In Darkness (A)

A harrowing and atmospheric period piece about one of the worst atrocities to ever occur, In Darkness is a realistic and insightful picture for those able to handle the bleak subject matter.

In Darkness is based on the true story of Leopold Socha, who risked his life hiding Jewish people in the sewer during the Nazi occupation of Poland. The movie version of Socha is an ordinary man who works in the sewer in order to support his wife and child. For extra money, Socha burglarizes houses, but he is able to quit this when he discovers a group of Jewish refugees who pay him to help hide them in the sewers he knows so well. Socha’s motives are unclear, but it appears this is because he himself isn’t sure of whether he is in it for the money or because it is the right thing. There is no point where Socha announces his change of heart; his life slowly becomes consumed with helping the refugees, long after it stopped being profitable for himself.

Socha has good reason to be conflicted. For starters, his family would be in peril if his actions were discovered. Also, the Nazis brutality is not just limited towards Jews--any harm that falls on the soldiers is viciously avenged by massacring scores of Poles.

There are several subplots. The refugees miserable lives in the sewers leads to conflict and fighting and the class differences between them tears them apart almost as much as their mutual circumstances unite them together. A romance between two of the poorer Jews slowly matures, though the gratuitous nudity in their (brief) sex scene is not something that should be in the movie. Socha’s partner in crime is aware of Socha’s actions, but doesn’t wish to be involved. Socha is also friends with a Ukranian he was in prison with, who has found new success as a Nazi commander. Socha and his wife has a deep and multi-layered relationship: Few romance films create such a genuine and heart-wrenching love story.

In Darkness is a Polish film that was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. It is directed by Agnieszka Holland, political activist and director of Europa, Europa. Holland is half Catholic and half Jewish, which might explain why both races are portrayed in equally realistically and sympathetically. The story is written by David F. Shamoon in his scriptorial debut. Hopefully goes on to greatness; he certainly has potential.

Robert Wieckiwicz gives an Oscar worthy performance as Socha; hopefully he is able to make the transition to US films. Kinga Preis is also excellent as Socha’s wife, though honestly every single member of the cast does a fantastic job.

One of the best and boldest parts of the picture is that Socha and the refugees never connect or become friends. There are moments when they get so very close, but in the end the refugees neither trust nor respect Socha. It is clear Socha is very hurt by this; he himself is never able to open up to them enough to see them as equals. He isn’t doing it because of loyalty to them--his actions are simply because it is the right thing to do.

Even by Holocaust movie standards In Darkness is depressing. The lengthy extremes of misery portrayed are certainly far more than some people would find healthy to sit through. However, if you can stomach the very grim subject matter, the picture can be very uplifting, even if its ending isn’t particularly happy. The events that occurred are amazing and this film stands as a testament to people’s ability to persist on the path of righteousness even when it completely hopeless.

While not for everyone, many will be able to experience the powerful, insightful, and thematically rich In Darkness.

The Secret World of Arrietty (B-)

The world of Arrietty is breathtaking, but that’s about all that is.

The Secret World of Arrietty is based on the children's book The Borrowers, one of those faux-classics that everyone pretends is great because they don’t remember/never read it. The movie is about a boy who is going to have life-threatening heart surgery who becomes friends with a girl who is less than six inches tall. She lives secretly with her parents and no one is to know about her. For an explanation of why, hang in there, I’ll get to it.

Arrietty is heavily advertised as being from Studio Ghibli, which distributed all of the Hayao Miyazaki films like My Neighbor Totoro and Spirited Away. He didn’t direct this, but he did write it, so much of the blame should fall on him. This is not in anyway a masterpiece.

The film was made for both US and Japanese audiences; in each country, the voice actors speak that nation’s language. Unfortunately, Japanese and English are so completely different it is rather hard to find sentences that both fit the movement of the characters. Maybe this explains why the voice acting--done by talented people like Bridget Mendler, David Henrie, Amy Poehler, and Will Arnett--is so terrible. It ranges from ridiculously pretend (Poehler) to completely expressionless (Arnett) and makes several critical scenes laughable.

For some reason, the British version of the film (which I have not seen) has world-renowned British actors like Saoirse Ronan and Mark Strong voicing the roles. Maybe it is better. I don’t know why they went so far is to redub the lines for countries that speak the exact same language. Didn’t Harry Potter prove Americans are totally okay with listening to British accents?

The weirdest part is from the villain, the old maid in the boy’s house. She, named Hara (Carol Burnett), is supposed to be comic. She isn’t--at least not in the way intended. She locks the little Borrowers in glass jars and hires exterminators to capture them, muttering about how she hates them for stealing cookies from the cabinets and making her seem delusional for seeing them. She constantly talks to herself saying lines like “Let’s see them call me crazy now!” and other creepy things not expected from a kids film. When things don’t go her way, she smashes objects and writhes on the floor screaming “I’m not mad!” It is sure to terrify children, but it is worth a watch for adults who want to marvel at the fact they seriously put it in a G-rated kids movie.

