Apollo 18 (2011)
[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed].
The idea of the unknown lurking out in space has been done successfully many times. It's been conceptualised in popular films such as Alien (1979) and the format works because we, as human beings, are terrified of the 'other', the paranormal or extraterrestrial. Why? Because we don't really understand it.
Apollo 18 (2011) tried to follow this method ("tried" being the operative word here) and, to some extent, it is successful in doing so. However, this easily forgotten sci-fi film lacks the constraint to execute the ways of "less is more", and I think that is it's primary downfall.
The plot follows two astronauts named Nate (played by Lloyd Owen) and Ben (played by Warren Christie), employed by the Department of Defense to place motion trackers on the moon, mainly to monitor the Soviet Union. It becomes apparent, however, that the DoD has sent them there under false pretenses, as we later find out that they're not there to spy on "those damn Russians" but to investigate the existence of extraterrestrials. Not only are they real but they're something that the U.S. government have been hiding the knowledge of.
There are a few reasons why Apollo 18 failed to deliver on its intrigue, though. Firstly, the pacing is shockingly slow: it took at least 15 minutes into the runtime for anything of significance to happen, prior to that being irrelevant exposition that read as both unnecessary and unimaginative writing (yes, I'm aware that flashcards are a stereotype of found-footage films, but that doesn't mean I have to like it). I'm going under the assumption that the first 15 minutes of the film, which primarily consisted of shots of the astronauts with their families, was there to humanise the characters we were seeing. In my opinion, I don't think the film was able to achieve that. At no point during the film did I feel particularly bad for either astronaut: they came across as egotistical, somewhat paranoid and disgustingly patriotic.
Secondly, the dialogue. Endless, arduous, boring. I found myself disinterested by certain scenes that felt like they had no place being there, which meant I wasn't really paying attention when the film was actually trying to show me vital plot points. At times, this film showed moments of brilliance, but its issue is that it's inconsistent: decent scenes and shots were often times sandwiched between mediocre ones.
I can say that there were aspects of Apollo 18 that I did like. For example, the use of a 70s camera lense to actually film it: it felt authentic and added a certain stylistic charm. I also genuinely enjoyed the role of the "motion detectors", because not only were they relevant to the plot, but their footage was often dispersed amongst scenes and would zoom in on what was seemingly nothing. It creates a suspenseful atmosphere, because you're not entirely sure what you're supposed to be looking for, but you know that there's something there.
However, the real clincher for me was the third act of the movie, the 'climax' (though I'm really not sure you could call it that, on this occasion). After Nate is infected, the film stumbles its way towards the end by killing off his character and shoddily setting up the death of the other one, Ben. In the space of one conversation, Ben goes from survival mode to defeatism and then back to the hope of getting home, after the DoD contact him to say that he has been compromised and that they will not be sending a rescue team for him.
Don't get me wrong: I assume if I were stranded on the moon (or any planet away from home), I would have mixed emotions too. But because Ben's character is never really established as anything other than slightly insecure and nationalistic, I found his violent mood swings to be ill-fitted within the script.
When I earlier referred to "less is more", what I meant was that Apollo 18 has a tendency to drag out a scene or add a scene where it's really not needed. For example, when Nate first becomes infected, we get quick cuts of him lashing out at a camera (much like the style of Sunshine (2007), where we see shots of Mark Strong's character): this is only for the audience's sake to amp up the creep factor but that doesn't really work when you're marketing this film as part of the found-footage genre. However, the following scene shows Nate filming Ben whilst he's sleeping, a scene that's both subtle and far creepier in comparison. Had they just left in that scene, and omitted the former, it would've made for a great build of atmosphere.
Another example is Ben's death towards the end. As he's flying back towards Earth, finally free and able to see his family, rocks start to float around the cabin of his ship. They explode, revealing themselves to be the aliens that have been tormenting him ever since he landed. Now, if they'd have cut that scene there, it would've been a sufficient ending: perhaps still using the flashcard at the end of the film to tie in to what happened, but contextually, it would've made sense. Thing is, they carried out the scene for far longer than needed, which to me just felt like the director was fleshing out the runtime because he had run out of things to put in, or simply that he didn't have a solid concept for the ending of the film.
All in all, Apollo 18 isn't the worst sci-fi film I've ever seen but I'm pretty confident that you could find something more thrilling to watch. It's a shame, really, because this film had a solid concept. In my experience, though, films often do have a solid concept but are never executed to the right standard.
If you liked this film, I'd also recommend the following:
- 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
- Sunshine (2007)
- Gravity (2013)
- The Martian (2015)
- Life (2017)
Overall rating: 5/10
- K
No comments:
Post a Comment