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.
I visited "10 Cloverfield Lane", knowing full well from what I'd read that it wasn't a direct, obvious sequel to Matt Reeves' giant-monster "found footage" hit. However, like that film, this one was also produced by J.J. Abrams, and based on what he's conveyed, a series of seemingly unrelated films could emerge, which will later connect like a puzzle to complete a vast, coherent tapestry.
This claim, in itself, implies that first-time director Dan Trachtenberg's effort is disjointed in context, and it is, which for the sake of originality is good, but for those desiring a precise, now-we-how-and-why explanation regarding the Cloverfield Monster, well, it ain't gonna happen, despite the title's insinuation. At the same time, the film offers further (if not solely implied) food-for-thought on the creature's origin.
While "Cloverfield" set the action on many planes, "10 Cloverfield Lane", thanks to Daniel Casey and Drew Goddard's script, is a claustrophobic installment, which for a time plays like John Fowles' "The Collector"; George A. Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" and Rod Serling's "The Shelter". It also smacks of Richard Matheson's "Dying Room Only", with a prolonged, ominous tease, but does the bait land a tasty catch?
The bait is as follows: during a major power outage, a young lady named Michelle (imagi-movie veteran, Mary ElizabethWinstead) gets into a auto accident. She awakes in a farmhouse (i.e., a bunker within such) where two men, Howard (John Goodman) and Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr.), reside. She's informed by Howard that she's being contained for her own good, that to taste the forbidden fruit of escape is unwise, for something now taints the outside, but what exactly is it?
Well, I don't think I'm spoiling much by saying that it's...well, hard to say. It might be a poisoned atmosphere, mutating humans, militant extraterrestrials, or all of the above. One thing is for certain: inside the tension-wrought confines, Howard seems to know what's brewing, but is it through intuition or the roundabout implications of his survivalist know-how? Also, his petulant, enigmatic presence makes one consider the notion that monsters can rise from out the human condition, making this weird tale more "Psycho" than "Godzilla". (Bear McCreary's excellent score also helps drives the atmosphere in that direction.)
According to legend, "Cloverfield Lane" began as a project entitled "The Cellar", with characters hiding from the effects of nuclear fallout. On this basis, it's easy to deduct that the concept was merely recycled into what now stands as a wannabe "Cloverfield" companion piece, but without knowing the intended scope of possible upcoming entries, who can say how this chapter might be viewed in the long run, or even how it should be taken presently?
In the end, it feels more like a prequel to the 2008 film than a sequel, but if these films are linked (or are to link, as Abrams says), then damn it, let such link in some tangible way. A few pretentious leads here and there aren't enough to do the job, and with that in mind, yes, "Cloverfield Lane" does, offer interesting bait, but its catch is, to say the least, unfulfilled.
Nevertheless, thanks to its taut direction and performances, the adventure is certainly worth experiencing. (By the way, Goodman is gripping throughout and if this weren't an offbeat horror picture, he'd be a shoe-in for an Oscar.) At the same time, the story may have been more suspenseful as a stand-alone, inspiring us to ponder Howard's sincerity on a grander scale. With "Cloverfield" in the title (whatever the hell that banner means), one realizes that something horrifying does, in fact, exist beyond the shelter, and this blunts the climax's impact, though visually it remains eerie and striking.
If "Cloverfield Lane"gains widespread favor on the basis of its premise, it's likely because viewers will have granted it through their collective imagination, and perhaps on this basis, the filmmakers deserve credit for fostering this tactic. After all, the new "Cloverfield", like the old, is destined to be discussed, debated and dissected for years to come. Let's just hope that, whether we fancy the ultimate reveal or not, such culminates in something solid.
"Star Wars I-III" disappointed, not because it was a lousy saga. Au contraire, it's actually quite a sprawling epic (and a damn big moneymaker, at that). It's just that, well...somewhere in the hustle of things, it lost track of its roots.
"Star Wars", as the adventure was presented in 1977 by George Lucas, surfaced as a shameless homage to adventure tales gone by and the heroes who led them, namely John Carter, Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. (As we well know, Lucas would have returned Flash to the big screen if only he had procured the rights.) With this, a "New Hope" presented a basic tale of good vs evil, unconcerned with murky Trade Wars or the unnerving shades of gray that characterized a villain we all knew would be uncompromisingly dark in his heart. As such, Disney's assigned director, J.J. Abrams, has assured us a new movie-serial style "Star Wars" with its seventh chapter, "The Force Awakens".
Has Abrams fulfilled the promise? The answer is yes and no, but his slight deviations on the basic elements doesn’t mar the splendor. It simply makes this
chapter (written by Abrams; the legendary Lawrence Kasdan; and Michael "Toy Story 3" Arndt) its own cool thing, which simultaneously looks to the past and the future. In this regard, we again have good and evil at odds, three decades after the epic Battle of Endor and the destruction of Death Star II, with new heroes leading the charge and supporting characters taking their sides accordingly.
