MovieReview

Darke Reviews | A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Posted by

3

It seems fitting to start this years October reviews with the film that started it all for me. I channel surfed into it when it was on network TV a couple of years after its release. It is one of the few movies to ever actually scare me. It sticks with me today for more reasons than one. While not the original slasher film, not by a long shot, with Halloween and Friday the 13th beating it by a solid 6 and 4 years respectively. Heck, Halloween had already had two of its sequels out before this was released and Friday the 13th had four. This one stood apart from the rest though. There was something new here. So let’s talk about A Nightmare on Elm Street.

It should be noted, this may not be spoiler free due to the age of the film.

Written and directed by Wes Craven, a name now synonymous with the horror genre, but was at the time relatively unknown. He had some mild success a full decade before with The Last House on the Left and the Hills Have Eyes, but he was aboard the New Line Cinema train to get a new “slasher” out. Where as Michael Myers and Jason Vorhees are “men”, he wanted to create something new. Something scarier and he went into the land of dreams. Sure we all have nightmares, but what do you do when you can’t wake up from it? When the Nightmare follows you? How do you fight something like that? This added a new level of fear to the teen slasher and it was unlike much we had seen before.

The script uses similar tropes from other slashers of its ilk, which were relatively new at the time. You have your imperiled teens, quaint suburbian life, a brief bit of recklessness from the teens, and a relentless killer after them who is seemingly unstoppable. What makes our killer here different was motive. Jason was about revenge on the “type” of teenager. The people who let him die and the stereotype that exists all the way into todays films some thirty years later. Michael was driven by something else, something broken in him but at the time was purely human. His type was similar to Jason overall though, with anyone getting in his way just as much a likely victim as well.

Then we had Freddy. Freddy went after the kids not because of anything they did, planned to do, might have done, or didn’t do; but instead he went after them for the sins of the fathers and mothers. This makes him an entirely different kind of monster. He tortures the children in order to make the parents suffer for their crimes of killing him. The original film doesn’t entirely address whether or not he actually committed the crimes he was accused of and that the mob burned him for. It hints at it with the opening credits that he was in fact guilty of something, but that ambiguousness adds to the horror that is Freddy Krueger.  It’s never explained how he does what he does either, it just is (again original only), leaving that supernatural mystery to make him even more terrifying still.

All of this wouldn’t work without the right people though. Heather Langenkamp owns this film as Nancy Thompson, as much as Robert Englund does as Freddy. Her evolution from a scared teen, to understanding what hunts her, to trying to become the hunter is a classic to watch and sold for every single moment she is on screen – which by the way is most of the running time.  Englund gives the definitive performance of what it means to chew scenery in this as he cuts his way through the cast. The supporting cast is equally as important here for their own parts, with the esteemed John Saxon as Lt. Donald Thompson, Nancy’s father, and Ronee Blakley as Marge Thompson her mother. It’s one of the earliest times, to my recollection, we dealt with a couple who had divorced in a horror film with their child literally caught in the middle of it. The reasons for the divorce, the tension between them, and even how they deal with their own guilt through the film is as telling as any lines of dialogue. When discussing the supporting cast, its impossible to not mention a certain young mans first role – Johnny Depp as Glenn, Nancy’s disbelieving but big hearted boyfriend.

From a practical and movie making standpoint, while the effects don’t always hold up. The make up varies from scene to scene if you look too close; but this is an acknowledged mistake by the filmmakers. The music follows Cravens usual style of simplistic piano/keyboard with a guitar. It doesn’t sound elegant, but man does it work. It, much like the Jokers Theme from Dark Knight, is so offputting and uncomfortable it makes you squirm a bit. The lighting and practical effects help sell the movie and make it work. CG could only damage it and the weakest sequence is the one with some CG in it. One of the best and most iconic is Freddy pushing through the wall over a sleeping Nancy. For the record though, the one that got me was Tina’s death in the beginning.

TL;DR

If you have not seen A Nightmare on Elm Street and love horror movies, you must see this. It is one of the triumvirate of slashers and arguably the best.

While it may not be scary to individuals now, this one will always hold a special place in my heart and my nightmares. It is probably one of, if not the, most influential film of my childhood.

If you want to know more about the Nightmare saga, I recommend Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy. It’s on Netflix and runs 3 hours and I enjoyed every minute of it.

Late Reviews This Week

Posted by

0

Hey folks, Jess here. wanted to drop in and let you know as much as I want to see Gone Girl this weekend I will be recovering from surgery. The review WILL come, just a few days later than most of you need.

