In Darkness Review: A Twist You Won't See Coming
Seriously, you won't see it.
Rating: 2/5
Natalie Dormer’s first bash at writing and starring in her own movie isn’t an entirely bad one. Knitting together a storyline that keeps you guessing is no small feat, but it’s one so crammed full of random plotlines it becomes hard to distinguish exactly what it is you’re watching by the end of it - and the pun is entirely intended for Dormer’s blind leading lady.
Playing Sofia, a pianist that accidentally overhears a murder in the flat above, Dormer embroils herself in a story that starts off with an intriguing concept. And, with the film starring no other than Instagram famous Emily Ratajkowski (yes, that is the very same one from the Blurred Lines video) as the accent-ually confused neighbour Veronique, and fellow Game of Thrones star Ed Skrein as the action-ready love interest Marc, it’s fair to say she’s collected a cast that can hold their own as well as look incredibly good on camera. Important, obviously.
It’s after these engaging first twenty minutes of the film are eked out that things get complicated however; pulling in a Serbian warlord, Russian politics, and underground conspiracies to create something so overly stuffed with unravelling mysteries that it becomes painfully convoluted, and the spark of something interesting is lost amongst reams of kidnapping and foiled, dastardly plans.
Whilst Dormer has worked hard to create a fully-rounded, yet flawed female action hero that doesn’t often grace our screens, her involvement is clouded by overcompensation at every turn. Her partner and director of the movie, Anthony Byrne, collaborated on the writing stage of the project and has, in turn, crafted a slick, contemporary film that screams style over substance - and perhaps tries to make up for that by squeezing that much more in.
It’s undeniable that it’s a good-looking film, and that Dormer and Byrne have poured a lot of their time and effort into trying to create something different to the usual calculated thriller that so often makes its way out into cinemas. It’s hard to be too damning of a movie that serves as a passionate first attempt, but that doesn’t automatically make it any good.
Moving into spoiler territory, the most disappointing part of the movie is its attempt to draw all these strange threads together into one giant plot twist. After watching a movie that sees a blind woman attempt to take down a political conspiracy, and you know, struggle through the difficulties of that as one would expect - it's hard enough with your eyesight - the film reveals Sofia can actually see all along. The investment in her fumbling actions and moments where she continues to pretend despite there being no real point, such as when trying to poison Veronique’s father, then all become entirely contradictory.
Why wouldn’t see utilise her functional vision to slip something in his drink whilst no one would see or suspect her, for example? All it serves to do is alienate the audience from an already complicated film and renders the effort put into it paradoxical, squashing any room for an enjoyable second viewing.
Overall, In Darkness is reaching for something much deeper than it needs to be. There’s plenty of films out there that have already created a deeply interesting narrative centered around blindness and mystery, such as Wait Until Dark with Audrey Hepburn, an obvious inspiration to Dormer’s work. Whilst the modern iteration brings about a different kind of strength and duality of character that older films can overlook in their female characters, Hepburn’s efforts encapsulate much better what In Darkness is trying to achieve.
With some slimming down and a reassessment of the ridiculous ending, In Darkness has potential to be something truly engaging as a movie. As is stands however, it’s bloated, and boasts a plot twist even Shyamalan would be a little ashamed of. At the very least though - there’s solid footing for the next film created by the pair to climb up from.