Connect with us

Film

Review: Prometheus

1.5

Published

on

Prometheus
Photo: 20th Century Fox

When it arrived on multiplex screens last year, Matthis van Heijningen Jr.’s remake of The Thing proved a modest, mostly middling, popcorn flick. A box-office disappointment, it nonetheless proved an interesting case study. With his Thing, van Heijningen fused the beats of John Carpenter’s superb 1982 Antarctic-set actioner (itself a remake of Howard Hawks and Christian Nyby’s The Thing From Another World) onto an ostensibly “original” story that dutifully laid the scene for Carpenter’s film—a deft, if ungainly, synthesis befitting the source material. Whatever its faults, van Heijningen’s film operated loyally, and effectively in places, in the shadow of Carpenter’s, minting a handy connect-the-dots boilerplate for how to make this kind of movie in the process.

With Prometheus, Ridley Scott attempts to pull off the same trick. The filmmaker isn’t as concerned with matching the clockwork pacing or clinical tension of 1979’s Alien, a movie holding the double distinction as being one of the most perfectly constructed horror pictures in the history of the medium and, with apologies to Blade Runner (and his Orwellian Macintosh computer commercial), quite obviously the best film Ridley Scott has ever made.

The decision to start from the beginning is telling. Since 1979, Alien has hatched all manner of adjacent properties en route to establishing itself as a franchise, with H.R. Giger’s acid-spitting extra-terrestrials being co-opted as stand-in adversarial variables, fit to pit against one or another comparably bankable franchise figure in comic books, video games, and spin-off films (most notably the otherworldly big-game hunter Predator in the Alien Vs. Predator movies, but also Superman, Green Lantern, Judge Dredd, Batman, Terminator, and even you—yes, you—in the Australian “laser skirmish” theme-park attraction AVPX: Alien vs. Predator vs. You). It’s not only that the licensed, canonized Alien film sequels paled in comparison to Scott’s original, it’s that the alien itself has been sold off like a breakfast-cereal mascot, diluting the taut perfection of that 1979 film with each subsequent relicensing. Prometheus seems conceived as a remedy to this, an attempt to extricate the franchise from its intractable outgrowths, an effort to deflate its bloat. Yet it unfolds like more of a knee-jerk rejoinder, a mawkishly brainy overreaction.

Prometheus opens with Scott’s camera heli-tracking across some wild and windy moor, where a bleached, muscular humanoid of presumably extraterrestrial origin disrobes, acknowledges a disc hovering in the atmosphere, then consumes a viscous black fluid that ravages its body, sending it disintegrating into a river below. However many eons later, circa C.E. 2089, paramour archeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a cave etching depicting a human figure pointing toward a cluster of stars. The constellation’s formation matches a number of others indexed across ancient human civilization, constituting sufficient evidence to justify aging zillionaire Peter Weylan (Guy Pearce, heavily augmented by prosthetics, and likely some CGI) sending a team of scientists to the far reaches of the galaxy, trailing the origins of human life on a hunch.

The crew of the titular rocket ship is rounded out by a cast of boringly “colorful” characters: Idris Elba’s hard-bitten cap’n, Sean Harris’s bad-boy geologist, Charlize Theron’s chilly emissary to Weyland Corp., and, most notably, Michael Fassbender’s android, David. Unlike post-cinema’s other David (Haley Joel Osment’s beaming boy-robot Pinocchio in Steven Spielberg’s A.I.: Artificial Intelligence), Fassbender’s aspirations to humanity are recognizably blasé. Cold and affectless, he bides the two-plus-year journey across the stars rewatching Lawrence of Arabia, stylizing his speech (and Hitler-youth hairdo) on Peter O’Toole, and circling Prometheus’s onboard basketball court on a BMX bike, nailing nothing-but-net three pointers—a callback (or forward), perhaps, to Sigourney Weaver’s superhuman slam dunk in Alien: Resurrection. Many of Fassbender’s performances are dogged by a cold, dead-behind-the-eyes quality, marshaled to good use here.

