Review

Darke Reviews | Batman: The Killing Joke (2016)

Posted by

5

When it comes to comic canon and graphic novels there are a handful of seminal works, especially in the past 30 years. If you ask most fans, you will hear the following titles (not in order of importance)

  • Dark Knight Returns
  • Watchmen
  • V for Vendetta
  • Sandman (Preludes and Nocturnes/Season of Mists)
  • The Killing Joke

Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, and Frank Miller are the men behind those titles. There are other titles that are up there as well, such as Powers, Preacher, Road to Perdition, Superman Red Son, All Star Superman, etc. The ones in the list though, they almost always make everyone’s lists. So when I heard that they were making The Killing Joke into a movie in the DC Animated Universe I was ecstatic. The DCAU has never failed to disappoint me and my regular readers have seen me reference them in multiple other reviews as the writing, animation, and just overall quality of work is impeccable.

So how did they do for this fan girl?

They are adapting the story from the Alan Moore Killing Joke, which pretty much changed the DC comic universe forever. Now, there are challenges here in this review as not everyone read the comic and I don’t want to spoil anything. Which is a challenge for me in this review as much as it was for Brian Azzarello who adapted the source material to screenplay. Azzarello last touched the animated scene with Batman: Gotham Knight (Working through Pain sequence), and beyond that has worked on DC Vertigo comics (same ones who gave us Sandman) and wrote some of the Wonder Woman New 52 run (which as I understand is praised).  You see, up to this point the DCAU hasn’t introduced Barbara Gordon or Batgirl, so in order for this story to work they have to create a first act which focuses on her decisions, challenges, and the life she is living.  This is a requirement as there is a population that has never really met her as they are only aware of what we have in the DCAU.

Do I agree with every decision they made? No. One of them was …ill conceived at best. Do I understand what they were trying to do with that decision? Yes. Overall, I think the first act is solid and if instead of the first act you consider it a ..prologue you will be fine. I understand a lot of reviewers have issues with it, and let’s be fair, I can equally see where they come from. I just disagree with them more than I disagree with Azzarello’s decisions on the screenplay.

Act II and III are the original material from the comic and are pretty much shot for shot and line for line. Director and Art Department Lead/Storyboard Artist Sam Liu made some wise choices in that aspect. You can absolutely tell how meticulously planned this was. Liu is no stranger to the DCAU, with several of the Batman films under his belt, including one of my favorites Assault on Arkham (it’s Suicide Squad just two years ago). You might be mistaken in thinking an animation directors job is easy. Consider that they, like their live action counterparts have to consider blocking, camera angles, how a shot moves. In fact, they have it both easier and harder. Easier in that they are not restricted by what visual effects can do or little things like physics; conversely they have to consider how the background painting, foreground, *and* characters move as they can all move independently of each other to give more motion to the narrative. I think this is one of the reasons the animated verse is so strong as they can tell a story that feels more epic and have to use every single tool at their disposal to the maximum effect, even little things like a squinted eye, a slouch, or putting your hands on another’s shoulders.

Voice acting. I will say this once. There is one Batman. His name is Kevin Conroy. You may think otherwise, but it’s ok to be wrong. You can grow from it. Mark Hamill is also the definitive voice of the Joker. Sure the live performances of Ledger, Nicholson, and Romero are legendary in their own rights, but Hamill just does it. There’s something alien about what his voice does and it lets you know you are in danger when you hear it. Troy Baker and John DiMaggio put their spin on it and do hold their own, but damnit Hamill *is* the Joker. Both he and Conroy have more screen time as their characters than anyone else in history, and likely will be reigning champions for time to come. Both also came out of retirement for the characters just to do *this* picture. That tells you how much it means to them as actors and how much they and the DCAU crew understand what it means to have them. We thank Andrea Romano and her rolodex of voice talent every time one of these comes out and this is no exception. These guys are absolutely on point here and get to share the dialogue and even a laugh that they never really did on Batman the Animated series, or the equally amazing Mask of the Phantasm. The other actors Tara Strong (normally Harley, this time Barbara) is as solid as ever, Ray Wise, John DiMaggio, Robin Atkin Downes, Nolan North, and others are fan favorites even in bit parts here and do what they need to; but once you are through Act I, …it’s Hamill and Conroy and nothing else matters.

TL:DR?

Batman: The Killing Joke is amazing. It is everything I wanted it to be. It does have some flaws in the new material. It also should come with a trigger warning. This absolutely earned it’s R rating and it’s not for actual violence on camera – they’ve done worse. It’s what’s implied. What they don’t show mixed with what they hint at. Much like the original work, this is not for the faint of heart or those who are uncomfortable with certain topics. The movie makes you think, they bring up topics that you should think about when you consider The Batman, The Joker, and Jim Gordon. The utter insanity in the Joker is in full swing and I really question people who idolize him. He is chaos and evil personified.

This is absolutely *not* for children. Do not let a child watch this unless you are willing or want to have that conversation. Just be aware.

I am putting a spoiler section below, as I want to discuss one of the more controversial elements in the new material.

So should I watch it?

Whew…read above. This earned it’s R rating and is not ‘fun’ or ‘light’. I would watch this again and again, but I will need to be in the right mood for it. Like when I am wanting to write something really disturbing.

Will you buy it?

Technically for this one I had to, but I have no regrets not only buying the BluRay but the BluRay special edition.

 

What’s this spoiler?

spoilers

 

Spoiler-Warning

 

Rollover to read….

Alright. So the first act focuses on Bab’s. It has to. Not everyone knows that Babs is Batgirl, or how she became Oracle. Or they only know in passing. The DCAU has barely dealt with her since the Batman Animated series. They have to tell this story to build up an emotional impact when she gets shot. 

Did she have sex with the Bat? Here. Yes. The comic? No. Hell no. She was with Dick Grayson. Do I agree with her and the Bat having sex in this movie? No, but they made it clear it was something she wanted and as an adult it was her agency and her choice. I don’t think the Bat would ever go for it with someone under his wing and I do believe this is a departure from his character. 

The painful and trigger warning part. Did the Joker sexually assault her? It’s up for debate in the comic and movie. It is *heavily* implied. Considering the earlier scenes are about her agency, and this is a violation of that of the worst kind. I know where I land on it. It is absolutely vile. It does remind you that the Joker is never a sympathetic villain, he is a monster of the worst kind. They do a good job in the movie of making the scene dark and yes disturbing without really having to show much of anything.

Is everything in the first act needed? Eh..no.
Is it the catastrophe I keep hearing about? Definitely not.

 

Darke Reviews | Jason Bourne (2016)

Posted by

0

Jess, where’s the review of The Killing Joke? Yeah….I was on a work trip which takes priority. It helps that I love my job and it always takes precedence over this very passionate hobby of mine. Due to some of what my job entails however, as well as a few dozen (re: Hundreds) news stories over the past few years this segways nicely into the movie you are getting a review of today.  I have watched all of the films with varying degrees of satisfaction since the first one fourteen years ago. Identity was good and new, but sadly introduced Shaky cam as a thing. Supremacy was a romp I enjoyed and Ultimatum tied it up nicely. Legacy was a disappointment within the realm of the franchise, but ok as it’s own film. I was rather put out with how they integrated it and I have a sneaking suspicion that Hollywood had a script around and did rewrites to make it work within the Bourne franchise. They do that all the time; at least two Hellraiser films are victims of this as well as Die Hard 4.

