Movie Review The Darkest Hour

The Darkest Hour (2017) 

Directed by Joe Wright 

Written by Anthony McCarten 

Starring Gary Oldman, Kristen Scott Thomas, Lily James, Stephen Dillane, Ben Mendelsohn 

Release Date November 22nd, 2017 

With the release of the movie Darkest Hour starring Gary Oldman, there has been a new reckoning with the legacy of Sir Winston Churchill, one that has brought to light some of Churchill’s more horrific qualities. On his podcast Revisionist History, journalist Malcolm Gladwell reflected on Churchill with specific criticisms about the legendary Prime Minister’s policies toward India, policies that many feel were driven by Churchill’s Hitler-like disdain for the Indian people. Then there was the policy of strategic bombing in Germany which may have actually extended the war by two more years even as Churchill is recalled as that war’s great, heroic leader.

There is also talk of Churchill’s treatment of black people and women, none of it flattering. These revelations have cast a pall over the legacy of one of largest and most vaunted figures of the 20th Century. Thus, the release of a movie which chooses to focus on making the Prime Minister's legacy more suitably entertaining, it’s natural to cast a side eye at such a movie. Or one may be driven to madness trying to balance the notion that Darkest Hour is a very good film but one which aims its greatness at a figure who may not be so great, or at the very least, not worthy of such historic hagiography.

May 1940

Darkest Hour stars the inimitable Gary Oldman in the role of Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The story picks up in May of 1940 in first days in which Mr. Churchill inherited the office of Prime Minister from the deposed Neville Chamberlain. Churchill was no one’s first choice, a suspicion confirmed by King Edward (Ben Mendelsohn) early in the film when he asks why Lord Halifax (Stephen Dillane), his choice for Prime Minister, had passed on the job.

Churchill is the only candidate that both parties in Parliament will accept as a war time Prime Minister, despite what the King describes as a litany of military failures dating back to World War 1. Even with Churchill being offered and accepting the position, it’s barely a day before backbiting and jockeying for position to replace him begins, all the while Europe is falling quickly as German Panzer tanks decimate Holland and Belgium and begin an assault on France that will eventually lead to the beaches of Dunkirk and England’s "finest hour."

Find my full length review on the Geeks Community on Vocal 

Movie Review: Exodus Gods and Kings

Exodus Gods and Kings (2014) 

Directed by Ridley Scott 

Written by Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine, Steven Zaillian

Starring Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, Ben Mendelsohn

Release Date December 12th, 2014 

Published December 11th, 2014 

Ridley Scott's "Exodus: Gods and Kings" is a dull slog through a Bible story too familiar to be of much interest. Putting aside, for a moment, the awful casual racism involved in the film's casting, "Exodus" just simply isn't a very good film. Despite the special effects that render the seven plagues of Egypt in spectacular fashion, the grim story and wooden characters make "Exodus" a dreadful movie-going experience. 

Christian Bale stars as Moses and Joel Edgerton is Ramses, the Egyptian pharaoh, soon to be king. When we first meet them, Moses is Ramses' right-hand man. The two were raised as brothers by the Egyptian King Seti (John Turturro). Moses' origin story, however, is a lingering mystery that will become a definitive part of his life. He is an Israelite, and not an Egyptian. 

In fact, Moses isn't merely Jewish. He may be the Jewish savior who leads his people to freedom in Canaan, which will later become Israel. But first he and Ramses have to go to war. Moses has to prove that he is the greater warrior and more worthy heir to the throne of Egypt than the sniveling Ramses, who will poison his father to make sure his ascension to the throne happens without interruption. 

Ramses' paranoia eventually extends to his feelings for his brother Moses, whom he suspects will usurp his throne. When Ramses is informed by spies that Moses is, in fact, Jewish, he banishes Moses from the kingdom. Nine years pass, and Moses has begun to raise a family. Then he has a vision: A child, a stand-in for God, orders Moses to return to Egypt and lead his people out of slavery. 

If you don't already know this story then you have likely lived under a rock since birth. It's among the most familiar Bible stories in history, thanks to the violence and death unleashed by God in seven plagues. The plagues are the main reason why "Exodus: Gods and Kings" exists. Special effects have advanced so much in the past two decades that making the Nile River run red with blood, the arrival of millions of frogs, and an attack of locusts now can be rendered realistically in CGI.  

