-
#631 – The Mist (2007)
The Mist (2007)
Film review #631
Director: Frank Darabont
SYNOPSIS: After a storm causes significant damage in a rural town in Maine, David Drayton takes his son and neighbour to a nearby supermarket for supplies. While there, a strange mist covers the building, and strange creatures lurk outside ready to kill anyone that leaves. The people trapped within the supermarket have to figure out how they are to survive both the monsters outside and the people within…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: The Mist is a 2007 film based on the novel of the same name by Stephen King. The premise of the film is quite simple: after a storm rips through a rural town in Maine, David heads with his son and neighbour to a supermarket to get supplies. While there, a strange mist covers the whole town, and anyone who leaves to go out into it is killed by something lurking within. The people trapped within must band together and survive, but cracks begin to show when different people have different ideas about the situation. As the film progresses, you get a clearer sense of the horror lurking beyond the mist, but it never gets less terrifying. The film works best as a typical horror film: a good mix of gore, tension and scares that are well-paced throughout the two hour runtime. It explores its setting well, and the possibilities that could arise from it.
The weaker part of the film is the characters: while they are a large and diverse cast, nobody really has much development, and play very specific roles, David as the lead is fairly plain, and while his background is explored in the introduction, it doesn’t really offer a unique angle to be developed for the rest of the film (but I suppose your life story or job don’t really matter much when you’re trapped in a supermarket with monsters outside). The conflict that emerges between different characters obviously tries to delve into the psychological reality of the situation and how different people react under the pressure and terror of the unknown, and it doesn’t quite hit the mark. The preacher that obviously becomes the main antagonist that sees the mist as a punishment from God overpowers every scene and development by having some explanation for it, and doesn’t really give much space for anything else. I get that it’s meant to showcase the political divisiveness of its setting and how fear makes people turn against one another, but it just feels like it flattens any nuance or complexity.
The thing that perhaps polarises viewers the most is the ending: a twist that is so nihilistic that either undoes the films journey, or expertly concludes it, depending on which side you fall on to. regardless, you’ll definitely have some thoughts about it. Stephen King himself thought it was brilliant and better than the one he wrote for the novel, which was left open-ended. Personally, I didn’t know what to think about it: perhaps it needed a better performance from the lead actor to showcase his emotions to have a better impact for me. But again, it’s something you’ll have to form an opinion on yourself.
Overall, The Mist is a fairly solid horror film that has plenty going for it in terms of gore, tension and scares. It misses the mark a little in terms of character development, and being unable to dive further into the psychological terror the cast is facing due to the suffocating presence of the one the film chooses to focus on, but yeah, it’s a pretty decent horror.
-
#630 – Knowing (2009)
Knowing (2009)
Film review #630
Director: Alex Proyas
SYNOPSIS: A fifty year old time capsule is dug up at an elementary school, and each child gets a picture placed inside of what they think the future will look like. One child, Caleb, gets some sheets of paper filled with numbers. His Father, John, notices that the numbers correspond to the dates of disasters and how many people died. When the numbers predict upcoming disasters and the end of the world too, John must find a way to keep his son safe…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Knowing is a 2009 sci-fi film. When a fifty-year old time capsule is dug up outside an elementary school, pupil Caleb Koestler receives a letter from inside filled with numbers. His Father, MIT Professor John Koestler, notices that the numbers correspond to the dates of disasters and the numbers killed. With similar disasters predicted in the numbers, John races against time to try and stop them. Thrown into the mix is the death of John’s wife over a year ago still hanging over him, a strained relationship with his parents, a philosophical quandary between determinism and randomness, and the end of the world. There’s a lot going on here. The problem with all this stuff floating around is that nothing really coheres into a central core of the film. There seems to be no real drive about what to do with the information contained in the numbers. Obviously John tries to stop the events from occurring…well, one, but then the film pivots to just accepting that it can’t be stopped, resulting in an ending that just really throws out any kind of mystery and intrigue and kind just…accepts fate, leading to abrupt resolutions of different aspects that aren’t particularly satisfying. I guess the main thread through the film is meant to be the relationship between John and his young son, but this never really develops in any way, alongside lead actor Nicholas Cage’s usual uneven ability to deliver emotional moments. Any time the film tries to express this relationship, it just feels very forced.