It’s to the film’s credit that it doesn’t futz about with David’s ulterior motives, as he slinks about executing a hidden-agenda subroutine stored in his memory banks as the rest of the crew treks into dusty caves in search of “Engineers”—aliens believed to have kick-started life on Earth. Alien fans, after all, are wise to the shady machinations of Ian Holm’s android in the original, so there’s no use belaboring the point in a film that, despite all pretensions to contrary, is aimed squarely at the franchise’s embedded audience. Prometheus positions itself as a corrective to stuff like Alien vs. Predator: Requiem, but it’s not much different: flattering fan-service, albeit configured across loftier axes. Prometheus plays out like bogusly high-minded fan fiction. It seems to suggest—or rather, insist—that all along, the Alien films have been about something other than resourceful sci-fi/horror plotting or space-marine romping. Prometheus launches itself well out of the franchise’s stratosphere in an attempt to pretend that Alien has somehow always been about the Big Issues—life, the universe, and everything in between.

Prometheus underpins its marginally tense, fleetingly exciting horror/action/thriller hybrid with inch-deep philosophical pretensions, struggling to parse the expanses (morally and literally) that we’d travel to satisfy our basic human inquisitiveness. Along the way, Scott tries to dress up this tedium with space-zombies, space-dune buggy getaways, and even a space-abortion—admittedly, the film’s best, and funniest, scene. It aspires to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001, but in its maddeningly unresolved plot threads and cornball cosmic mysticism, it lands closer to Mission to Mars—though Prometheus lacks any action set piece as gripping as the Brian De Palma film’s sentient sandstorm.

As the ship’s crew is thinned, and a series of genetic mutations and chest-burstings bring us closer to the birth of Alien’s instantly recognizable monster, Prometheus seems to delusionally maintain that its modest thrills are being enlivened by deeper concerns. By the time the film’s ivory-skinned god-figure titan straps into a WWII-style gun turret, it’s clear these answers to all its highfalutin half-questions are nowhere to be found. Instead, Prometheus pesters its audience into deferring to its thin profundities. Though certainly, many sitting in the theater may well wonder, albeit with a sense of imminent urgency, “Why are we here?”

Cast: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Idris Elba, Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron, Sean Harris, Rafe Spall Director: Ridley Scott Screenwriter: Jon Spaihts, Damon Lindelof Distributor: 20th Century Fox Running Time: 125 min Rating: PG-13 Year: 2012 Buy: Video, Soundtrack

Advertisement
Comments

Film

Review: M. Night Shyamalan’s Glass Is Less Than Half Empty

M. Night Shyamalan’s film is aimed at an audience from whom he cringingly craves fealty.

2

Published

on

Glass
Photo: Universal Pictures

What a difference nearly two decades makes. When writer-director M. Night Shyamalan released Unbreakable way back in 2000, the superhero genre was hardly the mass-cultural malady that it is today. An oddball take on caped crusaders and the like had a better chance of standing out in theaters, and Unbreakable was certainly one of the more eccentric uses of $75 million Hollywood studio dollars.

Shyamalan’s tale of a Philadelphia security guard, David Dunn (Bruce Willis), who, after surviving a devastating train crash, discovers he has inhuman strength and a psychic ability to predict danger, was photographed in languorous long takes, with most dialogue spoken barely above a whisper. Unbreakable was really more of a slow-burning family relationship drama—especially between Dunn and his hero-worshipping son, Joseph (Spencer Treat Clark)—than it was a men-in-tights, or, in this case, man-in-rain-slicker action flick. But a cartoonishly clothed Samuel L. Jackson did often pop up as a brittle-boned character named Elijah Price, who pontificated about comic books as if they were a socio-cultural Rosetta Stone.

