By Brett Blake Where does one even begin to objectively assess a new M. Night Shyamalan film? I mean, let’s face it, at this point the very mention of his name carries enough baggage to make many cinephiles snicker and scoff. His last unequivocally good movie came all the way back in 2002 with SIGNS (though a vocal minority even think that one’s bad, too; these people are misguided, however), and 2004’s THE VILLAGE marked a strange sort of paradox, in that it’s - in my humble opinion - his most stylish directorial effort chained to his worst screenplay. Since then, his directing chops have steadily declined, to the point that (as of 2010’s THE LAST AIRBENDER) I was very comfortable calling him something of a hack, a very promising prospect with three great films under his belt who collapsed under the weight of his own hype and/or ego. So imagine my shock at finding AFTER EARTH to be just fine, a solid, well-made, and low-key science fiction tale. It’s not flawless, it’s not great, but it’s far better than any Shyamalan movie since SIGNS, and I think it’s perfectly enjoyable if taken on its own terms. The plot, as outlined in the trailers, involves Will Smith’s Cypher Raige (okay, that’s a really goofy name, I’ll grant you) and his son, Jaden Smith’s Kitai, crash landing on Earth 1,000 years after humanity was forced to leave due to our species’ mishandling of its resources. When Cypher finds himself marginally incapacitated, it falls upon Kitai to trek through a vast and imposing forest landscape to locate the beacon required to summon help. What follows is a series of encounters with the evolved plant and animal life that has flourished on the planet during mankind’s absence. There’s slightly more to it than that (involving the Ursa, an alien creature that stalks Kitai), but that’s the basic gist. Will Smith is saddled with the “cold, emotionally distant” father archetype (some might say cliche), while Jaden Smith is given the role of the “yearns for father’s understanding” son archetype. Their relationship is all kinds of hackneyed, and I guarantee you already know the major beats of how their conflict with resolve, but the two actors are convincing, and it’s - for the most part - effective enough to provide at least a bit of emotional resonance. I called the film “low-key,” and I mean that as a compliment. This is a small-scale story. The fate of the entire world, or of humanity, is not in the balance. Huge cities are not in danger of being destroyed. It’s about two people trying to survive in a hostile environment, and I appreciate that the movie understands this and doesn’t try to elevate the scope into something bombastic. The decision to set the movie primarily in a dense forest environment (as opposed to your more standard tropical jungle or barren dystopia settings that are so often employed in science fiction) is refreshing, and gives the movie an interesting look. Similarly, the animal life Kitai encounters feels plausible; with the exception of the Ursa, which is an extra-terrestrial, the animals feel like the sort of things that could evolve after only 1,000 years. Again, I go back to “low-key.” The temptation could have easily been to design bizarre and strange creatures, but the filmmakers wisely pattern the designs after animals we’re familiar with. For fear of overselling the movie, I’ve got to point out that certainly there are problems. The pacing drags in the midsection (though not in an overly egregious way), and there are some rather ham-fisted exposition dumps at key points in the story that grind things to a halt, in addition to some really undercooked philosophy about controlling our fear (or something). There’s also the issue of the weird accents that creep in and out of the performances; I admire the attempt at using accents to hammer home the idea that mankind 1,000 years from now has changed somewhat, but it just comes across as strange. Back on the positive front, the technical credentials are very solid. The production design for the future technology, ships, accessories, etc. is quite strong, integrating an organic motif into the tech and sets in an interesting way. Also, the sound design and crisp cinematography sell the forest environment as a living, almost primordial place. In terms of the music, James Newton Howard once again provides a good score, one that underlines the more introspective elements in a subtle and atmospheric way. Even when Shyamalan’s movies have been less than stellar, Howard’s scores have always been great, and his work here is no exception. One final thing must be said. For this film to draw the ire of the critics the way it has is utterly baffling and silly. If you don’t like the movie, that’s perfectly fine and valid, but there is no way it deserves the (justified) roasting that Shyamalan’s THE HAPPENING and THE LAST AIRBENDER received. So many critics, it seems to me, had their minds made up about AFTER EARTH before they even saw it, and were convinced that there was no possibility it could be any better than those two prior films. Well, guess what? It’s a lot better than those, and the fact that so many of said critics’ reviews spend so much time rehashing Shyamalan’s past failures (and granted, I did a bit of that at the top of this very review) is sort of depressing. M. Night Shyamalan has become a punching bag (and, of course, that’s chiefly of his own making), but if AFTER EARTH has taught me anything, it’s that he’s still capable of delivering solid entertainment. Perhaps this is the beginning of an upswing in his career trajectory, because if he can somehow get back (or even close) to the heights of THE SIXTH SENSE, then we as film fans will be a lot better off for it. That's a long shot, I know. In the meantime, I hope people give AFTER EARTH a fair shake. Like it or not, judge it based on its own merits (or lack thereof), not the past work of its director.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|