Skip to main content

Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando were in a movie together.


(SPOILERS) Par for the course from M Night Shyamalan. Old is by turns confidently crafted and ham-fisted, confirmation that, while premise (and twist) is everything to the writer-director (and exasperatingly persistent cameo artiste), it’s very rarely been enough to see him through to journey’s end. In some respects, Shyamalan’s latest twist-horror is a thematic variant on his world-in-a-microcosm The Village, where the nature of reality is concealed from the participants. It foments less opportunity to incur the indignation of its audience when the truth is revealed, however, because there are only so many possible answers, most of which will likely have occurred to them by that point.

I’m probably more forgiving than most of the director’s most derided efforts – I even quite enjoyed batty The Happening, and if I doubt a second viewing would produce a similar verdict, the same was true of Glass – but conversely, I’ve only ever found his most acclaimed effort (The Sixth Sense) so-so. Consequently, I can admire his ability to sustain Old as long as he does, with all the goofy shock stunts he pulls along the way, but also find his character and dialogue choices a frequent cringe. Indeed, owing to the ineptitude of the latter, I’m reluctant to blame any of the performers for failing to meet the grade (Vicky Krieps and Nikki Amuka-Bird, in particular, suffer some abominable writing).

Shyamalan’s setup derives from Swiss graphic novel Sandcastle by Pierre Oscar Levy and Federick Peters; notably, they omitted to provide any explanation for events on the beach, whereas Shyamalan has red flags festering in the breeze from the off. Indeed, in that regard, it’s curious he (commendably, nonetheless) took inspiration from Walkabout and Picnic at Hanging Rock, the latter a textbook for failing to explain anything. They’re both pictures that foreground a capacity to say less but suggest more; M Night was calling upon the way in which they summon the power of nature, yet Old is ultimately, due to his express positioning, emphasising the power of control or study thereof.

Old has thus been immediately overegged, as mum Prisca (Krieps) tells her children to “Stop wishing away this moment” (wanting to get to their destination). Likewise, the director as writer is unsubtle in emphasising key ingredients, with the repeated identification of the beach party’s medical conditions (seizures, calcium deficiency, memory issues – turning out to precede schizophrenia – a tumour, nosebleeds). Also their food or meds. Of which: so the food is packed to preserve it, but once opened, how long would it take to go off under such accelerated conditions? Wouldn’t it be one of the first things noticed? Also announcing itself in triplicate is the slow-motion effect used as they arrive through the gulley, signifying a passage between worlds, and the very suspicious comment at the resort that they only recommend the beach to certain guests.

Perhaps Shyamalan thought, since he parades himself about as a svelter Hitchcock type – although, given his genre schtick and self-imposed limitations, a DePalma might be more apt – it was fine to indulge such overstatement. Really, I suspect it’s a case of the continued self-inflation that has blighted his career, from the dubious cameos (here, he’s a villain) to serving up a certain type of picture insistently, even when the genres subtly shift. Either way, his failings are as conspicuous as his in Old, most unflatteringly when it comes to having characters explain themselves and their professions in CliffsNotes form.

This can be excruciating. Amuka-Bird’s psychologist spouts the kind of hackneyed gabble redolent of an actual Hitchcock movie of sixty years ago (Spellbound or Psycho): “Maybe this is some kind of group psychosis”; “Maybe we should all talk about what just happened”. Meanwhile, Prisca is reduced to analysing bones via the over-explanation “I’m not a forensic pathologist, but from expeditions for the museum, I know…

Nevertheless, the Dominican Republic location – this would all be virtual set, were it Disney – and the use of genuine film stock boosts Old where it counts. The movie came cheap, but the setting adds significant $ of production value. And Shyamalan, despite crafting a movie much longer than necessary – a problem for most productions today, and in his case, they’re all essentially Twilight Zone episodes stretched to feature length – punctuates the proceedings with arresting and off-putting incident: the sudden pregnancy and death, from young adults who were kids only a couple of hours earlier; the broken bones suffered by Chrystal (Abbey Lee), leaving her as a grotesquely disfigured sculpture; Prisca’s growing tumour and its extraction; solving the problem that is Sewell’s Charles with a rusty blade.

With regard to the aging, Shyamalan passes over various areas that probably didn’t demand unconvincing explanatory minutiae, but he is careful to have his junior participants grow mentally with their physical development, so he’s at least attempting to circumvent any queasy Big-ness. The director has referenced his interest in the subject matter in terms of “… our dysfunctional relationship to time that we all have”. Which is valid, although I’m less convinced by reducing it to Coof comparisons, per both star Alex Wolff and Shyamalan (“it was absolutely about this fear and uncertainty we were all feeling. This fear of infection… The idea of being stuck in a situation and not being able to leave”). Nevertheless, the setting serves to emphasise artificial impingements under which we all live and are moderated.

Indeed, titling a featurette “All the Beach is a Stage” speaks volumes to the picture’s world in miniature, the accelerated passage of time highlighting how easily one’s (or a generation’s) knowledge of what they think are facts and norms can be rewritten (it might have been interesting had the baby survived – or two babies survived – so extending the detachment from the original state by several removes, and approximating the alteration in awareness of the historical record from the last mooted reset to the present).

Then there’s the beach as a bubble, controlled from without, by person or persons unknown. We never quite knowing the hows or whys of our place in our designated environment; those working for the prevailing Elite may or may not believe they need justifications for their behaviour; in Old, resort manager Gustaf Hammarsten’s unprompted exposition provides the lowdown, whereby they can save hundreds of thousands of lives with new medication and “before we’re done, it will be millions”; it’s a rationalisation via inherently dubious appeals to utilitarian ethics (“Nature made that beach for a reason; Let’s do what nature asked us to do”).

Obviously, no institution as depicted by the movie would actually be in operation without implicit or explicit Elite backing or knowledge of its activities, so Old embracing the standard Hollywood cliché of the few bad apples being rounded up is disappointingly pat. But then, no one expects M Night movies to be top-to-bottom satisfying. It isn’t even so much about sticking the landing, since his failure to do so has become a self-styled trope. He’s a talented filmmaker apparently content to pigeonhole himself as a one-trick pony.

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…