So is Bourne back or do we have an imposter film?

The movie is written by Christopher Rouse, who is normally an editor on such films as Paycheck, The Italian Job and Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum, alongside Paul Greengrass (Bourne Supremacy, Ultimatum, Captain Phillips). It appears the two work well together as Rouse is an editor for the majority of Greengrass films and earned himself a writing credit this time. This is the first time Greengrass took up the pen on a Bourne film as the previous movies were scripted by Tony Gilroy. I might surmise that Gilroy was not trusted by the studio after the less than stellar performance of Bourne Legacy which he wrote and directed, especially up against the Greengrass directed Ultimatum which brought in $227 million domestic back in 2007. Just a guess mind you, I also believe that after the success of Captain Phillips that Paul Greengrass wanted to return to this franchise and do something with it and was given the reigns as a passion project.

Now passion projects can be disastrous, see Dungeons and Dragons (review will be part of the October set this year!), or box office gold (Avatar – the Cameron one). This time I think it will be the later of the two as this is a return to form in creating a highly intense spy thriller with just enough twists turns and plays that you aren’t sure which way is up or how it might end. This may be one of the best executed spy thrillers in recent years and is absolutely a better executed thriller than last years Spectre. It is also incredibly relevant to our cyber-technology and privacy age and uses those issues as a lynch pin (or grenade pin) to the plot. While as with most, if not all, thrillers like this liberties are taken with technology and little things like international privacy laws and capabilities; which in and of itself is an incredibly relevant story. Is it Hollywood as hell? Oh yeah. Is it entirely inaccurate in the questions it raises which could spur interesting discussions among the more millennial and tech minded audience members? No..not entirely, but there are discussions that can come from it – really good ones.

From an acting perspective, I am pretty sure Matt Damon could do Bourne in his sleep and truth be told, he may have for some of his scenes. Many times he appears along for the ride and not quite the Bourne we know and love. Tommy Lee Jones as CIA director Dewey is the heavy Jones does best. The breakout performances that steal their respective shows are Alicia Vikander as a CIA cyber security specialist and Vincent Cassel as a CIA asset. Vikander  (Man from U.N.C.L.E. and Ex Machina) is an absolute delight in the movie. It’s yet another female character who is in charge, technically capable in her own right and does pass a few of the “Tests” including Sexy Lamp and Mako Mori. I repeatedly found myself cheering for the character and not being disappointed in her decisions through the film. Cassel (Le Pacte des Loups/Brotherhood of the Wolf – another review coming in October) just is a force of nature and has more menace to him than the last few villains I’ve seen in Marvel, DC, Bond, and many many other movies. In what would be a one note performance from someone else, Cassel is a perfect antithesis to Bourne.

That isn’t to say this movie isn’t flawless. There are pacing issues throughout the film that drag the story in an unneeded manner. The camera work and shaky cam are as bad as you’d expect, but also viable for this genre. I found there were too many edits in places that could have used more tracking shots, or longer shots on other components of the action. It was a victim of too much at once from time to time. There are a handful of spoiler-ish plot holes that had me and my friend roll our eyes that are clearly there for the convenience of the story rather than logic. At least one major annoyance occurred in the film that I really can’t forgive.

TL;DR?

Bourne is back. I think this may be one of the best of the franchise, if not the best. It’s relevancy, plot continuation of a character that logically follows that character, and sticking to the rules of it’s world and even it’s predecessors beats make it a really solid film. Matt Damon was born for this role, pun intended, and while the movie doesn’t set up a sequel as well as Supremacy…I wouldn’t be upset to hear of one coming. Choose from the most used tags

Should you see it?

Despite the handful of flaws, and the unforgivable one, it is a good movie that I can recommend for anyone this weekend. If you enjoy the spy genre, Bourne films, and general action movies – see this.

Will you buy it?

Yep. BluRay day 1. Goes nicely into the collection

Anything else?

This adds to the total dollars and lives to bring Matt Damon home.

What else is coming to review?

The Killing Joke (Tuesday if I am lucky) and Suicide Squad next week. I will be on radio silence from social media after the review Tuesday as it’s hard already to avoid spoileristic impressions of those who have seen it via screenings.

 

Darke Reviews | Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Posted by

0

I was asked today are you a Trekkie or Star Wars fan. The immediate response “I have the blueprints for the NCC 1701 D, but I also have the blue prints for a YT-1300 freighter and an X Wing.”  Yes, it is allowed to love both series. Screw anyone who says otherwise. I watched the original series in syndication, the original animated series, I was the perfect age for Next Gen when it premiered and watched every last episode on its first run appearance. I’ve seen, and own, every Star Trek movie – which is more than I can say for Star Wars. I was in love with the first movie of the reboot, and overly kind in my review of the second one. I looked back on that one the other day and wondered what I was thinking when I wrote it.

So where does that leave us with Star Trek Beyond? Should it have stopped before the final frontier?

Let’s get one thing out of the way right now. Director Justin Lin (Fast and Furious 6, 5, 4, and 3)  is a good director. He does ensemble well and when I heard he was picked for the chair I was happy despite the haters. He made a very entertaining and profitable franchise that focuses on the story of multiple characters with a few in central focus. This is his “thing” as a director. He does it well again as the crew is separated and each get their own mini arc and he services each intelligently.

Writing. Rule of Three violation inbound. Simon Pegg (yes…) and Doug Jung (Dark Blue) have official writing credits. Uncredited are Roberto Orci (Transformers 3, Star Trek Into Darkness), Patrick McKay (absolutely nothing -alias maybe?), and John D. Payne (also nothing). Five writers, one of which is an accomplished comedian, one of which has only done TV, one who may have sold his soul for profit and production, and two who may or may not exist. In my perception this has created a hot mess. Knowing about 11th hour reshoots and the insertion of a new member of the cast back in March probably left me with a nice quiet dread.  Simon Pegg tried to pass them off as common place, but normally this indicates the movie is missing something or audiences/producers didn’t like something and a change was needed. Adding a full character just doesn’t happen. Seeing the scenes with the new character makes me wonder what else was added as part of these, how the story flowed otherwise? There were other technical flaws that made it feel disjointed as some characters inexplicably vanished during parts and some wardrobe adjustments between beats that told me we missed something.

I want you to focus on the next paragraph…really.

That said they do one thing right. The crew. They are a family. They make this work! They care about each other and aren’t afraid to show it. Every last one of them is family to the others and have absolute faith in that relationship. It was really really pleasing after some of what we saw in Into Darkness and so many other movies with forced conflicts. They also show that multiple races (literally) regardless of skin, sex, orientation, eye socket placement, appendages do come together and truly show the ideals of Roddenberry’s Trek. We haven’t had that in so many many years. I rather despised what happened with many of the TV series as they grew darker and more like something that Alan Moore would write to highlight the flaws of government. They did it right here. While George Takei may have (legitimate) issues with making Hikaru Sulu gay, John Cho had his own, knowing a friend who saw it tonight about cried seeing non straight orientation in such a big budget film in a known verse. Representation is important folks and I could do a huge post on that alone…I probably will another day.

