Skip to main content

So, crank open that hatch. Breathe some fresh air. Go. Live your life.

Love and Monsters

(SPOILERS) If nothing else, Michael Matthews goes some way towards rehabilitating a title that seemed forever doomed to horrific associations with one of the worst Russell T Davies Doctor Who stories (and labelling it one of his worst is really saying something). Love and Monsters delivers that rarity, an upbeat apocalypse, so going against the prevailing trend of not only the movie genre but also real life.

The screenplay is credited to Brian Duffield, whose idea it was (also the quite decent Underwater) and Matthew Robinson (er, The Invention of Lying), and it’s fairly light on its feet. However, I suspect it’s Matthews who really sets the tone, delivering zesty charm amid the tense incidents of Joel Dawson’s (Dylan O’Brien) odyssey, as he attempts to traverse the eighty miles from his underground bunker to the settlement housing his girlfriend Aimee (Jessica Henwick), from whom he was separated seven years earlier when the apocalypse struck.

It’s thus a plot structure with considerable room for cramming in whatever comes to mind, Odysseus-like. Joel is an irrepressibly positive character despite his being entirely useless – he freezes – whenever confronted by the planet’s population of now overgrown and carnivorous cold-blooded creatures. For the most part, Matthews martials the CGI incredibly well and seamlessly; we aren’t talking quite Blomkamp standards, but there’s a very good reason this was nominated for Best Visual Effects Oscar.

And by opting for an inept hero who must overcome his fears and learn he isn’t entirely incompetent, Love and Monsters offers some territory less travelled these days. O’Brien is almost thirty playing a half decade younger – he could pass for sixteen and is about that in the flashback – and one of those faces that’s easy to mix up: with the Percy Jackson guy or, going back a few years, the Joshua Jackson one (who, notably, was also associated with Dawsons, of the Creek variety). He’s guilelessly likeable, and this may help him prove there’s life after Maze Runner, but he’s going to have to play bona-fide adults at some point soon.

He certainly fares better than Henwick, Mary Sue-ing it in the most ultra-capable way with the best – or worst – of them. It’s inevitable as soon as Joel sets off to reconnect with his love that she’ll have moved on (although, the movie leaves things open). How could she not? She’s a Mary Sue! Far more promising are his encounters on route. Michael Rooker’s survivalist, accompanied by ward Ariana Greenblatt (who develops a crush on Joel). A robot (Mav1) powering down and evidencing that, in this world at least, transhumanism is out on its ear.

Best of all, though, and the true star of the movie, is Boy (played by Hero and Dodge), the dog Joel befriends – or is it the other way round? – and who is his most stalwart and true companion. It’s a perfectly-pitched relationship, and crucially, it’s between a human and an actual dog (eat that, Call of the Wild).

What is there to be learned from the nature of this apocalypse, in a predictive-programming sense? The argument would be that all apocalyptic scenarios (in whatever medium) are designed to imprint on us that the end times are inevitably nigh (even if they’re a few years or more round the corner). In this case, it’s the old favourite of the asteroid (so reliant on the globe earth/infinite universe model of creation). But Agatha 616 doesn’t flatten everyone. Or worse: were this a Lovecraft scenario, doubtless the asteroid would have released a transformative goo. Here, however, it’s man’s means of dealing with the threat, the rockets sent to destroy it – which do their job – that rain chemical compounds back down on the Earth and transform the creatures (“President killed by Giant Moth”).

So this is your perils-of-science scenario, although it has similar effects to the intentions-of-science of the real world, or the Georgia Guidestones; Love and Monsters posits 95 percent of the human population lost. The creatures are just creatures (you can tell the nice ones by their eyes – “Thank you, Mr Boulder Snail”). But people are invariably still the worst (Dan Ewing’s food stealer pirate captain). Most notably, perhaps, the movie concludes with encouragement to overcome one’s fears, and go out there and face the world. Which, in an age of a populace “stricken” by an invisible peril, is very cogent advice (of course, in an age of shedding, going out and facing the world and mingling with the unsullied may be exactly what the powers that be want next, under the illusion that “it’s all over”). Don’t settle. Not even at the end of the world. Unless it’s for Netflix, presumably.

Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

If this were a hoax, would we have six dead men up on that mountain?

The X-Files 4.24: Gethsemane   Season Four is undoubtedly the point at which the duff arc episodes begin to amass, encroaching upon the decent ones for dominance. Fortunately, however, the season finale is a considerable improvement’s on Three’s, even if it’s a long way from the cliffhanger high of 2.25: Anasazi .

My hands hurt from galloping.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) (SPOILERS) Say what you like about the 2016 reboot, at least it wasn’t labouring under the illusion it was an Amblin movie. Ghostbusters 3.5 features the odd laugh, but it isn’t funny, and it most definitely isn’t scary. It is, however, shamelessly nostalgic for, and reverential towards, the original(s), which appears to have granted it a free pass in fan circles. It didn’t deserve one.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

I’ve heard the dancing’s amazing, but the music sucks.

Tick, Tick… Boom! (2021) (SPOILERS) At one point in Tick, Tick… Boom! – which really ought to have been the title of an early ’90s Steven Seagal vehicle – Andrew Garfield’s Jonathan Larson is given some sage advice on how to find success in his chosen field: “ On the next, maybe try writing about what you know ”. Unfortunately, the very autobiographical, very-meta result – I’m only surprised the musical doesn’t end with Larson finishing writing this musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical… – takes that acutely literally.

Out of my way, you lubberly oaf, or I’ll slit your gullet and shove it down your gizzard!

The Princess and the Pirate (1944) (SPOILERS) As I suggested when revisiting The Lemon Drop Kid , you’re unlikely to find many confessing to liking Bob Hope movies these days. Even Chevy Chase gets higher approval ratings. If asked to attest to the excruciating stand-up comedy Hope, the presenter and host, I doubt even diehards would proffer an endorsement. Probably even fewer would admit to having a hankering for Hope, were they aware of, or further still gave credence to, alleged MKUltra activities. But the movie comedy Hope, the fourth-wall breaking, Road -travelling quipster-coward of (loosely) 1939-1952? That Hope’s a funny guy, mostly, and many of his movies during that period are hugely inventive, creative comedies that are too easily dismissed under the “Bob Hope sucks” banner. The Princess and the Pirate is one of them.

Who gave you the crusade franchise? Tell me that.

The Star Chamber (1983) (SPOILERS) Peter Hyams’ conspiracy thriller might simply have offered sauce too weak to satisfy, reining in the vast machinations of an all-powerful hidden government found commonly during ’70s fare and substituting it with a more ’80s brand that failed to include that decade’s requisite facile resolution. There’s a good enough idea here – instead of Charles Bronson, it’s the upper echelons of the legal system resorting to vigilante justice – but The Star Chamber suffers from a failure of nerve, repenting its premise just as it’s about to dig into the ramifications.

You’re going to make me drop a donkey.

Encanto (2021) (SPOILERS) By my estimation, Disney brand pictures are currently edging ahead of the Pixars. Not that there’s a whole lot in it, since neither have been at full wattage for a few years now. Raya and the Last Dragon and now Encanto are collectively just about superior to Soul and Luca . Generally, the animation arm’s attempts to take in as much cultural representation as they possibly can, to make up for their historic lack of woke quotas, has – ironically – had the effect of homogenising the product to whole new levels. So here we have Colombia, renowned the world over for the US’s benign intervention in their region, not to mention providing the CIA with subsistence income, beneficently showered with gifts from the US’s greatest artistic benefactor.