Skip to main content

It’s just a colour that burns.

Color Out of Space
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Richard Stanley returns to features after 27 years (without a finished one) and gives us a Lovecraftian horror, his first of three planned adaptations. Responses have been generous, but I quickly found Color Out of Space teetering on the brink of the tedium that comes with escalating horror chaos devoid of suspense or turns of plot. We know what is happening here – madness unbound, physical, mental, psychic – and we’ve seen Cage’s brand of unbound lunacy more than enough times already. Add to that a picture heavily indebted to John Carpenter’s The Thing by way of gross-out familial descent into hell, and there’s something oddly pedestrian about the whole affair, despite it being clear that, in his time out, Stanley has lost none of his flair as a director.

That said, Color Out of Space is a reminder that, for all his acclaim as an unjustly-shat-on auteur, Stanley is essentially a shlock merchant. It’s writ large in Hardware, and it’s there in Dust Devil’s less-polished aspects. Stanley wants to gross you out, just in less overtly geeky way than a James Gunn or a Robert Rodriguez. Because he also wants to indulge his passion for occultism and any other obsessive compulsion he can weave into the mix.

You can see that in the trajectory of daughter Lavinia (Madeleine Arthur), introduced performing a ritual both to fix her mother’s cancer (Theresa, played by Joely Richardson, has undergone a double mastectomy) and get out of her boring rural idyll. The triangle is front and centre – or behind; it’s on Lavinia’s hair clasp, it’s the shape of the attic window Theresa uses for her work space – here. Traditionally, it’s a symbol of the higher path, per the apex. But there’s doubt over Lavinia’s purity of motive. She can be a bit of a brat, and while she states that she never performs curses, brother Benny (Brendan Meyer) is less certain, suggesting the arrival of the meteor is a “result of your little ritual”. Plus, she likes burgers: “I know it’s mechanically retrieved, but it tastes like heaven”.

The suggestion that Lavinia may in some way be responsible for the resultant disintegration of her family – literally and psychologically – reaches its thematic conclusion when she gives up trying to escape and informs hydrologist Ward (Elliot Knight) that she belongs there. Stanley, as a self-confessed dabbler in such arts, incantations and indeed curses, is likely well aware of the consequences of such actions, just as he is doubtless drawing on the loss of his mother in the depiction of Theresa. Of course, there’s far more in the mix, with Nathan (Cage) going expectedly looney tunes – “Dad took too much acid back in the hippy days”, substances doubtless being another Stanley touchstone – and the very unpleasant fusing of Theresa and youngest son Jack (Julian Hilliard). And that’s without the alpaca homage to The Thing.

The thing is, though, none of this is especially affecting. It’s frequently gross and grotesque, and there’s the occasional genuine shock value moment – Theresa cutting her fingers off – but Stanley makes the mistake of thinking one can simply pile on tumult and torment and expect to sustain narrative tension. Any engagement with the picture leaks away with the increasingly CG-infused light show accompanying the escalation of excess.

All this carnage wreaked on body and soul – although, we must be careful of the latter, given Lovecraft’s professed atheism – is fully in keeping with the author’s ethos and his’s 1927 short story. Which may explain the positive notices. That, or welcoming Stanley in from the wilderness. Rejecting the world within, Lovecraft’s terror comes from without, the stars, making him one of science-fiction literature’s forefathers. Albeit, irretrievably bound up with the horror/occult genre.

Lovecraft’s destructive force arrives from space and is inimical to human existence; this is a nihilistic, materialist vision of isolated and impinged-upon fragile corporeality, one that straddles Stanley insertions, such as allopathic definitions of disease, atomic terror (“It’s probably a nuclear strike”), escape through self-medication (the “imaginatively” cast Tommy Chong’s Ezra) and the microscopic, invasive force (“They came on the rock… It’s in the static. It’s in the moisture. Up is down. Fast is slow. What’s in here is out there, and what’s out there is in here now. Comprendo?”)

This basic concept has been used elsewhere, of course. Die, Monster, Die! (1965) was a direct adaptation. The recent Annihilation (2018) riffed on Lovecraft – as well as Tarkovsky – to underwhelming effect. And Creepshow (1982) found Stephen King undergoing a similar transformation, albeit more chlorophyllic in The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrrill, an adaptation of his short story Weeds. Itself heavily influenced by Color Out of Space. And then there’s Evolution (2001), probably the most maligned of the lot, but probably the most watchable, in which David Duchovny has to deal with the effects of a meteorite landing in Arizona. All conform, by and large, to standard meteor theory.

The best parts of Color Out of Space are probably Arthur and Meyer’s performances, since you’re actually interested in what happens to them up to a certain point (namely, when the former begins etching symbols on herself with a Stanley knife, and the latter decides to rescue their dog from the well, the one it isn’t in). Knight is a complete non-presence, unfortunate since he’s the hand-holding character (as the survivor/narrator).

Cage… I like Cage in the right material, but my response here was similar to Mandy. The whole of Color Out of Space is too much, which means Cage being too much, trying for Clark Griswald on ketamine, exacerbates the problem. I’m pleased for Stanley that he’s working again, but I’m not sure he should be spending his resumed career exclusively making Lovecraft movies (he wants to do The Dunwich Horror next). Either way, best of luck to him, if we all survive the real Lovecraftian apocalypse.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

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.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.