Cinefantatique’s video review of EPIC, including footage from the movie.
[serialposts]
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Tag: 2013
EPIC: stunning beauty, stolid story
Blue Sky Pictures offers epic artistry bereft of lively characters or dialogue.
EPIC – the new computer-animated film from 20th Century Fox and Blue Sky Studios – marks an achievement of note, though not of honor: it is the most beautiful boring movie ever made. The 3D virtual photography is not merely eye candy; it is an absolutely stunning display of artistry, with vivid color and intricate details bringing its miniature world to life with breath-taking impact. Unfortunately, what happens within that world will be of little interest to anyone over the age of 12; the story – which is barely enough to fill an after-school special despite the presence of six credited writers – moves as slowly at the snail-and-slug comedy relief duo, whose unfunny patter leaves one yearning for visceral visual gags of director Chris Wedge’s Scrat character from the ICE AGE films.
Two plot threads intersect a bit conveniently in EPIC: After the death of her mother, Mary Katherine (Amanday Seyfried) is reuniting with her father, who believes a race of tiny people exist in the forest near his home. Meanwhile, the tiny forest people are fighting off the encroaching menace of Mandrake (Christoph Waltz) and his evil minions, who want to turn the forest to rot. Mary Katherine (who likes to be known as M.K. now that she is not a child) stumbles upon Queen Tara (Beyonce Knowles), who has been wounded after performing a ceremony to select a magical bud that will crown a new queen. M.K. is shrunk down to size, joining forces with the noble warrior Ronin (Colin Farrell) and the brash young Nod (Josh Hutcherson). There is a time-lock involved: the bud must bloom beneath the full moon at a very particularly time; otherwise, it will yield not a new queen but an evil dark prince.
Will M.K.’s quest to aid the Leaf People somehow resolve her estranged relationship with her father? You bet it will! Not that anything she learns or does leads to any maturation on her part; it’s enough just to know that his belief was not sheer lunacy after all. Unfortunately, that revelation occurs in the first reel, leaving little to develop over the remaining hour-and-a-half, which is loaded with more than enough action antics but not nearly enough of whatever magic elixir it is that makes us care about what is happening on screen.
The characters are all defined in simple ways, which should be good enough in a fairy-tale world of the imagination, but somehow never generates the primal sense of identification that should come from a confrontation between Good and Evil. Mandrake is a meanie but not a particularly memorable one; even with the benefit Waltz’ voice, he never truly becomes a man you love to hate. Farrell fares a little better as the stoic Ronin because we’re supposed to imagine a softer side hiding beneath, but Nod’s character arc is as soporific as a lotus flower: he bristles at the rules and does things his own way, until he learns better. (This worked much better when the film was called RISE OF THE GUARDIANS last year.)
The dialogue (especially when it turns to jokes) lacks zing. The one exception is a brief hysterical bit, with a fruit fly going through it’s entire life cycle in a few seconds. The lesson here is that brevity is the soul of wit; unfortunately, EPIC takes its own title too close to heart, stretching its events out as if they were epic in grandeur and therefore needed to feel epic in length.
Sadly, this is not due solely to the script. As a director, Wedge attempts to build suspense – within individual scenes and within the film as a whole – by dragging out sequences that should have been short and snappy. He fares much better when avoiding dialogue and characterization; the film’s most fully realized character is Ozzie – an endearing one-eyed, three-legged dog who is as close as the film ever gets to capturing the manic energy of Scrat.
As for the rest: given forest full of beautiful creatures* (courtesy of production designer William Joyce, whose children’s book inspired the film), Wedge has little imaginative idea what to do with them. At various times, ravens and bats (for the bad guys) and hummingbirds and finches (for the good guys) duel in elaborate aerial battles, but none of them exhibits any defining flight pattern (you would think the hoovering hummingbirds and the acrobatic bats would offer an opportunity for an interesting match of competing skills, but you would be wrong). Instead, Wedge relies on sheer numbers to dazzle the viewer: so many birds that you cannot tell which is which, so many bats that they coalesce into an ominous cloud (admittedly, the last is a plot point, as they must blot out the full moon before it helps the bud bloom).