Overall the writing was very disjointed to me and I can see why now as there are full on beats that I didn’t care about or have any emotional response to, yet others did make me smile.

From an acting perspective, there isn’t a lot to say. It’s movie three and the crew is the crew. Pine is Kirk. Quinto is Spock. Urban is Bones. These are facts, nothing more nothing less. When they are in frame you know who they are and the idea of it being someone else doesn’t cross your mind. I about cried when I saw Anton Yelchin. He is going to be missed and I am happy they announced they will not recast Pavel Andreievich Chekov. Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, Jungle Book) was given bad direction and so so make up, and doesn’t really work as the villain for me. Sofia Boutella (Kingsman: The Secret Service, upcoming The Mummy reboot) is a gem as Jaylah. They do everything right with the character and absolutely nothing wrong…except one thing.

They don’t let you see her actually fight. Oh she fights, but the cinematographer needs his camera privileges taken from him. The camera work was absolutely abysmal for most scenes either panning and zooming without a point of focus or unnecessarily shaky. I would have loved to watch a lot of the physical combat, I think it looked interesting from the few frames I saw. Other shots were so derivative as to be distracting and I am almost sure I got someone nauseous from the work. The make up effects were mostly solid. Some creatures were new, original, and others just looked good with smart designs. Others….not so much.  The other FX are ..ok. I mean well well above average; so I guess they were good. Though I really really want to ask if Simon Pegg or the production designer play Mass Effect, if you watch it you will see why.

TL;DR?

*sigh* I didn’t like it.

Wait wait wait!!

The audience around me applauded. The friend I saw it with really liked it too. They acknowledged the flaws but were able to move past them and enjoy the film. Unlike last week with Ghostbusters, I couldn’t. It has points I clearly do like, aspects of Act III that made me give a damn, and is solid. It just doesn’t work for me. It didn’t resonate and that kind of makes me sad. It is absolutely better than Into Darkness. It is ORIGINAL. not the plot so much, but it’s not a rehashed episode or plot from a previous movie.

Should you see it?

Yes, yes  I think so. I mean there were overall applause from the audience and that means something. A movie like this not resonating with me doesn’t make it bad or unwatchable, or even un-recommendable. It’s very clear that there’s good here and good should be celebrated.

I think a lot of people should and will enjoy this.

My friend said it best, “it’s like an episode with a bigger budget!”

Will you buy it?

Probably? I mean I can give it a second chance in the comfort of my own home. I know my friend is and they never buy movies.

What about? You know…

They handle the legendary Mr. Nimoy’s death in a way that had me tear up. Both he and Anton are acknowledged in the credits.

What’s next?

Suicide Squad!

Darke Reviews | Ghostbusters (2016)

Posted by

2

The original Ghostbusters, released in 1984, is iconic. It is a staple of comedy and a near perfect film in many of its respects. As the aforementioned link indicates the movie holds up decades later from a raw filmmaking standpoint, much less fond memories. So when Sony announced, not only an all female Ghostbusters and on top of that a Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe I was of mixed opinions. The move felt like a money grab on the cultural zeitgeist of nostalgia; adding the cinematic universe aspect to it added to the cash grab feeling after Sony continued to watch Marvel/Disney continue to mint their own money with the MCU. Now…it must be said the response to the all female part was….visceral from a certain demographic I would happily see wander into a ghost trap ne’er to return. I was cautiously optimistic, but then I heard the casting and was less so. I am not a fan of the movies around Melissa McCarthy. Until tonight, I have never watched a Paul Feig …anything. Not Bridesmaids, not The Heat, not even The Office when he was directing. I watched 10 minutes of Spy (also with McCarthy) and couldn’t stand it – though not because of her, but the movie around her.

Then the trailer for this came out. I was not pleased. I didn’t like the look of the ghosts. I didn’t like the humor they showed. Didn’t like Leslie Jones character…sorry caricature. Didn’t like how they implied it was part of the same universe as the original. Yes, the “30 years ago….” makes a strong implication it was a shared ‘verse. I am not the only one who didn’t like it as it quickly became the most hated trailer …ever. Then more trailers came out and I got used to the ghost design. I ended up finding the beauty in it. I was still nervous about Jones, the trailer joke was a bit meta. But I gained hope overall. Then…Fallout Boy happened. I *LIKE* Fallout Boy, quite a bit. Immortals, Centuries, My Songs Know What You Did in the Dark, etc; but the song sounds over produced and doesn’t have an original beat or bone in it’s body and is just hollow. Now, the original song while iconic – is not *great*, but Fallout Boy has talent and this didn’t do the movie any favors for me. Nor apparently the people who were dying to hate it.

I have been waiting all this week, anticipation building in me like the psychokinetic energy of New York City. People keep asking – have you seen it yet…

Now I have, but should you eat the twinkie?

From here on out I judge the movie on it’s own merits, it’s own flaws. No comparison to the original will be made.

Written by Paul Feig and Katie Dippold (The Heat, Parks and Rec), and directed by Fieg the movie tells the story of four women who come together to bust ghosts. Simple right? At it’s core sure, if you don’t want to care about anything or anyone in the movie. You have to give the women depth. Make them relatable, and more importantly likeable. You have to decide if you are going for a horror vibe, comedy vibe, somewhere in between, and where on that needle you want to move. While the review won’t compare, the writers/director must keep the original in mind so that they can at least try to be faithful to the balance, the story, the characters, the world, and the science. You have to put the science in the front. Yes, this adds another factor in the horror/comedy – science fiction. It’s easy to overlook the science and focus on the supernatural. What I am trying to say here, before I ramble too much more is that they did not have an easy job on this reboot. No one would have. There’s a reason they haven’t been able to get Ghostbusters 3 off the ground for the past thirty years (video game notwithstanding).

I don’t think they fully succeeded in the balance factor. The four mains are *excellent*; they feel real, but in a just exaggerated enough factor to be larger than life and to be something that could one day be iconic. Every other character, and I mean every other character is so beyond real they are a walking farce. Because of that the movie suffers in the humor beats that do not involve the four interacting directly with each other and their environment. It’s like looking at a balloon that is overinflated and starting to distort. It just separates you from the otherwise enchanting characters and breaks the moment. The plot itself is sufficient, works, and is absolutely serviceable.

What brings more to the party is Kristen Wiig (Despicable Me 2, How to Train your Dragon) as Erin Gilbert, McCarthy as Abby Yates, Leslie Jones (SNL)  as Patty Tolan, and Kate McKinnon (SNL, The Venture Bros) as Jillian Holtzmann. McKinnon absolutely steals every single scene she is in. Even in the background you cannot take your eyes off of her. Holtzmann is hands down the *best* character in the film. You can try to argue, but you’d be wrong. Wiig and McCarthy are clearly a best in class combo for comedy and they work so well together playing off of each other with a natural charisma that makes them really likeable. Jones was screwed by the trailer. This also cannot be argued. Patty fits with the other three very well and while playing the everyman role, still adds to the group and its needs as the plot moves on. All four were clearly on their A game and it shows, that even the jokes that fall flat we’re close to not doing so because of their talent. I really don’t want to talk about the other characters, they are either flat, annoying, or otherwise so unrealistic as to break the world view the crew tried to create.

