Skip to main content

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

Love and Monsters
(2020)

(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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.