Skip to main content

They're trapped between life and death and they can’t find peace.

Spectral
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Straight-to-Netflix, and you can see why Universal opted not to give it a theatrical window, since everything from the filming location (Budapest) to the leads, to an untested features director (Nic Matheiu comes from commercials), suggests less-than-stellar fare. On that level, Spectral is a reasonably accomplished production, but it also has very little going for it in terms of a vital spark of originality; you could mash up Aliens, The Keep and soldiers-under-siege flicks (Black Hawk Down) and probably come up with something more enticing with one hand tied behind your back. There’s some promise here when the initial explanation for the invisible force attacking our troops has a less supernatural (but no less far-fetched) reveal, but the overall takeaway is of a repetitious threat structure lacking the distinctiveness to mark it out.


You get the impression writer Ian Fried (with John Gatins and George Nolfi; Fried and Mathieu get a story credit) was aiming for something spookier and more sinister, what with the talks of Moldovan “ghosts of war”, but instead Mathieu supplies generic-looking urban warfare, à la Battle Los Angeles, with computer game standard CGI spectres and little in the way of tension, as we don’t care very much for the characters and have little investment in the scenario.


James Badge Dale is good enough in a thin lead role, but he always is, and his scientist Clyne even gets a decent piece of deductive logic whereby he dismisses others’ assertions regarding the threat wiping out all-comers by observing that everyone is biased to see one thing or another, and explain it accordingly (of course, being a scientist, it turns out there’s a scientific answer, which is very convenient, and necessarily absolves him of this trap). There’s also the veneer of scientific underpinnings, with Clyne’s talk of Bose-Einstein Condensates. It sounds big and clever, possibly too much so; there’s a distinct possibility that non-minded viewers (such as myself) won’t be able to tell the difference between that and bafflegab (particularly since the plot also throws in 3D printing and pulse weapons; it’s a bit of a mélange).


Emily Mortimer is miscast as a CIA contact, but in fairness, she has little to work with. No one does. The Delta Force squaddies (or grunts – no offence) are much of a muchness, with a couple of actors making an impression (including the current Martin Riggs, Clayne Crawford, and Max Martini), but they’re essentially rehearsing the out-of-their-depth elite fighting unit, thrown into a conflict with an enemy that hopelessly out matches them and requiring the outsider they initially mock (Ripley, or Clyne) to pull through for them. There’s even a bonding scene with some little urchins, while the hyperspectral imaging goggles are an inverse flip (in that the good guys are using them) on Predator-vision.


Occasionally, there are nice little details that suggest a mystical means of fighting the supernatural force (trails of iron shavings used to ward off the creatures) until they’re revealed to have a scientific explanation. But, if the assertion of one of the kids that the ghosts are trapped between life and death but can’t find peace turns out to be true, in a prosaically SF fashion, Clyde’s assessment that “Maybe there are things science can’t answer” is desperately trite, and the dramatic finale in which the rest of the experiments try to escape their bonds is lethargic in its standard-issue escalation.


Spectral is highly disposable and wholly lacking in personality. So much so, it seems inclined to throw around its sympathies in the name of a desire to please. Thus, it gives the brave scientist the mantle of coming up with ingenious solutions, but also nurses a very Black Hawk Down hat-doffing to the stalwart military types (“They don’t stop do they?”: “I don’t think they know how”), the same ones we last see heading back to the site of the experiment with the DoD, who obviously have overt weaponisation in mind. Of course, this is a picture that doesn’t even question the crack team’s presence in Moldova – they have the right to be there, they’re goddam Americans. All the better if they’re somewhere that baits the Russian Bear.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for