That said, lets talk production.  This movie is *deeply* flawed. I could talk for hours about all the flaws. Mediocre or bad music set at the wrong times, bad editing, bad jokes, lousy camera work…the list goes on. Fieg is a comedy director so the idea of an establishing shot may be lost on him. Equal blame goes to Director of Photography, Robert Yeoman on that one. The movie cuts too often and doesn’t transition between scenes in any intelligent way that could have been creative and enhanced the mood or moments. From an editing perspective you can tell there is *a lot* of this movie on the cutting room floor. I estimated at least one five minute long scene is gone and you can tell it’s gone – that isn’t good. References are made to something you never saw and a beat you would expect to happen and didn’t. The downside, the ramifications of the beat are still on screen and it leaves you wondering – if even for a moment. I *really* didn’t like the treatment of Chris Hemsworth’s character to the point that the joke with the character wears out quickly and too much time is spent on him when it should be spent on either the story or the mains.

Lets talk part of the title.

The Ghosts. I like them. Seeing them on the big screen. I liked them. They made me smile and some of them were quite original looking.

The Busting was fun. The ideas and engineering, the build up, and the testing was actually kinda fun and really added something to the movie.

The lack of practical effects, flaws in how the plot was executed however did lead to less investment in the overall movie, which was only saved by the mains. There’s more I want to say here, but it delves into spoiler territory, but there’s some beats that flat out annoy. There are some elements so painfully telegraphed I sighed deeply when I noticed.

TL;DR?

This review is kinda long for me already, so let’s cut right to it.

I liked it.

Despite its myriad flaws, I enjoyed myself. All of the responsibility on that falls on the four stars of the film and they do deliver. All of the flaws I firmly put on the director and a lack of skill with this type of movie.

I love that girls out there can look at these characters and go “I wanna be a scientist” because of this. Not a paranormal researcher, but a scientist. They made science such a focus that these characters *can* be looked up to. They give a message of not giving up on your dream. That’s important. That representation is needed. Movies like The Martian, and others are bringing more women into leadership and scientific roles; which girls can see and realize they can live their dreams as well.

Should you see it?

Yeah. Yeah you should. This movie doesn’t do anything to the original. Absolutely nothing is taken away if you prefer the 1984 version. You still have it, you can still prefer it. You should give this a chance. If you let yourself enjoy it you may even laugh. I did.

What about 3D?

3D enhances this one. Thanks Malcolm.

Will you buy it Jess?

Yes. BluRay. Heck I might go see it again. Not just to tick off the MRA’s who are determined to see it ruined.

Anything else?

The cameo’s are applaud worthy. Stay to the end of the credits.

Shameless plug for an awesome charity group: The Arizona Ghostbusters

Home

No event too big.  No charity too small. Proudly serving Arizona communities since 2007

 

My final thought is, yes I enjoyed it beyond its flaws. I want to see more of these characters and I want a sequel, with a director more skilled to this type of film. I am ok with a Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe. I ain’t afraid of no ghosts.

Darke Reviews | The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

Posted by

7

I was asked “who even wanted a Tarzan movie? why did they bother?” earlier this week when I mentioned going to see it. I explained that there’s an entire generation who grew up still with Tarzan still in the regular popular consciousness. I had the comics, the Christopher Lambert movie (1984 Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes), the cartoon series; and yes even copies of some of the original Edgar Rice Burroughs stories. Of course I also was able to enjoy the Disney version back in 99. So there are quite a few my age, slightly younger, and older who would love to see a Tarzan movie done well. Something we really haven’t had since 1999. It’s an opportunity to introduce another generation to Tarzan….

But did they miss the mark?

Obviously based on the works of Sir Edgar Rice Burroughs, this telling was brought to the screen by Craig Brewer and Adam Conzad. Conzad’s only other credit is the lack luster Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit. Brewer for his part was the writer behind the Footloose remake (which I adore), Hustle & Flow, and Black Snake Moan. While the pair give us flashbacks to the origin story, it’s wisely not told in full as many comic book movies could learn from. This is instead a story of after. After Tarzan meets Jane, after he returned to London…and is called back to the jungles of Africa. I would like to say they did well here, but alas I can but say they did ok. The movie has trademark fingerprints of studio over production where much is sanitized and the film retains one of the more problematic aspects of Tarzan in this day and age of “The Great White Savior.” I don’t think you can reasonably tell the film without that last component and it is an artifact of it’s time – but they probably could have tried.  Beyond that, motives are vague, the plot is as thin as rice paper, and the characters are told with strokes broad enough to paint an aircraft carrier with a single stroke. Even if it has elements of rarely known historical accuracy in it…it yeah.

Yet at the same time, I was still engaged; which may be due to David Yates directing. Yates, who got the unenviable chair of director for Harry Pottery from Order of the Phoenix until the end. No easy task. I can easily lay the beats of the movie that work so well on him. He elevates with good shots, blocking, and overall direction of his actors; but even his talent has limits. What he is able to do is salvage many moments of mediocrity into something trying to push the bounds of it. Intelligent moves make some character far more interesting and compelling than the story itself. He can’t save it all, but what few audience members there were tonight (about 10) laughed at times and cheered at others. That is something.

I would like to give all the actors credit, but only some get it. Alexander Skarsgard (True Blood, Battleship), is not one of them however. He is *very* pretty. I maintain his abs have abs. His performance however, lacks something …feral? I don’t feel the Lord of the Jungle. I don’t feel a Lord of a Manor…I just don’t feel. Script, actor, or directing? I can’t tell. Based on what I saw in 2012’s Battleship? Actor…sorry True Blood fans, his Eric is very pretty, but I got nothing here. Samuel L Jackson surprised me here, as I find even a phoned in performance from him actually pretty decent. He kinda grew on me, even if the character weren’t needed. Christoph Waltz, does his best but the script does him no favors. He tries to get callbacks to Hans Landa here, but just can’t surpass the character he was given but damnit if he didn’t try. Margot Robbie as Jane? I wanted to see a movie about her by the end (of act I…). This is the Jane we didn’t know we needed. If they had called this Tarzan and Jane and had them together kicking ass through this? It would be a different review. She is absolutely fearless and I love her. More Margot please. More of this Jane please.

At a technical level…I just sighed writing that. That should brace you. Nothing is real. I can tell. I check the filming locations and not one lists Africa. Why? Budget? You had $180 million! It’s an amazing and beautiful continent and you know if you can’t film in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or the Republic of the Congo…where it’s supposed to be; you could try Angola, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea? Ok…so you went to Gabon and did filming without your cast. Audiences can tell.  We’re getting better at picking up composite shots and you may just have to try a bit harder. The green screen is evident in shots where you could have lit better or differently. It’s sad as there’s some shots which could have been more amazing. If anything though they got the animals right. The movement and some of the behaviors were spot on even if the effect wasn’t perfect. From an action standpoint I am concerned as well, as it’s clear Skarsgard is ripped and athletic…you can teach him to fight and let us see it. You can’t pull an argument that this is for kids and have some of the other things you do in this movie. Also…don’t put shots in trailers…then have the same shot with a different backdrop entirely in the movie – it adds to the fake.