Wedge is at his best when portraying the pomp and circumstance of the Leaf People’s ceremony; otherwise, he is unable to invest the images with much excitement, let alone any kind of dramatic resonance. An exception is a doleful shot of a riderless hummingbird, waiting faithfully on a moonlit branch for a warrior we have seen fall in battle. A few more moments like this, and EPIC would have come closer to earning its name.
The final conflict is nicely realized if a bit generic, and the two plot lines finally dovetail nicely (M.K.’s dad discovered the voices of the little people while recording the sounds bats make to summon each other – a recording that proves useful at a crucial moment).
Even here, the film cannot resist the urge to over-egg the pudding, as the moment before M.K.’s return to normal size is elongated to allow a final romantic clinch with Nod. The filmmakers seem unperturbed by the notion of romantic longing frustrated by relative size, but no doubt they expect to shrink M.K. down again for a sequel – or, god forbid, turn the tables by growing Nod.
If not for the visual splendor, EPIC would be a total time-waster. Bereft of a compelling story, the imagery is better served in the film’s first trailer, where it is augmented by Snow Patrol’s song “The Lightening Strike” – which works much better than the Beyonce tune heard in the actual film. The haunting riff of “The Lightening Strike” suggests the epic grandeur that EPIC strives but fails to achieve. Potential viewers are advised to stay home and watch the trailer. Or better yet: watch THE SECRET WORLD OF ARIETTY.
[rating=2]
On the CFQ review scale of zero to five stars.
FOOTNOTE:
- The one exception is Queen Tara, who angular facial lines are more suggestive of a plastic doll recreation of a Disney villainess.
EPIC (20th Century Fox: May 24, 2013). Directed by Chris Wedge. Screenplay by James V. Hart & William Joyce and Daniel Shere & Tom J. Astle & Matt Ember; from a story by William Joyce & James V. Hart and Chris Wedge, inspired by Joyce’s book “The Leaf Men and the Good Bugs.” Rated PG. 102 minutes. Voices: Amanda Seyfried, Collin Farrell, Josh Hutcherson, Beyonce Knowles, Blake Anderson, Steven Tyler, Aziz Ansari, Chris O’Dowd, Pitbull.
[serialposts]
CFQ Video Review: Star Trek Into Darkness
Cinefantastique Online’s first video review boldly goes on a STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. The second Enterprise outing from director J.J. Abrams does what no STAR TREK film has done before: achieve greatness for the second time in a row. On the CFQ Review scale, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS earns four out of five stars, making it a must-see not only for Trekkies but also for any fan of good science fiction cinema. And if you prefer not to take our word for it, the video format allows you to see the explosions, phasers, and lens flare for yourselves.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Star Trek Into Darkness: Review
Director J.J. Abrams is back in the captain’s chair, piloting the U.S.S. Enterprise through more explosions, more lens flare – in fact, more of just about everything that disenchanted Trekkies with STAR TREK (2009) – and this time all of it is enhanced with enough eye-popping 3D to make these angry fans switch their phasers from stun to kill; and yet, none of that prevents STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS from doing what no STAR TREK film has ever done before: achieve greatness for the second time in a row. Though purists may disagree, Abrams’ two STAR TREK features rank atop their predecessors, eclipsing all of the STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION films and all but the best of the classic TREK films.
What redeems all the bombs and bombast – the tipping of sacred cows – and the apparently heretical disregard for TREK orthodoxy? It’s a simple trick, really, but a profoundly insightful one: by staying true to the fundamental core of the familiar STAR TREK ethos and characters, screenwriters Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof can twist the details in new and interesting ways without ever violating the franchise’s prime directive: portraying an optimistic view of the future. Yes, that Utopian future will be threatened, and the story will focus less on speculative fiction than on the action-fueled drama of defending against a villainous threat, but that scenario will be used not just as an excuse for photon torpedoes and phaser blasts but also as framework for grandiose moments of pathos that bring the characters alive for a younger generation and remind old viewers why they fell in love with the crew of the Enterprise in the first place.
This time, the threat takes the form of Jonathan Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), who bombs a Starfleet data archive and later targets Starfleet headquarters itself, before skipping off to a planet in the Klingon system. Kirk (Chris Pine), who has been briefly demoted for ignoring the Prime Directive and prevaricating about it in his captain’s log, is re-instated as commander of the Enterprise and tasked with using a newly developed photon torpedo to take out Harrison and make a quick getaway before starting an interplanetary war with the Klingons.
