Blog

Julian Richards’ movie Darklands was first released in the UK already in 1997 and has since then been shown at many festivals around Europe and won quite a few prizes prizes, including Grand Prize of European Fantasy Film in Silver, Best Screenplay and Best Independent Feature Award. But this year, 2012, “Darklands“ will go on its second round as it is finally going to be released on DVD in Canada and the United States. So we will see pretty soon what the Americans and Canadians think of this Welsh homegrown low budget horror movie.

The story is about a journalist Frazer Truick (Craig Fairbass) who meets a beautiful trainee journalist Rachael Morris ( Rowena King).  She gets him to investigate the death of her brother, who on a closer look was actually murdered by the religious cult in the town.  Soon he realizes that the woman who he sleeps  with already in the first thirty minutes of the movie isn’t very trustworthy at all and has some secrets herself. There are a lot of bad guys in this story and one good guy who has to figure out everything on his own. Will he make it or is he going to be the next human sacrifice of the cult ?

This Welsh horror movie is not really that scary at all. It just has a few disgusting killing scenes (I don’t suggest a vegetarian to watch this movie unless you enjoy looking at a pig being slaughtered while it is screaming horribly). For me, Darklands didn’t offer anything new that I haven’t seen in movies before, but then again, I’m not really into fantasy anyway.

There were a few good twists to the movie that I didn’t exactly expect to see, for example the ending.  And there is nothing wrong with the plot – a story of a religious cult doing some bizarre sacrifices can be quite horrifying indeed. But there was something missing in this film, that something what would make it stand out from the other similar movies. Darklands includes all the elements a fantasy horror movie should have but nothing more that would take it to the next level and make you want to say „ Ooh, this is brilliant,“ and hold onto your seat while watching it.

Overall, I think  Darklands is a nice movie to watch when you aren’t really looking for anything special. The movie isn’t bad, it isn’t great, I’d say the film is a totally average 90’s horror movie, except it doesn’t have any running half-naked teenagers running away from some killer with a mask. Instead it has a one man trying to find the  truth among all the other bad men who are so desperately against him. Of course, if you like these „ one man tries to save all“ movies and don’t mind a little killing every now and then,  you might find this one an amazing movie. But if you want to watch something what would really be something scary and make you feel fear, Darklands is not for you.

Shortly said, it was like playing games at school with your teacher. You get very excited that you don’t have to do any schoolwork anymore and then the game the teacher wants to play includes you doing math every minute in order to find out something super „interesting“ in history. Which can be even worse than the schoolwork itself. Same with this „horror“ movie .. it’s just a film that includes some killing, there is absolutely nothing scary about it.

Darklands was Julian Richards’ feature movie debut and although I don’t find the film amazing, I still got to give him some credit for it. I mean, it’s not a bad movie, I managed to watch it till the end without falling asleep and found some twists quite interesting but  that was all there was…

After Darklands, Richards has continued on doing horror movies such as The Last Horror Movie(2003), Summer Scars (2007) and has always won awards or at least been nominated so you can see the guy obviously has some talent. Shiver (2012) is coming out next year in America.

Well, Darklands DVD just came out in US and Canada in the end of November and the movie might be on its second round of success. Or maybe not.

By Robert Mann.

Given that this is the umpteenth adaptation of Charles Dickens’ classic novel, the story having already being adapted in almost every way imaginable, from The Muppets to Disney, from period drama to modern re-imagining, it is understandable that there will probably be a degree of fatigue with regard to the film’s inspiration – after all, is there really anything that can be done with the material that hasn’t already? Probably not, at least in terms of story as it appears that there will be little new or different in this area, the film appearing to be one of the most faithful adaptations yet. What this new adaptation is bringing to the table though is the manner in which it has been filmed. With director Robert Zemeckis at the helm, A Christmas Carol has been filmed using the same motion capture animation techniques that the director previously utilized to bring both The Polar Express and Beowulf to the screen, a technique that is still developing, consequently resulting in somewhat mixed receptions to those aforementioned films. However, trailers thus far have been extremely promising and it looks as though the technique may have advanced considerably since Zemeckis last brought it to the big screen, and thus A Christmas Carol actually has something that really makes it stand out from the ever growing crowd of Charles Dickens adaptations.

It’s Christmas Eve, and mean old miser Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is in an even worse mood than usual, barking orders at his hapless employee Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman) and rudely rejecting an invitation to Christmas dinner from his nephew Fred (Colin Firth). But Scrooge is about to get a lesson he’ll never forget when, during the course of the night, he’s visited by three fearsome apparitions – the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come (all Jim Carrey). One by one, the ghosts take Scrooge on a soul-searching journey back to his past and into the future to show him what might happen if he doesn’t change his wicked ways. With Christmas Day just hours away, will Scrooge be able to put his past behind him before it’s too late?

From a technical standpoint, there is much about A Christmas Carol that can be applauded. The motion capture animation is the most realistic yet with both characters and environments being almost life-like, and since The Polar Express and Beowulfconsiderable improvements have been made in the rendering of eye movements, something which allows emotions to be conveyed much more believably by the virtual characters. This, of course, is also aided by the performances though, with the principal performers all doing a very good job with their roles. The ever versatile Jim Carrey is fantastic in his multiple roles, giving each of the ghosts their own distinct personality and also portraying different accents for each role with a great degree of success. As Scrooge, he starts out immensely despisable – just the way the character should be – and makes us really believe in his redemption over the course of the film. Carrey is also backed up brilliantly by Gary Oldman (who also voices Marley and Tiny Tim) who, in the role of Bob Cratchit, is a truly likable and sympathetic screen presence, as well as a supporting cast that includes performances from Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn and Fionnula Flanagan.