TL;DR?

The movie is safe. It’s over produced Hollywood churn factory. It’s hollow and without any real weight, feeling, or emotion. The action is…ok and could have been better. It’s a movie of “almost” and “missed opportunities” . Sorry folks, I can’t give it better than that. What I can say is – it’s ok Popcorn fare.

I am not angry for having seen it. I don’t hate it. It doesn’t irritate as bad as Independence Day did. You’d think I did hate it from how I ripped it above, but…

I did find myself enjoying it if I didn’t think too hard or care too much. It has a plenty of moments of good, touching on things no other movie in this genre actually has. Moments that made me see what it could have been. I enjoyed it, but the moment I think about it I get slightly annoyed at “if you just did…”. The adventure was almost there; an adventure I wanted to go on and they made me want to go on.

Should you see it?

Matinee fodder easily. 3D not really. If you want a popcorn movie to relax into this weekend…you could do worse.

Would you watch it again?

Truth be told? Maybe if I had nothing better to do. It’s not that bad…it just could have been more.

Will Jess buy it?

Yeah probably. It has more than enough for a purchase into the collection.

What’s the next review?

Pending any surprises between then and now – Ghostbusters on July 14.  Star Trek Beyond July 21, Jason Bourne and Nerve the following week, then Suicide Squad. I am uncertain on Pete’s Dragon. Kubo and the Two Strings is absolute.

That’s the rest of my ‘official’ summer schedule. Who knows what else may crop up?

Darke Reviews | The Goonies (1985)

Posted by

1

Hey you guys!

What? Like I could start this review any other way? If it’s good enough for you. It’s good enough for me. I do remember seeing this in the theatre and I still have my map, my  school folders with Goonies on it, the book is somewhere. Heck my desk at work has a Goonies Never Say Die coffee mug. So to say I love Goonies is a mild understatement. Between it and Monster Squad they may be two of the most important films of my childhood, certainly in the top 5. Certainly the most watched (due to accessibility) of my childhood. I even got this as a present one year from my ex because she knew how much I loved it.

 

30 years and a lot of mileage later, how do I feel about it?

It’s a miracle. It is a perfect storm of talent in the right time of their lives, and the perfect blend of behind the scenes. You have a story by Stephen Speilberg (I am not listing his credits…), with a screenplay by Chris Columbus (Gremlins and director of the first two Harry Potter films), and directed by Richard Donner, you know the guy who gave us Superman and Lethal Weapon? This is a beautifully paced children’s adventure film. This isn’t nostalgia going either. I really watched it this time, looking for what doesn’t work now. There are a few things, don’t get me wrong, but overall it is an amazing film that holds up 30 years later. There are absolutely no scenes that need to be cut to trim despite its 114 minute running time. Yeah, almost two hours and as a 9 year old I was butt in seat, mouth shut watching. It goes from beat to beat to beat with an experts hand. There’s even a scene missing that while it pains me that it’s gone, I think makes for a more dramatic moment.

 

I will never betray my goon dock friends

We will stick together until the whole world ends

Through Heaven and Hell and Nuclear War

Good Pals like us, will stick like tar.

In the city, or the country, or the forest, or the boonies.

I am proudly declared one of the Goonies

 

During the Wishing Well scene Andy takes the Goonie oath…but adult me sees the dramatic moment of seeing the sweater come up unexpectedly as a better scene.

The actors sell it though and in a time when Hollywood actually used kids for these adventure films, we have a Sean Astin (14) as Mikey, Jeff Cohen (11) as Chunk,  Corey Feldman (14) as Mouth, Jonathan Ke Quan (14) as Data, Martha Plimpton (15) as Stef, Kerri Green (18) as Andy, and Josh Brolin (17) as Brand. Little known fact – this is Brolin’s first movie and Astin’s first big screen performance. The kids made the movie so identifiable to me then, and probably so many of you because they were *our* age, they were going on this adventure like we all imagined doing as kids. I * was * Sean Astin in my head, I was Mikey (and secretly Stef or Andy).I won’t count the number of times I always hoped to find an old treasure map in my attic. The adventure though wasn’t for thrills or curiosity, but for their families and each other. It’s what really separates it from a lot of other films and makes it mean more. You don’t really think about it, but I think it gets to you and you feel it. These kids are putting themselves in mortal danger out of love. That counts for something. You don’t roll your eyes and go why are they doing this? Why are they being so stupid? The kids themselves keep trying to give up early on and press on to do what they came there for. In the end they even give it all up for the lives of their friends.

The kids were cool, the bad guys were cool. What an opening to a film? In media res? The break out already in progress. Anne Ramsey is iconic in her role of Mama Fratelli (even with the horse sound dubbed during the one sequence), with Joe Pantoliano and Robert Davi as the brothers. Just as much as the kids were family, so were they. Dysfunctional and criminal, but family. Ever noticed Jake’s face when Mama is about to put Chunks hand in the blender? Watch it again and it’s the face that should follow after his previous line.

Writing it down it seems more sappy, but the way the actors sell it works so well. You buy the chemistry between these guys. Scenes I noticed more now, Brand dragging Mikey into the house after Perkins comes by. Mikey is still hugging him and Brand shows his affection then continues the hug as he walk/drags Mikey inside. It’s a little thing, but it counts. All the lines Mikey mutters under his breath. I didn’t hear them all before, but I did now and they make it work. Mouth and the Wishing Well. I was the child of divorce already then and I identified with him so much. I wanted my wishes back. All of them. What Data’s father said to him I always wanted to hear someone in my family say to me. These things made a film identifiable then and now and let it hold up to kids then and now. As you can see this is an incredibly personal movie to me, and a definitive one, but even with all that going to the way side – it holds up. These are kids and they feel like kids going through this. They make mistakes, bad jokes, and feel like true friends on this adventure. I miss this genre, kids going on adventures, and wish we had more like it coming out. The nearest ones I can think of that is even close is something like Super 8 (which I apparently need to review) and  Ok…Harry Potter counts too.

Beyond the pacing, story, and editing. It’s a product of it’s time in the prop and set department. This is a compliment as so much of it was done practically. The Inferno was real folks. I miss seeing the squid. The traps were kinda awesome. Data’s gadgets looked like something he would build.

TL;DR?

I think I could go another thousand words talking about how awesome this movie is. If you ever had a sense of adventure, that spark to do something exciting you know this movie is for you. I honestly believe that this film holds up all these years later and while there are some flaws, it really is just a small miracle of the right people, the right time, and the right places. It was absolutely worth seeing on the big screen again and if you get a chance you should do the same.

Should you see it?

YES. Why haven’t you watched it yet? Too busy Truffle Shuffling?

Will you buy it?

I have 3 copies.

Last thoughts?

I honestly, deeply, and truly believe every kid should have this movie as part of their lives. If nothing else, but to spur the imagination. We need the adventure!

 

Darke Reviews | Independence Day Resurgence (2016)

Posted by

1

Independence Day is not a good film. The original one that is. It is spectacle at the beginning of an age of spectacle.