There is no denying that the special effects are impressive, especially late in the film, when God parts the Red Sea and then un-parts the Red Sea in even more spectacular and deadly fashion. But special effects alone are not enough to overcome the grim story, dour performances and general tedium of sitting through nearly three hours of this. 

And then there is the racism at the heart of the film. Both director Ridley Scott and 20th Century Fox owner Rupert Murdoch have weighed in on the casting of Scottish actor Joel Edgerton, saying that it was a business decision to cast a white actor as an Egyptian king. Scott claims that an actor with a name like Muhammad would not sell tickets, as if the name of Joel Edgerton ever has sold a ticket anywhere outside his Scottish home town. 

Bale, at the very least, has the powerful presence and charisma to render a Moses we can appreciate. Edgerton's sneering, sniveling Ramses is an over-the-top bore who is completely overmatched opposite Bale's imposing performance. Of course, even if Edgerton had delivered an Oscar-worthy turn, it still would not justify his casting over that of an actual Egyptian actor in the role. 

Scott's attempt to mask this racism as a business decision only makes it more insidious and cynical. It's impossible to watch "Exodus: Gods and Kings" and not see the casting of Edgerton – and, to an extent, Bale and Turturro -- as the latest example of Hollywood's historic offhand bigotry that dates back to Al Jolson and D.W Griffith. Nearly 100 years after Griffith, one might think we've evolved, especially with Hollywood's well known leftist politics. Yet here we are with white actors imitating Arabs and Israelites while wearing brown-face. 

In the end, even if "Exodus: Gods and Kings" hadn't been an overly familiar slog made solely to exploit modern special effects, the film still would have stunk because of its blasé’ attitude toward its own bigotry. 

Movie Review Knowing

Knowing (2009)

Directed by Alex Proyas 

Written by Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden, Stiles White 

Starring Nicolas Cage, Rose Byrne, Liam Hemsworth, Ben Mendelsohn

Release Date March 20th, 2009

Published March 20th, 2009 

I feel I may owe Nicholas Cage a modest apology. In rereading a few past reviews of his films I find that I have spent an inordinate amount of time commenting on his hair. In my defense, Cage's hair has seemed like a separate entity all its own in many of Cage's films. That receding, patchy fro from in Adaptation, the wild out of control hairline from Bangkok Dangerous, and the utterly criminal use of extensions and plugs in various Cage efforts. The man's hair is often as memorable as the movie he's in.

That said, Cage's personal appearance is a matter for his stylist not a review of the quality of the film he is in. Of course, makeup and hair are departments on a film set. Awards are given for great designs in both fields. When you think about it; actresses are constantly judged by their looks in movies whether consciously or otherwise.

Why should Nic Cage be excused? Why should he have a separate standard? Just because he has chosen to look so utterly bizarre on screen I as a critic of film am supposed to pretend I don't notice? How is that at all fair? You know what? Modest apology rescinded. In Knowing, Nicholas Cage's unyieldingly bizarre hairline comes second to the bizarre plotting of director Alex Proyas in a biblio-scientific melodrama about the end of existence.

Knowing stars Nicholas Cage as an MIT professor whose son brings home a piece of paper that had been buried underground for 50 years. The long ago students at his son's primary school buried the time capsules filled with their visions of the future some 50 years ago. When it was opened and his son was given a particular drawing from the capsule, all it had on it was a series of numbers.

Bored and slightly drunk, Cage begins examining the numbers and thinks he sees a pattern. The number 091101 2388 happens to correspond to the date of the World Trade Center attack and the number of people who died that day. Further investigation finds that most of the numbers are also dated and the number dead in every tragedy for the past 50 years.

Worse yet are numbers that correspond to future dates including several in the near future. The idea of determinism vs randomness has been the professor's field for a very long time and his conflict is well founded until he begins trying to alter the future and finds nothing but futility. Rose Byrne plays the daughter of the woman who wrote the numbers 50 years earlier. She now has a daughter who, like her grandmother, is hearing strange voices and numbered warnings. Strangely, Cage's son is also hearing these warnings and eventually unconsciously scribbling numbered warnings.

Director Alex Proyas is a master of this kind of supernatural oddity. His Dark City and The Crow are underrated epics of the macabre and dangerous. Head trips into the souls of people whose souls are questionable at best. Unfortunately, with Knowing he has found his M. Night Shyamalan-The Happening moment.