In one of his patented, P.T. Barnum-esque twist endings, Shyamalan revealed that Price fancied himself Dunn’s brainiac archnemesis. “They called me Mr. Glass,” he says of his childhood torturers. And so the stage was set for a future showdown, though lower box-office receipts than expected appeared to put the kibosh on that. But now here we are with the frivolous and protracted Glass, which finally pits Dunn and Glass against each other. Though there’s one other person involved…or perhaps we should say multiple people in one.

That would be Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy), the dissociative identity-afflicted villain known as The Horde, who was first introduced in Shyamalan’s 2016 hit, and stealth Unbreakable sequel, Split. McAvoy is once again the whole show here, with the actor receiving top billing over his co-stars. He shares several scenes with Split’s damaged final girl, Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy), and he leans full-tilt into The Horde’s various personalities. Among these interior others are prim British matriarch Patricia; nine-year-old dance freak/Drake fanboy Hedwig; macho sexual deviant Dennis; and a cannibalistic savage known only as The Beast, who’s as close to a Big Bad as the film gets. McAvoy’s energy and go-for-brokeness is infectious, and it’s something Glass could use a whole lot more of.

The film’s first 20 minutes or so put Dunn, now nicknamed The Overseer, and Crumb on a collision course that eventually lands them in the same mental hospital where Glass is incarcerated. The trio’s physician is Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson, seemingly rehearsing for her eventual role as Nurse Ratched in Ryan Murphy’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest prequel), an icy unbeliever, so she says, in anything superheroic. It’s Staple’s goal to talk her three charges into renouncing their phenomenal powers. And talk. And talk. And talk.

Much of Glass’s running time is given over to therapy sessions in which Crumb cycles through his personas, Dunn looks alternately befuddled and constipated, and Glass lolls his Frederick Douglass-coiffed head to the side in drooling catatonia. (Is he faking his unresponsiveness? What do you think?) He’s barely the star of his own film, though Shyamalan has said in interviews that Glass is meant to reflect the character’s fragile, erudite nature, as Unbreakable did Dunn’s reluctant heroism and Split did Crumb’s anything-goes psychosis.

There’s a certain clinical elegance to the crisp digital cinematography by Mike Gioulakis, much in keeping with Glass’s eye-catching, purple-accented wardrobe (love that monogrammed cravat!). It’s telling, however, that the most striking scenes here are flashbacks to the Eduardo Serra-shot Unbreakable. This includes a terrifying deleted scene from that film in which a young Elijah Price (Johnny Hiram Jamison) rides an amusement park Tilt-A-Whirl, with bone-shattering results and to the palpable distress of his mother, played by Charlayne Woodard. She reprises her role, as Clark does Dunn’s now-grown son, in Glass’s present-day scenes.

A bigger issue is that the film’s earnest deconstruction of comic-book mythology seems antiquated given our present glut of superhero media. It’s no longer a genre to be elevated since it has become the norm. Plus, the unintentionally hilarious way that Paulson says, “Have you ever been to a comic book convention?” is one of several signposts suggesting that Shyamalan’s geek cred is about, say, 20 years behind the times.

It certainly might have helped if Shyamalan were able to more humorously poke at his own pretenses. The wet-noodle climax in which all of Glass’s characters have a staggeringly non-epochal confrontation in a friggin’ parking lot could only have benefitted from a sense that the stars and the multi-hyphenate auteur were enjoying themselves. It’s only too appropriate that Jackson’s Glass sternly narrates this skeletally smack-a-doo finale as if he was a distressed academic lecturing attention-starved stoners.

Perhaps genuine fun is too much to ask from an artist who once wrote a po-faced tome about closing America’s education gap (put “I Got Schooled” into Google and delight, such as it is). There’s also another twist or two on the horizon, though it gives nothing away to say that the reveals amount to little more than “the real superhero…was mankind.” In the end, Glass proves to be another of Shyamalan’s pompous sermons about faith in oneself, aimed at an audience from whom he cringingly craves fealty.