Wait wait wait…

It is not a good film, but damnnit if I don’t watch it every 4th of July. It’s a very fun film. It has moments we still love twenty years later. I remember going with my crew of friends, aka The Usual Suspects ( I was Verbal…let that sink in), in Reisterstown Maryland all those years ago. I remember spending the night at LeeAnn’s house after the show and talking for hours about it. I remember us cheering and laughing and otherwise enjoying the hell out of ourselves as we hadn’t seen anything that “big” yet. So to say I have some sentiment about the original movie is an understatement. Do I have nostalgia glasses?

Nope! Not this time.

Nope! Not this time.

It’s a big budget war of the worlds with characters that are told with broad strokes to help us get them and get their archetype and sell the story. It’s also just plain ol dumb fun and I like that.

20 years later, and sans Will Smith’s charisma do they make it fun?

The movie is directed by Roland Emmerich who hasn’t met a catastrophe (ID4, Godzilla, 2012, Day After Tomorrow) that he didn’t like. I mean if you have a niche go for it, but dude…really? Also be proud of me,  I could have added his film Stonewall as a catastrophe, not the event, the actual movie itself. See I can be a professional. This is what he does though, big budget and big spectacle with an intent to awe. The term you are searching for is bread and circus. If you understand this then you know what he is capable of as a director.

From a writers room point of view, this not only violates the rule of three, but gets near doubling it. For those new to my reviews, the Rule of Three is my observation that a movie with 3 or more writers tends to be a muddled mass of conflicting influences, half baked ideas, and partial recoveries from unbaked ideas.

  • Characters by Emmerich and frequent collaborator Dean Devlin.
  • Story by: Devlin, Emmerich, Nicolas Wright (White House Down) and James A Woods (actor in the movie itself)
  • Screenplay by: Devlin, Emmerich, Wright, Woods, and James Vanderbilt (Amazing Spider Man 1 and 2, The Losers, Basic).

With the assorted filmographies, people who think they are funny, and people who are known for…well someone has to take the blame for 10,000 BC. It explains a lot. See in the first movie, even some of the weaker characters as broad as the strokes are that paint them you have an emotion about. It may be hate, but damnit they let you hate them. Here, not so much. Sure they bring back characters from the first movie, aged appropriately, but that is the *only* reason you care about them. Only. Period. The first film felt like it had stakes with the characters where some died and lets face it the death toll was made to feel tangible. Here, the writing is cautious. The directing is cautious. You feel no sense of risk or harm to the characters or planet. No time is ever spent to let you have a moment to breathe with the characters and let the enormity of what should be happening sink in.

The actors do what they can. Goldblum, Vivica Fox,  and Bill Pullman are fine. Pullman tries to do more than the movie wants him to and it shows. William Fitchner as always makes everything just a bit better, but he is so relegated to…sigh. Yeah. Liam Hemsworth shows some charm and is far better than The Hunger Games or Paranoia let me believe he could do.  Jessie T Usher as Dylan Hiller and Maika Monroe (5th Wave, It Follows) as Patricia Whitmore do ok as the older versions of the children from the first film. I felt they were both logical extensions of the kids with the parents they had. Yet through it all….I didn’t care. I felt no tension. No one was given a real moment to deal with the situations. I can’t help but think back to Goldblums desperate breakdown, the death of the first Lady, even the small scene post LA destruction. All created character moments so when something happened you worried what would happen to them. They had characters you hated. Here – I really felt nothing because the movie didn’t allow me to feel anything. They tried to create characters to hate, but mostly succeeded at mild annoyance since nothing of importance happened. The one time they try a character moment it’s so bloody awkward it doesn’t sell. In short, the actors could do nothing here.

Technically? How did we step back in 20 years? It’s ok. I mean it’s not an Asylum or Blumhouse picture. It seemed so damned afraid of practical effects, and if the did exist, there was so much CGI it didn’t matter. The designs were lazy and…you know what.

TL;DR

I am tired of writing about this movie. I am tired of putting effort into telling you about it because it is clear to me the writers and directors didn’t care either. They were already trying to set up for Independence Day 3 so nothing here mattered. I have heard of actors phoning it in, but a director? Thats new.

Yes, there are scenes to enjoy. Yes, I laughed a few times. I do really enjoy the fact we used the alien tech! FINALLY a movie that does that. For the most part I didn’t care. The Circus was not enough. The spectacle didn’t cut it.

Should you see it?

Meh. It’s as hollow as a basketball. I was entertained as it has some fun moments, but I can’t give a recommendation here; unless you truly have nothing better to do or are morbidly curious. There will be a lot of folks who like this and good on em! I just…blargh.

Go see Finding Dory or something, I hear it is really good.

Will I buy it when it comes out?

Sure…if it has a directors cut with an extra 30 minutes for making me care about these characters.

 

At this point I am hoping Legend of Tarzan next week surprises me.

Darke Reviews | The Neon Demon (2016)

Posted by

2

I have been looking forward to this for some time, since the first trailer was released. I have limited experience with Nicolas Winding Refn’s (NWR) work, with having watched Drive and only partially watching Valhalla Rising. I know there are many who find his movies and his directorial style to be a near master craft in filmmaking, but that isn’t what attracted me to the film – at least not the name alone. The visuals presented in the trailer were incredible with perfectly beating music and starring someone I rather enjoy in film.

I had a feeling I was going to watch a Modeling industry version of Showgirls…but is that what I got?

I mentioned before that NWR’s work is pretty universally lauded from a critical point of view. So the newer trailers tell me with dozens of outlets reporting how impressive it is. I consider even how Every Frame a Painting talked about one of his major films Drive. Check the link later, it is absolutely worth the watch. Because of this I was looking for his usage of the camera in the movie and found that he was doing many of these same techniques through the film now that I knew to look for them. While I usually talk technicals later, it’s important here as the director is defined by his technical skill. Image and sound are as one through the movie. Every beat of the music is as important as every frame of the film. Unlike many current directors NWR brings the medium of film to bear  with all it can bring.

He stages.
He blocks.
He lights.
He uses sound.
He uses the music.
He moves…or doesn’t move the camera.
He goes wide when others go in.
He goes in when others go wide.

I am not suggesting that we need more directors like him, not fully anyway. I think we need directors who really look at the craft work of the film. The movie is as much a work of art as it is an hour and fifty minutes of entertainment. I found many of the images presented me in the movie provocative and informing of a story not told. Light and Dark and how that is used run from opening credit to final. It was truly impressive as a piece of art. Now, this is not to say that art is going to be equally appreciated. There were a handful of scenes that were audibly or visually uncomfortable, if not disturbing to some, for what is inferred or otherwise portrayed. Others, I may not have fully appreciated for everything that happened there.

Let’s talk story. Refn is director, story credit, and screenplay credit. Refn had work on the screenplay with the hands of Mary Laws and Polly Stenham, who are largely unknown with little to no work behind them. In and of itself the story is a simple one. There is little meat to it from a complexity or arc point of view, some of the subtext is a little too on the nose and more just text. There are plenty of depths to the characters however, but most falls on the actors and director to bring those out. The dialogue, and again, story are relatively straight forward.

