made war movie in nearly every aspect, but from an an entertainment value – It kinda failed. I really did not enjoy my time watching it

It wan’t that it was boring, but because it verged on too uncomfortable.

So the final verdict:

If you love war movies. Go see this

If you are a completist for any actor mentioned- go see this.

If you don’t like war films at all – avoid it at all costs.

Otherwise – give this one a pass. It’s so good. So real , it stopped being entertaining and was just …off.

Darke Reviews | Book of Life (2014)

Posted by

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TL;DR?

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

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

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

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

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

It is so worth it.

 

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

Darke Reviews | You’re Next (2013)

Posted by

3

I have to admit, the trailers for this one did not grab me. Going into it  I was not a fan of the home invasion style horror that is so rampant in today’s horror films. It *is* the new style of horror and is representative of what we fear most as a western society. Someone coming into our homes, taking our freedoms, our things, and our lives – our sense of peace and safety. Thats what these are all about, even many of the ghost stories are just a supernatural take on home invasion. It is still an invader in the home of the protagonists that they must take action against or they risk life, limb, and sanity. So when the trailer for this was released I had no desire to see it. I mean check this:

Yay a film about the 1% being murdered? Wasn’t that the Purge? I suppose there is a sense of satisfaction in it, morbid as it may be. As a non 1% I can at least admit to taking some small satisfaction (not always small) in seeing the “Haves” suffer at the hands of the “Have Nots”.  The trailer though doesn’t offer us anything new. It doesn’t entice. Even the music is off putting and seems to be without reason. This is in the category of Trailer Fails that I am going to start using as a tag on my posts. I may have to go back and add it to others, but we will let this one start it.

So what about the film itself? (This one is new enough to remain spoiler free)

It has a script but Simon Barrett. Barrett for one of his earliest projects gave us the SyFy classic Frankenfish. Yes I’ve seen it. Yes it is as bad as you might imagine. You’re Next is his first feature film, with segments on V/H/S and ABC”s of Death coming after the relative success of this film. I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie and its writing. It was a touch on the jaded side in dealing with the Rich, it doesn’t even lampshade it. It calls OUT the fact the family is rich with clear intent by the non rich protagonist. There was a certain bias there, but at the same time it is darkly humorous in moments you wouldn’t expect. It also respects the intelligence of some of the characters.

Some of this is in the first 8 minutes , so I do not consider it spoiler. They get to the house. The door is open. Its rationalized off. A small scene later, footsteps are heard upstairs loud enough to shake a chandelier. The woman goes “Time to go” and is talked out of it by the husband. The fact that “we need to leave” were some of the first words in the conversation is a relief. The movie is almost…almost Scream like in many respects. Where Scream is more of a fantastical realistic spoof on the slasher. This one takes much of the fantasy out and lets it be a tension filled take on The Home Invasion. Almost a Black Comedy in some moments, but otherwise it remains solid horror fare.

Credit should be given to the director, who met the writer on the film A Horrible Way to Die, then Auto Erotic – making their joint cinematic debut with this. Since then their careers seem intertwined.  The script informs the dialogue and scenes, but the director and actors inform the performance and staging. In this case the director does a fairly decent job of getting good performances from all actors involved.

While the cast for the family and invaders is fairly significant for the horror film with roughly 14 between them it is still fairly easy to follow. There are of course notables. Nicholas Tucci (no relation to Stanley) as Felix tends to catch the eye and plays his scenes well. AJ Bowen’s Crispian is also fairly memorable through the film; and he himself seems to live for the horror genre with most of his films in that realm. The two biggest standouts are Wendy Glenn as Zee, who chews scenery fairly well and I find her quite interesting to watch, and Sharni Vinson as Erin. This is the one to watch. She seems to be the most intelligent of the bunch and consistently shows it with her reaction to the high stress situation. I want to see more of her in other films of a decent pedigree.

Within a horror movie technical perspective. There’s some creativity in the pain and death dealing. Nothing too horribly gory. Nothing too sickeningly bloody.  There’s a touch too much motion with the camera work that is designed to be disorienting and jarring for an emotional beat but really just ends up distracting and unnecessary.

TL;DR?

I found myself surprisingly enjoying the film when I watched it. The counter horror movie programming that the film offers within the same genre is surprisingly well executed. Even to the last beat of the film.

If you haven’t seen it and enjoy the modern horror genres or home invasion style movies – I think you should give this one a shot.

If horror, blood, home invasion is not your thing – yeah. Dont watch it. You won’t like it. You won’t understand the jabs it does take at the genre because it isn’t your thing. Just give it a pass.

