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

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.