Ok, Knowing isn't nearly the abomination that The Happening was, but in the context of the two filmmakers, the parallel of the visionary artist finding his absolute nadir, the comparison is apt. Proyas's commitment to the absolute oddity of tone and utter lack of interest in crafting a competent narrative perfectly mirrors Shyamalan's unbelievable commitment to his bizarre meta-environmental parable.

Knowing's milieu is the kind of end of the world prophecy that the religious right oriented Left Behind movies have cultivated for years. Except, replace god with aliens. Yes, ET is somehow woven into this plot along with theology, numerology, Cosmology and even cosmetology as once again Cage's follicles cry out for attention as they hold on for dear life at that place he wishes were his real hairline.

As goofball plots go, Knowing is a doozy of goofball elements from aliens to car chases to the end of the world to moments of family reunion hokum. Director Proyas throws a whole hell of a lot of stuff at the screen. Not much sticks. There is an almost joy in the film's heedlessness of convention and willingness to be so earnestly cheeseball. The appreciation fades however in the final hockey moments.

Knowing is a disaster for director Proyas and yet another bizarre signpost in the career of Nicholas Cage. Add Knowing to Bangkok Dangerous to Next to The Wicker Man and you actually begin to see a pattern of complete disregard for convention that makes Knowing seem perfectly logical for Cage, even as it is a disaster for director, co-stars, producers and subsequent audience.

Movie Review Killing Them Softly

Killing Them Softly (2012) 

Directed by Andrew Dominik 

Written by Andrew Dominik 

Starring Brad Pitt, Scoot McNairy, Ben Mendelsohn, Richard Jenkins, James Gandolfini, Ray Liotta 

Release Date November 30th, 2012 

Published November 29th, 2012 

There is a good movie somewhere in the bones of "Killing them Softly." Sadly, what finally arrives on the big screen is only mildly interesting. This Brad Pitt starring mob drama about a hitman assigned to exact revenge on minor thieves who've stolen mob money has moments that are transcendent but also feel as if they belong in a different and more interesting movie.

'Indecisive and bureaucratic'

"Killing them Softly" stars Pitt as mob hit-man Jackie. Hired by the mob in New Orleans when their regular killer, Sam Shepard in a cameo, falls ill, Jackie is a philosophical killer eager to discuss plans for murder but growing weary of a mob that has become shockingly indecisive and bureaucratic.

Writer-director Andrew Domenik spends a great deal of effort to draw parallels between the mob and the modern American government, an ineffectual, gridlocked bureaucracy incapable of taking decisive action even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Every decision is work-shopped in committee and related via functionaries' Ala Richard Jenkins' mob lawyer.

Obama, McCain and Tony Soprano

The parallels between the mob and the government are thickly brewed and ladled on quite heavy as every scene seems to be scored by scenes from the 2008 economic crisis; the film is set in 2008 amid the Obama-McCain election. That said, the parallels are darkly amusing as are Pitt's exasperated expository conversations with Jenkins.

Also good are the talk heavy scenes between Pitt and a fellow mob hitman played by 'Sopranos' star James Gandolfini. There is a fascinating "My Dinner with Andre" style movie to be made with these two killers talking about the strange twists and turns of their lives and at times "Killing them Softly" almost becomes that movie.

Not enough star-power

The weakest moments of "Killing them Softly" and the reason why the film fails to become great, are the far too many moments when Pitt is off-screen. Scoot McNary and Ben Mandelsohn play the small-time crooks that Pitt takes aim at and we spend a shocking amount of time with these characters who never earn our interest and leave viewers wondering where Brad Pitt is.

"Killing them Softly" is a fascinating failure. Pitt, Jenkins and Gandolfini are very good but when they aren't onscreen, the film becomes far less compelling.

Movie Review Robin Hood (2018)

Robin Hood (2018) 

Directed by Otto Bathurst 

Written by Ben Chandler, David James Kelly

Starring Taron Egerton, Jamie Foxx, Ben Mendelsohn, Eve Hewson, Jamie Dornan 

Release Date November 21st, 2018

Published November 20th, 2018

Robin Hood is among the most ill-conceived blockbuster action movies in history. The attempt by Hollywood to sex up and modernize the Robin Hood legend is sad and desperate instead of new and cool. Director Otto Bathurst, a veteran of numerous popular TV shows, botches Robin Hood so badly you're left to wonder if it was intended as serious or as parody. The film is riddled with so many genre cliches that parody feels like a genuine possibility. 