There may be more to the story, however, as it turns out that the Starfleet Data Archive was actually a secret project to develop weapons for a war with the Klingons, which Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) believes is inevitable. Is Harrison simply a patsy? Is he part of a conspiracy to ignite the simmering Klingon-Starfleet conflict? Or does he have his own, secret agenda?
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS attempts to be the MAGNUM FORCE (1973) of the TREK series, directly addressing – and in fact deliberately back-walking – the impression left by its predecessor. Whereas MAGNUM FORCE attempted to counter the critical accusation that DIRTY HARRY (1971) endorsed a fascist approach to policing, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS directly takes on the perceived militarization of the TREK universe, which reached its apotheosis in 2009’s STAR TREK, wherein seeking out new life and exploring strange worlds took a back seat to blowing up bad guys. Harrison’s attacks have lethal and very personal consequences for Kirk, who initially is happy to go on a vengeance-fueled mission involving targeted assassination from a safe distance.
As in the best STAR TREK, the scenario is a thinly veiled reflection of our current situation: think of drones and targeted assassinations in the Middle East, and you get the picture, at least initially; later developments turn the story into a warning about the dangers of blow-back. The joy here is that the script – and Pine – sell the device as character drama, allowing us to identify with the understandable feelings of grief and rage that could lead Kirk to moral compromise. In this regard, it is worth noting that STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS reaches back into the very earliest days of the original STAR TREK television series – back to that first half-season, produced by Gene Roddenberry, when Kirk was a driven man, given to heated, sometimes incorrect decisions (think of his effort to track down and kill the Gorn in ARENA without bothering to ascertain who was really the aggressor in a lethal territorial dispute).
Fortunately, as in the series, Spock (Zachary Quinto) and McCoy (Karl Urban) are on hand to help their captain reclaim his ethical center. As in the previous STAR TREK, the characters are milked for the dramatic juice that energizes what could have devolved into preachy moralizing. Yes, the familiar shtick is proudly displayed (Spock invokes logical and regulation; McCoy says “Dammit, Jim…”), but the screenwriters and the actors realize full well that these cliches are not just arbitrary punchlines to be inserted at random; rather, they are tags that help identify the underlying truth about the characters, which is then teased out when they are tested under life-or-death circumstances.
SPOILER ALERT
Exactly how that happens is fascinating, to coin a phrase. Just as the previous STAR TREK made rebooting the story part of its plot, acknowledging the previous history while simultaneously subverting it, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS deliberately echoes – or, more precisely, mirrors – the events of STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN. Familiar elements abound: a newly developed force capable of great destruction; the presence of Carol Marcus (Alice Eve); bodies secreted in photon torpedo tubes – so much so that, by the time Harrison reveals that he is actually Khan Noonien Singh, it is only what we expected.
The trick is that the expected set pieces are inverted, with characters taking on actions previously performed by others; we get a true alternate-universe version of the familiar events, taking what was old and making it new again, including a heart-rending variation on STAR TREK II’s most memorable plot development. (We won’t give it away here, but we will say you do get to here the memorable how of rage, “KHHHAAANNN!!!” – but not from the lips of James Kirk.) Here, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS flirts with post-modernism, using the audience’s assumed familiarity to add resonance to the events depicted, even though, strictly speaking, there is no direct plot continuity with the film being referenced.
Even more impressively, the new film not only enhances itself by looking back on its 1982 predecessor; it also performs a sort of retro-active miracle, enhancing our appreciation of WRATH OF KHAN, which has now become part of a mirror-image diptych, the two films mutually reinforcing each other with their similarities and differences.
END SPOILERS
Amidst all the action and angst, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS never forgets to be fun. The familiar character patter from the classic series is re-energized here; most of the jokes feel like authentic character moments, not old vaudeville routines hauled out of the mothballs. One exception is the sly, post-modern bit when Kirk transfers Checkov to engineering and tells him to put a red shirt on. Checkov’s worried expression is supposed to relate to concern over his new duties, but the audience reads it as fear of the fate known to befall so many red-shirted cadets in the old television episodes.
Technical credits are astounding; even the 3D conversion looks great, enhancing the dynamism on screen – especially in IMAX engagements. Fortunately, there is more than just visual flash here. Early on, there are actually some almost non-dialogue sequences, accompanied by a more delicate style of music scoring, that convey subplots and even a touch of exposition with admiral subtlety and economy, balancing the intentionally over-the-top excesses of the action sequences.