Acting wise? Holy hell. Elle Fanning (Super 8, Maleficent, Twixt) delivers and incredibly complex performance as the young ingénue Jesse. The film must be carried by the 18 year old actress and she does so beautifully.  There is a lot of maturity to her acting that many her age, and face it many older, do not deliver. This isn’t to say the rest of the actors don’t show up, because they all do. Jena Malone (Hunger Games, Sucker Punch) as Ruby must deliver an equally complex part and does so. She’s hard to tear your eyes away from on screen in any work she is in and that doesn’t change here. The other two main actors; Abbey Lee (Fury Road’s The Dag), as Sarah, and Bella Heathcote (Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Dark Shadows) as Gigi have to bring their A game for this movie and do so. At first glance the performance seems easy, but there’s nuance to it that is worth watching for. Supporting actors, such as Christina Hendricks, Keanu Reeves, Desmond Harrington, and Alessandro Nivola turn up and show up, but have little to do.

Now…let’s be clear here. The acting is superb. The story is ok. Cliff Martinez soundtrack is inspired. The technical aspects are really well done for those who look; but the movie does have flaws. Much as I found with Drive it plods at an uneven pace and lacks something in it’s execution. For a word – bite. I think I wanted, or expected, something to happen that didn’t. In retrospect I shouldn’t have considering the past body of work, but I did anyway. Additionally there is a problematic aspect to the film that I can only put in a spoiler box at the bottom. I know that this problematic aspect was intentional, or I believe it was; with that intent to create the discomfort and realize…well. Yeah. Still problematic.

TL:DR?

The Neon Demon is everything that was promised in the trailer if you are a fan of Refn’s work. If you are unfamiliar with his movies, I might suggest Drive, Only God Forgives, or Valhalla Rising to understand what you are getting into. The acting is amazing, the artistry in each frame is evident. I was thinking about two of my long distance friends the entire film wondering what they would think of it having modeled before and knowing they will appreciate the film. Rather hoping they comment on the Facebook side of things after they see it.

The pacing and overall arc of the plot however, I think we’re less than what I needed from the movie.

 

Should you see it?

If you like Refn. Yes. If you are someone in the modeling industry, I am really curious to your take. Artistic film lover – must see. Film student or future director? Yes. Otherwise, you can wait for the comfort of your home and enjoy just as much.

EDIT: Friday 7:55 AM – In thinking more on this – this movie is what I did need. BUT it benefits from discussion and thought. So if you do see it, prepare to discuss! It’s worth it.

Will I buy it?

Unsure. It’s a solid low maybe. Bargain bin blu-ray perhaps? Yes! There are visuals worth watching and dissecting. I think I need to see it again.

 

SPOILER SECTION

Rollover to Read

Ok, one of the major themes of the film is the predatory nature of LA, Hollywood, and overall competition between people in a small field. No issues there. The issue, that is problematic, the 18 year old Fanning is playing 16 year old Jesse. At 18 she’s not the issue, the character is and how she is sexualized by the camera, and some of the characters. There are going to be people out there who don’t care, or know, the actress is 18. They will enjoy all too much the idea of the 16 year old being put up as a sexual thing. This is not a matter of the empowerment of the character Jesse, or her own choices to be what she is, but how that is film and what is filmed.

I could be way off base and am open to education here, but it was uncomfortable. Intentionally so, I know. The point is to show the fact how sexualized models can be, regardless of age. The point is to show that “the Industry ” doesn’t care either. I get it. I don’t know that there is another way to illustrate that right now, but I feel strongly enough that I need to write it as a potential trigger warning.

Darke Reviews | Warcraft (2016)

Posted by

2

Tired of me yet? 3 movies. 3 days. 3 reviews. The roller coaster that is my life has had my butt in a theatre all this week, even the guy checking me in at the movies tonight asked me, “hey weren’t you in that same theatre last night?” Thanks Ben. Now…we have a movie based on a video game. Probably one of the most popular video games ever made, though myself I have never played it. I know plenty of people who did, my game was City of Heroes, and I was a one game kinda gal. So much like with books, I have no experience, no background, no anything about the lore here to make me like it more or less based on changes made to achieve film. This is the extent to which I know Warcraft: Slaughter Your World.

Of course, we cannot forget that video games have a sordid history in being converted to film, with far more misses than hits as Hollywood really just doesn’t respect the material even if it is there. Don’t get me started on Uwe Boll, he might challenge me to a boxing match.

Does Warcraft break the mold or are audiences going to need heals after seeing it?

Based on the characters by Blizzard game designer Chris Metzen, Warcraft was adapted to the screen by screenwriters Charles Leavitt (In the Heart of the Sea, Seventh Son, K-PAX) and Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code). While I did not personally see Heart of the Sea, I heard pretty consistently it was a slog, I know that Seventh Son was so bad they pushed it out a full year from its initial release date and hoped no one would notice. Jones for his part does have the critically acclaimed Moon in 2009, Source Code was pretty bland. Why am I focusing on these failures so much? Because they hold one of the most, if not the most significant flaw of the film. I can feel it’s running time. What is worse it felt *longer* than it actually was, like extended cut Return of the King long.

Story wise, it’s ok. Having no familiarity with the terminology beyond Horde and Alliance didn’t really hamper me. I pretty much was able to figure out everything in time with the movie and they (wisely) did not over explain anything. Point in fact, they barely explain anything at all. This is a strength of the film, letting the story flow pretty naturally and hope the audience follows along with it. The downside of that is that it has a lot of ground to cover so the film ends up stuffed to the gills with material. Had it had exposition as well….? Yeeesh.  There are a few beats of the film that fall flat and a hole or two you could fly a Dragon through; conversely, there are moments that had everyone laugh, cheer, or go “oooh” with a wince. Which means they drew the audience in – this is good.

Continuing into our bag of holding, we have other mixed blessings. I was only able to stand a single human in the entire movie. One. The friggin mage. Ben Schnetzer (The Book Thief) plays Khadgar, and while a little flat I at least found I liked his character at least. Travis Fimmel (Ragnar from Vikings) as Anduin Lothar is just insufferable; which may be how he is written, but the man can act and he was all over the place which I lay on Jones head in directing. Dominic Cooper (Preacher, Dracula Untold) as King Llane Wrynn was mostly wasted, but gave a solid performance. Even Ben Foster (3:10 to Yuma, Pandorum) didn’t quite deliver as I know he can in the role of the warlock Medivh.

The same, cannot be said of the Orcs. Toby Kebbell (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) absolutely sells it as Durotan leader of one of the Orc tribes. Daniel Wu (Europa Report) also nails the voice and mo cap work as the evil Gul’dan. Clancy Brown could have phoned in his performance of the warband leader Blackhand, but didn’t and we are all thankful. Paula Patton (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, 2 Guns)  starts off strong as Garona, but gets a little simpering into Act III which was bothersome for an otherwise awesome character, but overall she was a solid performance.

As with the game, since you could play either side they have to show both sides, with the Horde side being “evil” but not…bad? Due to that and who they focused on as characters I found myself preferring the Horde arc and characters a thousand times more than I did the Alliance side.