The whole philosophical debate between randomness and determinism is not explored in any great detail, and it’s barely addressed beyond the opening. The film does hit you over the head a bit with making John an MIT Professor on randomness and determinism, and it feels like there’s little room for nuance. There’s a few good scenes in here that grasp these disasters well, but it’s difficult to really link them all together. There just doesn’t seem to be anything to do or anywhere to go with these numbers beyond the fact that they have predicted things that happened. The film gives us some big disaster set pieces which have a good sense of destruction and chaos, but are let down by poor CG. The final act of the film flips the story on it’s head, and decides that the aim is not to predict and stop disasters, but to actually end the world and just accept it. This isn’t something that’s really built up in the film, and just undoes any work it put in. Having a certain amount of ambiguity with the “Whisper People” doesn’t really work either, and just what could be a grounded, serious drama and just adds nondescript aliens where they’re not needed.
Overall, Knowing doesn’t seem to know what it is or where it is going. It fails to deliver on an emotional drama between a Father and Son, and fails to impress with it’s philosophical footing on the debate between randomness and determinism. A few good scenes and moments whose impact are undone as the film loses its way towards the finale.
-
#629 – Flight World War II (2015)
Flight World War II (2015)
Film review #629
Director: Emile Edwin Smith
SYNOPSIS: A commercial flight to London encounters a strange storm that it flies through, and ends up over the skies of France in 1940 during World War II. With their only contact with the ground being a young British officer, the crew must find a way to keep it safe from enemy fighters, and make its way home…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Flight World War II is a 2015 sci-fi disaster film. A routine commercial flight to London travels through a strange storm in the air, and emerges on the other side over the skies of France in 1940 during the second world war. The crew and passengers have to deal with the situation, aided only by a young British soldier on the ground named Nigel. The concept I suppose is interesting, but it is extremely similar at its core to The Philadelphia Experiment from 1984, but in reverse, as two aircraft personnel were sent forward in time from the second world war to 1984. First thing to notice is that this film is produced by The Asylum; notorious makers of low budget, often derivative films that cash in on recently released films with barely disguised rip-offs that are just distinct enough to avoid legal action. So if you know The Asylum’s work, you’ll know to expect very little. The film explores some of the implications of time travel, but it creates way too much of a mess with the concept, and raises far too many plot holes that are ignored.
With nearly all of the film set in the plane, there’s no need to splurge on fancy sets, which is ideal for The Asylum. You could certainly make a film like this feel tense and claustrophobic, and get into the different perspectives of the passengers, but that doesn’t really happen. Everyone is a flat, cut-out character with no real personality or uniqueness. We are not given a background on anyone, so there’s nothing to really to develop. The fact that there just so happens to be two academic experts on world war two on a plane that just so happens to travel back to world war two is somehow even less believable than the whole time travel thing.
Probably the most annoying thing about this film is it’s complete lack of relation to reality: there’s things like the German planes you see not being invented until after the film that you can overlook, because that’s very specific knowledge you won’t pick up unless you’re super into world war two history. The main problem is with when the fighters shoot the passenger plane and is riddled with bullet holes: a passenger plane would go down pretty quickly after even a few hits. There’s also points where the windows are blown open and the cabin is de-pressurised, but in the next scene everyone is sitting in their seats fine: there would be no plane left if there was a massive hole in it. The fact that someone is blown out of a door would probably have altered time in some way if someone found their body with their mobile phone or whatever they had on them? There’s just so many things that are just distracting. The “twist” at the end is fairly predictable, and is infuriating, because they just faintly acknowledge it. It’s one of those instances where you want to see more from the twist, rather than just leaving it open for interpretation.
Overall, Flight World War II offers very little in every way: the concept is underdeveloped, the characters are one-dimensional, and the logic of what happens with the pane are at complete odds with reality. It’s not really a “so bad it’s good” film either, as there’s nothing humourous either; just a drab wander through the motions.
