Skip to main content

It shall cleanse the world! Everyone must look. Everyone must look.

Bird Box
(2018)

(SPOILERS) 45 million viewers can’t be wrong. Right? What’s more interesting about Netlfix’s announcement of the multitudes flocking to see Sandy Buttocks shield her eyes from the apocalypse is that previous big events on their part were accompanied by no such swagger. So I guess Bright or Adam Sandler’s latest just didn’t cut it to the same magnitude? Doubtless the streaming giant will be commissioning more end-of-the-world fare tout suite. Possibly starring Will Smith and Adam Sandler, together at last. The success of The Walking Dead made it incredibly obvious, if that was even necessary, that there are huge potential audiences for the inevitable collapse of civilisation, provided it’s occurring while ensconced in one’s living room, but also that it gets stale quite quickly if you don’t have anything really distinctive to throw into the mix. Bird Box is well made and acted, but all it does is remind you of other, often better, movies of its ilk.


Based on Josh Malerman’s 2014 novel of the same name, it’s notable that the author himself was concerned about post-apocalyptic comparisons that might be drawn with The Road and The Happening when he first thrashed it out. And they’re just the tip of the “We’re all doomed” iceberg. As usual with these scenarios, rhyme or reason for the outbreak or affliction isn’t eventually imparted; it just is. Which can be a boon or a bust, depending on how fast and loose you choose to be with the rules of your world. In Malerman’s case, and the adaptation by Eric Heisserer (Arrival), I found them increasingly tenuous. If your MacGuffin turns out to be a magic wand, you’re sure to lose goodwill. 


So the nebulous creatures – real but intangible Lovecraftian demons, Gaia fighting back indiscriminately since she’s taking the fauna with her, mass hysteria or “a classic biowarfare signature”; take your pick – not only ply those who see them with visions of the dead and inspire them to suicide, but they also handily go to work on the insane, who rather than off themselves obligingly and uniformly become zealots inspired to open the eyes of those resisting such enlightenment (because all mad people are an amorphous whole). In pursuing this mission, as we discover, there’s no end to the ingenuity and acumen displayed, from the simple luring of river travellers, to driving around in cars in packs, to hatching such nefarious schemes as posing as an escapee from others like them (Tom Hollander’s Gary). It’s cumulatively rather silly, unfortunately – certainly, I began to lose patience with the picture following Gary’s arrival, and Hollander is usually a massive boon to anything. I can only assume that, when applied to the animal kingdom, rabid dogs are now intent on digging up as many moles as possible in order to force them to see the light.


It’s much better to keep these things simple, particularly when your characters are actively interrogating the rule book (digitised images are no defence, but GPS in a blacked-out car is fine). The Walking Dead, notably, opted not to explain the outbreak of flesh-eating undead, ultimately to its detriment as it’s stuck on a perpetual reset arc that renders its serialised nature void (I gave up after Season 5). Bird Box utilises numerous signatures from the zombie genre, most notably holed-up survivors whose numbers are whittled down by being really fucking stupid; the opening also recalls, on a less exhausting level, the mayhem of the outbreak in Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake (those first twenty minutes are still the director’s finest third of an hour). 


It also recalls, inevitably, A Quiet Place in its focus on one of the senses as a source of susceptibility (another movie that breaks down under the weight of its rules, but which is ultimately more satisfying by virtue of sustained breathlessness). We’ve even had an apocalyptic sight-impaired movie, in 2008’s Blindness, although that one played up the sociological commentary to the point of nausea.


Heisserer appears to have been fairly faithful to Malerman’s novel, so one might legitimately argue the faults are with the source material. At one point, a budding writer –“Another novel I won’t have to read” says Malkovich in full acidic mode, upon his demise – warns that the cast are in the endgame (“Humanity has been judged and found guilty”), which unfortunately tends to be enough for his kind of thing. He has added a love story between Bullock’s pregnant Malorie and Trevante Rhodes’ Tom, which also leads to the latter getting a de rigueur, kick-ass heroic death taking out a handful of the insane as Malorie flees. 


One might argue their romance underlines the emotional pulse of the picture, Malorie doing whatever she must to protect her children (Boy and Girl) – some commentaries have suggested she’s embracing blind faith to get there, but I’d liketo hope that’s a little too on the nose to have been on the mind of anyone involved – right down to the atypically upbeat ending (with Pruitt Taylor Vince as a nice guy!) Unfortunately, the whole is so self-serious and “important” that it exposes itself to ridicule when Malorie embarks on a blindfold rapids ride like someone dared to risk life and limb in Jackass (you can readily imagine Malerman going “Now, what would be incredibly difficult for a blind person to navigate, to the point only a complete idiot would try it?”)


Bullock, a sprightly 54 and apparently all hopped-up on botox (will they never learn?), more than commands in the lead role, lent capable support by the likes of Malkovich, Rosa Salazar (the upcoming Alita: Battle Angel), BD Wong and Jacki Weaver. Bullock and Sarah Paulson are particularly good as sisters, so it’s a shame they’re together so briefly. Director Susann Bier’s never less than accomplished either (although, she does seem to use that one blindfold POV shot again and again and again), riding high on the success of The Night Manager. Nevertheless, the self-importance of Bird Box defeats it in the end. It behaves as if it’s the first movie with a take on this kind of material, when really, it’s just the fairly meek-and-mild latest. I actually rather wish it had brandished an accompanying sense of schlocky fun; I’d sooner The Happening’s patent absurdity over this any day.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

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 system when Burton did it (even…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.