We begin just as the crusades are getting underway. Young noble, Lord Robin of Locksley (Taron Egerton) is madly in love with a peasant girl named Marion (Eve Hewson). Their love affair is interrupted when Robin is drafted into the Crusades by the evil Sheriff of Nottingham (Ben Mendelsohn). He leaves and finds himself somewhere in the Middle East where the film becomes a straight up, modern war movie. 

This sequence is laughable with arrows that destroy walls more effectively than most bullets and fly at a rate that only cartoon arrows have ever flown before. Cartoon is an appropriate metaphor here because the arrows are a laughable example of bad CGI. Here, Robin Hood plays out a sequence that is a remarkable cliche from every modern, Iraq war era war movie. An arrow shooting machine gun has the crusaders pinned down and only Robin can get to him to shut down that arrow gun. 

This sequence made me laugh embarrassingly loud. The creators of Robin Hood believe they are bringing Robin Hood into a more modern context but the attempt fails miserably due to the remarkable series of incongruencies and anachronisms. On top of this, the idea that Robin was ‘drafted’ ruins the idea of Robin as a noble man disillusioned by what he thought was a just war. Instead, you just have Robin as a bratty dilettante who happens to be the only Englishman with a conscience. Here the movie tries to be a Vietnam movie and once again, I was embarrassed for myself laughing and for the actors selling this nonsense. 

During this sequence Robin meets John (Jamie Foxx), a middle eastern fighter who sees Robin as someone in a position of privilege that could be to his advantage. Stowing away on the ship taking an injured Robin back to England, John seeks out Robin and unfolds the plot. They will train and become thieves and steal the fortune of the Sheriff of Nottingham, disrupting the funds needed to continue the Crusades. 

In his time away, the Sheriff has condemned and burned Robin’s home and announced him as having been killed in the war. Because of this, Marion has left and moved on and is now in a relationship with WIll Scarlett (Jamie Dornan). Marion is also secretly conspiring with Friar Tuck to uncover a piece of information that will take down the Sheriff and his supporters among the corrupt Church of England. 

Could any of this nonsense have worked? Maybe, there are a lot of elements in play, plenty of complexities that could be explored. Sadly, the script for Robin Hood is so dopey that it botches everything from beginning to end. There is a conspiracy plot at the center of the movie involving the Church and the Sheriff and it’s all complete nonsense. There is a plot involving stealing documents that then play no role whatsoever in how the story plays out. 

The documents prove a plot that the sheriff is involved in but he’s already robbing and killing the people of Nottingham. Do they really need a conspiracy to want to stand against him? The unneeded nonsense piled into this story only serves to drag things out in remarkably ill-conceived. At one point a character played by the wonderful F. Murray Abraham arrives and appears solely so that he can help Ben Mendelsohn deliver one of the dumbest talking killer monologues in the history of talking killer monologues. 

Because the script is so incredibly dumb and the plot is so remarkably convoluted, the actors are rendered silly throughout. The cast carries out actions that are mostly nonsensical, as if the plot were being written and rewritten mid-scene and all they can do is try to minimize how confused they appear to be. Poor Eve Hewson is the most let down by the nonsense script as Marion appears capably inept, able to steal useless information and just as quickly deliver dialogue dismissing the importance of what she just risked her life to steal. 

I must mention the anachronistic costumes as well. Wow! Leather bars don’t have leather as lovely and durable as they had in the era of The Crusades, several hundred years before leather was even invented. The sheriff wears a gray leather duster that I am pretty sure you could buy at a store for well over a thousand dollars. I realize that the suspension of disbelief is required but the modern touches brought to this story are never justified. 

Set the film in an alternate universe, include magic or monsters, or make it a fairy tale universe, do something to establish a universe where the ludicrous anachronisms aren’t so silly looking. The filmmakers do nothing to make this a believable period in human history and yet it uses history, i.e the Crusades as a touchstone. I am being unnecessarily pedantic about something as dimwitted as Robin Hood but I am trying to contextualize my reaction to this movie which was repeated, embarrassed giggles. 

These giggles were not intended. The movie doesn’t want to be laughed at but I couldn't help myself. The laughable script, the awful CGI, the ludicrously faux cool costumes made me repeatedly burst into giggles I found hard to stifle. I was laughing at the movie and not with it and it was not fun. I didn’t go to this movie to laugh, I wanted it to be the adventure that the marketing promised but no, it’s just all so terrible, so hysterically terrible.