For the longest time, we were led to believe that producer J.J. Abrams/Bad Robot’s “Overlord”
would be “Cloverfield III”, and then Netflix released “The Cloverfield Paradox”,
which became the third, official part of the ongoing, creature-infested puzzle. The Netflix film led fans then to presume that “Overlord” would act as the franchise's fourth installment, and because it would have a theatrical release, it would be more elaborate and definitive in its franchise ramifications. No one on the inside ever disputed such until recently when Abrams confirmed that "Overlord" would be its own thing. So, if "Overlord" isn't "Cloverfield IV", what the hell is it?
Directed by Julius Avery and penned by Billy Ray and Mark L. Smith, "Overlord" is a variant of Steve
Barker/Kiernan Parker’s “Outpost” pictures, which in their own right share sinister, militaristic similarities to Ken
Wiederhorn’s “Shock Waves”; Herbert J. Leder's "The Frozen Dead"; Richard Raaphorst's "Frankenstein's Army"; David Bradley's "They Saved Hitler's Brain"; Tommy Wirkola's "Dead Snow"; and Stuart Gordon's "Re-Animator" (okay, the Lovecraft submission doesn't sport any severe soldiering, but it fits the purpose all the same). With this said, “Overlord” is another zombie flick, though one which combines insinuated, supernatural elements (in the vein of F. Paul Wilson/Michael Mann's "The Keep") with George A. Romero's "Day of the Dead" experimentation.
To assimilate viewers into "Overlord'"s ambivalent atmosphere, soldiers are parachuted into a French village to snuff a radio-jamming church tower. That tower is but a front, wracked by the aforementioned fiddling, unleashed to grant the Axis an "overlording" advantage.
Among the deft and diverse performers/characters are Jovan Adepo's Boyce (the forefront protagonist); Wyatt Russell's Ford (the forefront antihero); John Magro's Tibbett (the likable wiseass); Pilou Asbaek's Wafner (the overriding antagonist); Iain De Caestecker's Chase; Dominic Appelwhite's Rosenfeld; Jacob Anderson's Dawson; Mark Rissman's Scherzer; Bookem Woodbine's Eldson; Erich Redman's sadistic Dr. Schmidt; Gianny Taufer's little Paul; and Mathilde Olliver's Chole (the film's token, kick-ass heroine). Germans and super-hyper zombies overwhelm the good guys, but they keep up the rat-a-tat-tat fight, blasting their barraging opponents every chance they get. (Video-game jockeys should feel right at home.)
Though the story occurs hours before D-Day, it intertwines past and present in an artistic attempt to please both sides of the warring spectrum. That may be fine and dandy for some, but to me, WWII isn't 2018, so the modernized trimmings proved real hard to chew. Though I eventually came to accept "Overlord'"s numbing, creative license (I had little choice, considering the fast and furious overflow), I could never accept its resistance to connect to the damn thing we had been (more or less) promised for so long.
And that's "Overlord'"s main shortcoming. By not being an official "Cloverfield", it's left to shadow a subgenre that some would argue has grown way too predictable. A linking, alternate-reality slant would have dignified the film's commonality, if not made it a product that fans would have paid to revisit, if only to absorb all the inevitable, hand-in-hand allusions. Sure, Avery gives the story lots of Snap! Crackle! and Pop!, movie-serial zeal, but it's not enough to set it on the special tier it deserves.
Yeah, I get it that this film is supposed to be gory, carefree fun. I dig that sort of thing. I'm a big "Evil Dead" fan. However, for something that enlists WWII as its backdrop (and mind you, I hold great respect and gratitude for what the Greatest Generation accomplished and sacrificed on our behalf), some amount of somber reflection should punctuate the conflict. It's not enough that "Overlord'"s virtuous principles combat a monstrous onslaught and live and/or die along the bloody trail. Patriotism, honor...a sense of stalwart, righteous focus should have punctuated every aspect of the plight--and the U.S./Allied cause. Really, folks, when did a little, justified flag waving become such a sordid thing?
Maybe over time, I'll give "Overlord" another try...take it as no more than the living-dead knock-off that it is. But for now, I feel like I've visited a theater to see something that I might have otherwise rented, watched at my leisure and then for better or worse, surrendered from mind.
Among the deft and diverse performers/characters are Jovan Adepo's Boyce (the forefront protagonist); Wyatt Russell's Ford (the forefront antihero); John Magro's Tibbett (the likable wiseass); Pilou Asbaek's Wafner (the overriding antagonist); Iain De Caestecker's Chase; Dominic Appelwhite's Rosenfeld; Jacob Anderson's Dawson; Mark Rissman's Scherzer; Bookem Woodbine's Eldson; Erich Redman's sadistic Dr. Schmidt; Gianny Taufer's little Paul; and Mathilde Olliver's Chole (the film's token, kick-ass heroine). Germans and super-hyper zombies overwhelm the good guys, but they keep up the rat-a-tat-tat fight, blasting their barraging opponents every chance they get. (Video-game jockeys should feel right at home.)
Though the story occurs hours before D-Day, it intertwines past and present in an artistic attempt to please both sides of the warring spectrum. That may be fine and dandy for some, but to me, WWII isn't 2018, so the modernized trimmings proved real hard to chew. Though I eventually came to accept "Overlord'"s numbing, creative license (I had little choice, considering the fast and furious overflow), I could never accept its resistance to connect to the damn thing we had been (more or less) promised for so long.
And that's "Overlord'"s main shortcoming. By not being an official "Cloverfield", it's left to shadow a subgenre that some would argue has grown way too predictable. A linking, alternate-reality slant would have dignified the film's commonality, if not made it a product that fans would have paid to revisit, if only to absorb all the inevitable, hand-in-hand allusions. Sure, Avery gives the story lots of Snap! Crackle! and Pop!, movie-serial zeal, but it's not enough to set it on the special tier it deserves.
Yeah, I get it that this film is supposed to be gory, carefree fun. I dig that sort of thing. I'm a big "Evil Dead" fan. However, for something that enlists WWII as its backdrop (and mind you, I hold great respect and gratitude for what the Greatest Generation accomplished and sacrificed on our behalf), some amount of somber reflection should punctuate the conflict. It's not enough that "Overlord'"s virtuous principles combat a monstrous onslaught and live and/or die along the bloody trail. Patriotism, honor...a sense of stalwart, righteous focus should have punctuated every aspect of the plight--and the U.S./Allied cause. Really, folks, when did a little, justified flag waving become such a sordid thing?
Maybe over time, I'll give "Overlord" another try...take it as no more than the living-dead knock-off that it is. But for now, I feel like I've visited a theater to see something that I might have otherwise rented, watched at my leisure and then for better or worse, surrendered from mind.
Julius Avery has been asked to direct the next Flash Gordon movie. His sense of pacing, as demonstrated by "Overlord", is promising for the sake of the adaptation--if the adaptation holds the proper respect for Alex Raymond's character.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, Wyatt Russell could pull off a decent Flash.
We'll see how it goes...