-
#628 – Mortal Engines (2018)
Mortal Engines (2018)
Film review #628
Director: Christian Rivers
SYNOPSIS: A thousand years in the future after a great war, giant mobile towns and cities roam around the continent, attempting to absorb one another for resources. In the mobile city of London, a small mobile town is harvested, among the population is Hester Shaw, a young woman who attempts to assassinate Thaddeus Valentine, a high ranking member of the city, but is stopped by Tom Natsworthy, a young historian. When Thaddeus learns that she told Tom about how he killed her Mother before she fell down a chute, Thaddeus pushes Tom down too, hoping to eliminate any evidence. With Hester and Tom cast out of the city as it rolls away, they must find a way to work together and get back to London before Thaddeus can complete his secretive project…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Mortal Engines is a 2018 sci-fi film based on the novel of the same name by Philip Reeve. Set a thousand years in the future after a “sixty second war” obliterated the old world, humanity now lives on large mobile cities and towns that move across the continent capturing other towns and cities for scarce resources. London is one such city, and after capturing a small mining town, takes the residents aboard including Hester Shaw, a young woman who attempts to assassinate Thaddeus Valentine, a high ranking member of the city. She is stopped by Tom Natsworthy, a young historian, who chases her down, and reveals to him the secret that Thaddeus killed her Mother before she falls down a chute. When Tom tells Thaddeus this, he is also pushed down the chute, seemingly to erase the evidence. Cast out of London as it rolls away, Tom and Nester must learn to work together to learn the truth and stop whatever Thaddeus is planning. The film starts off, as most of these post-apocalyptic films do, telling how civilisation was wiped out in a war, and introducing the novel concept of mobile cities that move around like giant tanks swallowing others for resources. We get a fairly standard action sequence to kick things off which illustrates the concept well, but perhaps lacking that necessary hook to grip viewers.
The two main flaws of the film quickly make themselves known, in the first twenty minutes we are introduced to character upon character, thrown at us relentlessly. The cast is just far too large, and we don’t really get a strong main character to settle us into the world, and are rather just thrown around a lot. The second issue which stems from this, is that everyone we meet already has a history with everyone else, which just complicates everything tenfold. This feeds into a plot which is tied together with a mass of conveniences, where characters coincidentally meet who just happen to know each other in some way. There’s nothing organic about the development when all of this is just shunted into the film and we as the viewer are made to play catch up as the film explains the nature of their relationships, rather than letting it happen in the present on screen. The two main characters have that very typical relationship of hating each other and eventually getting closer, and you can easily predict every beat in their relationship and when it’s going to happen, draining any chemistry between them. Thaddeus isn’t really much of an interesting villain either, as his plan just seems to be to blow up a wall so he can go and pillage some non-moving cities in east Asia, but we don’t ever see any of them, or what they’re like, so we don’t really get a sense of the consequences of his actions other than blowing up a big wall. Hugo Weaving still turns in a good performance as you would expect, but he just doesn’t really have anything special to do, like most of the characters.
I haven’t read the book, so I’ can’t comment too much on the themes there, but the film does have a theme of “Municipal Darwinism,” with the strong cities absorbing the weak and their resources in order to survive. An interesting idea, but only really mentioned once in the opening and never really explored. There’s also a sense of nationalism/colonialism in having the populations of these cities cheer on as they watch “their” city destroy another, which again is hinted at in the opening and a bit at the end, but never really dug into or forms any part of the plot. I feel this is something that would have been interesting sub-text in the novel, but maybe was flattened out to make the film more Hollywood and devoid of any metaphor or controversy. These might also have had more weight if we saw more than one mobile city throughout the entire film. What happened to all the other big cities? Wouldn’t it have been interesting to see London take on Paris, or any other major capital? As it is, there’s not even a mention of them.
Produced by Peter Jackson, as the trailers are at pains to point out, he lends his skills well to the big battle scenes, and the visuals are good for them. Jackson hired Philip Reeve for his directorial debut to work on this film, and the inexperience certainly shows in all the points mentioned above. There’s plenty that could have been done with this film, I am sure, but as it is, it is a meandering two hours around half-baked plot points connected by huge coincidences and a bloated cast. It fails to make up for the weak plot as well with a lack of excitement, action, humour, or anything else really. Clearly everyone else felt the same, as it was a box office bomb against a huge budget. Mortal Engines stalls before it ever gets anywhere good. The historian characters remark that somehow history is not as they know it, and that it seems to have been changed somehow. I assume this is because the plane has travelled back, but it just seems like an excuse not to be historically accurate (such as the German planes used not being in use until 1942).