The one technical aspect I was worried about I needn’t have been. I forgot I was looking at Motion Capture CGI creations on more than one occasion through the film. It wasn’t flawless, but it was amazingly well done computer work to render what they did so consistently and be able to do so in wide daylight shots. The scenery, while being almost entirely CG was expansive and to the credit of the writers of both game and film, really sold me on a world that I could envision. They may have failed in other areas, but they did give me a living, breathing world that I could see, understand, and even would want to interact with. The fights are both watchable and in some cases brutal, but there was a distinct lack of hyperactive shaky cam.

TL; DR?

The movie is a solid…”It’s ok.”. There are so many nods and winks to game and lore fans, even I who knows little could see them. It runs long and flattens in the wrong spots sadly. It is absolutely not the worst video game film ever made. It would, and should, make it into anyone’s top 5 on production value alone. The money sunk into this shows and I am happier for it. It bored me at times, but when it wasn’t I was engaged.

I’d like to say I liked it more, but I didn’t. The fans around me did though. It *is* good, and above a meh. If I had been engaged by the characters on both sides more I think I would rate it higher. I do think it will make bank though.

Should you see it?

If you aren’t seeing Now You See Me 2? Sure. Matinee only 3-D optional.  If you are a fan of the game and lore: See it. 3-D. It was worth it in that aspect.

Will Jessica buy it?

Honestly? Yeah probably. It is something to throw on in the background while you are focusing on other things. You’ll look up and smile at a moment or pause to watch a fight.

Which side would you pick?

My brain says Horde, but my heart goes Night Elf.

What’s next?

I get next week off as only Central Intelligence and Finding Dory are coming out. Reviews return with The Neon Demon and Independence Day Resurgence. Followed quickly by Legend of Tarzan and Ghostbusters.

Darke Reviews | Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows (2016)

Posted by

0

Busy week – review 2 for your reading pleasure. I had to go back and re-read the original review of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles from 2014 and verify if I liked it as much as I thought I did back then and how I feel about it now. More or less – yep still holds up. The things that annoyed me then, annoy me now. Things I liked and smiled at then, I smile at now. I still haven’t been able to find the AMV from the 2003 reboot of the series that was so friggin epic, and still haven’t read the comics. I do remember most every episode of the original animated series and much like last time I will do my best to remove the Nostalgia Glasses.

Ok, more like 30 years ago. Yes...30.

Ok, more like 30 years ago. Yes…30.

How does this one go?

Acceptance. You must accept to continue this review. Accept that this is in fact made for kids first and foremost. We, who grew up with the Turtles may find elements that we appreciate. Nods and jokes, moments, and looks, but this is for kids.

Good, let’s move on.

Director Dave Green (Earth to Echo) replaces Jonathan Liebesman at the helm, which sadly is to the movies disservice. Watching the film I saw naught but a puppet to Platinum Dunes studios, which as a Producer gives them say, but the reality here is I feel this was ghost directed by Michael Bay himself. I remember seeing Earth to Echo and while it tried to be E.T. it mostly just came as Google marketing campaign with mediocre editing and camera work. It wasn’t *bad* but it wasn’t memorable enough for me to even do a solid review of it. This lacked…well anything. It really was mostly style with so little substance to it that I watched a few children in the audience get bored. It might be the inability to hold a shot for more than 6 seconds and literally no sense of framing or blocking. The camera work was 100% Bay though who cannot pass a rotating shot if his life depended on it.

From a script perspective the original writers from the last film, Andre Nemec and Josh Appelbaum return sans Evan Daugherty. They still completely get the four brothers and who they are, which is good. My complaint of too much Will Arnett and Megan Fox in the last movie was apparently addressed as their roles are lesser. Sadly Arnett still gets more screen time than he deserves and Fox not enough with the script as written. The plot is unsurprisingly simplistic (see Acceptance above) and is fairly run in the mill for it’s intended audience. Nothing good, nothing bad, it exists. They didn’t make a mistake and change Bebop and Rocksteady much at all, which was a good thing and while we will talk about Tyler Perry in a minute, Baxter Stockman was pretty surprisingly solid. Warning – do not think during this movie. It is not wise. If you think, you could drive a Technodrome through some of the holes. I think they also tried to do too much and could have better set up sequel bait. Two plots didn’t need to be in here.

Acting? Alan Ritchson (Raph), Noel Fisher  (Mikey), Jeremy Howard (Donatello), and Pete Ploszek (Leo) all return as the titular characters, with Ploszek actually getting to voice Leonardo this time. The change was unnoticable, and much like in Hellboy 2 letting Doug Jones do the voice of Abe, in retrospect is clearly an improvement. Fox doesn’t get to do much this time around – like at all. I kinda wish she did as the moments they give her with the boys actually work and make it feel like she is friends with them. Granted, I’d prefer to see her kick a lil more butt after two years with Ninja as friends, much like we got in a few of the animated series. Arnett…exists. I suppose my intolerance for his character matches my intolerance for the character of Vernon Fenwick. Too much of him for when he is on screen and even more Tyler Perry who is …*sigh*. Why so much focus on Stockman when you have Brian Tee as the Shredder? This was wasteful of a good actor vs …someone who I think was trying to be Neil DeGrasse Tyson and failing. I suppose when I look back (see Acceptance again) Perry acted as if he knew he was in a kids movie, no one else really did. This was disjoined.Stephen Amell does give something other than Oliver Queen in his performance as Casey Jones, which is no surprise to this girl.  All in all – it was what it was. I can’t say it was “oh damn did you see that scene and it’s delivery?” or even a “kids are going to love that scene because so and so nailed it…in a way for them.”  Except maybe for WWE star Sheamus as Rocksteady, and Gary Anthony Williams as Bebop. They just made me smile without rolling my eyes too much (some humor I don’t get, this is known).

The effects were about on par with the last one. No…actually they were better. Thanks to Bebop and Rocksteady. They *really* got these two right. The transformation was really well done and their overall animation and interaction with the world around them was just as well done. The Turtles looked good.  Krang was definitely a more modern take on him, pretty sure I saw this variant in an amv, but the core principles of him were there. The look of the head on the robot made me smile. Seeing the Technodrome made me smile. There was a lot in this department that did bring the nostalgia back. Sadly the camera work took me out of it since I could barely tell what was happening. I also get the sense as I picked on the director earlier some scenes were clearly directed differently. The Garbage Truck scene good. Others…not so much. I am also reminded of the 90’s movies where they were told the Turtles couldn’t actually use their weapons, which more or less showed up here too. There’s a few moments, but not nearly enough.

TL;DR?

This one wasn’t for me. I know this. There were moments and plenty of them that were, but overall this is definitely a kids film. There’s an 11 year old girl me who would eat this up. Hell even maybe 15 year old me would. It’s an ok film on the very low end of ok as an adult. As a kid? It’s above average but that’s about it. That’s it, the TMNT 2 review. It’s better than what we got in the 90s, but that is faint praise.

Should you see it?

Well since this review is about 5 days late, you probably already have or aren’t going to anyway. Short answer: Unless you are a die hard Turtle fan, nah. It’ll be fine on Netflix or HBO. If you’ve got kids who want to see it it won’t be *that* painful for you..

Will I buy it?

My magic 8 ball says undecided. Ask later. Probably not though. I’ve gotten pickier about what I put in the collection since I ran out of space.

Stay tuned, tomorrow comes Warcraft!