Skip to main content

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite
(2021)

(SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne. And maybe include The Happening in that too (Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

Occasionally, Wahlberg has justified his movie career; he’s one of those actors who can be surprisingly effective cast well, often in supporting turns (The Departed) or opposite an effective co-star (2 Guns). But ask him to service traditional star headline parts and you’re left scratching your head at whoever thought this was a good idea.

Occasionally, Antoine Fuqua has also justified his A/B-negative-ish directorial status, although I think even his much-feted Training Day would have been considerably improved by someone with a little more aptitude for character. Several of his pictures – Olympus Has Fallen, the first The Equalizer – have displayed a decent B-movie hack diligence, but others have left him entirely adrift (Tears of the Sun, King Arthur, Southpaw), and I shudder to think how undeservingly lauded his forthcoming Will Smith slavery drama Emancipation is sure to be.

Ironically then, actor and director’s prior teaming, conspiracy thriller Shooter, may have been one of their mutually best efforts. One assumes they got on reasonably well, hence this rematch fourteen years later. Given that both must be held equally blameworthy for the piece of hot garbage that is Infinite, I doubt we’ll see them together again for at least another fourteen. Naturally, D Eric Makiranz is the ultimate culprit for writing the appallingly titled The Reincarnationist Papers in the first place. Also deserving vilification are Makiranz’ avid fans, since he apparently begged them, through the first page of the book, to get his novel a movie deal. And it worked.

Of course, the undiscerning Hollywood exec (meaning most of them) is going to look at a movie about immortals and chosen ones with super powers involved in a plot to wipe out all life on Earth and fail to conclude how derivative and redundant it is. Rather, he will surmise how many other movies with all or some of these elements made an absolute mint. For all its ricketiness, the original Highlander managed to invoke an occasional sense of the poetic, and benefited greatly from the MTV stylings of Russell Mulcahy, the soundtrack contributions by Queen at their most anthemic and the eccentricity of his eclectic cast. Contrastingly, the recent Netflix offering The Old Guard was entirely pedestrian in approach and delivery. The concept of immortals fighting the (or a) fight, seemed tired and worn. Infinity only serves to double down on this.

Those two prior offerings essentially carried a “gods among us” element, by virtue of their super power. Somehow, Maikranz has figured simply remembering your past life is a sufficient hook in this regard, and that those who can, if not quite a Dalai Lama, are pretty special in themselves, what with their “perfect memory of all their past lives”. Even when, like Marky Mark, they can’t recall.

Hollywood has always been bashful about getting serious with spiritual concepts, keen to proffer a blanket of pseudo new-age Christianity from the likes of Michael Tolkin or Bruce Joel Rubin (Ghost, Deep Impact, etc). Nothing too taxing. Nothing to really make you think. So it is with the Infinites, where these guys (and girls), despite having perfect memory of their past lives, seemingly have none of the in-between states. At least, that rather fundamental part goes entirely unmentioned. The closest we come is a conversation between Nihilist (yes, he’s called that) villain Bathurst (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Believer (yes, he’s called that) good guy Bryan Porter (Toby Jones), in which the former indignantly exclaims “I’m tired of faith. God must show me his face”.

Thus, Infinite tackles the infinite in an entirely prosaic, inelegant fashion. By throwing hardware or CGI at it. About the sum of wisdom or spiritual experience we’re privy to are the superpowers of Evan McCauley (Wahlberg), the reincarnation of Heinrich Treadway (Dylan O’Brien, so pixely-looking I wondered if he wasn’t Wahlberg with a CG facelift). We learn that – somehow – he mastered physics-controlling super skillz in a past life, yet despite walking along the wing of a plane in flight (having previously landed his motorbike on it), he still manages to drown by falling into the ocean. Couldn’t he just have floated? Perhaps he just knew the way the Hollywood tide was swelling, and that it would be better in the long run if he was reborn Indonesian.

Possibly Wahlberg, being a Catholic, nixed any serious-minded discussion of reincarnation. Most probably, it wasn’t there to begin with. Mark is obviously the first person you think of when looking for someone to play an aging, aspirant, Neo-esque type, after all. And he gets to pose as a blacksmith and, rather than undergo a vision quest, receive shock treatment (drowning) in order to jog his missing memories.

The basic duality of Infinite’s reincarnationists finds the Believers protecting and seeking to further the growth of humanity (most of this seems to involve shooting shit and blowing it up), while the Nihilists, led by Bathurst (Chiwetel Ejiofor), see the power as a curse; “He needed a way to stop reincarnating. He wants it all to end”. Indeed, there may (again, I’m doubtful) have been something a little more searching beneath all this, questioning the essential reincarnation doctrine, and whether it is indeed characterised by the (favoured) uphill spiritual development of humanity. “The wheel keeps turning and we can never escape” argues Bathurst, sounding not unlike a gnostic recognising an essentially hellish realm, one presided over by an entrapping demiurge.

As such, he may have a point with his deadly Egg (although, not having any actual insight into God’s machinations, his obliterated essence will as likely be reconstituted in yet another replica of the earth, stir and repeat). While he was Rupert Friend, Bathurst made a device called the Egg designed to kill every living thing; “If there’s nobody left alive, there’s nobody to reincarnate into”. Rather like our current Elite’s chosen methodology, the Egg attacks life at the source. DNA. In this case, undoing the very fabric of existence. Treadway stole the device (and we learn, ickily secreted it in himself). Quite why Bathurst couldn’t commission another Egg is unclear, but being very angry does give Chiwetel and his mighty beard ample opportunity to overemote. Which, frankly, Infinite needed more of. Anything to alleviate the indifferent slop of it all.

Bathurst – “the apex predator in our world”; amazing how many Hollywood movies have one of those – also has a device called a dethroner, which prevents the reincarnating from incarnating again, storing their souls on a chip. Now, avoiding the intricacies or lack thereof of how this device would work, it represents an interesting transhumanist gateway idea in itself. Presumably, those on the chip are inert, but one might be minded to populate a virtual world of souls imprisoned on microchips, trapping them in successive incarnations in an entirely removed realm, splintered from a home realm already one step removed from source. Some suggest this has already happened in some way, shape or form.

Infinite is populated by the usual predictable supporting types. Sophie Cookson (ditched by Matthew Vaughn in the second part of his testosterone-fixated Kingsman series) makes negligible impression as Evan’s sidekick, which was probably the only way the producers figured Mark would make one: through inverse proportions. There’s no romance with Evan, as Nora’s soul mate has been dethroned.

Johannes Haukur Johanesson hulks into frame with a beard mightier even than Chiwetel’s, and hulks out of frame again in an absurdly stupid scene where Evan decides to stand and fight against overwhelming odds. Kovic agrees to stay too, but then persuades Evan he’s too important to die, by which point, precious fleeing time has been lost, so Kovic says he will stay and give them time to escape. A contender for the stupidest of all stupid self-sacrifice scenes in any movie ever.

Jason Mantzoukas is the slightly comedic boffin character Artisan, ensuring that even the unreconstituted Wahlberg (which, I suspect forms a key part of his fan base) gets onboard the woke train: “First, I resent the gender labelling” Artisan announces, presumably alluding to some axed backstory of femme-ness.

There’s the odd half-decent scene. The job interview screaming out for an HR department, where Evan doesn’t get the role because he was institutionalised and also suggests strong arming bad clientele isn’t a bad thing (the thrust that past indiscretions should be consigned to the past is very Mark). And the scene where Evan delivers a katana to a local gangster/meds dealer is nicely played and shot.

Mostly, though, Infinite is borderline incoherent dramatically, little more than a series of action non-sequiturs, most involving dreadful special effects and a sense that something or someone went amiss somewhere. Did the budget get struck? Why does Rupert Friend appear – barely – in one scene (the aforementioned flashback)? How did Fuqua get away with that terrible rap track (Campfire Legends Never Die) during the opening chase, fulminating as it does zero energy for an action scene. The relentless barrage of ineptitude continues to the point of the stupefying climax.

Whether Paramount+ made anything from Infinite is anyone’s guess. Presumably, they sold streaming rights elsewhere and made sure to break even, so it likely means it will do better than if it had seen the light of day in cinemas (and by that, I mean in pre-plandemic cinemas). Disney’s currently facing a similar dilemma, hoping there’ll actually be an audience for super-woke The Eternals. I guess they can always rig the figures again if there isn’t.


Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

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

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi