Movie Review: Dark Crimes

Dark Crimes (2018)

Directed by Alexandros Avranas 

Written by Jeremy Brock

Starring Jim Carrey, Martin Csokas, Charlotte Gainsbourg

Release Date May 18th, 2018

Published May 18th, 2018

Dark Crimes is a whole lot of nonsense. While I appreciate that Jim Carrey is taking a risk and playing a role well outside our perception of him as a performer, Dark Crimes is a risk that should not have been taken. This Poland set mystery involving a murder among a violent sex cult is so poorly constructed and so nonsensically plotted that even if Jim Carrey had been brilliant in his offbeat, against the grain, performance, it wouldn’t have mattered against this awful piece of storytelling.

In Dark Crimes, Jim Carrey stars as Tadek, a veteran detective in a major city in Poland. At one point, we’re told that Tadek is the last good cop in Poland but the movie does little to demonstrate that. Tadek is investigating the murder of a man who was found bound in an S & M style and dropped in a river. Tadek’s top suspect is a writer named Kozlov (Martin Csokas) whose latest book, a thriller, describes a murder exactly like the one Tadek is investigating.

The details depicted in the book, which we hear as Tadek is listening to the audiobook of Kozlov’s bestseller, are uncannily like the murder and Tadek is certain that Kozlov is the killer. That is, until he continues down the rabbit hole of this sex cult which is made up of some of the most powerful men in Poland, including Tadek’s work rival, Greger (Robert Wieckiewicz). Thus, Tadek had better be right before he goes so far he can’t come back.

That’s an okay thumbnail of Dark Crimes but it contains a good deal of inference on my part. Dark Crimes is so nonsensically assembled that it is impossible to actually know what is happening. Nudity and an orgy and a murder give us a sense of what the plot is about, and it certainly makes for a jarring opening to the movie, but then the movie abandons the sex cult in favor of one on one staring contests between Carrey and Csokas that stagnate an already sluggish story.

The assemblage of Dark Crimes is almost painful to piece together. A number of scenes appear to have significant revelations but the movie is so clumsy that I am not sure what was being revealed in what appeared to be intended as revelatory scenes. One scene finds Carrey reacting to something for a good long while and when we finally see what he’s reacting to, it’s so tangential to the plot of Dark Crimes that his intense psychic pain barely registers.

Charlotte Gainsbourg, whose work with Lars Von Trier likely made her time on Dark Crimes feel like a cakewalk, co-stars here as a woman abused in the sex cult. She’s also the girlfriend of Kozlov though she tells Carrey that the relationship with Kozlov is over before the two sleep together in one of the least sexy sex scenes I’ve ever seen. Is Gainsbourg’s character a frightened victim seeking protection or a sexy scheming killer? I have no idea and the movie is too vague and poorly put together for me to even venture a guess as to the nature of Gainsbourg's character or any other character for that matter, including Carrey's Tadek. 

The ending is the most nonsensical of bit of all. I watched and then re-watched the end of Dark Crimes in the vain hope that I could figure out what happened and two viewings yielded no definitive answer. The final moment is captured so poorly, literally at a bizarre distance at a cantilevered angle, that the fate of Jim Carrey’s character is unknown as the credits began to roll.

I will say, aside from a desperately unneeded close-up of Carrey's twisted face during a love scene, ugh, Dark Crimes is great looking movie. The cinematography, especially on a high quality Blu-Ray, looks phenomenal. Poland looks beautiful and foreboding, a character in its own right that in a better movie would matter to the plot. But not here, not among the skill free nonsense on display in Dark Crimes.

Dark Crimes is undoubtedly among the worst movies of 2018. Jim Carrey’s bold decision to play a character wildly out of his comfort zone, all the way down to a silly sounding Polish accent, is almost laughably terrible. I admire the big swing Carrey takes here but perhaps he should reign in the ambition just a little. Maybe start with a clever little independent feature delivered by a promising young upstart director. Try going to film festivals and looking for young and hungry filmmakers who could use your star power to get a movie made. Most importantly Jim, stay the heck out of Poland.

Movie Review The Eagle

The Eagle (2011) 

Directed by Kevin MacDonald 

Written by Jeremy Brock 

Starring Channing Tatum, Jamie Bell, Donald Sutherland, Mark Strong

Release Date February 11th, 2011 

Published February 11th, 2011

Could the wholly un-ironic hero be making a comeback? If the new action movie “The Eagle” is any indication the answer is a solid maybe. The box office is the real deciding factor on such a trend but “The Eagle” is a notable movie for bringing back the story of the unabashed hero, a flawless, stalwart do-gooder who does what he feels is right without pausing for reflection or most importantly without the armor of ironic distance from his quest.

Channing Tatum is the earnest star of “The Eagle” as Marcus Aquila the new commander of a decrepit English outpost of the Roman Empire. Marcus's father was the leader of the legendary 9th Legion, 5000 men who simply vanished in Northern England (Scotland) leading to the establishment of Hadrian's Wall, the edge of the earth for Romans.

Lost in the battle with the 9th Legion was their legendary symbol, a golden eagle that stands for Rome. Marcus aches to recover the Eagle to restore honor to his family name. After suffering an injury in battle Marcus's military career looks to have ended abruptly but after a painful recovery he is ready for a return and he has one quest in particular in mind.

With only the aid of his slave Esca (Jamie Bell), Marcus intends to cross into the unconquered territories and rescue the Eagle of the 9th.

”The Eagle” is a movie that doesn't mess around; director Kevin McDonald jumps into the fray and tells a well paced, well motivated story with an economy of dialogue and free of the kind of sardonic asides that modern action movies use as a buttress against seeming to care about the action around them.