The characters are all fairly bland and a typical cast who react to the situation differently. Acting is weak, and we don’t really get any insight into the lives of these characters other than the tropes they are meant to be.
-
#627 – Lucy (2013)
Lucy (2013)
Film review #627
Director: Luc Besson
SYNOPSIS: A young woman is tricked into delivering drugs for a organised crime ring. She has the drugs planted in her intestines to smuggle through the airport, but when the bag starts leaking, her body absorbs the experimental substance, giving her superhuman abilities. As her powers increase and her grip on reality fading, she reaches out to a Professor in the hopes of passing on her experiences before she transcends to whatever happens next…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Lucy is a 2013 sci-fi film. Lucy is given a briefcase full of experimental drugs to give to a Korean crime syndicate. Things quickly escalate as she is roped into smuggling a packet of drugs to Europe inside her intestines. When the package inside her starts leaking, her body starts absorbing the drugs, unlocking more of her brain power and slowly transcending human existence. She enlists the help of a university Professor to help her pass on her experiences before she unlocks one hundred percent of her brain and transcends her very existence. Blending action, philosophy, and a sprinkle of humour, Lucy achieves a finely balanced weave that viewers can ride on from beginning to end. I enjoyed this film for mainly two reasons: the aforementioned balancing of action, philosophy, suspense, humour and more that allows the film to hit the ground running and never stop. The second is that it’s short: clocking in at just over one and a half hours (about one hour and twenty four minutes excluding the credits), it does what it needs to do and is over. The film covers the philosophical ground of what it means to be human, but doesn’t have the big scenes of silence like 2001 or something similar to give us the space to reflect that. That’s not a bad thing though, it just offers us a different way of doing this kind of speculation.
The film revolves around the popular misconception that humans use only use ten percent of our brains, and speculates what would happen is we started to use more: as Lucy unlocks more of her brain power, she is able to control more and more things around her, including her appearance, matter, and so on. The film has a clear start and end point, and moves along fairly evenly, while still keeping things exciting. The action scenes are well choreographed, and while the premise of the film is based on the aforementioned urban myth about the use of the human brain, it still evokes enough wonder and speculation about what makes us human and purpose to sow the necessary philosophical seeds. The film bears the fingerprints of it’s director Luc Besson (The Fifth Element, Valerian and the City of A Thousand Planets), with colour, energy, and purpose in all the scenes, and Scarlett Johannsen portrays Lucy as both a human figure, who is slowly becoming something else entirely well. The more you think about the scie3ne behind the film, the less it really makes sense, but the philosophical ground is fairly sound. Lucy is a film that never overstays its welcome: it’s careful balancing of action, speculation, and humour does everything it needs to do with a sense of style, and makes it an entertaining ride from start to finish. Just a damn good ride really.
-
#626 – Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018)
Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018)
Film review #626
Director: Steven S. DeKnight
SYNOPSIS: Ten years after the war of the Kaijus was won and the rift through which they came was sealed, pilot Jake Pentecost is living in ruined Los Angeles selling giant robot (Jaeger) parts. When he has a run-in with a girl named Amara who has been illegally building her own Jaeger from scrap parts, they are caught and given a chance to make up for their crimes: Jake is to train a new generation of pilots, and Amara is to join as a cadet. Both are put to the test however, as a new threat emerges…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Pacific Rim: Uprising is a 2018 sci-fi film and the sequel to 2013’s Pacific Rim. Set ten years after the vents of the first film, in which the rift through which the giant kaiju monsters was sealed, we see the hero of the first film Jake Pentecost living in the ruins of a Beverly Hills luxury home, as he narrates how the intervening ten years have led to people illegally building their own Jaegers (giant robots used to combat the alien kaiju), and an emerging black market for parts to do so. Jake runs into a young girl named Amara Nanami, who is secretly building such a Jaeger, and when the two of them are caught, are offered a deal to keep themselves out of trouble: Jake is brought back to the academy to train new recruits, and Amara joins as one of said recruits. While behind the scenes some suspicious activity with a company wants to use artificial drones to pilot the Jaegers leads to a new threat and the new recruits having to step up to save the world. The story splits itself into two as we follow both the protagonists doing slightly different things: there’s absolutely no surprises here, and everything unfolds more or less how you would expect it to. There’s just this overwhelming feeling that nobody really knew what to do with the story here: just re-opening the rift and fighting kaijus would have been a direct copy of the original and rendered the victory of the first film somewhat meaningless, so it’s good they just didn’t do that. The trouble is that what they did do is to half re-hash the story by returning to newcomers and training a different generation of pilots anyway. The new story regarding the use of drones to artificially pilot Jaegers is somewhat interesting, but is more or less blown away and discarded when the “real” threat emerges. All in all, it just feels directionless.