Darke Reviews | The Equalizer (2014)

Posted by

6

Let’s see. The A-Team, check. The Muppets, check. Addams Family, Munsters, 21 Jump Street, and the list goes on.  TV shows are being adapted almost as much as books and comic books. Some better than others from the ability to watch and enjoy them. Some better than others in the box office. Some are even mutilated in their big screen transitions. Hollywood continues to mine the past for future generations, this time going back to the mid 80s.

The original TV series, which ran from 1985 to 1989 starring british born actor Edward Woodward as the title character. It’s the story of a retired intelligence agent of scary abilities who goes into the private sector to help those who need it. So you can imagine my surprise when I see they’ve cast Denzel Washington in the same role. Considering my soon to be coming rant on Hollywood White Washing, I can’t be too annoyed at the casting. I think I am just annoyed it was Denzel.

Before we get any further, let me be clear. I am not a fan of his.  I do not deny that he makes good movies – I just don’t enjoy him in them. Inside Man and Man on Fire being two of my favorite films of his. Though in his years since leaving St. Elsewhere he has countless films that are both critically and box office acclaimed. I find his performances largely one dimensional. I see so many of the same behaviors, mannerisms, and ticks in each performance that I could do an entire cinema sins on his personal tropes. I find him flat but that allows the others and the stories he picks to shine.

This is one of those situations. The film has a two and a half hour run time and it doesn’t need it; but at the same time doesn’t hurt too badly for it. I do long for the time of shorter films that we once had that were still entertaining. This film is bloated with multiple character stories that have Washington’s character, Robert McCall as the eye of the proverbial hurricane.

The movie carries a cast of extras you will know from other work but barely get to see in this, which is a bit of a shame. Chloë Grace Moretz, as a  call girl has one of the more humanizing and less tropish stories. Bill Pulman (Go get em President Whitmore!) and Melissa Leo (Oblivion, Flight) are used to give us more insight into what McCall used to be. Leo’s last line in the film brought a smile to my face.  New comer Johnny Skourtis is used well as a fellow employee of Home Depo…er Home Mart with McCall who wants to do better and finds help from McCall in multiple ways. He, like Moretz, brings much needed heart to the film as McCall is rather bland, but intentionally so.

The films Heavy is given to Martin Csokas, who you may (or may not) recognize from one of his three other films this year, Noah, Amazing Spiderman 2 or Sin City a Dame to Kill For. Prior to this, you were able to enjoy him in Kingdom of Heaven and xXx. I think he watched Javier Bardem on repeat from Skyfall as inspiration to this role. He carries the elegance of Christoph Waltz’s Col. Landa with him as well. He considers himself a force of nature who is then confronted with another one. It plays better than I expected it to.

This might be due to the writer, Richard Wenk (yay single writer credit). He previously had provided us films, such as Vamp (which I clearly need to review this October), 16 Blocks, and The Expendables 2. This tells me he is responsible for the pacing issues as much as he is for understanding how to write decent tension with minimal gimmicks in the script.

Of course, the Director gets some blame and praise as well. Probably one of my favorite action directors ever Antoine Fuqua once again delivers what I need from him. This of course isn’t Fuqua’s first time with Denzel either; having worked with him 13 years ago on Training Day. Fuqua also has directed such films as King Arthur, Shooter, and Olympus has Fallen. He has an eye for good , watchable action that is near unmatched. He is also one of a handful of successful directors who aren’t white. This is a very good thing. We need more like him. His sins, however, in this film are the pacing. There were too many stories. Too many moments that didn’t really add anything on the surface.

Now, between Washington, Fuqua, and Wenk they did something special in the film. They acknowledged mental illness without letting it be something apparent, spoken, or even really ‘acknowledged’ on screen. Yet, it was front and center almost the entire time. You can see by the trailers, and this is not spoiler territory folks, that McCall times things. This isn’t just professionalism or precision at work – it’s a disease. He is exhibiting through the film various stages of uncontrollable obsessive compulsive disorder. Some might say I am reading into it, but I don’t think so. It was too perfect each time it happened. I applaud them for doing it. They took a character like this and broke him in a very real, very tangible, and identifiable way. He isn’t just another Bourne, Bond, or Batman. He’s human and I like the movie for it.

From a technical standpoint. I LOVE being able to see fights. I hate shaky cam. The movie does not disappoint in this way. Yes, they use the slow walk trope a few times, but at least one of them is done to fantastic effect. Editing is good. Music is nice as a largely somber classical or jazz vibe with an electric guitar throne in from time to time putting an edge to it.

