Skip to main content

Uncle loves Google.

Beautiful Creatures
(2013)

Another week, another failed Young Adult adaptation. This one floundered on its release about this time last year and it’s easy to see why. Possessed of the Southern flavour flaunted by True Blood, but without the libido, Beautiful Creatures is entirely mechanical in its construction of a supernatural world where teenagers both mortal and immortal (see Twilight) interact in a post-Whedon landscape of chosen ones and dark destinies. Richard La Gravenese, who made a splash early in his career with The Fisher King for Terry Gilliam, does his best on scripting and megaphone duties, but he’s unable to wring out anything very memorable.


The movie starts reasonably well though, and unlike many a YA picture, La Gravenese has managed to attract a supporting cast of colourful thesps who, when they’re occasionally granted a scene to themselves (as is more common during the first half) dispel the overpowering odour of the rather insipid love story. That’s not to diminish the leads. Both Aldren Ehrenreich (as mortal Ethan) and Alice Englert (as nearly-come-of-age caster – read witch – Lena) are much more skilled and vital than most of their corresponding YA protagonists.


The scenario is all-too familiar; boy wants to leave small town, meets strange and mysterious girl, they fall for each other but their love is forbidden and dangerous. As such, the mystery of the set up of is much more engaging before we’ve found out who is who and what is what. The intimations of possible past incarnations during the American Civil War is an intriguing one, but unfortunately is revealed to be (relatively) mundane. Indeed, the whole back-story of the Macons’ (Lean’s family) ownership of the town of Gatlin is under-explored. And, when the entire family are introduced, it’s something akin to The Addams Family meets Twilight. But not nearly as twisted as that sounds.


So thank heavens for Jeremy Irons, digging into a southern drawl as if there’s a serious ham shortage looming. As Lena’s Uncle Macon Ravenwood he gets all the best lines, dripping with sardonic superiority (“A voice of reason in a town of buttermilk minds” Macon says of Ethan’s mother). When he bewitches Ethan into reeling off a particularly depressing future life map, which ends with “And when I’m 64 I’ll hang myself”, Macon congratulates him; “You’ve got it all planned out. Good for you”. Indeed, early scenes such as this briefly fooled me into thinking Beautiful Creatures might be a genuinely sharp and witty tale throughout. Ehrenreich deftly shows off his comedic skills during a fractious dinner invitation to the Ravenwood residence; alas it descends into subpar CGI, but there’s a some vibrancy and fun there for a while. 


I had hopes for Emma Thompson’s dual duties as Bible-bashing Mavis and fearsome sister of Macon Sarafine (there’s a curse on the females in the family such that they turn to the dark side, you see), but La Gravenese doesn’t offer her nearly enough naughtiness (there was surely plenty of potential for Witches of Eastwick-esque antics with a pillar of the community possessed by infernal forces).


I should also single out Emmy Rossum, who not only looks delicious as Lena’s black-hearted cousin and former best chum Ridley but enters the scene with the energy and confidence that suggests she will steal the picture from the leads and her elder supporting co-stars. Unfortunately that’s not to be, as Ridley has to make room for Sarafine and is all but forgotten. I haven’t been watching the US version of Shameless, so I can’t speak for her performance there, but if nothing else Beautiful Creatures ought to be an effective calling card for bigger and better feature roles.


The Christianity versus the old religion subplot is so overused these days it’s not funny; I think we’re all aware by now how the ones purportedly teaching forgiveness are really the intolerant ones and those practicing the black arts are just misunderstood. That’s the chief problem here; co-authors (of the novel) Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl seem to have taken the teen fiction writers’ guide (mean kids at school, just the one who really understands the misfit, abundant obstacles to true love winning through), grafted on the South Carolina setting, and ensured every hoary old cliché of both is present and correct. 


There are tiresomely obvious speeches about how immortals admire humans for never giving up (this is the Spock/Gandalf school of bigging up the little people) and teenage admonishments of how everyone has to deal with shit; the special are nothing special in that regard. Viola Davis, possibly intended to take on the Giles role from Buffy, unfortunately ends up fulfilling just the latest in the dubious tradition of “Magical Negro” supporting characters. Such predictability doesn’t appear to have affected the series’ sales (four have been published so far), but it seems cinema audiences are less forgiving.


The biggest problem with Beautiful Creatures is that the middle section gets irretrievably bogged down in Lena’s search for a spell to break her curse. Which entails moping about a library (a nicely rendered library, but a library nonetheless) for what seems like an eternity. Once the momentum has gone from storytelling La Gravenese can’t reignite it, and even a rather decent twist I didn’t see coming can’t make-up for the descent into tedium the picture takes.


La Gravenese, aided by frequent Tim Burton cinematographer Philippe Rousselot, ensures the picture at least looks lush (the effects budget frequently can’t match the ambition, however), and the design is effective; the Ravenwood mansion evidently had a fair bit spent on it (nice stairs). As writer, he also sprinkles on an array of literary and pop culture references; not as fastidiously as Whedon is wont to, but I liked the addition of the “e” in Finale Destination 6.


Of course, everyone involved was hopefully this would be the next big thing so the picture ends with an eye towards the next instalment. I guess at one mighty argue that, however horrible Twilight mostly was, it did pull some genuine weirdness in its last episode(s). I doubt that anything unpredictable was in store for Beautiful Creatures. I keep wanting to call it Heavenly Creatures, which makes for highly unflattering comparisons. Full marks for imaginative casting then, but La Gravenese needed to throw half the novel out of the window if the was going to make it work on screen.


**1/2

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism