TrailersThatLie

Darke Reviews | Inferno (2016)

Posted by

2

So, I’ve watched all of the Dan Brown movies before watching this. I rather like The Da Vinci Code. I felt the acting was on point, enjoyed the mystery, even if there were a few contrived points. It probably comes from an absolute love and fascination with history. In addition a passion to ask the question, “What if?” These types of stories that are just a touch off the history, just a touch off the real thing that they create a fully enriched and believable mythology are fascinating to me. The mystery presented there was small(ish), and self-contained which allowed it to work as well as it did. The consequences were interesting, but at a specific scale that was relatable to the audience. History and Religion intertwined.

Then came Angels & Demons. Physics and Religion.  The mystery was curious, and while my love for physics and the sciences there is not nearly as strong as my love of history, it was engaging. Then the third act came along and left me feeling generally annoyed. A lot of goodwill for the movie was lost in short order and while again it was well made, it was annoying and too convoluted. While my memory can recall most of DVC pretty accurately, I can maybe recall 50% of Angels & Demons. It was an “ok” after a solid opening.

Now we have Inferno.

The question remains did I get stuck in the Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso watching this?

First, let me say I have a early 1900’s print of The Divine Comedy in my library, so again I say History geek. Not that it comes into play much in this screenplay. In short, its a mess.  I cannot speak for Dan Brown’s novel, but David Koepp (Mission: Impossible, Jurassic Park, War of the Worlds) either was faithful and the novel is a mess, attempted to salvage it and failed, or took something good and gave it anxiety. Now, looking at his filmography he tends to work with pretty decent directors and the films themselves generally are well received. But there have been flaws since 2002. Secret Window, then in 2005 War of the Worlds, 2008 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, he did work on Angels & Demons as well. I am not sure what is going on here, but…this movie is a bloody mess.

The narrative is hard to follow and the parts that should be interesting are glossed over with such a wide brush I could paint the deck of the USS Enterprise with a single stroke. It takes a normal man who at least in the first movie was relatable. Now he is immediately thrust into the story of a super spy better fitting a Mission Impossible or Bourne movie without the physicality of either.  Every line is said, but they are just small quick beats that serve little point beyond getting to the next in something that is too large and ultimately meaningless.

I’ve been seeing a lot about risk show up in Superhero reviews. There are no risks. The dangers are too big to comprehend, thus you do not care. Ultron is going to destroy the world in some vague plan. Loki destroy the world, but to no particular real end.  The villain of Suicide Squad, destroy the world for reasons in some vague way. The stakes are TOO high. Too much. Constantly too much. This time, the trailers tell us we are at threat from something that will somehow wipe out only half of every living human. I admit my biochemistry and virology game are a bit weak, not really studied in over 20 years aside from a few journals reviewed from time to time and keeping an eye on the newest advances in medical science. That said, the science begs the incredulous here. A pathogen that will only take half the population because reasons? A race against the clock to stop it or the world dies in some vague way. It’s too big to care about or buy into. Unless…..

Unless you have the directorial fortitude to make the 12 Monkeys, Planet of the Apes, or 28 Days Later call; which would surprise everyone. The mystery and the race have no weight because we all know this isn’t going to happen. The first movie it’s about uncovering the Grail, something big but stays personal and the ramifications to the world are mostly philosophical in nature. Angels & Demons….would affect a single religion and how it affects the world, but in this day and age we see that even the faithful will turn against the faith if a message is sent they don’t agree with. It’s still a personal, theological, and philosophical outcome; but also was the first to have a McGuffin level body count on failure. This, from the trailer alone is a 4 billion people body count on failure. A failure you know won’t happen. So why care?

That is not the directors only failing here. The opening credits tried to mimic things like 12 Monkeys or I Am Legend, and other staccato style openings with dialogue that has no context to us at this opening. After that we begin in media res; in the hopes that we will dive right in and be brought along on the confusing journey of Dr. Robert Langdon. The trick to bring us along? Just tell the story. Let Hanks act. You do not need to cut every 2 to 4 seconds. You don’t need to blur the camera or lens flare it or wobble it to make us realize he’s confused. The man can act, at least based on 5 Oscar nominations and 2  wins of the golden statue. We don’t need camera tricks.