Cast: James McAvoy, Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Sarah Paulson, Anya Taylor-Joy, Spencer Treat Clark, Charlayne Woodard Director: M. Night Shyamalan Screenwriter: M. Night Shyamalan Distributor: Universal Pictures Running Time: 129 min Rating: PG-13 Year: 2019

Continue Reading

Film

Review: An Acceptable Loss Is a Morally Urgent B Movie

The film is a cynical critique of American foreign policy wrapped up in an uncluttered narrative that thrives on pulpy thrills.

2.5

Published

on

An Acceptable Loss
Photo: IFC Films

Writer-director Joe Chappelle’s An Acceptable Loss is a B movie with a morally urgent message, a cynical critique of American foreign policy in the Middle East wrapped up in an uncluttered narrative that thrives on pulpy thrills. By positioning the U.S. government as the film’s primary antagonist, Chappelle takes to task the repeated killing of innocent lives as collateral damage in the hunt for terrorists and other ostensible enemies.

The ethical quandary that arises from such an operation is embodied by Elizabeth “Libby” Lamm (Tika Sumpter), a former national security adviser to Vice President Rachel Burke (Jamie Lee Curtis) who’s taken a teaching gig at a Chicago university. As Libby secretly transcribes her experiences, and faces civilians who are angry over her role in a controversial military operation in Syria, Chappelle shows a surprising empathy for the character. The filmmaker outlines that Libby’s memorializing of her experiences and her honest attempt at assimilating within a society that more or less shuns her is borne out of feelings of regret.

But An Acceptable Loss’s compelling take on moral reckoning is compromised by the distracting presence of Martin (Ben Tavassoli), a grad student who consistently exposes lapses in the storyline’s logic. Martin mysteriously stalks Libby and sets up an elaborate surveillance system in her house, but it’s never explained how Martin can operate with the skill, knowledge, and proficiency of some kind of intelligence officer. Dubiously, when Libby and Martin need each other’s help in a moment of crisis, the film oddly passes on holding the latter’s disturbingly voyeuristic behavior accountable; Libby shakes her head, and then the film drops the matter completely. For a film eager to ponder the ethics of people’s actions, it comes off as strange that Chappelle doesn’t scrutinize Martin’s own.

Still, it’s difficult not to get swept up in An Acceptable Loss’s technical virtuosity. The film’s propulsive narrative is nothing if not efficient, aided in no small part by crisp editing that relishes the fine art of cross-cutting. The dark interiors that Chappelle favors create a Tourneur-like atmosphere of dread that subsumes Libby, underlining the covert nature of her documenting her secrets; even scenes in daylight have a strangely nocturnal feel to them. This visual style complements An Acceptable Loss’s pessimistic view of America’s foreign policy, which is sustained right up to the film’s hopeful coda. The film shows that if policy is to change, it greatly helps to be supported by people like Libby, someone who had been complicit in committing atrocities but ultimately embraced her humanity.

Cast: Tika Sumpter, Ben Tavassoli, Jamie Lee Curtis, Jeff Hephner, Alex Weisman, Clarke Peters Director: Joe Chappelle Screenwriter: Joe Chappelle Distributor: IFC Films Running Time: 102 min Rating: R Year: 2018

Continue Reading

Film

Review: The Heiresses Is a Contemplative Look at Class

Ana Brun’s performance as Chela anchors our attention where Marcelo Martinessi’s understated visuals might otherwise lose it.

3.0

Published

on

The Heiresses
Photo: Distrib Films US

In writer-director Marcelo Martinessi’s The Heiresses, middle-aged lesbian couple Chela (Ana Brun) and Chiquita (Margarita Irún) live together in a bourgeois household with only the leftovers of its former grandeur. The house and its furnishings, Chela’s inheritance from her parents, have a dated, hand-me-down quality, and the couple is gradually selling off the expensive furniture and china to pay for Chiquita’s debts. The emptying of the house of Chela’s possessions reflects the greater emptiness that Martinessi makes the audience feel in the space, where hardly anybody but the couple appears, and where the lights seem to always be off, presumably to save money.