The more visceral scenes are sometimes overdone, and the plot is more convoluted than it needs to be, requiring a fairly thick slab of dialogue to explain Harrison’s actions, which dovetail perhaps a bit too conveniently with the desire of Admiral Marcus to find a casus belli with the Kklingons. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS crams too much into one film, with the result that it frequently seems to be careening off into the wrong direction. Remarkably, the film almost always makes the necessary course correction before speeding down the wrong worm hole, and if viewers are more than occasionally left feeling that Abrams and company are trying too hard to recreate memorable beats from their first TREK outing, those misguided efforts usually redeem themselves. (For example, the rather non-energetic opening tease of Kirk escaping from a primitive alien tribe turns into an interesting dilemma – obey the Prime Directive or save Spock’s life – and culminates in sly joke at the expense of Trekkies: after a glimpse of the Enterprise, the tribe seems to adopt it as an object of worship, just as legions of fans on Earth have done for decades.)
As in the previous STAR TREK film, the cast turn the characters into something resembling people, not fifty-year-old cliches. Pine captures the strengths and weaknesses of Kirk; Quinto has Spock’s dual nature down cold, the external logic keeping the underlying emotion hidden yet always felt, just beneath the surface. Urban is uncanny in his ability to play McCoy as if the part always belonged to him.
Even the supporting characters (Zoe Saldana as Uhura, John Cho as Sulu, Anton Yelchin as Chekov), though still clearly subordinate, are given their moments to shine, establishing what makes them great crew members, worthy of being on the Enterprise. Simon Pegg seems a little older and a wee bit tired as Scotty, but he is still an engaging comic presence, and the character even shows a little moral backbone, resigning over a matter of principal at a time when Kirk is too blinded by rage to see that Scotty is right.
At its core, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is a story of a brash young man who learns a much-needed lesson in humility. Thankfully, the screenwriters realize that personal growth, in and of itself, is not enough to justify the collateral damage that results in a film like this (would it really be fair for dozens if not hundreds of crew people to die so that Kirk can become a better person?), so something else is offered, a larger lesson about holding onto your ideals even when you are tested in extremis. It’s a lesson not only for Kirk but for all of us, and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS makes the point as well as any classic STAR TREK episode ever did.
*
Where will the Enterprise voyage next? STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS ends with the promise the the familiar five-year journey about to commence, implying that future episodes will take place out in the galaxy, instead of focusing on the defense of Earth. Although the first two films in the revamped franchise have triumphed at extracting dramatic gravitas from dire situations, there are only so many times you can go for the big emotional character moments before those moments go stale. Perhaps there could be dividends from allowing the supporting characters to take up more of center stage, but hopefully the next TREK will boldly go to some strange new world, where spaceships and tricorders are not merely a backdrop for an action-adventure tale but part and parcel of some thoughtful speculative fiction.
[rating=4] 
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS (Paramount Pictures: May 16, 2013). Directed by J.J. Abrams. Written by Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman & Damon Lindelof. 132 minutes. PG-13. Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Benedict Cumberbatch, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood, Alice Eve, Leonard Nimoy.
CFQ Spotlight Podcast 4-11: Stoker & Upside Down
With no new nationwide release in the genres of horror, fantasy, and/or science fiction, this week’s episode of the Cinefantastique Spotlight Podcast sets its sights on two films in limited engagements: STOKER and UPSIDE DOWN. The former is a thriller and alleged horror film (its title taken from Bram Stoker, author of DRACULA, although the film contains no vampires). The latter is a fantasy love story disguised as a science fiction film, about a boy and a girl from opposite worlds – in this case, opposite gravity, who learn to bridge the gap that divides them. Tune in as Lawrence French and Steve Biodrowski sift through gorgeous cinematography and stunning special effects, searching for signs of a good script.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Jack the Giant Slayer: Review
There’s no magic in this beanstalk, and viewers foolish enough to spend money on tickets are likely to feel as cheated as Jack when told he’s been swindled out of a horse and cart for a few worthless beans. The root of the problem lies in a fatal uncertainty about exactly what JACK THE GIANT SLAYER is supposed to be: a grim fairy tale, a light-hearted adventured, or an epic LORD OF THE RINGS knock-off. Whatever the intent, with its British flavor and oddball mix of humor and horror applied to a fanciful childhood tale, the film recalls JABBERWOCKY (1977). The misbegotten result would seem to suggest that only Terry Gilliam should direct Terry Gilliam films. (After all, if he couldn’t get it right, why should we expect anyone else to?)