The movie is trying to tackle big themes--forgotten dreams, death, etc.--but mostly fails because these issues aren’t tackled by just putting them in a kids movie, they are tackled by coming up with a meaningful interpretation. A voice-over narration at the end filling us in on what they are doesn’t cut it. I know the writers on this film can tell far greater stories than this.

The one theme that the picture does get across is a sense of wonder for the dangerous, exciting, and beautiful world around us. It doesn’t do this with dialogue or action sequences, though: It is all accomplished using the wonderful visuals. The world around the characters is breathtaking. The film has long sequences where we see little daily journeys in each character and viewers get to admire the beautiful scenery. Most kids movies wouldn’t take the time to show every little detail of the setting, but this movie does. And it is all the better for it.

Better. But not great.

MIB3 (A)

Before I begin, I have to address the stupid name.  Why in a series where the first entry was Men in Black and the second entry was Men in Black II is the third MIB³.  In the English language, abbreviations are supposed to exclude anything that isn’t a verb, adverb, noun, or adjective.  The Center for Disease Control isn’t the CFDC, it’s just the CDC.  The Food and Drug Administration isn’t the FADA, it’s just the FDA.  Therefore, the Men in Black Agency should be the MB Agency, not the MIB agency.  

Furthermore, scientific notation is used when saying something is multiplied by itself.  For example, 3² is 3x3 and 3³ is 3x3x3.  The third entry in a series should be noted with a simple number (in the case of the Men in Black series, this should be a roman numeral since Men in Black II wasn’t Men in Black 2).  A subscripted three says that the third Men in Black movie is actually a Men in Black movie times a Men in Black movie times a Men in Black movie.  

If the effort was to distinguish itself, it doesn’t work, since the stupid subscript thing has been numerous times (Alien³).

Anyway, here is the review.

Josh Brolin & Will Smith

Nine times out of ten, time travel story arcs end up stupid with glaring continuity errors. The “fish out of water” jokes of being in a new era wear out there welcome very swiftly and the bored audience has nothing to do except count the glaring errors in the plot.

Tommy Lee Jones & Smith

This means it is a great surprise to see that time travel brings more to the Men in Black series, making MIB the best in an already great franchise. The story is the most touching and most witty, and the new cast members are just as good at acting as the old ones.

When we last saw Agents J and K, they were once again partners protecting the world from alien threats, with all of K’s memories restored. In MIB, the duo are still working together, but their relationship has grown strained due to the coldness and lack of empathy of K. Meanwhile, an alien named Boris the Animal escapes from his lunar prison and vows revenge on K, who shot off his arm and imprisoned him decades ago.

Boris steals a time travel device and uses it to go back in time and kill K. The current scientific theories suggest that this would in fact not matter to the J we know since he would have killed an alternate universe K, but apparently this reality-warping time travel device doesn’t work that way. K is now gone and J is the only one who remembers the old universe. J must not travel back in time--to 1969--and prevent Boris from killing K.

Jemaine Clement as Boris

This sounds confusing; I know. But the movie ends up overcoming the logical gaps with a surprisingly witty story that takes its science (slightly) more seriously than the previous two entries in the series. Written by Etan Cohen--on a hot streak after penning the hilariously funny blockbusters Tropic Thunder and Madagascar 2--the picture gets consistent laughs, but remembers to keep the touching bittersweet elements of the first two. In fact, MIB is the darkest in the series, but it isn’t so dark as to forget to be humorous.

Barry Sonnenfeld is still directing the series, and the action sequences are top-notch. The CGI elements are better than before as well. It is worth noting, though, that the majority of the effects are still created by legendary make-up designer Rick Baker.

Rick Baker Cameo (he has the exposed brain)

Will Smith(Agent J) andTommy Lee Jones (Agent K) are just as charming as team as they have always been, but MIBbrings in a bunch of new actors who definitely add to the charm. Emma Thompson doesn’t have much to do as Agent O (the new head of the Men in Black), butJon Heder is hilarious in a cameo as Andy Worhol. Michael Stuhlbargbrings great depth to a melancholy alien that sees every possible future at once but is unable to determine which one will occur.Jemaine Clement takes the already cool character of Boris and makes him what I hope to see become one of the great villains. As the young, vain Boris of ’69, Clement shows an intimidating and ruthless biker who dominates every scene he is in. As the older, one-armed 2012 Boris, Clement (and Cohen’s script) give us a tragic figure who is filled with regret and goes back to redo his life, but fails to remember the past, and is thus doomed to repeat it.