The characters also convince because of authentic sounding dialogue, which is just one of the ways in which writer/director Robert Zemeckis’ script adapts Dickens’ novel for the screen literally. The only notable deviations from the source material seem to be several rollercoaster style sequences which have been included to make use of the 3D effects. The 3D is quite spectacular but Zemeckis doesn’t overdo it and it is actually some of the more subtle examples that really dazzle. In particular, in scenes where it is snowing, it actually seems as if it is really snowing in the auditorium. This is just one example of how the 3D heightens the realism of the beautiful animation that is on show. However, for all the film’s strengths, it is still far from perfect. From a story perspective the film has literally nothing to offer that hasn’t been seen before, all the effort clearly having been put into the visuals, and as a piece of family entertainment the film is also somewhat lacking. Younger viewers may find much of the film to be too slow paced and wordy, there is an absence of humour, and a lot of the content may to be too dark and scary for children, the ghosts being a creepy and haunting screen presence. These things don’t make this adaptation of A Christmas Carol a bad film but if you’re looking for a fun filled Christmas flick that will fill your kids with festive cheer this may not be it.

During an attempted coup d’etat on the emperor’s palace samurai Moritoh (Kazuo Hasegawa) rescues court lady Kesa (Machiko Kyo). During the short time that he watches over her Moritoh falls for the her – whilst battling dissenting samurai. On his return to court the emperor asks what he can give the samurai as reward for his loyalty. He asks for Lady Kesa’s hand in marriage only to be told, humiliatingly in front of the court that she is already married. Moritoh then begins a terror campaign to either win over Kesa or take her husband Lord Wataru (Isao Yamagata) out of the equation.

Gate of Hell won the Palme D’or at Cannes when it was released in 1954. Held with high regard by critics and fans of Japanese cinema it has been strongly petitioned to be released on home video which has not happened – until now. Released through the Masters of Cinema series (which is like a UK version of Criterion, without the fantastic special features) the new transfer of this forgotten “gem” looks stunning. It is hard to think that this was the first Japanese film released in colour. The screen is filled with bold, lush colours it even manages to out do Kurosawa’s Ran and Madadayo with it’s bold colour palette.

Also rare for a period Japanese production from this period is the use of locations. Rarely does the film feel set-bound and claustrophobic which is a trap that some films fall into when dealing with the emperors’ court. In fact at some points you can almost imagine a car park full of people just off camera whilst two samurai duel it out. The music is also a major highlight. Reflecting Moritoh’s increasingly fracture psyche we are treated to eerie, siren-like whistles and pounding drums that would unsettle in a modern work.

Not everything’s completely rosy with the film though. The drama has dated a bit. Reserved passion and obsession is swept aside to make way for oodles of melodrama that is almost pantomime like. I appreciate that much of 40s/50s Japanese cinema still relied on the template set by the theatre but seriously this gets hammy. Kazuo Hasegawa whilst convincing in his insane love for Kesa eventually becomes annoying. You kind of want another samurai to take him aside, whip him across the face with a scabbard and say something along the lines of “dude, can’t you just be cool”. Other moments in the film which could be played out with a lingering look are set aloud. There’s no internal monologue at work here. Another left over from the theatre tradition.

These points aside Gate of Hell is certainly worth a look for Japanese cinema enthusiasts. the story, whilst like I say melodramatic is ultimately quite compelling. The film looks and sounds stupendous. Plus it’s interesting to picture what the could have been like had director Teinosuke Kinugasa had chosen to present the film as a thriller rather than a straight forward drama. Yes, those kind of films are ten a penny now and generally suck but a film from this time and place playing out like a male version of Fatal Attraction would have been fascinating to behold.

Claude Sautet’s 1972 romantic drama pits obnoxious salesman César (Yves Montand) against reserved artist David (Sami Frey) as they vie for the affections of Rosalie (Romy Schneider).

This premise and the somewhat archetypal characters have been seen in countless mainstream ‘rom-coms’ (to put this in context replace César with Hugh Grant and David with Colin Firth and you’ve basically got Bridget Jone’s Diary). However the film strives for drama over comedy and more than anything is in fact a character study of Montand’s troubled César as he is torn between jealousy and an overwhelming desire to make Rosalie happy.

Although Rosalie is the essential pivot of the film and its plot Romy Schneider’s character feels underdeveloped with only a few scenes without her suitors in which the audience can begin to understand her real feelings and motivations.

While the majority of the film plays out as one might expect, with a series of confrontations, outbursts and retaliations, the final half-hour sees an interesting new development as the three characters reach an agreement of sorts in an attempt to live together. This is by far the most interesting portion of the film as it strays from convention and raises complicated questions about love, self sacrifice and happiness.

Although some of the film making style and the look of the film itself is firmly rooted in the 1970’s the blu-ray transfer brings a fresh, contemporary feel to the drama.

Ultimately my main problem with César and Rosalie is not about the film-making or the performances it is rather that the characters themselves are not likeable (which incidentally is also my problem with Closer) . Although the trio may be more realistically drawn, flawed characters than found in more conventional fare it is hard to get on board or identify with them, which leads me to think that your enjoyment of this film depends entirely on your own life experiences.