So despite a trailer fail, the movie is good. (total reverse of Clash of the Titans).

Tomorrow night is linked to October but way outside of the norm with the new release – Book of Life.

 

 

 

 

 

Darke Reviews | Addams Family Values (1993)

Posted by

1

Ok, I am doing two classics in a row here. Mostly because these films are beautifully crafted gothic humor classics. This one also breaks Hollywood tradition when it comes to sequels. Sure there are a handful of good sequels out there, but its rare enough that people can name things like Empire Strikes Back and Godfather II and they stick out. No I am not in any way comparing Addams Family Values to those two films level of film making, but the three films do have one thing in common.

Barry Sonnenfeld (Addams Family, Men in Black) returned to this film almost immediately after the success of the first film. Success you may ask? Well on a $30 million budget they made $114 million domestic officially marking it as a blockbuster. The first film was even nominated for two academy awards.  I wish I could say the second did as well, but it only brought in $48 million (budget unknown). I have to admit now as we get into the details of the review – upon first watching I thought it was ok. I didn’t like it nearly as much. Let’s get back to that and I’ll get into the reasons why.

Sonnenfeld had great success with the first outing, but has since proven in the years to come that tends to be a trend with him. Men in Black was new and brilliant with significant changes from its comic book source material to make it a scifi comedy. The sequels were…ahem less than stellar. I shall also only name this film once, I will never review it without financial compensation – Sonnenfeld is responsible for Wild Wild West. *shudder*

For reasons I don’t fully understand even now, rather than using the writers from the first film again they went with a new untested writer. Perhaps Caroline Thompson and Larry Wilson couldn’t meet the time table Paramount set. This has been known to happen before, so instead we get first time screenwriter Paul Rudnick, who has but one movie I recognize since – the forgettable Stepford Wives.

While the success and atmosphere of the first film and the cast of Addams’ made it difficult to stray too far – somehow they did. Now the story itself isn’t so bad, but it plays on nearly the same theme as the first film. A con artist (this time something more) inserts her way into the family and focuses on Fester. The family is too naive in their own special way that they can’t see it. It really does feel like the first movie rehashed more poorly as so much of the family connection is separated here. We also introduce the poor joke of a newborn child – because its the early 90s and babies must be in everything! Granted the summer camp scene while painful did deliver so many of the memorable lines. That comes down to successful casting again.

Every member of the Addams clan returns to reprise their roles. With time and experience Ricci became a scene stealer between films. In the first one, she was good – here she is a mistress of all that is Wednesday Addams and can even steal scenes from Raul Julia, Angelica Huston, and Christopher Lloyd. Honestly she steals every scene she is in. I am still not a fan of the Lloyd casting as Fester, but I can’t think of anything better.  The casting I think I like least is Joan Cusack. Her voice is near nails on a chalkboard for me. I just cannot stand her in this film.

What I enjoyed was seeing a very young David Krumholtz (NUMB3RS, Serenity), and cameos by people we know and love now such as Nathan Lane, David Hyde Pierce,  and Tony Shalhoub. Another point I enjoy, while I loathe the character archetype, the character of Amanda Buckman was played by Mercedes McNab was the same girl from the first movie in the girl scout scene. It was a cute callback and quite honestly entirely possible to be the same character. McNab later went on to play Harmony Kendall in Buffy and Angel.

Now I kind of ripped the movies plot apart above, but while the plot may fail – the jokes are just funnier. It is a far more quotable and memorable movie. Even after watching the first yesterday, and loving it all over again, I am hard pressed to quote it. It just doesn’t stick. This one does.

TL;DR

I think, in retrospect, I would switch the two films. While I do love the first and have some significant problems with the second, the second just ends up being a better film over the passage of time. The first film is timeless, but not memorable. The second film is clearly 90s, but far more memorable.

Both have strengths and weaknesses – but as I said before the second just tends to be a bit better of a film for me. My crush for Wednesday Addams continues to this day because of this film. I honestly swear I would try to be more like her if I thought I could get away with it more.

So there it is: Addams Family Values, a modern classic and a comedy (black as it may be at times) that I love and recommend.

It may take time to grow on you but I really think it does.

 

Darke Reviews – The Addams Family (1991)

Posted by

1

The awesome thing about being totally and completely freelance? The ability to write and give opinion (an important word) based on my own judgements without outside influence. I have promised a review a day this month on the theme of horror, halloween, and general linkage between those. As an extra challenge I have decided to review classic movies every other day. As much as I love Beautiful Creatures, it is not a classic. Tonight however, I feel confident in ruling this a classic. The Addams Family.

Based on the works of Charles Samuel Addams (who at one point in his life lived on Elm Street) during his time as a cartoonist for the New Yorker. His cartoons, which weren’t always about the Family, ran from 1940 until his death in 1988. A syndicated show ran on ABC from 1964 until 1966 for 64 episodes. This is the series most people are familiar with and the iconic looks and personalities are most derived. I cannot in good conscience talk about the Addams family without discussing the raw, controlled storm of insanity and energy that is John Astin (and his eyes) in the role of Gomez. The beautifully gothic, gorgeous, and svelte vamp that is Carolyn Jones as the family matriarch Morticia. Jackie Coogans Fester and Ted Cassidy as Lurch (You Raaaaang). These were truly the creation of media icons that last half a century later. While the actors Wednesday and Pugsley originally were mostly forgettable, they too brought the comic characters to life with their look and personality, even with the children’s ages at 6 and 8. Even Hanna Barbara attempted an animated series in 1973, which only lasted 16 episodes. They even co starred in an episode of Scooby Doo, then again who didn’t.

In 1991, Barry (Men In Black) Sonnenfeld created a movie adaptation of the series as first directorial role. He had previously worked as a director of photography in such classics as Misery, Millers Crossing, and When Harry Met Sally. How he got into comedic movies after , I have no idea. I have to admit aging Wednesday and Pugsley was a good move to make them something a little more manageable and believable in many respects.  He worked from a script by Caroline Thompson who had previously only worked on Edward Scissorhands. I suppose working with Burton helped her understand the atmosphere required for an Addams family film, she would later write the screenplay for Nightmare Before Christmas and the Corpse Bride. There is also a screenplay credit for Larry Wilson, best known for Beetlejuice. It is abundantly clear these two writers had the pedigree and background to understand the appropriate tone and character flavor for an Addams family film.

They also had the unenviable task of reintroducing the world to a family few of the 80s generation would know, unless like me they enjoyed them in syndication. I suppose that explains much about me now too eh? They sadly fell into the trap of so many of the people adapting TV series to film. There’s a belief you have to establish the characters and introduce them in a new way. I am not so sure on this theory and I am hard pressed to think of a tv to film transfer that doesn’t do this. It doesn’t always work and it slows the progress of the film. Sadly as much as I love the Addams, the story here is probably the weakest part. The con artist to get in the family and steal their fortune. It works as an introduction, but just is kinda flat and not nearly as memorable as its sequel (review tomorrow). While it does bring to life most of the characters, their own personalities in a stronger story could do the same.

The late great Raul Julia captures most of Astin’s performance mania but puts a slightly more refined and less comical edge to it. If the original was played straight, this one is played to the razors edge. I do love Angelica Huston’s Morticia, but she doesn’t quite capture the exquisiteness of Jones. She does her part, but something seems off. Like they tried too hard to touch on what Jones did. It was good just not great, but I don’t think I can blame Huston here. She gives it her all and when she and Julia are together I see the chemistry.

Gomez & Morticia Meme

This is a core truth for me.

 

Gomez and Morticia were near perfect in this more deadpan take on the characters, without a laugh track, but the real standout for 14 year old me – Wednesday. This was Christina Ricci’s second film role and one of my earliest and longest lasting crushes of a fictional character.  The aging of the character for the film (approx 11 based on Ricci’s age) made it work as a character as I said before. Ricci though sold it in every single scene. Deadpan delivery – check. Creepy Astin like eye movements – check. Even the few times she smiled – check. The personality and growth of the character from 6 to 11 were clear and I can see this being the girl she grew into (also the girl I wanted to be and lets face it kinda am). Pugsley took the backseat this time and was somewhat dopey and dimwitted, but still captured much of the original characters quirks. The two children have as much chemistry together as siblings as the parents do. The subtle looks with the brothers and sisters stereotypical antagonism worked.  The 7′ (2.13m) tall Carel Struyken perfectly nailed Lurch. This may seem like an easy task but such minimalistic acting is not at all easy and falling into line against what Cassidy did was difficult. The weakest member is probably the strongest comic in the bunch and that is Christopher Lloyd as Fester. There’s something missing about his performance, even within the confines of the films style and adaptation from the original it doesn’t feel like a modern evolution of Jackie Coogan; where so many of the others do.

From an FX standpoint, for 1991 the movie actually does fairly well. The downside is the 90s need to insert bad music into movies to help them sell, with a clip from MC Hammer playing at one point. The infamous Thing loooked pretty good then, but doesn’t hold up nearly as well twenty three years later. What they do right is so many of the subtle background practical effects through the film. The things that give it the Addams character as much as the family itself. Yes, once again until Act 3 when the final few shots of the climax were painful even then. They even found time to insert the original theme – which is important.

