Skip to main content

Whenever I’m around fishermen, I wish I had bigger hands.


(SPOILERS) I was intrigued by Serenity as soon as I saw the trailer. And then the reviews mauled it, and I was slightly less intrigued. But I persevered, avoiding spoilers so as to give it a fair go. I can absolutely understand why it has been savaged, since writer-director Steven Knight’s solution to the overfamiliar “reality is not what you think it is” premise is simultaneously absurd and – most damagingly – sadly mundane. And yet, I still couldn’t find it within myself to dismiss the movie entirely; it’s closer to the engaging folly namechecked by Christy Lemire’s review, The Book of Henry.

Miller: If it helps, I don’t much know either. I just know what’s supposed to happen.

Both, after all, take some unlikely genre detours in their attempts to address the subject of child abuse (in this case, it is also spousal). Both also culminate in the death of the abuser. In Serenity, the reveal that Baker Dill (Matthew McConaughey) is actually a character in a computer game devised by Patrick (Rafael Sayegh) is signposted early on and revealed at about the hour mark, which leaves perhaps too much “fictional” plot remaining before the coda informs us that Patrick, inspired by the outcome to his game, has stabbed his stepfather Frank (Jason Clarke) with the knife that once belonged to his Iraq War veteran dad John (also McConaughey).

Duke: Catch the fish in your head. That is the rule. Do not kill the man.

In that sense – empowerment, if you want to call it that, through escaping grim reality into a fantasy world – Serenity parallels such titles as Pan’s Labyrinth, Life of Pi, Sucker Punch and Heavenly Creatures. The difference being that Patrick is at best obliquely present in Knight’s movie, necessarily so for the twist. Which makes Dill the focus, as his reality gradually caves in, à la Identity, Shutter Island and Vanilla Sky. Some of these types of movies are much, much better than Serenity. Some are much, much worse.

Duke: You do know it’s just in your head, right?
Dill: Oh hell yeah, that’s why I’ve got to get him out of there.

There’s a span here, as Dill’s perception of life on Plymouth Island is going awry, when Serenity is hitting all the right notes for a stimulating head-scrambling tale. Knight builds measuredly towards this. Which is to say, you know something is seriously wrong with this reality as soon as the patently absurd notion of Diane Lane paying for sex is introduced. Besides which, fishing-boat captain Dill’s Moby Dick-esque obsession with landing a giant tuna is continually characterised as “a tuna that’s only in your head”; “You can get the lady, or you can catch the tuna that’s in your head”. The oddball appearance of besuited Reid Miller (Jeremy Strong, on top beta-male form) also underlines the point, as he misses Dill’s boat leaving port and comments “There’s something wrong. There appears to be a twenty-second discrepancy in my allotted schedule”.

Knight has ensured the movie looks great; ironically, since it takes place in a computer game, it has far lusher, more colourful photography than ninety percent of pictures out there in the “real” world, in all their two-tone glory (cinematographer Jesse Hall has ironically lensed a slew of virtual/alt-reality outings including Transcendence, Ghost in the Shell and WandaVision). Indeed, I was put me in mind of the best examples of “Just what is going on in this tropical paradise?” Lost. So it seems strange that Knight should then simply throws the answers out there, with Dill having little work to do to unravel them. First ex-wife Karen (Anne Hathaway) tells him his son, whom he no longer sees, “hears you through his computer screen. He hears you every time you talk to him. You are connected”. Which pretty much leaves nothing to the imagination.

Then, much more intriguingly, Miller shows up at Dill’s shipping-crate home at 2am and informs him “I am the rules” to “This game. Don’t you get it? Someone made the whole thing up. All of it”. The scenes between McConaughey and Strong are far and away the best in the movie, particular when Miller agrees to help with the new rules. But by this point, you’re also wondering just what Knight hoped to achieve, having spelled out the answers in the most unvarnished way. Even abusive husband/stepdad Frank (Jason Clarke) is in on it, reporting that Patrick plays a fishing game constantly, and when he was asked why, replied “If I didn’t catch fish all day, I’d find a way to kill you”.

Miller: You know, don’t you? Who the creator is.
Dill: It’s a boy sitting in a dark room…

I wondered if Knight would try and make more from the potential of his fake reality scenario. Obviously, he has his non-player characters, unable to awake from their autopilot functions – you know, the sorts who believe whatever their government tells them, and will do whatever they’re told by them, even to the extent of queuing up to jump off the nearest cliff – even as Dill wakes to the reality of the global – as in, the island, as the game – situation. It’s a familiar device (“It sometimes feels as if we’ve been here forever, right”), but we already know what is going on by the time Dill is pushing the NPCs’ buttons and getting no response.

Miller: So as a representative of the existing programme, my question is, the big question is, why has the creator changed the rules?

There’s also the question of just what Patrick is supposed to represent, assuming he’s intended to represent anything beyond what he “is” (a damaged kid out for escape/justice). After all, he has created his own flawed imitation of the actual universe, one in which he consciously changes the rules, so corrupting its “purity” of purpose: “The new game is that you kill a man. It isn’t meant to be that kind of game”. Is Patrick actually the Demiurge, an immature god corrupting his false creation? Maybe he is. Maybe Knight’s message has been lost amid the hoots of derision.

Dill: Your proficiency does not alter the regulations.

Strong and Lane are the standouts here, although the latter simply has to smoulder gently in the Sun (or shade) to make an impact. Djimon Hounsou is the reluctant first mate; Hounsou has an uncanny ability to make a big impression on a part instantly, yet bring almost no notable characterisation or charisma to it. Clarke offers his serviceable brand of assholery. Hathaway, meanwhile… One might charitably suggest she’s playing Patrick’s disastrous envisioning of a femme fatale. More likely, her performance is just disastrous (she earned a Golden Razzie nomination; McConaughey earned one too, although he’s fine, even if he’s relying too much on prop acting, namely chain smoking and maximum mooning).

Dill: Wouldn’t it be funny if the truth was that nobody knows anything? Like where exactly it is that we are.

There are a few writer-turned-directors contributing some of the more interesting – and better directed – fare out there at the moment (David Koepp, David Twohy, Scott Frank). Knight’s batting average isn’t quite up with his peers yet (although, as a writer, he appears not to sleep and is given to the occasionally ill-advised venture such as fucking up “fuckingScrooge). I’m not totally down on Serenity. It’s far from the quality of the disgraced Joss Whedon Serenity, or Knight’s previous movie, the standout Locke. But it’s superior to his Stath starrer debut Redemption. He probably just needs to recognise that every idea he has probably doesn’t need to see the light of day without first going through some, or perhaps considerable, reworking.

Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

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

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.