The story is obviously not what you’re watching this film for I suppose: you want to see giant robots beating giant monsters, and you do get it…eventually. One of the big differences between this film and its predecessor is that the big fights take place during the day, whereas in the original it was all done in the dark and usually rain. This was one of the common critiques of the first film that you couldn’t really see what was happening during the fights, so it’s good that they actually revised that. There was something quite atmospheric about the night time fights, but I can see why they would choose to avoid that criticism entirely this time around. The characters have reasonably good chemistry, such as between Jake and Amara, but the development of their relationship is so predictable, and at the start of every scene between them you can work out how it’s going to end up. The characters from the first film too don’t really get that much development either, and due to the five year gap between films, I couldn’t really remember who any of them were. There’s just little effort to reconnect us to the characters or expand upon them.
Given that Guillermo del Toro stepped away from directing this film as he did the predecessor, it does suffer from his absence (he directed the Shape of Water instead, which won him multiple awards, so a good move on his part at least). The action scenes are decent and entertaining, but don’t really have much flair. The Jaeger and Kaiju designs aren’t memorable or leave an impression, and again, the effects are okay and solid enough, but don’t stand out. Pacific Rim: Uprising fails to build upon its predecessor; stumbling around well-trodden story beats to try and distinguish itself form the original, but just never achieves that aim. Some of the characters have chemistry, but it’s all done in such a cliché manner that you don’t even need to see it; the predictability of all the dialogue is nauseating and feels like a waste of time. The fight scenes are entertaining enough, and are obviously what carry the film, but everything else is directionless and muddled. Overall, a lack of ideas overshadows the film, but like the original it’s an okay action film. Although that said, you’ll probably want to watch the original over this one, as it at least was self-contained and didn’t have the pressure of re-treading old ground like the sequel has to.
-
#625 – The Wizard of Speed and Time (1988)
The Wizard of Speed and Time (1988)
Film review #625
Director: Mike Jittlov
SYNOPSIS: Mike is a stop-motion special effects artist who is trying to make it in Hollywood and get his screenplay produced. When his script catches the eye of some executives, they hire him to work on a feature for them, but being executives, they also make a bet on whether he can actually pull it off. Mike has to somehow assemble a crew and get his film done in the hopes of being paid…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: The Wizard of Speed and Time is a 1988 semi-biographical film. Directed, written, produced, and just about everything else by Mike Jittlov, the film stars Mike Jittlov as Mike Jittlov (surprisingly), a special effects artist who is trying to make it in Hollywood. He gets his big break when some Hollywood executives task him with producing a feature. However, the execs make a bet with each other that he will not be able to complete it in time, so Mike must navigate that trials and tribulations of making a film in Hollywood to get it done on time. The film is an expansion of the short film of the same name, which was a showcase of some really creative stop-motion effects, and wrapping a semi-biographical story around it. The story is a fairly simple one, which takes swipes at the Hollywood film industry, as well as showcasing the frustrations Jittlov himself experienced in the industry. Despite that, it never feels bitter or defeated: the humour is quick-paced and sharp enough in it’s satire that it pokes fun without being mean-spirited. Also, the focus of the film is ultimately in it’s stop-motion scenes and effects that triumph over any negativity, expressed through statements of affirmation and positivity hidden within the sequences. This is also the message of the film in general as well: that the making of films, and the creativity, outshines any attempt by the film industries machines to dismantle creativity in favour of profit. The main story about Mike must making a film is a bit bland in isolation, but you can’t really judge the film solely based on that: it would be like judging Jaws solely based on all the non-shark scenes. All the different elements of the film are weaved together well, and there’s just an overall sense of fun and passion that shines through.
