Content Warning: Discussion of sexual violence and harrasment both fictional and real in paragraphs 3,4, ‘Some stuff I didn’t like’ section and in the linked articles.

Spoiler Warning: Plot spoilers throughout

Okay gang, here’s film number two. Well done if you guessed it correctly from Wednesday’s tease. Dark Crimes is a film starring Jim Carrey; Hollywood funnyman playing against type as brooding, compromised detective investigating a cold murder case. Sitting a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, getting 1-star from Roger Ebert and The Observer alike, the film was… not well received.

I’ll be honest with you, I regret picking this film for my second proper post. This blog is supposed to be essentially light-hearted chance to poke fun at other people’s hard work. Dark Crimes offers little opportunity to be light-hearted, and little space within which I can comfortably make dumb jokes. I will try to walk the line between being entertaining and being flippant about the film’s unpleasant subject matter, but if I fail please let me know so I can amend things.

The subject matter I refer to isn’t actually the murder involved. In fact, we never see it take place. What we do see is the abuse of prostitutes in a sex club years earlier, which proves to be the motive for the murder. While this film is not ‘torture porn’ in the vein of something like Hostel and doesn’t revel in it’s violence in quite the same way, its attempts to be ‘dark and gritty’ mean that it builds an incredibly bleak atmosphere which gives the viewer no real quarter. As well as the shots inside the club, the viewer is subjected to an audiobook-description of the events which the protagonist Tadek (Jim Carrey) listens to as evidence. Now I am not necessarily against a film having ‘dark’ or unpleasant content. But to my mind it has to be earned. A film with compelling characters, a meaningful story, or something worth saying can earn the right to use unpleasant subject matter by virtue of it contextualising or discussing the unpleasantness that does exist in our world. This film has none of those things. The characterisation of the protagonist is all over the place, the storyline has nothing profound to say and the viewer is left in no way enriched by the experience. There is a difference between a ‘dark’, bruising movie and an unfufilling ordeal for the viewer. This film is closer to the latter.

The film is actually based on true events, which can be read about here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/02/11/true-crime. Be warned it is not an especially pleasant read. It is however factual- though incredibly unusual. Having read it myself, I can see numerous parallels between the true events and the story of Dark Crimes, as well as some changes. A story like this, if it is to be made into a movie, needs to be treated cautiously and with intellectual rigour, to make something meaningful out of the occurrence. Dark Crimes is sadly not up to the task.

Having discussed that, I will now turn to the movies less uncomfortable elements. Let’s get the first thing out of the way: ‘Dark Crimes’ is a straight-up terrible name for a film. Crime is dark! Of course its dark! It’s superfluous. But I guess they threw the word ‘dark’ in there in order to telegraph to the viewer: this is a SERIOUS film full of SERIOUS stuff. Remember that guy from The Mask? Bruce Almighty? Ace Ventura? WELL NOW HE’S A SKETCHY COP.

Indeed it was the self-serious yet essentially meaningless name of this film that caught my eye amongst the DVDs of PoundWorld. Unfortunately this same self-seriousness and commitment to a general air of bleakness that makes it a tough watch.

Personally I first encountered Jim Carrey in trailers for The Mask on an old VHS of god-knows-what. The first films I saw him in were Bruce Almighty, Liar Liar and Yes Man. As such, to me, Jim Carrey always has been, and, to an extent, always will be, the rubbery faced goofball of his earlier movies. He has shown his ability as a dramatic actor though, in The Truman Show (a film I think very highly of) and in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Nonetheless, to see him play ‘straight’ still feels like a novelty, and I suspect- with no disrespect to his audition or abilities- that is part of the reason he was cast for this film. A piece of stunt casting to draw attention. I don’t object to that in of itself though. Unfortunately the central performance does not come out well. Carrey reins himself in a little too much, leaving the character feeling lifeless and blank. The character is also not written consistently, with him one minute presented as complicated and corrupt, the next a crusader for justice. He comprimises himself, and his investigation and breaks the law a number of times, yet still consistently talks about getting ‘Justice’- on one such occasion his superior shouts ‘Fuck Justice!’ because this is a film that aims for artsy intellectualism, yet is executed with the subtlety of a sneezing Brian Blessed. All of this on top of the fact that Carrey’s accent wanders over Europe, takes a trip to America and comes back again means that it is difficult to invest yourself in the character of Tadek as hero, anti-hero or anything else.*

In addition to the problems with the central character/ performance, the film as a whole suffers from a lack of focus, trying at once to be character study of its protagonist, a reflection of real events and tries to set up a red-herring villain as well as real one compellingly. Its runtime is (blessedly) short and so by trying to do too much, the film accomplishes little.

Some stuff I liked:

-I respect Carrey taking on a serious role. Such unusual choices from funnymen playing straight and straight actors playing comic can lead to enjoyable surprises; though not in this case.

-The film’s ending, though rushed, is bold enough not to tie things up neatly for the protagonist or his story arc (such as it is), and goes in a direction that could have been interesting.

Some stuff I didn’t like:

-No shot or scene in this film lasts very long. Cuts are too frequent and this renders the plot (though not complicated in of itself) hard to follow.

-There are a few plot points in this film which took me aback in surprise. Not because they are clever twists, but because they make no sense in the context of what has come before. Character motivations and actions are inconsistent and often seem to come out of nowhere.

-The films subject matter of violence and abuse is, coupled with its lack of direction, gives it nastiness that is unearned and feels exploitative. That one of its producers was Brett Ratner (one of several men accused of sexual harassment in Hollywood in the year of this film’s release) makes it all the more uncomfortable.

And that’s about all I have to say. I have another film lined up for next week that looks heavy on action and self-seriousness, but which should be less of a slog than this one to work through. After that I’m choosing something fluffy and light- lesson learned!

-Tom

*In fairness the issue with maintaining a consistent accent may be down to reshoots: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1901024/goofs/?tab=gf&ref_=tt_trv_gf