The jumbled screenplay (credited to four different writers) mixes in bits of “Jack the Giant Killer,” “Jack and the Beanstalk,” and the “King Incognito” plot device (in which a royal personage takes on the guise of a peasant in order to get a street-level view of the kingdom). There is also a love story and a villain plotting to overthrow a kingdom, and needless to say, there is a third-act ogre battle.
If this sounds like more than enough to fill up an entertaining movie, then I am not doing my job, because JACK THE GIANT SLAYER feels empty – of warmth, romance, humor, and most especially wonder. The exposition plods; the jokes fall flat; the adventure stalls; and the love story withers on the … beanstalk, I guess.
Director Bryan Singer is undoubtedly talented, but he does not have the required deft touch for this sort of thing, nor does his frequent collaborator, screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie. The opening prologue is a cut-rate version of THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS, telling us what we need to know without making us care. The “clever” cross cutting between Isabelle the Princess and Jack the farm boy foreshadows their eventual union, but the parallels are ridiculously exact and leave the end result in absolutely no doubt, so that the love story feels over before it begins.
Unable to install a Sense of Wonder into the proceedings, Singer and McQuarrie eventually resort to visceral shocks. Giants (whose visages are impressively detailed if not cleverly designed or particularly expressive) munch and crunch their victims, both animal and human, which seems a bit daring (though not explicit, thanks to the PG-13 rating), but in the end it amounts to little more than gratuitous titillation, something seen and then forgotten in time for the happy ending.
In a way, this points up the difficult of transferring fairy tales to the screen. The strength of the original lies in its simplicity and in its literary form: terrible things happen – as when, for example, the Big Bad Wolf devours the first two of the Three Little Pigs – but those deaths are abstract and symbolic on the page, a warning that bad behavior leads to bad ends, while the audience identification figure survives by doing the right thing. The characters are archetypal, without distinguishing details to bring them to life in a way that would make them mourn their demise. Children can enjoy these stories without being traumatized, enjoying the thrill of fear and the cathartic satisfaction when their hero triumphs, often by exactly a grizzly retribution on the villain – a safe, simple morality tale that works precisely because there is no gray area to cloud the issue. Movies, which usually at least attempt to create individual characters have it a lot tougher; the visceral impact is stronger, eclipsing the moral point, which in any case is usually not profound enough to warrant being expanded beyond a few pages.
JACK THE GIANT SLAYER certainly has little to say that would suffice to justify the running time. Unless you think it is profound wisdom to opine people of lowly station may aspire to something bigger. Or that a princess should get to know her kingdom. Or that her father shouldn’t marry her off to a scoundrel. Strangely, for all its attempts to build Eleanor up as a strong female lead, her role remains that of a damsel in distress; her appearance in armor is just another form of bling, not indicating that she is actually going to do anything.
But wait, not all is lost. Although romantic leads Nicholas Hoult and Eleanor Tomlinson are undermined by the script insistence on keeping them bland (Hoult made a much better lover when he was a zombie in WARM BODIES), the supporting cast shine through. Ewan McGregor is dashing as the princess guard, Elmont; his confident smile hits just the right tone – almost tongue-in-cheek, but not quite. Ian McShane is an impressive king. Bill Nighy provides an intimidating voice for the lead giant, General Fallon.
Best of all is Stanley Tucci as the scheming Roderick. In fact, he is too good. He makes you hate him so much you want to see him dispatched with – well – dispatch, but if and when that happens, what else has the movie got?
Well, the film does have that colossal confrontation toward the conclusion, when the giants rain down on humanity like organic meteors. The siege is reasonably well done because it relies not only on visual flair (giants hurling burning trees over the castle walls) but also on at least halfway believable depictions of how a human army might attempt to hold off a horde of giants. Truthfully, a bit more could have been done with this (showcasing – for example – how leverage might be applied by a smaller adversary to topple a larger foe), but at least the screenplay pulls off an interesting variation on “Chekov’s Gun” (you know, the one that’s loaded in the first act and therefore must be fired in the third) – in this case, a leftover magic bean that Jack puts to good use at a crucial moment.