Packed full of little references and jokes that keep the film interesting, and never losing that personal touch, The Wizard of Speed and Time delivers something unique. It avoids the trap a lot of films mostly made by one person of being too self-indulgent and inward looking, but oddly enough, I think this is one of the most personal films of this type I have seen. It is reminiscent of Fellini’s 8½ in a lot of ways, but rather than being a surrealist tour-de-force of the filmmaker, The Wizard of Speed and Time is a lighthearted, celebratory look at filmmaking rooted in it’s time, with that 80’s flair and synth-driven soundtrack that capture the feeling of 80’s Los Angeles. Some of the humour gets a bit too involved with the intricacies of the industry, including union rules and the use of film reels, but these aren’t too much of a problem.
Spending ten years in production, Jittlov refused any financial backing for this film that would have meant sacrificing any of his vision, and I highly respect that. The making of the film reflects the actual making of the film too, and it’s this constant weave of real-life and fiction, interspersed with these explosions of creativity, which makes it so captivating. Apart from the special effects, you’ve got Jittlov doing some intense stunts, such as one scene where he spends two minutes underwater in a pool, which he actually did by holding his breath. The more you realise how much is authentic and done by hand or without stunt doubles, the more you appreciate the film as a whole. Maybe if you’ve got no interest in filmmaking or the creative process, then this film might pass you by, but I genuinely enjoyed all aspects of it, and it rises above the pitfalls of other films mainly produced by one person on zero budget with it’s quick-witted humour and fun visuals.
-
#624 – Tremors (1990)
Tremors (1990)
Film review #624
Director: Ron Underwood
SYNOPSIS: Val and Earl are two handymen working in the (very) small town of Perfection, who decide they have had enough and decide to leave for the next town over. However, before leaving, they start to find the bodies of a number of townsfolk. Believing there to be a killer on the loose, they quickly learn that it’s actually the work of giant underground monsters that are picking off the population. Trapped in the town with no communication with the outside world, what remains of the town must band together to see off the threat before they become it’s next meal…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Tremors is a 1990 monster film. The film centres around Valentine (Val) and Earl, two handymen who live in the small town of Perfection in the middle of nowhere. They have plans to move to the town of Bixby, but on the way, they come across a number of Perfection’s residents who have been killed, and head back to Perfection to warn everyone. It turns out that the killings have been perpetrated by huge worm-like monsters living underground, who are dragging people down to their doom. As such, Val, Earl and the rest of the tiny town must band together to defeat the worm threat. The film has the flavour of a classic 50’s monster movie, harking back to a time when low budget monsters terrorised small American towns. Tremors is not so much a homage or parody of the films of those times, but a mix of comedy and horror that I think is best described as refreshing: it takes the key elements that made those films successful, but recharges them with a burst of energy that makes them feel up to date, with horror that balances tension and gore, while also slanting everything with a sense of humour that keeps things fun, without resorting to the easy parody of those classic films and taking cheap shots at their low budgets and cheap productions. It’s silly and goofy, without being degrading to the horror element, which is a very fine line the film walks well.
Strong chemistry between Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward as the leads really drive the film, and they’re quite different from the heroic, square-jawed leads that we used to get in monster movies. The rest of the supporting cast too feel genuine, and while may be more one-dimensional character, fill out the town’s population with authentic life. The creatures themselves are brought to life with some super cool practical effects that strive more for that classic b-movie feel rather than trying to be “real,” are nevertheless very well done, and they have a very destructive energy and scale whenever they are on screen, lending a strong sense of terror.
