Skip to main content

Fear is not real. The only place that fear can exist is in our thoughts of the future.


After Earth
(2013)

Big star vanity projects rarely seem to turn out well. Combine a major name with a director not renowned for his modesty and you have a recipe for a heftily out-of-touch piece of filmmaking. Given the critical mauling of After Earth, I’m a little surprised it hasn’t become the object of ridicule through obvious bad punnery; After Birth would be a suitably chastening retitling. But for all that this isn’t a terribly good film, it’s not terribly terrible either. Sure, the script suffers from holes you could pilot a spaceship through, the dialogue is frequently disastrous, the performances aren’t up to much and the special effects lack something special. But for all that, the movie is reasonably entertaining.


I put that mostly down to M Night Shyamalan. However lurching his fall from grace may have been over the last five or six years (since his vanity-massaging bomb Lady in the Water, so closer to seven), he remains a talented director. It’s his writing that has repeatedly let him down. The diminishing returns of his slow-burn directing style and plot-twist-first approach to writing resulted in his abandoning them altogether after The Village; even he had to recognise the tide was turning against him. But he did so in a backhanded way, pointedly criticising his critics in Lady in the Water. Which in turn was even more lambasted than The Village. He clawed back a commercial reprieve with The Happening, but it was his most pilloried picture yet. My reaction to it was not dissimilar to that of After Earth; I kind of enjoyed it despite itself. Despite Mark Wahlberg’s career-low, and despite the wonderful scene where our protagonists attempt to outrun the wind. Razzie nominations beckoned, as they no doubt will for After Earth (I suspect this time it’s a shoe-in to win a couple too). Since then, the director has been on something of a back foot. No one was especially kind about The Last Airbender, but it did reasonably well at the box office and as an adaptation (by the director, of course) he seemed to escape the kind of brickbats reserved for his own creations. Something of that is also at play with After Earth. He takes a screenplay credit (with The Book of Eli’s Gary Whitta) but is shielded from the worst of the blame through his star’s presiding involvement. It was Smith who came up with the story, Smith who conceived it as a vehicle for Smith Jr, and Smith who left his natural charm at home in his supporting turn.


Shyamalan probably wasn’t the best choice to give the script a good seeing to, of course. The man who came up with The Happening was unlikely to discern deficiencies of logic in the basic concept. When I reviewed Elysium, I omitted to mention After Earth amongst the wave of original summer sci-fi releases. After Earth eclipses that movie for conceptual incoherence, and it comes up very short when compared to the year’s other abandoned Earth picture, Oblivion.  The most obvious question, one that hits you in the face no matter how much of an easy ride you’re willing to give the picture in other departments, is how life on Earth can evolve to become hostile towards a species that no longer exists there. Even if the premise were intended to mock the concept of evolution (stranger things have happened), it’s the makers who end up with egg on their faces. Perhaps the creatures just collectively decided on an antagonistic disposition towards humankind. They’re obviously a discerning hive of transformed life, as the giant condor that starts out trying to kill young Jaiden decides to save him (ostensibly because Jaden fended off saber cats attempting to eat the condor’s young, but unless the condor has highly evolved faculties, all it’s going to understand is that its babies are dead and Smith Jr is standing over them).


It’s also a bit of a problem that, given the Earth is quarantined because it is so dangerous, it doesn’t really seem all that hostile. Jaden spends most of his journey in relative safety. Sure there are some savage leeches, some big birds and big baboons and big cats, it’s difficult to breathe and it gets cold at night, but the only really malign influence is the one they bring with them.  I also don’t think this being a kids’ film (albeit a fairly bloody one; wounded Will isn’t a nice sight) excuses the slipshod scenario that has been devised. The Earth was evacuated; so everyone left? Really? That just seems like nonsense. Indeed, I was expecting Jaden to run into some plot-twist descendants of those who opted to stay behind, rather than receiving comfort from a kindly condor.


As is de rigueur with future vision movies, an introductory sprawl was considered necessary to inform the viewer where we are and what is going on. This is delivered by Kitai Raige (one Jaden Smith), and the lacklustre vocal performance, combined with an extremely underpowered narrative, and design work, is a taster of what’s in store. Humanity has settled on Nova Prime but fallen foul of another race, which set the Ursas on them; creatures that smell fear. Kitai’s dad, Cypher Raige (I know, WTF?) discovers a method of being free from fear, called “ghosting”, through which the “blinded” Ursas can be beaten. So Cypher is perhaps the least subtle possible personification of the father who is impossible to live up to. It doesn’t help that Kitai blames himself for his sister’s death, and his dad blames him for it too. You get where all these clichés are going, right? That’s why they call them clichés. When their spaceship crashes on Earth (fans of the number 23 will note that the craft is prominently numbered H-230) and Cypher is incapacitated, Kitai must over come his fear (subtext is for wimps when such themes are so bluntly foregrounded), making a journey across hazardous terrain to activate a distress beacon.  And so, it will become a journey of discovery for the two Raiges.