As is almost obligatory these days, JACK THE GIANT SLAYER is being presented in 3D engagements. Although officially not a post-production conversion, the film often looks like one. The early quiet scenes (of our lead characters as children, listening to bedtime stories) do provide a nice sense of depth, as the production design offers a genuine fairy tale ambiance. But once Jack and the Princess grow to young adulthood, and the action-adventure elements take over, Singer opts for camera angles and lens choices that create a resolutely flat look, with only a mild separation between the characters and the backgrounds. In a few cases, when we see human from the POV of giants looking down, the results are noticeably bizarre, with the human form stretched to ridiculous proportions, suggesting Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four.
JACK THE GIANT SLAYER is another sad example of a big-budget movie with all the production value Hollywood can offer (including a fine score by John Ottman) but little in the way of inspiration. If not for the spark of life provided by the cast, the film would be dead as a diver after leaping off the rocky cliffs of the giant’s land in the clouds. In striving to be big in execution, the film feels small in imagination – a fact strangely underlined in Singer’s occasional choice of downward camera angles that lend a diminutive-looking stature to the giants. Taking something meant to be large and making it look small is no great accomplishment. If, instead, Singer had taken Warwick Davis (who shows up in a bit part) and cast him as a giant – now, that would have shown at least a touch of wit.
[rating=2]
JACK THE GIANT SLAYER (2013). Directed by Bryan Singer. Screenplay by Darren Lemke and Christopher McQuarrie and Dan Studney; story by Darren Lemke & David Dobkin. A production by Warner Brothers Pictures, New Line Entertainment, Legendary Pictures. Cast: Nicholas Hoult, Eleanor Tomlinson, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Eddie Marsan, Ewen Bremner, Ian McShane, Warwick Davis, Bill Nighy.
Dark Skies: Review
DARK SKIES proves once again (as if any proof were necessary) that Blumhouse Productions has codified its horror template to the point that their films are the cinematic equivalent of blues music: the lyrics may change, but not the subject matter or tone; and regardless of the writers and performers, you will hear the same 12-bar chord progression, hitting the same beats, with approximately the same musical arrangements. In this case, the innovation lies in the switch from unseen supernatural forces to unseen alien invaders; otherwise, the song remains the same.
In case you did not know it, the nuclear family is disintegrating. Mom and Dad cannot support their family’s suburban lifestyle. They argue – maybe not about money, but they argue because of money – or, more precisely, the lack of it. In fact, they are so busy arguing that they do not realize the greater threat lurking in the shadows of their home. Their children try to tell them, but hey – they’re just kids, and what do they know anyway? So the parents don’t listen; they just focus on financial problems, not realizing that even if Mom sells the property she is trying to unload, or if Dad gets the new job for which he has applied, that’s not going to solve the real problem.
I am of course talking about DARK SKIES here, but with a few changes the above paragraph could apply equally well to SINISTER or PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 4, both of which revolved around monsters attempting – successfully, as it turned out – to snatch children right out from under Mom and Dad’s nose.
Fortunately, the parents in DARK SKIES are not quite as absurdly oblivious as the clueless couple in PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 4. They actually figure out something is wrong and consult a self-styled expert (J.K. Simmons, filling in for Vincent D’Onofrio, who performed similar service in SINISTER). Based on what they learn, they even try to do something about the problem, which generates a third act that almost resembles a legitimate piece of storytelling.
It’s nice to see DARK SKIES abandon the “Ignorant Plot” that fueled its immediate predecessors (in which ignorant characters wandered around for 90 minutes, seldom if ever getting a read on what was after them), but it is all for naught, since the conclusion is predetermined. (If that sounds like a spoiler, don’t blame me: DARK SKIES’ poster spells it out: “Once you’ve been chose, you belong to them.”)
As if sensing that predictability is a problem, writer-director Scott Stewart tosses in a last-minute – well, “surprise” would be too strong a word, as would “twist,” so let’s say “shift” – regarding the identity of the victim being targeted. This does not change the outcome in any meaningful way, nor does it lend any kind of dramatic frisson; it merely provides an illusion of the unexpected, a pretense toward actual plotting – as opposed to simply filling in the same old template.