On paper, Tremors perhaps looks like another attempt to pay homage or parody the classic b-movie era of science-fiction movies, but it offers a pleasant surprise by exceeding in all aspects of it’s production. The film is kept energetic and fun thanks to it’s cast, and a genuine sense of improvisation that the characters have to do to take on monsters that they have never considered as existing. Balancing the line between horror and comedy exceptionally well, it carves out it’s own path with likable characters and plenty of terror and destruction. It’s difficult to find anything that’s done badly in this film: everything it does, it does well. Maybe it doesn’t quite shake that hokey, cheesy feeling some might get from the classic monster movies, but you shouldn’t be really looking for it to do so. Entertaining, silly, and terrifying all in one, Tremors rarely misses a beat, and is a refreshing take on the genre, rather than a reinvention that is nevertheless a captivating experience.
-
#623 – Invisible Dad (1998)
Invisible Dad (1998)
Film review #623
Director: Fred Olen Ray
SYNOPSIS: Andrew Bailey often moves around the country thanks to his job, with his son Doug. Arriving in their new home, Doug finds a strange device in the garage left by the former occupant. Hooking it up to his computer, he finds it can grant his wishes whenever he wears the headset to communicate with it. When he inadvertently turns his dad invisible, chaos ensues as Doug has to find a way to turn him back.
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Invisible Dad is a 1998 sci-fi children’s film. It is somewhat a sequel to the 1996 film Invisible Mom by the same director, but features none of the original cast or settings. Invisible Mom II was released in 1999 (reviewed previously) is perhaps the true sequel, as it features the original cast and continues their story, so this film just exists in a strange void with no real continuity to the “franchise” (if we can call it that). Anyway, the plot this time concerns Andrew Bailey and his son Josh, who have to move around often due to Andrew’s work as an architect. In their new house, Josh finds some strange inventions in the garage left by the former occupant, one of which he hooks up to his computer. It turns out that this computer can grant any wish by simply speaking into the headset. By anything, I mean anything: Josh manages to make food appear out of thin air, teleport a model directly to his bedroom, and even travel back in time. When Josh’s Dad finds out about it, he tells him to destroy it because it causes too much trouble. Unfortunately, Josh wishes his dad would “just disappear” just before he destroys the device, and he turns invisible. With no way to turn back visible, they must find a way to fix the device.
There’s inherently some issues with the story here: The most glaring one is that Josh finds a device that can do anything: time travel, make anything appear, the works. The fact that the film is just about one man turning invisible is a bit underwhelming when you’ve already established everything else. Josh tries to plead with his Dad that they could print infinite money or anything, but he simply says it is too much trouble, which is a very weak cop-out. The film goes through all the expected tribulations of being invisible, with no real surprises in that regard. There’s a scene where Josh and his Dad are at a restaurant, with Andrew covered in clothes to hide the fact that he is invisible, and they are constantly interrupted by a man who cracks mean-spirited “jokes” after every line of dialogue; I mean, really nasty remarks about how ugly he probably he underneath all those clothes. It’s really odd for a kid’s film. Anyway, on top of the whole invisible thing, there’s also the sub-plot concerning Andrew’s job as an architect, and him needing to turn visible before his colleague steals his idea, and also before said colleague contracts a dodgy builder to build the project using sub-standard materials that will probably collapse and kill whoever is inside. Add in the romance sub-plot, and also the inventing partner of the guy who made the device, who now resides somewhere in the jungles of Africa, and you’ve got a film that is trying to do way too much. Lots of the plot elements get lost in the mix, and the whole invisible thing doesn’t really get enough time or attention to be interesting.
The characters don’t really have anything interesting about them: Josh is a typical lead whose Mom has passed away and he carries around a photo of her and such. It’s not too traumatic for kid’s. His Dad is a workaholic, and doesn’t take kindly to being invisible. There’s also Sandy’s teacher, who he tries to set up with his Dad, who doesn’t really have much of a role to play. However, Josh keeps constantly telling us how hot she is in his narration, which is a bit weird for a kid. Combine this with the pretty dire acting, and you’ve got nothing redeemable on this front.
Aside from the previously mentioned scene of the men-spirited harassment in the restaurant scene, there’s other parts of the film which are morally dubious too. there’s the dodgy contractor who is planning to kill Andrew to get his cheap material on the project he is working on, which never gets beyond meagre threats, but is still an odd addition. There’s also a part of the film where Josh literally goes shoplifting for computer parts, and his caught and thrown in jail. His teacher then breaks him out, and Josh’s Dad just overlooks his shoplifting, because he was doing it to “help him out,” which is a pretty weird message to be giving out in a kid’s film, and also since his character has already been established as not wanting to get into trouble.
