By Brett Blake LIFE is the sort of movie where it’s all about the execution. It’s dependent on its execution, in fact, since the plot is a patchwork of ideas from countless other films. This would be a gigantic problem if the execution were lacking, but in the case of LIFE, the execution is laudable and compelling, featuring terrific effects work and a handful of very convincing performances. Set aboard the International Space Station, LIFE tells the tale of an intrepid crew of scientists recovering samples from an unmanned mission to Mars. In these samples is a single-cell alien life form, which quickly begins to grow. Soon, this creature threatens not only the lives of the crew, but also - potentially - all life on Earth. Anybody who has even just a passing familiarity with the science fiction and horror genres will clearly be able to identify the films from which LIFE has taken its cues. The DNA of Ridley Scott’s ALIEN (which itself drew not inconsiderable inspiration from earlier works) is absolutely running through this movie, as you would expect for a story about a group of space travelers dealing with an extra-terrestrial life form in a contained space. There’s also no shortage of Alfonso Cuaron’s GRAVITY at play in the way the space station environment is presented and shot. There’s some SUNSHINE in here, a dash of SOLARIS, a sprinkle of LIFEFORCE, a helping of THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, and so on. It’s what I like to call a “blender movie.” As such, there’s nothing too surprising about the movie’s plot. There’s little that even the average movie-goer will find shocking or unexpected. We’ve seen this basic story before, and we can sort of feel where its beats are going to go. The good thing, though, is that none of this feels like completely shameless rip-off-ery; it’s a movie which draws on influences and repurposes them, and it is executed at a very high standard. It’s a well made film with a good cast doing good work, even if it’s in service of a story that we’ve (mostly) already seen. Director Daniel Espinosa and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey do a fine job of conveying the geography of the space station early on, which aids both in keeping track of what events are happening where (and to whom), but also allows them to construct clear and engaging sequences of suspense and horror. McGarvey’s cinematography is particularly good, presenting a fairly vibrant and colorful palette which serves as a nice departure from what we conventionally expect from space-set stories with a pseudo-realistic bent. The one undisputedly unique element of LIFE is the alien creature itself. While the basic concept of life from Mars has been done to death, LIFE brings us a wonderful design, something which feels plausible in its earliest stages before progressing into something more overtly horrific. Though we can see where inspiration might have been taken from various real world animals, the overarching package is a creature of the sort I’ve never seen before. The CGI effects used to bring this alien to life are frequently tremendous, as well. It is weird for someone like Jake Gyllenhaal show up in something like this at this point in his career; he’s never done better work than he has been over the past few years, and I regard him as one of the strongest actors working today. He definitely doesn’t condescend to the material here - he gives it 100% - but it’s kind of amusing to see him in what is basically just a glossy B-movie. Ryan Reynolds brings some welcome comedic relief in the early going, which makes the more frightening and upsetting developments hit harder, and Rebecca Ferguson offers some surprising humanity which nicely contrasts with Gyllenhaal’s vibe, in particular. The movie is fast-paced without sacrificing character beats, and the stakes escalate in a compelling and fun way. Despite the many similarities to other movies, LIFE does what it does well, and it’s arguably worth seeing just for the alien creature alone. Thankfully, the acting and the solid filmmaking round out the package and make it a satisfying entertainment.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake KONG: SKULL ISLAND KONG: SKULL ISLAND makes no bones about what it is. There is no pretension, no feigning importance. This is a film which knows exactly what it is and is having a lot of fun with that. Make no mistake, the film is sometimes broad and silly, but it is also unabashedly entertaining, offering copious giant monster shenanigans, a terrifically talented cast, and no shortage of visual style from the filmmaking itself. King Kong is as iconic as it gets. He has a storied cinematic legacy; the original 1933 film is one of the great adventure tales ever put on screen, complete with ground-breaking effects work and a thrilling, magical quality that still makes it incredibly watchable today. It’s basically as close to perfect as a giant monster movie can be. Each of the films that ultimately followed - beginning with SON OF KONG (released the same year as the original, remarkably) and leading right up through Peter Jackson’s lavish 2005 remake - have their various charms, and even the most flawed of them (KING KONG ESCAPES and KING KONG LIVES) still offer the basic appeal of the Kong character himself. There are few movie creatures that have quite that potent mixture of awe, mystery, and personality as Kong; he’s not a mindless or evil entity, but rather an incredible creature with an intelligence and a soul underneath the raw power. What KONG: SKULL ISLAND gets very, very right is King Kong himself. The decision to have the character portrayed through motion capture technology (by Terry Notary) pays big dividends here, as Kong has an obvious intelligence. There is a presence behind the eyes which makes it easy for the audience to get on his side... even when he’s stomping, eating, or generally decimating many in the human cast! About that human cast: if the film has a primary weakness, it is that the characters totally disposable, so much so that many of the actors are, basically, wasted. There are some clunky moments of dialogue, as well as some hazy motivations on the script level. However, the actors themselves are doing very fine work, and the cast is a pretty formidable collection of old(er) guard talents and rising stars. Though the characters may be nothing to write home about, there is no small amount of entertainment value to be had at the sight of people like Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, John Goodman, and John C. Reilly (to say nothing of the even deeper supporting roster) sharing scenes together and talking about giant monsters. The other creatures on Skull Island are incredible fun, and the movie offers us many different kinds, some based on familiar animals, others totally foreign; this is a monster mash, pure and simple, and a pretty delightful one, at that. Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts clearly has an incredibly strong grasp on visual and editorial techniques, and he displays quite a bit of creative flair in his staging of the various confrontations and battles which ensue on the island. The monsters get the spotlight early and often, and Vogt-Roberts eschews the playing coy approach that director Gareth Edwards brought (very, very effectively, in my opinion) to 2014’s GODZILLA, and instead basically says to the audience, “We all know why you’re here and what you want to see. Let’s go.” Working hand-in-hand to achieve the inventive and exciting monster mayhem is Larry Fong’s cinematography, which is colorful, saturated, and vibrant, and which also brings some quite striking shot compositions to the table. At the end of the day, KONG: SKULL ISLAND is a totally enjoyable romp, one which should offer enough satisfying monster madness to thrill just about anybody who enjoys that sort of thing, and it does an admirable job of taking Kong’s classic lore and placing it into a context in which we’ve never seen it before (the Vietnam era). I had a blast with this film. LOGAN LOGAN marks Hugh Jackman’s final time (so he says, anyway) portraying the character on film, and if that holds true, there can be no more fitting cap to his time as Wolverine. LOGAN is a heavy and dramatic film, far from a blast or a lark, but it is deeply effective as a character study with distinct western influences. Little needs to be said about the plot, so I’ll leave that for others to elaborate upon. Centrally, LOGAN concerns the relationship between the titular character, Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), and Laura (Dafne Keen), a young mutant with abilities eerily similar to Logan’s. The two men are not in a good place, having been thoroughly beaten down by events off-screen, but they see in Laura - who is being pursued by sinister forces - a chance at a sort of redemption. This narrative gives the movie the feeling of being one part western, one part road trip movie, and one part superhero elegy. There’s a mournful and bittersweet quality here, something rarely found in comic book adaptations, and that quality lends the tale a sense of weight which makes Jackman’s swan song land with even more impact than it would have had LOGAN been just another colorful confection. The movie is very hard-edged, almost to the point that its ultra-violence and coarse language begin to feel a bit gimmicky. Nevertheless, it ultimately feels appropriate for the story that director James Mangold and his co-writers wanted to tell. As Logan, Hugh Jackman is absolutely fantastic. The weary, wounded quality he brings to life here is perfectly fitting for the character, and his work in this movie is arguably the best he’s yet given us. Anywhere, in any film. This is an Oscar-worthy performance. He’s matched by Patrick Stewart, who brings new angles and shades to Professor X, showing him now to be a man wracked with guilt but still trying to bring out the best in Wolverine. The third member of the central triumvirate, Dafne Keen, is quite a discovery, delivering a coiled, ferocious, and emotional turn. The acting from these three alone is worth the price of admission. However, with all that said, LOGAN is not the complete masterwork many have been rushing to proclaim it to be. What keeps it from reaching the absolute top tier of the comic book movie canon? A few things, actually. First, the admirable (and wonderful) emphasis on the main characters’ interplay and relationships has a side effect - the villains are not drawn particularly well, nor do they leave much of an impression; these are very standard action movie heavies, characters who exist to fulfill plot functions, not to have rounded and interesting stories of their own (though, to his credit, Boyd Holbook does his damnedest to invest his character with personality). And look, the movie is called LOGAN, after all, not LOGAN’S VILLAINS, so I hesitate to really hold the lukewarm antagonists against the film too much, but I can’t help thinking that this would be an even better, stronger film if Wolverine had some worthy opponents to deal with alongside the nameless henchmen he murders his way through. The movie’s bigger problem for me is (interestingly) one which probably won’t bother too many others, and that’s the issue of continuity. The X-Men franchise has always been incredibly lax when it comes to making sure that all the details of the various films line up and don’t contradict, and that’s not really my concern with LOGAN. What does bother me is the way in which this film essentially undoes the “victory” of the previous Wolverine-centric X-Men movie, DAYS OF FUTURE PAST; that film ends with our primary heroes happy, and in a bright and optimistic future. LOGAN - set a couple years after that ending - returns Logan and Professor X to a dreadful, rough existence. While that makes appropriate thematic sense for LOGAN’s driving character concerns, it does basically render DAYS OF FUTURE PAST’s ending something of a meaningless joke. All of that is mostly overshadowed by the fact that LOGAN is as fitting a sendoff for the character as you could ask for. It’s often dour tone may be too much for some, but those interested in a rich and thoughtful conclusion to Wolverine’s story will find much here to appreciate. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|