TL;DR?

The Equalizer is very watchable. It is also very noticeable how long it runs.

It feels its length which isn’t all that good and some of the story elements largely feel unnecessary. I wish they had focused just a bit more and cut some of the fat from the finished work. A good 30 minutes less would have done this movie proud.  The action beats are spread just a little too far apart, but when they do show up they deliver nicely.

I also feel like I’ve seen this character from Washington before, especially in Man on Fire. There’s little different about Creasy and McCall.

All in all – if you were in any way interested expect a slow burn, but you’ll be rewarded for it.

If you were curious Matinee it at best. Wait for Redbox or Netflix at worst.

If you weren’t curious before and are now, the same applies. Otherwise you can give this a pass.

If nothing else it was nice to see another film worth seeing in September.

 

 

PS, I won’t be reviewing Box Trolls also out this weekend. One of the perks of being totally freelance is I can review what interests me and that one doesn’t.

Darke Reviews | The Maze Runner (2014)

Posted by

4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TL:DR?

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

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

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

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

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

Darke Reviews | A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014)

Posted by

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TL;DR?

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

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

I can’t bring myself to care either.

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

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

 

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

 

Site Logo

Welcome to Amused in the Dark

Posted by

0

Jess here

We wanted to welcome everyone to the launch of our own website and blog – Amused in the Dark.  We created this at the urging of several awesome co workers from the job that pays us; for this job that doesn’t (yet anyway). Please feel free to look around and pardon my dust as the site is still under some construction. I’ve been out of web design for a decade or so, please bear with me!

As always we welcome feedback on any review or post you find.

Also we are going to hold our first contest running until September 19, 2014 . This is a Signal Boost request to help us get out there.

  • There will be 5 winners
  • Each winner will receive 2 Tickets (up to a $25 value) via Fandango
  • Rules
    • Entries
      • Follow / Like Us: Here, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, or Tumblr for 1 Entry each
      • Share our page for 2 entries.
        • Spamming disqualifies you. I can’t encourage that.
    • On the Weekend of the 19th the Admins will tally all entries and draw 5 names at Random
    • Winners will be announced as a reply to this post on the 21st.
    • Tickets must be claimed before October 31, 2014
      • As tickets need to be purchased by the admins, unclaimed winnings just won’t be purchased.

 

Darke Reviews | Ghostbusters (1984)

Posted by

1

So this was a four movie weekend, with November Man, As Above So Below, a second viewing of Guardians of the Galaxy, and this release – Ghostbusters. I had the lovely opportunity to see this on an XD screen friday night. Why the late review? Two main reasons with the first being the boring stuff of housework. The second being I wanted to wait to see how the box office panned out for this weekend to give me something additional to write about.

Well what about the movie itself?

We have a story written by Harold Ramis (Meatballs, Stripes, Caddyshack) and Dan Aykroyd a relative unknown to the writing circuit with only Blues Brothers to his name. Now, they also have some TV under their collective belts as well with Aykroyd as a writer for 56 episodes of Saturday Night Live, now in its 8th season. Ramis is no slouch either, with his work on 47 episodes of the Canadian variant SCTV (Second City Television). It also helps these two are both natural actors and comedians themselves with quite the body of work on them combined. Aykroyd is most famous for his turn as Elwood Blues and his recent success in Trading Places which stayed in the top 10 for an amazing 19 weeks, made more even impressive by it having only 700 theatres for the final 10. Ramis, like Aykroyd also stared in the show he wrote, as well as his own appearance in Stripes.

Pair this comedic writing talent with a director who understands the people he is working with and it should be a recipe for success right? Well thats where we get Ivan Reitman. Director of Meatballs and Stripes. He also was a producer on the wildly insane Animal House and even stranger animated movie Heavy Metal.  A good set of writers and pretty good director should make for a good movie. Thats where acting comes in.

I’ve already talked up Aykroyd(Dr. Raymond Stantz) and Ramis (Dr. Egon Spengler). The three main leads are rounded out with Bill Murray as Dr. Peter Venkman. You may have seen him in Meatballs, Caddyshack, or Stripes. Noticing a pattern here? In some cases such repetitive work doesn’t pan out, its like lightning in a bottle. In this case it does as the men can play off each other amazing well with a natural chemistry and charm that makes even Murray’s Venkman, who is rather unlikeable, somewhat charming.
What of the costars?