TL;DR

Agree with me or not, The Addams Family is a modern classic. It successfully reinvented and reinvigorated the Addams and provided us several films after. Even though the story was somewhat weak, the characters were amazingly strong. If you want to know me – watch this movie and watch Wednesday.

I do recommend the film aside though as a solid two hours of entertainment that can be shared with the family or enjoyed privately. This one makes me smile.

I must now debate Addams viewing parties…..

Until tomorrow when we review the Addams Family Values.

Seven Devils all around you...

Darke Reviews | Beautiful Creatures (2013) Revisited

Posted by

2

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

TL;DR

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

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

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

 

 

Darke Reviews | Halloween (1978)

Posted by

0

So last night I had to buy the Halloween, no not the Rob Zombie one, the real one. The original one. These reviews are based on films that I own or have access to and I did not have this one. A sin in its own right for those that really enjoy horror. I do have the option through friends to do an old vs. new on this with Halloween vs. Halloween. I just can’t though. Much like how Doug Walker feels about the haunting. I feel about the Halloween series. The original wins. The Rob Zombie version sucks. I will probably reference this as I talk through the review of the original.

While Texas Chainsaw Massacre beats this by 4 years in release date, Halloween is probably the film most singularly responsible for the Teen Slasher style of horror that dominated the late 70’s and almost all of the 80s. This has everything to do with what the film does successfully that so many many others failed to understand (Zombie).

Let us start with discussing the screenplay that was written by Debra Hill and John Carpenter. Hill, who sadly most people aren’t aware of, was a frequent collaborator with Carpenter on much of his early works. She was a writer on this film, The Fog (excellent),  and Halloween 2. She was also a well known and popular female producer in Hollywood until her death in 2005. Carpenter himself, like Wes Craven, is one of the names most associated with Horror films to this day. It is nigh impossible to discuss the great horror films of all time without either of their names coming up.

Carpenter himself, was of course, also the director of the film. The man has an unusually strong grasp of atmosphere, sound, and darkness.  These elements, along with soundtracks usually designed by him, come through in so many of his other films. He was also the director of Dark Star , the indie film by the guys who wrote Alien. This would be his first wide release foray into horror.

I am going to point out something that is often overlooked, the movie has a budget to ratio of 144:1.  The film was made with a budget of $325,000 and made $47,000,000. By the numbers this makes it more successful than Clerks. It is also perfectly in line with the modern era of horror in which budgets are rather small with relatively successful box offices. Sadly, even the modern era still typically have budgets in the millions and only made 3 to 4 times the budget. Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch being key exceptions to those rules.

The story here involves as escaped mental patient returning to his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois (Hill’s hometown is Haddonfield NJ); a stereotypical, near Rockwellian, midwestern town (it actually reminds me of my hometown a bit). His single minded focus is a young high school girl named Laurie Strode.  The patients doctor, Sam Loomis, rushes to Haddonfield to try to stop the patient from reaching his goal.

It is important to know, and this is what sets the movie apart from later reimagining garbage, is that Michael Myers as a character was never named as such. He simply was The Shape. He was a force of nature. He existed as a physical manifestation of evil. He didn’t need a backstory. He didn’t need a reason to be. He simply was. While later films in this particular arc would add  supernatural elements to his story and expand on it, the success here was none of it was needed. He scared people simply by BEING. This talks to Carpenters understanding of things as a director, the thing you cant see is more scary than the thing you can. What you don’t know scares you. Its why the ending of The Thing is so perfect and so iconic and why this film is the same. You never see The Shape fully until the end. You get glimpses. You get partials. Even the movie posters didn’t show a thing. This is brilliance and a brilliance we’ve lost as a film going society.

(ok technically you can put it together. He was called Michael as a child in the beginning and you are told its the Myers house shortly after during Strode’s introduction)

From an acting standpoint, so much rides on the shoulders of first time film actress, barely 20 at the release of the film, Jamie Lee Curtis. She was cast as much for her skill as her heritage, being the daughter of Pyscho’s famous shower scene victim Janet Leigh. Curtis would later be labeled the Scream Queen with future performances in The Fog, Prom Night, Terror Train, and of course Halloween II. She as much as anyone starts the tradition of the lone virginal female protagonist overcoming the antagonist of the film after going through a crucible of sorts and find their inner strength and power. Their own rage, their own will to survive.

