MOVIES

The Disturbing Jim Carrey Crime Thriller With A Rotten Tomatoes Score Of 0%

With its 0% rating, the critical consensus for “Dark Places” on Rotten Tomatoes is predictably bleak, reading, “‘Dark Crimes’ is a rote, unpleasant thriller that fails to parlay its compelling true story and a committed Jim Carrey performance into even modest chills.”

Individual reviewers confirmed this consensus, like Owen Gleiberman at Variety, who wrote, “The film’s pace never deviates from its hushed, deliberate, anticipatory gaze – it’s stuck in thriller-foreplay mode.” At The New York Times, Ken Jaworowski agreed, saying, “A good story gets stuck in a puddle of mood in ‘Dark Crimes,’ a film that strays from its fascinating source – a real-life murder case – into a less successful attempt at noir.” Richard Roeper at the Chicago Sun-Times wanted better for the whole endeavor, but was left disappointed: “Source material with great dramatic potential. Talented director and screenwriter. Intriguing cast. That’s a promising menu – but the end product leaves a sour taste.”

At The AV Club, Ignatiy Vishnevetsky went after Carrey’s performance directly, saying, “A few words should be said about Carrey’s performance: It may be the worst dramatic acting of his career, a charmless cartoon of self-repression.” Ultimately, it was Johnny Oleksinski at The New York Post who had what might have been the cruelest assessment of the film: “That this exercise in vulgarity was made at all is shameful.”

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button

GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG GONGSENG