Of course, as we've anticipated, it's old favorites who set the cozy pace: Princess/General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher); Han Solo (Harrison Ford); Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew); and even Admiral Ackbar (Tim Rose). Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) is also in there, but essentially in concealed form, his presence felt throughout "Force Awakens", just as Spock's was felt throughout "Star Trek III": a warm-up, in essence, for the saga's predestined shape of things to come.
The acknowledgment of our past heroes helps keep this installment in check; for if there exists any remnant of the basic formula that distinguished the middle chapters, it's through these stellar stars, and its the new folks who redirect the saga into its spirited, sequelized stretch.
The newbies include desert-dwelling Rey (Daisy
Ridley); ace X-wing fighter Poe Dameron (Oscar "Ex Machina" Isaac); wise Lor San Tekka (Max Von Sydow); helpful Maz Katana (Lupita Nyong'o); and in-search-of-redemption Finn (John Boyega). They each figure into the plot, to some extent or another, the way the characters did in "New Hope", with a transported message prompting their actions.
Finn, in my estimation, is this chapter's most identifiable protagonist, though some would argue that Rey is more so, if only for her Skywalker similarities. Still, Finn is the one through whom we experience the adventure: the misguided guy who gets thrust upon this gallant ride after befriending the dynamic Dameron, who in his own right becomes a significant Solo stand-in. (On a speculative note, the following chapters will probably do a better job of fleshing out Finn and Rey, thus strengthening their significance within this yet expanding universe and for better or worse, tease at a potential romance.)
So, what exactly does our dynamic duo face (or rather, should I say, fall into)? Well, again it's a division of sides, with the freedom-fighting Resistance vs the multiplying "Neo-Nazi" First Order/Empire loyalists. We also learn that matters weren't definitively resolved at "Return of the Jedi'"s end,
with (and this is solely implied and never succinctly stated) ineffective leadership having allowed pockets of sovereign seekers to cause disarray (much as any typical terrorist group would when not kept under thumb).
Finn is wise, having shed his Stormtrooper shackles in the name of galactic freedom and stumbles upon Rey, who immediately takes to him, and from there their alliance fortifies for a shared cause and against a common foe.
There are a number of baddies in "Episode VII", including memorable supporting characters, like Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis); the staunch General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson); and the gleaming Captain Phasma (Gwendoline Christie), who make a strong visual (and sometimes dramatic) mark, but never dominate the plot.
The villainous beacon, therefore, is the heavily publicized Kylo Ren (Adam Driver): an often masked zealot with a most distinct light saber, who desires supreme, cosmic control. He's this segment's Ming the Merciless or Killer Kane; a counterpart to reality's hated Hitler and for the here-and-now, our would-be Darth Vader. He's hellbent on rekindling the Sith Lord's influence, and his impetuous temperament confirms this. Oh, and in case you're unaware, he's the son of...well, never mind; most of you've already caught wind of the startling revelation and outcome. Anyway, Ren's wayward presence is why Finn and Rey fight the good fight, though they require guidance along the way.
For such, they (along with the bad guys) seek the elusive Luke Skywalker, and with Solo, Chewy and the Millennium Falcon's help, "Force Awakens" starts to take shape, becoming at least on the surface, what Abrams projected: a thrilling quest story.
Unfortunately, the film doesn’t always make the best use of its
cast, opting (as the weaker chapters have) to emphasize organic window dressing instead of
extended characterization. Tekka's presence, for example, could have been expanded, and Dameron, though engaging when given the chance, should
have received much wider focus.
Though it may totter in its character balance, "Force Awakens" indubitably delivers the goods in visual glitz and not of the cartoonish CGI sort, either. This chapter is laden with old-school, heavy hardware and fast action, which earned it a PG-13: a warning to parents that such sleek intensity may be unsuitable for their coddled kids (sad, but true). Nevertheless, for those who savor movie-serial zest, "Force Awakens" should more than please and have most fans clamoring for more.
Also to its benefit, this chapter downplays the cutsey stuff. Sure, the adorable, snowman-shaped BB-8 is there to pick up the torch from R2-D2 (Kenny Baker, who in this instance "consulted" on the droid's movements) and fidgety but amiable C3PO (Anthony Daniels), but it's all within the proper context. When given their various moments, the three give the film that Disney-esque charm: apt since the franchise is now officially Disney stationed. However, they are more of a cheerful additive than a mawkish, Jar Jar Binks distraction.
At the end of the day, whether one labels it a hit or miss, "Force Awakens" is but another part in a progressing mythology. How this chapter will figure into the grand scheme is yet to be seen. (Remember, "Empire Strikes Back" wasn't necessarily praised as the best of the best upon release.) For the time being, and for the sake of launching a new start, the film now stands as the franchise's "new hope": a chance to avoid the disfavor paved by the prequel trilogy. It may also become, in the long run, another magnificent moment in space-opera history. For now, with the box-office numbers blasting through the roof and fan praise mounting, things look most promising.