But selling off Chela’s inheritance is to no avail, and Chiquita ends up in what’s essentially a debtor’s prison (the bank she owes money to charges her with fraud). Chiquita had been the dominant personality in their relationship, and after she’s sent to prison Chela finds herself in an even emptier house, without much to do. When an elderly neighbor, Pituca (Maria Martins), asks her for a ride one day, and insists on paying her for it, Chela finds a new vocation, becoming a kind of unofficial chauffeur to the neighborhood’s still-wealthy ladies. Although she doesn’t have a license, she begins driving Pituca and her friends around the city, picking up a regular gig driving the younger Angy (Ana Ivanova) to visit her ill mother. Initially flummoxed by the way she has fallen from her bourgeois indolence into a working-class job, Chela begins to embrace the relative freedom offered by driving, as well as the independence her bourgeoning relationships with the other women give her from Chiquita.

Martinessi cites Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant as his inspiration for the film, but The Heiresses has little of Fassbinder’s grandiose flair. This film’s characters spend more time staring contemplatively off screen than they do erupting into sudden emotional outbursts, for example, and Martinessi doesn’t accentuate the superficiality of Chela’s bourgeois home by arranging a literally glittering mise-en-scène, as Fassbinder might have done. Instead, Martinessi’s images are rather static and quite dark, relying on the natural lighting of the dimly lit house and Chela’s cramped Mercedes, the two places where most of The Heiresses’s scenes take place. The result is a film that’s more grounded—and more stylistically pared down—than Fassbinder’s performative melodramas.

In other ways, however, The Heiresses does recall Fassbinder’s drama of failed domesticity. In their shared home, Chela and Chiquita are surrounded by the signs of a disintegrating upper-middle-class patriarchy, represented in the ornaments of wealth Chela identifies as coming from her father. And like Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant, though patriarchy is a structuring absence in The Heiresses, Martinessi’s film is overwhelmingly female: Angy has an ex-boyfriend who appears in the background of a couple shots, but no man’s face is seen throughout the entire film. While The Heiresses presents an almost exclusively female world, it uses very few exterior shots, communicating a feeling of confinement—most literally in those scenes in which Chela visits Chiquita in the women’s prison.

This sense of confinement reflects on Chela personally, as well as on the women in the film more broadly. As the nouveau riche come to look over her possessions, Chela spies on them through a cracked-open door. Martinessi presents these scenes from Chela’s voyeuristic point of view, reflecting her isolation and trepidation in relation to the outside world: She’s ashamed to now be reliant on selling her family’s possessions, but she’s also afraid of making contact with anyone outside of her and Chiquita’s world.

At times, paradoxically, the visual and dramatic quietude of The Heiresses feels a bit excessive, but Brun’s performance as Chela anchors our attention where Martinessi’s understated visuals might otherwise lose it. In downward glances and semi-dazed glares, she captures a character who at once is overwhelmed by her new circumstances and emotionally shields herself from them. Slowly and ambivalently, Chela finds a sense of self apart from her overbearing partner and the legacy of her father—breaking away from, rather than merely avoiding, her oppressive circumstances.

Cast: Ana Brun, Margarite Irún, Ana Ivanova, Maria Martins, Nilda González, Alicia Guerra Director: Marcelo Martinessi Screenwriter: Marcelo Martinessi Distributor: Distrib Films US Running Time: 98 min Rating: NR Year: 2019

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Donate

Slant is reaching more readers than ever, but as online advertising continues to evolve, independently operated publications like ours have struggled to adapt. We're committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a Slant patron:

Patreon

You can also make a donation via PayPal.

Newsletter

Giveaways

Advertisement

Trending