Skip to main content

Come on. Let’s ignite Jupiter!

The Wandering Earth
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Proof that Hollywood doesn’t hold the monopoly on empty-headed disaster movies. The Wandering Earth is currently the third-biggest movie of the year globally (99% of receipts were sold at the Chinese box office, however) and China’s second-largest homegrown hit ever, but as Titanic proved, a guarantee of quality in no way comes as part and parcel of such spectacle. Director Frant Gwo is a huge fan of James Cameron, but it’s Armageddon you’ll be thinking of here – only even bonkerers – complete with absurd Bay-hem style CGI action that only gets dafter as the daftness escalates. And a prerequisite comic-relief Cosmonaut (Arkady Sharogradsky).

One shouldn’t get the wrong idea from the inclusion of a slightly eccentric Russian, though; I’d like to report a whole raft of fun characters littering The Wandering Earth, but it mostly takes its leaves out of the Irwin Allen stock-type book, the one Roland Emmerich would later be thumbing through for about a decade and a half, before he went all Shakespeare on us. Yes, Gwo features a sequence – about as tense as The Wandering Earth gets – where a couple of supporting players struggle for possession of a space helmet that hasn’t been vomited in, but you aren’t going to come away thinking this was a laugh riot.

Although, you may not be able to contain a succession of derisive snorts and sniggers at the premise itself. The plot of The Wandering Earth is almost jaw-dropping in its insanity – God knows what brand of mushrooms the four scientists acting as consultants on the project were scoffing – as we learn the Sun is rapidly degenerating and expanding and will engulf the Earth in a hundred years. With this in mind, a plan is hatched to move Terra to a new home four light years away, which will involve stopping its rotation (thus creating massive earthquakes and tsunamis), the surface temperature dropping to minus 70 degrees, and the population who win a survival lottery – about 3.5 billion – descending five kilometres below the surface to inhabit a Blade Runner-lite set. Oh, and installing 10,000 engines on the Earth’s surface, with which to propel the planet through the void.

The amount of detail goes to underline rather than diminish protestations of how lunatic the scheme is; Doctor Who has had its share of nonsensical planetary perambulations – the Cybermen’s home world (Earth’s long-lost twin) drifting through space, the Doctor pulling the Earth back to where it should be with the TARDIS, the Daleks extracting the planet’s magnetic core and replacing it with a drive system in order to pilot it anywhere in the universe… actually, that last one ismassively unhinged – but nothing like this. Curiously, though, whereas one can quite imagine Emmerich or Bay depicting the daredevil feats necessary to set this plan in motion, Gwo’s (with six other writers) adaptation of Liu Cixin’s novella cuts to seventeen years later and the difficulties that ensue when the Earth encounters Jupiter’s gravitational spike and the much much larger planet begins pulling the smaller towards it.

To personalise all of this, there’s a family unit amid the military operations, with grandad Han Zi’ang (Ng Man-tat), grandson Liu Qi (Qu Chuxiao) and his adopted sister Han Duoduo (Zhao inmai) trying to survive a series of perilous episodes (translation: dodging lots of CGI ice and debris in a CGI truck) while dad Liu Peiqiang (Wu Jing) does his duty on the international space station. Except that dad has to deal with a “rogue” AI (MOSS even has a HAL-like camera eye) intent on leaving Earth to its fate (the station has its own space ark of 300,000 embryos to ensure humanity’s survival).

Weta provided the movie with its physical props and spacesuits, so that side exhibits a degree of grounding, but so much of The Wandering Earth is a wash of indifferent CGI interacting with itself (the budget is reported at $50m on Wikipedia, and I can believe it’s that low), with a few impersonal humans thrown into the mix, that it’s an uphill struggle to engage with anything that occurs. The last half hour in particular is a succession of shouting and running and driving and dying that merges into an indistinguishable melee of aural and visual inanity. Reviews appear to have been generally kind to the movie. Too kind. I’ll say this, though: the poster’s really good.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

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.