The weight of veteran actor Donald Pleasence as Loomis adds to the emotion. He consistently through the movie is in a near fervored insanity as he futily attempts to warn people of the threat Myers presents.

From another technical standpoint the film uses its music perfectly. If I were to make a list of iconic themes this would be on it. Without the music or with different music it would lose something.

 

TL;DR?

This is a classic. So many slasher films that follow after are but pale imitations of this. It is a must see film for any horror aficionado. I find that it even holds up watching today.

Because of all that was done right in this, all that works, I truly truly hate Rob Zombies version. For everything this does right, his does wrong.

If there is a Halloween film to watch. Watch the one that started it all.

Darke Reviews | Dracula Untold (2014)

Posted by

5

Amongst my nicknames is Vampire Princess. My license plate says VAMPRE, I have well over 100 books involving, about, or otherwise tied to vampires. So to say I am an aficionado of all things vampire is an understatement. I’ve been reading about them since I could read. I have a moral (amoral?) obligation to watch any vampire film that comes to the silver screen. This means I see it all, even Twilight and Vampire Academy. When I saw the trailer for Dracula Untold I had a feeling about this film, but knew I would be seeing it anyway.

First time film director Gary Shore must have impressed Hollywood with the career he made directing commercials before to get this job. He is working with a script by first time writers Burk Sharpless (seriously…that’s his name) and Matt Sazama. The trio of novices have crafted a different origin story for our famous voivode. Dracula actually has more remakes and interpretations than any other character ever and this time, they focus on the conflict between the people of Transylvania and the looming shadow of the Ottoman empire. I realize now as I write this, the overall plot is very similar to 300 with the vampire aspect thrown in. They do some interesting things with the principle characters and the entirety of Act III was rather enjoyable. The dialogue is often corny but the actors do their best to deliver it within the serious tone the movie tries to keep.

From an acting standpoint much rides on Luke Evans as Vlad. I actually like Evans. I’ve seen most of his filmography – Clash of the Titans, Three Musketeers, Immortals, The Raven, No One Lives, Fast & Furious 6, and of course most recently as Bard in the Hobbit films. He is an action star and though his range is fairly limited he does some pretty good things with that range. This time he does carry the film and has to go from loving father and husband, to monster, to protector, to monster again. He wears righteous rage so well in this movie and still shows that he is learning to chew scenery. Co-star Charles “Tywin Lannister” Dance, is a master of it. I couldn’t stop giggling or making Vampire The Masquerade/Game of Thrones comments under my breath watching him. Sarah Gadon as Vlad’s wife Mirena brings a smile to my face in nearly every scene. Just when I think she will fall victim to so many annoying tropes, I remain surprised. Dominic Cooper (Howard Stark in Captain America) must have been cast from his time playing Saddam Hussein in the Devil’s Double.  The casting call must have been “we need a white guy who can pass as middle eastern.” “Hey can we get this guy?”. I am not saying he is a bad actor by and stretch, but there’s some whitewashing going on here in the casting and that I cannot approve of on some moral grounds.

On a technical standpoint. Is the Bat scene from the trailers ridiculous? Oh by all the New Gods and Old and the Lord of Light YES. It doesn’t make it any less cool looking. The transformation to bat and the uncovering of his vampiric powers are well handled and honestly do look really cool.  They are used effectively, practically, and rather coolly through each fight sequence. The camera work is good. The CG is not god awful. The vampiric reaction to silver and sunlight is handled in a way I haven’t seen before and enjoy what I saw. Music by Ramin Djawadi didn’t help with the Game of Thrones links in my brain. The pacing is really well done and there’s little fat on this movie.

TL;DR?

Let me be absolutely clear. This is not a good movie. Historical inaccuracies, geographic inaccuracies, costuming inaccuracies, the premise, and story all  combined present a rather silly reinvention of the Dracula films.

At the same time, it is also absolutely enjoyable. I was laughing. I was engaged. I was entertained. I probably wasn’t supposed to giggle through the first few minutes of the final act, but that doesn’t take away the fact that I was. I was getting more and more angry the longer the film went on during act I and finally realized that I need to stop taking this seriously. I had to stop expecting that there would be *any* similarity to real history beyond Ottomans and Vlad being in it. Once I embraced what the movie was doing I truly began to enjoy it. I like what it adds to the Dracula Mythos and vampires in general.

I even look forward to potential sequels from this. How strange is that?

So should you see it?

Well. If you want a silly fun actiony vampire movie? Yes. This is one of those beer and pretzels movies. It BEGS for it.

If you want a solid Dracula film, like we got with Oldman? Um No. just no. Save your money for halloween candy or something.