daniewhite-1

Odd and offbeat failed attempt at a contemplative and reflective look at nature, man and beast in contact, where man and nature entwine along a railway, on the banks of a river, a "crossing between two worlds" as it is phrased in the film, which somehow falls to pieces on every plot front.

'The Ghost and the Darkness' certainly retains effective production credits all through: lovely photography, languid direction of scenes, editing, scoring, sound design, sets, locations, costumes, visuals effects and action sequences all retain some power to move the viewer and carry them into the films inner workings.

Furthermore Val Kilmer seems poised to carry off an onpoint leading performance for this stage of his career and he almost does so. His characterisation hints at calm, confidence, competence but also growing uncertainty, fear, frustration, and desperation. Most importantly a lovely effort at building a character becoming increasingly desperate.

However the film falls to pieces in its treatment, and becomes bafflingly bad, whilst retaining a tonal mood and style closely akin to it's earlier successes.

It is this failure of substance, failure of development, failure of construction, which ruins the film and spoils it's early promise. Like a badly built bridge it fails to meet in the middle, it can't span it's width, and it can't carry anything solid atop it.

The story becomes awfully incoherent and muddled and loses it's ability to communicate it's characters and it's themes as a result. The writing can't carry it's storyline just like an unsupported bridge couldn't carry a railway line.

The involvement of Michael Douglas as a producer may be the single simple explanation.

I rate at 4.5/10 because this treatment of man and beast carried together by the building of a bridge in the midst of a railway project in British imperial East Africa, based on a famous true story, comes close to being an interesting and engaging success thanks to the production values, the production design, the nature of the broad themes and style of the piece, and thanks to the acting from Val Kilmer and many of the support players. The plot choices, the writing errors, the story failures, however almost completely bury this film's merits as the narrative progresses and increasingly chucks nonsense onto the screen.

Bomb boom bang. Crash bang wallop. Ding dang do. See spot run. This film feels like a horrible mess of action pieces and almost chaotic choreography with characters and situations being written like a preschoolers reading book.

'Cutthroat Island' was clearly so badly made by everyone except the stuntmen, pyrotechnic effects team, animal trainers, and production designers that I can't fathom how this jetsam ever found it's trim for a theatrical release.

It should have been buried or hulked. The acting is almost painful to see, the director seems to give up on scenes and the script comes across as more ragged than a topsail in a storm.

As a whole the film is unfun and unfunny and unlikely and unbelievable and unengaging and unenjoyable.

The plot is dreadful, the dialogue and direction for characters and actors almost indescribable, the acting is bested by a trained monkey.

What else can be said to sum up this wreck?

The editing is effective in action pieces but is unable to pull anything into ship shape for dialogue scenes.

The sound design is boring and adds nothing in sound effects or mix. The score is functional but unremarkable.

The ending is off the sea charts for 'misconceived'; what audience was this meant for? It's latitude for sense of taste is long(itude) past sanity or salinity.

I rate at 2.5/10 and those stars are for the production crew; for the work done on explosions and set designs and production designs, and animal training; also location scouting and second unit photography.

I can't recommend to any film fans but if you want to see a big fat film having a big fat fail then definitely check out 'Cutthroat Island'; it's sunken, it's foundered, it's completely "ballasted"!

"Nearly Not Quite" the third major version of 'Nosferatu', itself a germanised unauthorised adaptation of the novel 'Dracula' follows on from the 1922 and 1979 versions. That's about it. There isn't much more to say. Each version stands about 50 years apart, and each itineration becomes more sexually overt, more explicit, more graphic. The demon vampire's sexual possession and possessiveness towards a somewhat unworldly woman gets more and more leerily layered with each telling.

In this version we can confirm that women don't just have boobies, they also have nipples. That's the kind of thing we are dealing with. The undead demon vampire Count has worse personal hygiene. He certainly looks more undead when unclothed. That's the level that this version has got to.

The original novel has this deeply hidden sexual tension with two young couples (who could easily be married elsewise between the four of them.) The Count and his undead brides. The Count's obsessive love for a living lass. The nighttime visitations.....

'Nosferatu' (22) added expressionism, comparative explicitness in this treatment of the Nosferatu's purposes, and Germanic/European folklore of diseases and devilment.

Then two more versions have built up the sex until its really all that this version is about. It doesn't add much of originality like the '79 version by Herzog did. It just ups the ante by another 50 odd years.

The first half is actually awful, it needs intertitles like a silent film because it is so badly acted, directed and structured that I was watching it as a comedy film ala 'Dracula: Dead and Loving it'. Not only this but the scares, tension, suspense, atmosphere and set pieces are fumbled and fudged like the film was made by an amateur director rather than an auteur. How did the director make 'hounds of hell' - wolf "children of the night" - so bland? The gypsies so uninteresting. The scenery so bland. The Count's coach so cruddy? The list goes on. At the half way stage my assessment was that the piece was poorly written, poorly directed, poorly acted, poorly staged, boringly photographed and unimpressively scored and arranged.

For the second half two things improved: Defoe got the theme and the tone with his performance (although he sounded very alike to the late actor Colin Swift.): slightly hammy. The rest of the cast, finally given something to ground their performances on, them rose to "meat" the mood. In effect Willem Defoe can take more credit that the director for the effectiveness of the casts acting.

Secondly the layering of sex got into it's stride and "revealed all" as to this films method: it's a 50 year updating of the sexually charged themes built into the 'Nosferatu' series, and indeed, literary 'Dracula'.

I rate at 3.5/10 the first half is simply dire rather than demonic; things improve as Willem Defoe gets going and as the utter simplicity of the film treatment is revealed to the audience. My stars are almost entirely for the efforts of the players in the second half of the film, with half a star extra for a couple of well lighted interior scenes and some nice fire lighting. Otherwise this 'Nosferatu' is boring and even "unfunnily" comedic to look at and to listen to.

I recommend only to fans of Willem Defoe, I am struggling to think of any other - numerous - group of film fans to label at this juncture. Perhaps a few people of very niche taste will find a bit more to lapp, lick and like.