I get the impression that Stewart intended a little bit more. Early scenes of the children’s pet lizard hints at some kind of foreshadowing – the aliens look down on us as we look down on animals – but nothing comes of the idea. The attempt to weave the alien scenario into the family drama suggests an attempt to provide a darker alternative to M. Night Shyamalan’s SIGNS (which is echoed and quoted in several ways), but we never truly identify with the storytelling as anything more than an excuse to stitch together the scares, and any attempt at a dramatic resolution is short-circuited by the de rigueur denouement.
If you are a fan of previous horror films from Blumhouse Productions, you will probably enjoy the same old song one more time. The cast of non-stars do a decent job of portraying everyday people. As usual, the slow build-up of suspense is carefully calculated, and the creepy set pieces are effectively handled. If only the scenario could weave a more convincing plot thread, there might be a real movie here. (In one of the scripts more amusing moments of lip-service, the inexplicable – and frankly pointless – scare tactics of the aliens are rationalized by the claim that the invaders are exploiting our fears, for reasons unknown – presumably, it’s some kind of psychological behavioral experiment?)
I feel a bit treacherous for shedding so much negative light on DARK SKIES. After all, Blumhouse Productions strives to craft horror films that rely on subtlety rather than shocks, on atmosphere rather than action. Their commodity is rare in today’s cinematic marketplace, so they deserve recognition for proving that this approach can sell tickets, but as the lackluster debut of DARK SKIES shows ($8.9-million for a sixth-place opening weekend) Blumhouse needs to infuse its formula with a little more variety and creativity.
DARK SKIES (February 22, 2013). Written and directed by Scott Stewart. PG-13. In widescreen and Dolby Digital. Produced by Blumhouse Productions. Distributed by Paramount Pictures. Cast: Keri Russell, Josh Hamilton, Dakota Goyo, Kadan Rockett, J.K. Simmons, L. J. Benet.
[rating=2]
The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia in theatres & on demand February 1
Lionsgate releases this production from Gold Circle Films, a sequel to 2009’s THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT. Tom Elkins ( who edited the first film) takes to the director’s chair, working from a screenplay by David Coggeshall. The cast includes Katee Sackhoff (BATTLESTAR GALLACTICA), Chad Michael Murray (HOUSE OF WAX), Abigail Spencer, and Cicely Tyson.
According to the press release, THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT 2: GHOSTS OF GEORGIA “traces a young family’s nightmarish descent into a centuries-old Southern hell. When Andy Wyrick (Murray) moves his wife Lisa (Spencer) and daughter Heidi to an historic home in Georgia, they quickly discover they are not the house’s only inhabitants. Joined by Lisa’s free-spirited sister, Joyce (Sackhoff), the family soon comes face-to-face with a bone-chilling mystery born of a deranged desire…a haunting secret rising from underground and threatening to bring down anyone in its path.”
By the way, we will assume that the film’s claim to be “based on a true story” is a reference to the back story regarding the Underground Railroad (which helped escaped slave get to the northern states before and during the Civil War).
The film opens on February 1, putting it in direct competition with WARM BODIES.
The Host: DomesticTrailer 2
The second domestic trailer for THE HOST gives a slightly more concrete idea of the plot. The film was written and directed by Andrew Niccol, based on the novel by Stephanie Meyer. Open Road releases THE HOST in U.S. theatres on March 29.
Beautiful Creatures in theatres February 14
Warner Brothers releases this fantasy film from Alcon Entertainment.Richard LaGravenese wrote and directed, based on the novel by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl. The cast includes Emmy Rossum, Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson, Alice Englert, and Alden Ehrenreich. The story follows Lena (Englert), a high school girl whose family is believed by the local small-town populace to be satanists. It turns out that “witches” would be a more accurate description, and Lena has reached the age at which she will decide whether or not to go to the dark side. LaGravenese is a talented writer and sometimes director whose previous work has flirted around the borderline of the fantasy genre (THE FISHER KING, A LITTLE PRINCESS, BELOVED); it will be interesting to see what he can do with a project that is clearly intended to launch another TWILIGHT-like young-adult fantasy-romance franchise.
The film’s second theatrical trailer (embedded here) shows off the supporting cast more prominently, especially Jeremy Irons, adding a sense of dramatic gravitas that the TWILIGHT films sorely lacked.
U.S. Theatrical Release: February 14, 2013