Off setting the raw comedic talent is the tough girl of sci fi – Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett) who played Ellen Ripley in 1979’s Alien. She recently worked with newcomer Mel Gibson in the Year of Living Dangerously, but with only three credits to her name putting her in this comedy is a bit odd. It works, it works perfectly. Another TV to screen transfer is Rick Moranis also from SCTV. There are rumors he has some writing credit on this movie as well – which wouldn’t be a surprise. His portrayal as Louis Tully is a different kind of comedy than the boys with the proton packs give and  works fairly well. Another TV star joins the cast as well with William Atherton as an antagonist – who sadly I tend to agree with his ideals if not his methods. Character actor Ernie Hudson plays the straight man to the boys in brown as Winston Zeddemore. He is just just what this film needed aside from Weaver to ground everything in something relatable and touchable.

From a technical standpoint they did a lot right. They went as practical as they could. Miniatures, composite shots, layers, all of the tricks of the trade were used. The animation work holds pretty well too and in some cases is actually pretty scary when seen on high definition TV.

TL;DR?

This movie is funny. This movie is entertaining. I think it can hold up for quite some time to come. If you didn’t see it this weekend – you should have but you have the rest of the week to see it!

Do so. This movie is for all ages! Let me know what you think. I’m ready to believe you.

Now…for the entire surreal element to end. I wanted to write this review as if I was writing it for a new release. It deserves that. Nostalgia aside this thing holds up 30 years later in nearly every department aside from FX. Even then, most of those hold up. The movie is one of the all time greats and is absolutely worth seeing this week.

Now as far as the box office. I said i wanted to write about it. On the four days of release Ghostbusters at 30 years later did almost as much as Sin City 2 did in its second week. Now, that isn’t a fair comparison. You see A Dame to Kill for had FOUR times as many theatres as Ghostbusters. THAT is awesome for a movie 30 years old and terrible for a movie only in its second week. Another kind of awesome fact about Ghostbusters, in its 30 week run back in 1984 it was #1, 2 or 3 for 16 weeks. Only Purple Rain and Red Dawn knocked it out during that time.

If you were an adult who saw this as a child – take your child to it. The kids in my showing really seemed to enjoy it.

Now there’s only one real question – Who ya gonna call?

Darke Reviews | As Above, So Below (2014)

Posted by

0

There isn’t a lot that scares me when it comes to putting my own life in danger. I think I’d try anything  (relatively) reasonable if I thought it would be fun. Among those hobbies Urban Exploring. In many cases it is breaking and entering/trespassing – yet not always. I *love* the idea of exploring these old abandoned places. Finding history, truth, and perhaps a bit of mystery in them. So when I saw a movie about a group of individuals urban exploring a part of the Paris catacombs I knew I had to see it.

It’s also worth mentioning that of the jobs that exist out there if I couldn’t be a successful writer or what I am doing now didn’t pan out – my dream job is archaeologist. Much for the same reasons of the Urban Exploring. I love history, mythology, ancient cultures, and finding that which was lost or forgotten. So when the movie starts and there’s an archaeology element to it I am now even more interested.

How does it pan out?

This may be director John Erick Dowdle’s best original film. Along with his brother Drew, who co wrote the movie, I think they hit something new. Their earlier work together is Quarantine; which is just a lackluster translation of the superior spanish film REC. John alone directed the abysmal “Devil” (2010). They elevated some of the previous work , but are showing definite trends, which leads me to the technicals first.

I wish I could have watched the film. I had to keep my eyes closed half of it due to motion sickness from the hand held camera work. That is unusual for me, but it is a problem for some members of the audience who would want to see this. Odd camera angles as well as a preference for handheld cameras are showing in the history of his work and finally – it’s to his benefit. When I could watch the film the camera shots were well framed and added to the tension and emotion appropriately.

This being a horror film in the 21st century I have no anticipation that anyone will live, so I am kept on the edge of my seat wondering. Another technical that works really, really well is the fact with only a few exceptions the movie was filmed in the catacombs, even the piano from the trailer was filmed down there. You can’t fake good atmosphere and it shows in this movie. It was a good decision and I am happy that they made it. The dangers for the location scouting alone were real and it adds to the film to realize so much of it is not a set and that the lights in the shots are the ones on the head cams.

The acting was spot on with only a handful of logical fallacies and failures throughout. Ones that almost have to exist to be a successful horror film. Perdita Weeks does well as the driving force and catalyst for the events. Ben Feldman (Cloverfield, Friday the 13th) sadly has a character I just want to smack, but does as well with it as the trope he is playing allows for. François Civil’s Papillion is probably one of the most enjoyable to watch – and the most honest in his reactions.