Overall, Invisible Dad is a mess. It throws too much into the mix and ends up creating a directionless mess. Even for a kid’s film, there’s just nothing interesting or imaginative for them to latch on to, and I doubt that it would keep their attention long enough. Probably the worse of the invisible trilogy if I’m honest, as while the original had barely anything going on in it, it was at least easy to follow and mostly harmless, whereas Invisible Dad is all over the place, mean-spirited in parts, and sorely lacking in humour or charm.
-
#622 – Invisible Mom II (1998)
Invisible Mom II (1998)
Film review #622
Director: Fred Olen Ray
SYNOPSIS: When a millionaire passes away, his long-lost grandson Eddie becomes the heir of his fortune. Unbeknownst to him, he is stuck in an orphanage while the hunt for him goes on. He is fostered by the Griffin family, learning that Mrs Griffin has the ability to turn invisible when she is angry, thanks to one of her husband’s inventions. However, Eddie’s cousins take him away to adopt him so that they can claim the inheritance, and the Griffin’s must conduct a rescue before it’s too late…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Invisible Mom II is a 1999 sci-fi children’s film, and the follow up to the 1996 film Invisible Mom. two years after the events of the first film, we open to…something completely different, as a man lies dying in bed. His nearest family members eagerly await his death so they can claim his vast fortune, but upon learning that their young cousin Eddie is alive somewhere in Foster care and he will get the entire fortune, they hatch a plan to find and adopt him…and eventually kill him like they have the rest of the family to get their hands on the fortune. The plot is a fairly standard one for a kid’s film that’s simple enough to follow, and has distinct, yet goofy villains. It should also be noted that it actually has a plot, unlike the first film, in which barely anything happens other than Mr Griffin’s boss tries to take credit for the discovery.
Speaking of which, it turns out that the antidote Mrs Griffin took to turn visible again was only partially successful, and she still turns invisible when she gets angry…yes, I’m going to go for the obvious joke here: she’s basically The Invisible Hulk. The ending of the first film is hand-waved away, with the formula apparently being taken by the U.S. military and that’s the end of it. You might expect a familiar scenario of Eddie being angry or rebellious about his new foster home but…he seems to quite like it immediately: everyone is quite nice to each other all around, and there is no conflict anywhere: even when Eddie decides to try and clean a stain on Josh’s jacket with a handheld buzzsaw (????), Josh just shrugs and says he didn’t like it anyway. Again, I know this is a children’s film, but I’m sure it’s okay to have a bit of conflict and tension somewhere? The Griffin’s themselves are mostly unchanged from the first film: all the same actors return, although Josh is notably older now as he is a teenager, but we don’t get any exciting new character arcs or development for them.
Eddie’s cousins turn up to adopt him as his only living relatives and to take him to their home, with the intent of killing him off and collecting the inheritance. Josh stows away in their car, and when his parents learn of it, they must conduct a rescue, and Mom has to turn invisible to rescue them. It’s noteworthy that Mrs Griffin barely turns invisible: just three times, the first only happening half-way through the film. Eddie’s cousins as the villains are probably the stand-out characters: they really chew the scenery every time they’re on screen. Bernard is played by Micky Dolenz of The Monkees fame, and really has a voice that you can’t help but listen to. The last part of the film is essentially just Eddie and Josh running about the villains mansion (why do they need the inheritance when they clearly live in a mansion?) while they try to off the children. It’s not terribly exciting, and as mentioned, there’s not much of any “invisible Mom” shenanigans that add anything to the formulaic plot. Despite all these criticisms, it is well acted, with Dee Wallace as invisible Mom, Micky Dolenz as mentioned, and Justin Berfield as Eddie, who would take the role of Reese in Malcolm in the Middle a year or so later. the film tries to have a bit of fun, but loses its way the moment it tries to veer outside the very formulaic plot. Nevertheless, it is an improvement over its predecessor, if only for the reason there is a bit of a story. Still not a great film, and certainly not for anyone other than young kids who can overlook the gaping plot-holes.