The Ursas are your traditional oversized alien bugs, and testify to the lack of originality on display here. Straight out of Starship Troopers, there's even some reportage where we see Smith's Cypher Raige on a bug-stomping rampage; it desperately needed Paul Verhoeven to add some purposeful funnies (remember the censored news item in that movie, when the science division sticks a probe up a bug where the sun doesn’t shine?) This is a horrifically sombre movie (the cheerupwillsmith.com thing is entirely understandable), and its lack of self-awareness lends it to ridicule.


As far the "Fear is not real" message, who knows? Maybe Will has been spending too much time with his mate the Cruiser. Maybe the picture testifies to his much-rumoured sympathies towards Scientology (there are all sorts of offbeat theories concerning Smith’s beliefs and predilections, but isn’t that a malaise of most celebrities?) Certainly, it’s credentials as a flop bearing its message loud-and-proud beckon comparisons with John Travolta’s adaptation of the L. Ron Hubbard sci-fi Battlefield Earth. I’m not sure something as general as this fairly glib self-empowerment yarn lends itself to an entire agenda, however. One might draw parallels between the unchallenged position of the movie that martial discipline is a positive influence on the developing young mind (whatever disagreements crop up along the way) and the control structure of the Church of Big Ron, but the movie seems most vested in age-old notions of rites of passage and what it means to become a man. However corny and unpalatable, when Cypher rises to salute his son, so signalling that he is now deserving of ranger status, it’s about as traditional an arc as they come in story terms.


Nevertheless, there's something a little unsettling about putting your 14-year old son through intensive training in order to make him a tip-top physical specimen. It's not as if Will wasn't a scrawny streak of piss until the late-90s. It suggests scarily focussed parenting of the sort they make precautionary Lifetime movies about… There’s an obvious reading here that Will is Cypher Raige and he knows that young Jaden can never live up to his father’s legacy. One might suggest that Will’s absenteeism from the big screen, ostensibly for family reasons, is to give his son a push start; "You can never eclipse the old man, but if I indulge in enough vanity-transference perhaps I can manufacture a piece of stardom for you". It seems curiously thickheaded of Smith to assume that such blatant nepotism can end well. It would be all well and good if Jaden was the next Fresh Prince, and his career evolved naturally, but what Smith is doing is the worst kind of handicapping. In one swift move, audiences have learnt to resent his son.


The biggest problem is that Jaden is no chip off the old block in the charisma stakes (Kitai’s intuitive survival suit is infinitely more interesting than he is). I don’t think his performance is as bad as has been made out, certainly not so the affair became an unintentional comedy. And the part tailored for him isn’t exactly a showcase for anyone’s natural exuberance; with that in mind I'm willing to cut him some slack. The making of featurettes show a quick repartee with his old man, so maybe he's just really concentrating on being a mopey brat. Either way, he’s not helping the movie. But neither is dad, reining in everything that defines him as a star. Yes, he’s proved he can play a curmudgeon but no one is going to be congratulating him for it.


So it comes back to what works, and that’s entirely down to Shyamalan’s chops calling the shots. He keeps up the pace throughout a (relatively) lean running time, and doesn’t let the ropey effects, deadening dialogue and unbecoming performances kill the engine. I doubt that we’ll ever see him working entirely from another’s script, which is more the pity. As for Jaden, perhaps After Earth’s reception will have him thinking about his next move career-wise. After all, he’s 15. Time to make some big decisions. Not since Sofia Coppola has the hubris of a parent gone so punished. Maybe it’s worth him considering a career in directing.

**1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I think my mother put a curse on us.

Hereditary (2018)
(SPOILERS) Well, the Hereditary trailer's a very fine trailer, there's no doubt about that. The movie as a whole? Ari Aster's debut follows in the line of a number of recent lauded-to-the-heavens (or hells) horror movies that haven't quite lived up to their hype (The Babadook, for example). In Hereditary's case, there’s no doubting Ari Aster's talent as a director. Instead, I'd question his aptitude for horror.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

There’s still one man out here some place.

Sole Survivor (1970)
(SPOILERS) I’m one for whom Sole Survivor remained a half-remembered, muddled dream of ‘70s television viewing. I see (from this site) the BBC showed it both in 1979 and 1981 but, like many it seems, in my veiled memory it was a black and white picture, probably made in the 1950s and probably turning up on a Saturday afternoon on BBC2. Since no other picture readily fits that bill, and my movie apparition shares the salient plot points, I’ve had to conclude Sole Survivor is indeed the hitherto nameless picture; a TV movie first broadcast by the ABC network in 1970 (a more famous ABC Movie of the Week was Spielberg’s Duel). Survivor may turn out to be no more than a classic of the mind, but it’s nevertheless an effective little piece, one that could quite happily function on the stage and which features several strong performances and a signature last scene that accounts for its haunting reputation.

Directed by TV guy Paul Stanley and written by Guerdon Trueblood (The…

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

It’s all Bertie Wooster’s fault!

Jeeves and Wooster 3.4: Right Ho, Jeeves  (aka Bertie Takes Gussie's Place at Deverill Hall)
A classic set-up of crossed identities as Bertie pretends to be Gussie and Gussie pretends to be Bertie. The only failing is that the actor pretending to be Gussie isn’t a patch on the original actor pretending to be Gussie. Although, the actress pretending to be Madeline is significantly superior than her predecessor(s).

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.