I think what the movie does best is that, from a story perspective, it openly acknowledges the supernatural. People don’t spend (waste) time denying it exists when blatantly confronted. They react with horror yes, but within the confines of the narrative accept it in all its dark glory. This to me is a pleasant change of pace, especially when tied to an area of study I enjoy.

TL;DR?

Well this review should have gone up last night, but I was left so nauseous that I couldn’t finish. Overall the film is good and for horror fans worth seeing. The audience I was with genuinely seemed to enjoy it.

I just have trouble recommending it due to the camera work.

If you don’t ever risk the sensation of nausea from shaky cam work in excess *and* enjoy horror, absolutely go see it.

If there’s a risk, sorry, just not worth it. Sad that as the attention to detail by using the real catacombs was such a brilliant choice.

Darke Reviews | The November Man (2014)

Posted by

1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TL;DR?

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

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

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

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

Darke Reviews | Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014)

Posted by

0

Does everyone remember 2005? We got a trailer with some amazing music by the group Cells. It had a beat we had not heard before. It came with visuals we had not seen before.  Sure it was in black and white, but there were splashes of bright colour that accentuated everything. Stark whites against blacks that were positively glowing. It got our attention. A comic book movie unlike other comic book movies. In 19 weeks it doubled its budget domestically. Anyone remember that?

It is worth remembering. The neo noir, pulp film was new fresh and interesting. Robert Rodriguez has left us waiting nearly 10 years for it. The script isn’t right. The cast isn’t ready or too busy. Any number of reasons kept this sequel in production hell.

So is this a Dame to Kill for?

Both the original material here and the film script was by Frank Miller; whom also has a directors credit. Miller, for those who don’t spend their time in comic shops, is one of the more famous comic book writers of this age. His deconstructed reinvention of the Batman in Dark Knight Returns in 1986 might be solely responsible for Batman as we know him today. Miller is also the mind behind 300. To his downside he also gave us Robocop 2 and 3. WARNING – This is not a good thing. Sadly his ability to do sequels seems to be in a word – lacking. This is a disjointed mess that seems to miss most of the charm and black humor of the first film.

Some of this falls on co-director Robert Rodriguez, best known for Desperado, Dusk till Dawn, and Spy Kids. He agreed this was a script to shoot. He agreed on how to stage things How to light the movie. How to do the camera angles. Even the music choices. Both men get the blame for every failure of this film.

There are many.

None of it falls on the cast thankfully. They were given a script and direction to chew scenery. This must be a new diet in California because they went at it with insane glee, mostly. Josh Brolin (Old Boy, Labor Day, Goonies) is probably the least interesting portrayal who mostly threatens to be awesome yet never quite is. Mickey Rourke reprises the role of Marv, a role I am sure he was born to play, and tries to have fun with it but isn’t given nearly as much as he was in the first film. The addition of Joseph Gordon-Levitt showed a lot of promise yet again never quite reached the mark. If you want JGL and noir, watch the movie Brick. Eva Green is clearly Jeremy Irons understudy. Scenery is chewed with nothing left behind. Every inch of her talent, and body, is used to full capacity. She works.

Thats the best I can say.

Visually, the movie kinda fails. It takes some of the worst elements of the visuals from the original and over uses them. Where Sin City uses colour sparingly and with only a few exceptions keeps some of the colours muted this one over uses them. While they are as important to the story as anything else, just don’t have the same punch. Not to say they aren’t vibrant because they are. They just don’t work well or are so used that it doesn’t mean as much. The action scenes when they happen are easy to follow but not nearly as interesting or engaging. Odd angles and unique palettes are missing here. It’s just dull.

TL;DR

The movie ultimately lacks charm. The first one was charming. It had its own charisma. The good guys, while paying a price, won. It ended on a note it began with. It was a whole entity. It was a solid piece.

This is a disjointed mess of stories that just don’t seem to matter. Even the first one which showed some of the female body and blood was sparring in it. Nothing is spared here. They seem to be trying to one up themselves and fail at every turn. I think Eva Green is beautiful, one of the most beautiful actresses around, but I find she’s better with her clothes on and teasing rather than what we get here.

Sorry folks, I cannot recommend this one. As I wrote the review it went from a solid meh to a blargh.

I can’t even recommend something else to spend your money on; just watch Sin City again. With nothing much coming out in the next few weeks reviews will likely be sparse unless I find new stuff in limited release or do some DVD reviews for flavor.