I'm a longtime fan of Natalie Dormer, who hit the ground acting her butt off, both on stage (her theatrical debut was in a Shakespeare play, but of course) and in a lot of beloved small screen costume dramas, notably The Tudors and Game of Thrones, both of which she received various award nominations for- though, alas, she didn't win. Her characters also didn't fare too well, either. 😭
One of the things I love about her, beyond her obvious exotic and beautiful appearance, is the way she radiates intelligence, both on and off screen. This quality is certainly reflected in the types of parts she has chosen over the years, from the punk-rock-looking bad-ass Cressida in The Hunger Games series, to the gender-flipped Sherlock Holmes foe Moriarty on TV's Elementary, to the reined-in, secretive headmistress in the remake of Picnic at Hanging Rock.
As such, it was probably only a matter of time before she took an even more proactive approach to her career, which leads me to this film, In Darkness, which she co-produced, co-wrote and stars in. I suspect she'll likely start directing soon as well, if she finds the right project. Count on her almost certainly getting her feet wet in that regard soon, probably by directing some television- an episode of the upcoming Penny Dreadful spin-off, City of Angels, perhaps?
In Darkness revolves around a blind woman, Sofia (Dormer), that lives alone in a spacious apartment and bides her time playing piano for thriller film soundtracks when she overhears her neighbor, Veronique (sexy model Emily Ratajkowski, of Gone Girl fame), getting into a heated argument with someone and seemingly committing suicide. Or was she pushed?
When it turns out that Veronique was the daughter of Zoran Radic (Jan Bijvoet, Peaky Blinders), a super-wealthy Serbian businessman recently accused of war crimes, the cops suspect there's more than meets the eye to her death. Unfortunately, their only witness- as far as they know, at least- is a blind woman, who isn't being as cooperative as lead detective, Oscar Mills (Neil Maskell, Kill List) would like. But why?
In Darkness is one of those films in which almost everyone has a hidden agenda and lots of secrets, all of which inevitably come out as the story proceeds. The film also features Ed Skrein (Game of Thrones, Deadpool) as the mysterious man who was in Veronique's apartment at the time of her death and Joely Richardson (The Tudors, Nip/Tuck) as Alex, a shady businesswoman in cahoots with Radic somehow- or is she secretly working against him?
There are an awful lot of moving parts in the film, most of which fit together reasonably well- although, in the end, the story perhaps has one twist too many, something that seems to be par for the course these days, post-M. Night Shyamalan. The one in the final moments of the film is particularly ludicrous, and is at odds with everything else we've seen up to that point, making one less inclined to re-watch the film for clues we might have missed than for any sensible viewer to cry foul.
Be that as it may, if you can get past that silly final twist, this is a solid enough thriller which reminded me a little of Bava's A Blade in the Dark or even, to a lesser extent, Argento's classic Deep Red, which also feature pianists caught up in murderous intrigue; or the underrated slasher Eyes of a Stranger, which also features a blind heroine being terrorized. That's a telling comparison, as the film is obviously aiming for Hitchcockian territory, or, at the very least, Wait Until Dark.
That it ends up more in B-movie land kind of says it all, in spite of the quality of the performances and the decent production values on display, to say nothing of the gorgeous locales. (The film was shot on location in England, and features many telltale locations viewers familiar with London will readily recognize.)
Indeed, the Argento comparison is somewhat apt, as the film was co-written and directed by Dormer's then-fiancé Anthony Byrne, best-known for directing various episodes of Peaky Blinders (hence the presence of Bijvoet) and Ripper Street. As you might have heard, the writing of the film was pretty tumultuous for the couple, who ultimately broke up after doing promotion for the film.
This is perhaps because the film features a fair amount of nudity and a steamy sex scene involving Dormer, which must have been at least a little weird for the director, though perhaps not as eyebrow-raising as Argento's many such scenes involving daughter Asia in similar states. (Dormer does a decent job of defending said scenes and how important and relevant they are to the story at hand here.)
Mind you, not that I'm complaining, as Dormer is nothing if not easy on the eyes, and she's certainly done her fair share of such things in the past, both in The Tudors and GOT, which, lest we forget, are both critically-acclaimed, highly successful shows.
It seems to me that society on the whole has gotten a little carried away with all the PC BS lately. I know plenty of women who adore Dormer, and I never once heard any of them complain about her getting naked in one of her projects before. I think everyone complaining about such things needs to take a deep breath and calm the fuck down, personally.
I mean, seriously? Aren't there a LOT more things to be concerned about right about now? Maybe direct some of that criticism towards something that actually matters, instead of giving actresses like Dormer shit, who actually seems to have a working brain and knows how to use it. If anything, we could use a lot more like her, so yeah, STFU, haters. 😝
In Darkness isn't perfect by any means, but it's a solid enough thriller with some cool twists- and admittedly, one really goofy one- that's worth at least one watch, especially if you're a Dormer fan. The cast is uniformly great across the board, the plot is just intriguing enough to keep you interested and guessing about how everything will end up playing out and the film is beautifully shot (by Si Bell, another Peaky Blinders/Ripper Street alum) and well-directed by Byrne.
In short, there's a lot to recommend here, and it's hardly just the nudity, whether you determine it to be gratuitous or not. In fact, if the film had stopped short of that final twist, I probably would be recommending it even more. Hell, once you're seen it once, you could always stop short of that scene the next time you watch it and have a really quality movie experience the second time around.
Either way, I say check it out, at least once. Dormer, on the other hand, is well-worth checking out in general. 😍
No comments:
Post a Comment