The best performance--one deserving of a Best Supporting Actor nomination--is from Josh Brolin. As the younger Agent K, Brolin’s impersonation is dead-on, but isn’t just a rip-off. This K is happier, calmer, and friendlier without the years of regret Tommy Lee Jones’s version had. Seeing how even if K survives he will be forever haunted by what happens to him in the next few days haunts every scene, but Brolin has all of Jones’s charm and thus keeps us laughing all the same.

Both previousMen in Blackfilms had the same theme of marveling at a universe we can’t begin to understand. The more in-depth conclusion to the trilogy (if it stays a trilogy) makes that idea more poignant than ever.

MIB is summer entertainment at its best--clever, funny, action-packed, and ultimately uplifting.

P.S. Check out Screened's Fan Art section for some amazing artwork (not mine).

Snow White & the Huntsman (B-)

Should have seen that one coming!

Despite a runtime of over two hours, Snow White has little idea of what it wants to say. With good acting and great visuals, it almost fools one into thinking this is an exciting fantasy adventure, but there is an omnipresent feeling you are watching a storyboard, not a story.

When a movie of this scale and intensity fails to have much of a plot, the reason tends to fall into one of two categories: The picture was rushed into production before the script was polished up, or the original script was too long and some idiot cut it down into its current mess. There are three writers on Snow White, which doesn’t prove it one way or another, though it is always a little risky to have so many cooks in the kitchen. Especially when the director wasn’t involved in the script. Not to say it never works; it just doesn’t here.

The first major flaw to come up is the absurd level of self-consciousnessSnow Whitehas. In absolute terror of being seen as a childish fairy tale, the picture is loaded with eye-stabbing, nudity, worm-infested corpses, onscreen spousal murder, rape, incest, hallucinogenic drugs, occult human sacrifices, and other nasty stuff you didn’t see in the Disney version. The problem is, it isn’t particularly well-incorporated into the screenplay. In fact, it comes off as absurd in a Tropic Thunder-style parody sort of way. It doesn’t help that unlike last summer’s similar Conan the Barbarian, which was guilty of the same mistakes, this movie takes everything deadly seriously.

Snow White is a rough retelling of the story--a beautiful princess named Snow White (Kristen Stewart) flees her evil step-mother queen(Charlize Theron) and runs into a forest. The queen sends a huntsman(Chris Hemsworth aka Thor) to find her, but instead he helps her. There is also a prince (Sam Claflin) and dwarves, but those seem tacked on in this version of the tale.

Before her coronation

I was humored to see Charlize Theron playing the same character she did in Young Adult. No, seriously--the exact same character. She plays a sensually selfish lady nearing middle-aged obsessed with finding youth. The scenes where she begins to age, but then undoes it with middle age are a near shot-for-shot redo of the Young Adult scenes featuring the application and removal of make-up.

Hemsworth is, as usual, charming, but by making him play a hopelessly depressed widower there is little he can do. In fact, there is little anybody can do. The characters spend there whole time running from and fighting with each other; there are few moments reserved for actual interaction.

The plot makes little sense with several astounding coincidences and uses of deus ex machina. There is a subplot involving a feud between the Huntsman and the queens pervert brother, Finn (who for an unexplained reason is played by Sam Spruell dressed up to look albino); there is also a love triangle set-up for a sequel between the prince and the huntsman, though that goes nowhere. Towards the end, the movie abandons the whole story-line of the fairy tale, but not for a particularly good reason. Substituting the Huntsman as the love interest for Snow instead of the Prince should have a reason--instead the Huntsman merely plays the same role as the Prince, albeit he doesn’t have a kingdom.

Frustratingly, the dwarves are used solely for comic relief and as a way to provide extra info to the audience; this is necessary since about ten minutes into the film the narrator who previously wouldn’t shut up suddenly dies and we never hear him again.

Legendary costume designer Colleen Atwood has designed some coolish costumes, though they each seem to be duplicates of ones from other movies (mostly her own). Rupert Sanders (in his directorial debut) and the visual effects team do a great job of creating fantastic settings and award-winning cinematographer doesn’t go overboard with artificially darkening the images (most of the time). The action scenes are entertaining, though they would be more-so if there was a story to go with it.

There were lots of doubts surrounding Kristen Stewart’s ability to act. I think it is safe to say that whatever problems there were in her performances in Twilight 1 and 2, she has either outgrown or were solely due to that character. She does a better job than most actresses her age in Snow White & the Huntsman.

The problem with Snow White is mainly due to a lack of a story. As a mindless action flick, this movie would work just fine, if you can handle the fact that it treats itself so seriously. Still, some superior recent fantasy epics like Eragon seem to have gone under the radar. It might be more fun to see one of them instead.