Skip to main content

You’re going on a journey. A journey through memory.

Reminiscence
(2021)

(SPOILERS) Jonathan Nolan rewards his missus Lisa Joy for all her hard work on the variable-at-best Westworld by co-producing this consummately bland sci-fi. Reminiscence is one she, as a true multi-hyphenate would-be-auteur, has written, directed and co-produced. I’m rather reminded of a previous Nolan alumni spin-off sci-fi bomb, Transcendence, which Wally Pfister unwisely made his directorial debut. Since then, crickets.

Does a similar fate await Joy? Well, she and hubby have various TV projects lined up, so I don’t think there’s any comparable concern looming, but I also doubt Warner Bros is going to be lavishing up to $70m (unbelievable, as it looks DTV cheap) on her again any time soon. It probably wasn’t wise to helm just one episode of Westworld (2.4: The Riddle of the Sphinx, which I recall being pretty good, if inevitably patchy) before attempting something on a vaster scale.

Reminiscence plays like a waterlogged, dystopian Blade Runner wannabe, all the way down to Hugh Jackman’s tired future-noir narration, but in contrast to Sir Ridders, Joy has zero idea how to fill her space. On that level, her world is more comparable to the spartan visions of Denis Villeneuve. Whatever his flaws, though, Villeneuve brings a rigorous precision to his compositions. Reminiscence just sits there, flat and lifeless, a wash of dingy cinematography and second-rate CGI.

Joy isn’t only looking Scott’s classic – now set three years ago, when the world was a simpler place. She is also attempting a Chinatown-style corruption narrative, one that singularly fails to elicit intrigue. Water is key to both stories, but in this one, there’s much too much of the stuff (Reminiscence features land barons, sitting pretty on the drylands, thanks to dams, while everyone else must make do with a Miami that now resembles a less enviable Venice). Yes, the movie is rife with the kind of predictive programming the Nolan clan make their bread and butter, a veritable Gretageddon of higher sea levels and temperatures (there’s also a drug called Baca, but no obvious clue as to its special properties, and a recent war, of which most of the cast are veterans).

Additionally, the future tech hook is a type of VR, one that allows the user to relive their memories. We’ve seen a variant on this with the dream machines in Until the End of the World, although here, one needs to be immersed in a tank à la Altered States. Users can become addicted to the experience (“burners torn apart by the worlds they straddle”), and both Strange Days and Minority Report comes to mind. In the former, Ralph Fiennes relives his earlier videos with added sense-tech. In the latter, Tom Cruise gets high watching his abducted son; indeed, Reminiscence’s ending, in which Nick (Hugh Jackman) is allowed to serve his sentence for burning Boothe (Clifton Collins) – a particularly sadistic act – by reliving his experiences with Mae (Rebecca Ferguson), isn’t far from the actual ending of Minority Report – you know, the one most people mistake for an absurdly happy one.

It occurred to me that the most fluent possibility for a plot based on this concept is one Joy mentions in passing but fails to capitalise on; the idea that one’s memory can be accessed and used as evidence. All an antagonist needs is the tech to bypass that, and presto, you have a labyrinthine murder mystery.

Unfortunately, what we have is a rather dull protagonist in Nick, proprietor of one of these memory businesses. He begins a relationship with Mae, who it turns out has been hired to hoodwink and steal from him. With no sparkle to their relationship, however, there’s no weight when he is betrayed and begins to seek answers. Developments are resolutely unaffecting; since Reminiscence is reliant on the lure of mysteries mined, its lead burdened with melancholy and regret, that’s a major problem. Nick’s given a gumshoe narration, so perhaps he should have been one (“To find Booth and Mae, I had to go to hell itself”; “The trickle became a flood. Maybe this time it would wash the world clean”).

That aspect isn’t everything, of course. There’s little in the way of chemistry between Harrison Ford and Sean Young in Blade Runner. But what there is, is a tangible, immersive environment. The same with Chinatown. However much potential Joy’s 2013 Blacklist screenplay might have on the page, she’s unable to transform it into a palpable or memorable world. As with Westworld, the future seems to be one where we inevitably yearn for less attachment and greater escape, the perma-lustre of nostalgia via technological augmentation. Only Watts (Thandiwe Newton) resists this, choosing to reconnect with her daughter rather than pickle herself with drink, but it’s a rather ineffectual sop to the challenges of this miserabilist future.

Jackman, Ferguson and Newton can do little to push back Joy’s determinedly humourless, dour tone; I’m presuming the same misapprehension that lured Depp to Transcendence convinced them this might be a winner. Mostly, I can’t get over the price tag; apparentlyReminiscence would have needed to make at least $110m to break even. With a global gross of $15.5m, I can’t see HBO Max making up the difference.


Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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.

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.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

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

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…