I really need to go to the story about Marathon Man, with Dustin Hoffman and Sir Laurence Olivier

During the filming of “Marathon Man,” Dustin Hoffman was supposed to play a man who had been up all night. And method actor that he is, he spent the night before shooting the scene awake. When he arrived on the set, his co-star Laurence Olivier asked why he looked so tired. Hoffman explained his approach. Olivier paused and then said, “Try acting, dear boy . . . It’s much easier.”

Director Ron Howard just out and out fails this movie. Let your bloody actors act. If you want to keep a mystery don’t focus on things that most audiences these days will pick up on. Don’t go to generic footage with bad CGI to show a plague scene. Interspersing so called Hallucinations of a battle just breaks the moment rather than enhances it. I really want to keep railing on the bad directing here, but the list would go on too long and I would need to have spoilers.

The final word on the directing is cutting the shot after no longer than 4 seconds the entire movie is a horrible way to make a film. It was noticeable, in such an excruciating way the guy next to me started counting along with me, even though I was just using my fingers. Just stop. Long takes are Ok.

*grumble* I didn’t expect this review to be this long.

Acting? Hanks sleep walks through the role, trying his best to play someone who has brain trauma. He’s uninvested the entire movie and has absolutely no chemistry with anyone at all, even himself. He doesn’t even manage chemistry with his suit. There are three bright spots however, Omar Sy (Bishop in X-Men Days of Future Past)  as a WHO operative on the trail of the plague. He is in the top three most memorable characters and enjoyable to watch, even if you see it all coming a mile a way since the movie opening (and trailer) spoils him. I finally have a line on Felicity Jones, having only seen her in Amazing Spider Man 2 as Felicia – which as I recall her being a bright spot in the movie. I am now looking very forward to her in a more action oriented role in Rogue One this December.  She does everything she can to elevate the poor material she was given and directed on. I can’t say she always succeeds, but I lay that on Howard not her performance.  Side note, I think she would make a great companion on Dr. Who. The brightest star goes to Irrfan Khan (Jurassic World, Life of Pi). He made me smile and laugh a few times (intentionally!!). It was needed. The man exuded charisma on screen and was so just casual and easy going that I wanted to watch a movie about him. Yet another failing on the material and director that a third string character (not actor) is so much more interesting than your main.

TL;DR?

This marks one of my larger reviews coming in at almost 1500 words at this point.

I didn’t expect to go off on such a rant above, but dear powers that be this movie fails on so many basic levels that I needed to use this gif.

While not an abomination like Die Hard 5 or other movies, this one is just such a remarkable disappointment. It is a dismal failure in my opinion on the career of Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. It isn’t deserving of hate, but instead pity. Sadly that pity means I think it needs the Old Yeller treatment and to be never spoken of again. I come here to not praise this movie, but to bury it.

Should you see it?

I wish I hadn’t. So no.

Will you buy it?

Honestly I am hoping it bombs enough that the studio decides against putting it on BluRay. We should never speak of this again remember?

Is it really THAT bad?

Probably not, but unlike some movies which I can ignore the flaws for a greater narrative, performance, or filming technique there’s not enough good here to allow me to ignore the flaws.

Ok, so let’s talk Dr. Strange!

Let’s…not today. I would not be kind. Look for something on next weeks release soon though.

Darke Reviews | The Huntsman: Winter’s War (2016)

Posted by

2

Unsurprisingly I have a weakness for my fellow Ice Queens. I also have not been shy about my weakness for the amazingly talented and versatile Jessica Chastain. Then Hollywood gives us the sequel no one asked for from a movie four years ago, but with two enticing elements to a girl like me. Snow White and the Huntsman only made $155 million domestically ($396mm worldwide) with an estimated production budget of $170 million, and mediocre DVD sales ($50mm). With middling scores across the board (48% Critic/52% Audience) and neither a critical or financial success someone had the bright idea to go “let’s make a prequel…or a sequel. Ah hell let’s make another one.” I am almost sure they pitched it minus Kristen Stewart and her twilight baggage (an undeserved reputation). I am sure they pitched it as a franchise. The thing Hollywood as an industry is thirsty for like a lost traveller in the middle of the Sahara. Looking for the next thing they can split and create with abandon to make boat loads of money.

Did they find it here? Or is this reviewers heart like ice?

One of the writers  (Craig Mazin) is responsible for Scary Movie 3 and 4, Superhero movie and Hangover 3. Evan Spiliotopoulos, the other writer brought us Hercules (the good one) and a series of Disney Sequels no one asked for either. I can easily see Evan’s work on this based on the pacing and tonal controls of Hercules ever present through out, I am trying to figure out where Mazin’s hand comes in. I’d almost be interested to find out what the writing process for this one. The story is relatively cohesive even if it is basic and borrows heavily from other similar fantastical fare. I mean a quest to destroy an all powerful gold object that can corrupt those too near it? It seems…familiar somehow. Beyond the writers comes first time director Cedric Nicolas Troyan, who has worked as a visual effects artist and supervisor on the first Snow White and The Ring, and a second unit director on Maleficent. This background does explain much of the visual splendor the movie offers over substance. Not that it is entirely style over substance, but the visuals for me were quite nice even if many were barely seen.

I would praise the actors here. Charlize Theron is magnificent as the Evil Queen once more with an air of menace that I look forward to see her in more villain roles. Emily Blunt is passable, though it isn’t her acting but what she has been given to work with. Something to lament with the other characters as well. Hemsworth is fun, smiling, and charming. Honestly, I haven’t seen that many smiles in an action movie in  years. This felt more swashbuckling from his performance and I am quite ok with that; though at times he needed a good throat punch. I just wish he had kept the Irish accent the entire film. Chastain kept hers, was magnificent and was magnificently under used. More on that in a spoiler section at the bottom requiring roll over to read. Her chemistry with Hemsworth was good, not great. Nick Frost, Rob Brydon, Sheridan Smith all are at least memorable which is more than I can say about anyone else.

Technical speaking time the movie. One would think that a visual effects supervisor and second unit director might know how to let you watch a fight. One would also be wrong. One would think that he would know how to appropriately frame a shot. One would be wrong again. Now the movie is very pretty, but the shots are quick in places they need to linger. Linger in the places they need to be quick. Are far when they should be close and close when they should be far. It’s inconsistent in this as he gets some right and some wrong, but that inconsistency does make many moments lose impact they could have had and break tension when it could be ramped. The Ice was done in a way I hadn’t seen before and appreciated very much. Overall the Ice Queen was quite beautiful in her power. The set pieces evoked very specific geographic regions of the world and again I found quite beautiful.  In this space the movie got it right.

TL;DR?

Believe it or not the movie is good. It cannot, nor should not, be called great. It was simply ok. Just the right side of mediocre to have moments of entertainment. It does nothing particularly brave or adventurous with it’s plot other than remember to have fun sometimes. It is 100% paint by numbers and the palette is over used, but it isn’t used badly? It *is* better than Snow White.

I am trying to remember when more movies I saw were fun. I don’t expect it from every film, it’s not right for every movie. This needs to happen more often though. Again this is not a great movie by any stretch. Many are going to be bored by it. I have a spoiler corner with some other info below.

Should you see it?

If you have nothing else to do or are curious? Otherwise Redbox it or Netflix it.

Will Jess buy it?

Eh…probably? There’s enough that made me smile and enough beats I really enjoyed to own it.

 

Nothing coming out next week that I can see, but I may catch a showing of RWBY on the big screen and potentially Alien as well. So that may warrant some writing.

SPOILER CORNER.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

TURN BACK NOW.

Still here?

You sure?

Alright. Rollover.