The modern action movie began employing humor as a way of barricading itself from the criticism of the oftentimes goofy action, a way of saying 'we know how goofy this looks.' However, in becoming self aware, the action hero became self conscious and the act of heroism became a burden. “The Eagle” rejects the distance between hero and heroism and in doing so feels kind of fresh in comparison.

Channing Tatum is really the perfect star for this kind of movie. Tatum's stony visage seems incapable of winking at the audience, or of really knowing why he would be winking. Instead, Tatum bowls forward head first into the action with earnest relish and while you can make fun of his lack of depth his sturdy toughness fits the role and gives “The Eagle” some real juice.

While Tatum brings the toughness, Jamie Bell brings the acting chops. Bell steals scene after scene in “The Eagle” with his angry, determined performance. Bell gives life to Esca's back story, a slave captured from the North who may just as soon slit Marcus's throat as save his life, with his forceful words and a deathly stare.

The action in “The Eagle” is a little too much of the quick cut style that has plagued far too many modern action epics but director Kevin McDonald saves it with solid pacing and well motivated characters. His heroes have purpose and desire and while honor in battle is something that the modern action hero turns his nose up at, it's refreshing to see that type of hero make a comeback here.

”The Eagle” is a rugged, earnest action movie for audiences that have tired of the modern action hero and his ironic aside. I'm not saying that ironic self awareness is dead but occasionally it's nice to see a hero who says what he means and does what he says he's going to do without the armor of the one liner to keep anyone from taking him too seriously. There is something at stake in “The Eagle” and the hero doesn't hide from it behind a jokey insistence that nothing really matters.

Movie Review The Last King of Scotland

The Last King of Scotland (2006) 

Directed by Kevin MacDonald 

Written by Jeremy Brock, Peter Morgan 

Starring Forrest Whitaker, James McAvoy, Kerry Washington, Simon McBurney, Gillian Anderson 

Release Date September 27th, 2006 

Published September 26th, 2006 

Forest Whitaker has long been one of our most respected actors. And yet, the big prize, that signature role, has always eluded him. That gives a little extra juice to his role in Last King Of Scotland. Hollywood has wanted to find a way to honor Whitaker and now they have a good reason for it. As the evil Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, Whitaker is a powerful presence who dominates the screen even when offscreen. The Last King of Scotland overall is a flawed, somewhat messy movie that without Whitaker's mesmerizing performance would have never made it to the screen.

In 1970 Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) graduated medical school and seemed destined to join his father's family practice in Glasgow Scotland. Seeing his life laid out before him, Nicholas decided to shake things up. Taking on a missionary role in Uganda Africa, Nicholas thought he would spend a year treating the locals, building his karma and then head home. He wound up staying for nine eventful years.

Nicholas's arrival in Uganda coincided with a coup that brought the country a new leader. His name was Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker) and his man of the people schtick worked because of his huge personality and the tacit backing of the British government who had trained him for leadership for years. Nicholas and Amin met by chance when the dictator was injured in a minor car accident. The two bonded over Scotland where Nicholas was born and where Amin was trained as a younger man.

Amin, liking Nicholas's heritage and brash spirit invites him to come to the capital where he is to become the dictator's personal physician. At first he resists, but after being promised the opportunity to shape Uganda's health care industry and advise his friend on all matters, health as well as political and social issues, the offer of power is too much for Nicholas to turn down. His decision is a fateful deal with the devil as Amin's wild mood swings have Nicholas watching people killed and worrying for his own life.

The Last King of Scotland was the inventive idea of fiction writer Giles Foden who got the idea to chronicle the life and crimes of Idi Amin through a fictional character, Nicholas Garrigan. Nicholas is a composite of several different men who held favor with the real life dictator throughout his 9 year reign. It works as a shorthand way of trying to tell the story of Idi Amin. However, as a dramatic device in this movie it's distracting.

Too often the fictional character of Nicholas Garrigan pushes the real life Idi Amin off stage. So much time is spent establishing the stakes for this fictional composite character that we lose focus on the story hof Idi Amin that is the supposed driving force of this movie. The scenes with Garrigan are strong enough but because Forrest Whitaker's Idi Amin is so powerful that when he's not on screen we want to know where he is and what he's doing. 

Director Kevin MacDonald directed the exceptional documentary Touching The Void, one of the ten best films of 2003. That film combined documentary style interviews with dramatic recreations of the events that took place. Macdonald's documentary style approach is often well used in Last King of Scotland, however there are a few too many instances when McDonald's documentary look is at odds with his melodramatic storytelling.

Forest Whitaker nails the role of bloodthirsty paranoid dictator. Unfortunately, the film too often lurches away from his performance for more time with Nicolas Garrigan and we are left wondering what Idi Amin is doing. Granted, a movie that focused more directly on the evil dictator would likely be oppressive and dark given Amin's well chronicled crimes, however it would be more interesting than much of what made up the final cut of The Last King Of Scotland.

The problems with The Last King Of Scotland stem from the Nicolas Garrigan character and not from anything done by Forest Whitaker in the film. The Garrigan character is weak and far less interesting than Idi Amin. Moreover, Garrigan never develops much beyond being a plot device. He is a manufactured character in place so this story could be told. That might be okay if the character were more interesting but as written Garrigan is lightweight and forgettable where Amin is at once horrifying and fascinating.

Forest Whitaker nails every aspect of this role. His Idi Amin is monstrous yet charismatic. He is a horror film character made real. This is a remarkable, transformative performance and yet not surprising. People have been waiting for Forrest Whitaker to find this kind of role and make it his signature and he finally has. That his performance is far better than the film in which it exists is all that holds it back from being the best performance of any actor in the last year.

See The Last King of Scotland for Forest Whitaker