There is one major flaw to the movie aside from it’s pacing. Missed opportunity. Three powerful badass women. Hemsworth’s constant mugging. You had an opportunity boys behind the pen and the camera and you missed it. You didn’t take the chance to let the girls be as powerful as the boys. They were badass, but the boy wins the day. You had an opportunity to do something new. That is ultimately what sums up the movie is a missed opportunity. The one major fight sequence where Chastain is alone and you don’t do anything with it and can’t prove it’s her. Then after that she barely does anything other than look badass and “never miss”.  *sigh* I won’t forgive the movie for it and it does need to be held accountable, but at least there are three powerful women a girl can look to and go “I wanna be her.” So that is a win…maybe?

 

Darke Reviews | Final Girl (2015)

Posted by

2

I don’t know about you, but I hate when I see a trailer and the movie never quite makes it to the theatre. It never quite makes it to an easy to find DVD release. It’s especially painful when you want to see the movie. I talked about this with Trick R Treat last year.

This year the one that raises my ire is Final Girl. This would be the trailer in question:

I had been really looking forward to this one. If you are wondering about the title, it is based on the trope of most horror movies called the Final Girl. When you have a horror film think of who survives, who defeats the monster? It is almost always a girl who started out weak or unsure and develops into the hero that can defeat the beast.

So did the movie live up to my interest and expectations?

The movie has a total of four writing credits which doesn’t normally bode well. The three story credits go to Stephen Scarlata, Alejandro Seri, and Johnny Silver. A screenplay credit goes to Adam Prince. None of whom have done anything you’ve ever heard of or watched. The same can be said of director Tyler Shields.  Honestly, it shows. There are some interesting choices in how they light scenes with an overabundance of brightness. It is clearly intentional and works in some cases and is jarring in others. I can’t write reviews about how hollow and samey so many new movies are and then destroy one that is trying to do something different. The “floodlights” in the woods annoys me to no end, though the movie does it to create an almost stage like performance, I think I wish they would have fully committed to that then trying to give me a well lit forest for no reason.

The movie almost is going for a film noir style in both dialogue staging that wouldn’t work for many films. I can’t say it works here entirely either. Many scenes have an awkwardness to them that borders on uncomfortable while they try to address various tropes of the villain archetypes;  the momma’s boy, the frat boy, the daddy issues, and the harangued man.  Bearing in mind these are told with broad strokes and perhaps, hopefully, a bit of satire. Sadly these characters also have little chemistry either. Perhaps as sociopathic or psychotics they shouldn’t, but individually they function and together they do not.

I am not sure where the blame lies here. Our villains, as shown in the trailer, are played by Logan Huffman (V the Series), Cameron Bright (Thank You for Smoking, Twilight New Moon/Eclipse), Reece Thompson (Dreamcatcher, Perks of Being a Wallflower), Alexander Ludwig (Hunger Games, Vikings).  As a unit they come across little more than caricatures barely making it to 2 dimensional villains. For that reason alone I care little about them, but also want to see them suffer due to their natures.

On the flip side we have Wes Bentley (American Horror Story, Ghost Rider, Hunger Games) and Abigail Breslin (Zombieland, Maggie). Bentley is…well Bentley. I think he was trying to reach Agent 47 levels in his character and doesn’t quite make it; but he also is Wes Bentley and just has his own style of performance that I can see him being a future Nick Cage in the weird. Breslin, on the other hand, delivers a solid performance. I could see her as a scream queen or an action heroine in future projects as she is able to switch between stalker and stalked like a light switch.  I rather enjoyed her which makes her the bright spot in the performances of the movie, especially in the third act.

TL;DR?

Perhaps I expected more of it than it could deliver. Perhaps it never had the potential to deliver it at all. The movie just sort of lands flat and unsatisfying. With only one performance (Breslin) being interesting the movie fails on a lot of levels. They continued to shoot in a stage play meets noir vibe and never fully committed to it allowing me to appreciate that facet of it. There’s just some failures on storytelling that left me scratching my head what the point of some scenes were. That happened too often.

Sadly, unless you obsess over any of the actors Final Girl doesn’t make the cut.

 

 

 

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.