BillThierfelder

I teach a upper-level class on The Apocalypse at a Long Island College. This film was one that I chose, first for its brevity--75 minutes--but also for its totally thought-provoking exploration of humanity. Of course, one could quibble over some of the unexplainable aspects--for example, how do most of the characters remain so smartly dressed if there haven't been department stores in 12 years? But overall, it's important to see this film as an allegory, not unlike the Medieval play "Everyman," in which every character represents a "type," a "concept," or an "ideal." The acting is so absolutely natural that the viewer completely forgets that this is a scripted film. More than anything, it raises profound questions about the human condition for days after a viewing--always a good sign. I strongly recommend this film to anyone interested in stretching themselves philosophically. Good story, fine editing, terrific acting.

The reviews on this film seem very mixed, to say the least. Some people truly hate it; others, like me, find it a riveting meditation on the human condition not unlike the great Medieval "Ship of Fools" stories in which a cross-section of society is trapped on a vessel and must come to grips with all its simultaneous goodness and evil. This film is more of a "Grand Hotel" in space; indeed, one could argue that it falls into a category popularly called "space opera." As always, Danny Boyle has a remarkable eye, many scenes being so gorgeous to look at that you get lost in wonder. The acting, as well, is top notch; again, Cillian Murphy gives us a stand-out, riveting performance. The film has an excellent, spare screenplay Alex Garland, who also wrote the screen play for another Danny Boyle hit, 28 DAYS LATER.

The biggest plus of this film is the remarkable tension that Boyle is able to build as, one by one, members of the space mission's crew are "picked off" by something mysterious.

So while there are aspects of this film that might remind the viewer of "Alien," "Red Planet," and at least a couple of recent "Dr. Who" episodes, Boyle treats anything familiar in a fresh way. If you like thoughtful films that allow you to think (rather than shoot 'em up action films where everything's spelled out), then this is a film you might thoroughly enjoy.

I REALLY wanted to love this film. I'm familiar with the graphic novel and thought it would translate well onto the "big screen." Visually, it does crossover terrifically. This is a gorgeous film to behold--everything from the washed out colors to the remarkable panoramic images are top notch. Everything, despite the often vast scale of events, helps to paint the ultimately claustrophobic atmosphere of war.

UNFORTUNATELY, when time is taken to focus on a character, all we get is cardboard cut-out clichés. Perhaps that was the intent--that in a war everyone thinks mindlessly as one. But it would have been great to get to know more about each of the individual characters. And when we do get a glimpse, there's nothing beyond pat, soap opera duologue. Clearly the bulk of the audience seeing this film is NOT going for penetrating psychological insights. (They'll tell me to see an indie like LITTLE CHILDREN.) But compare this film to something like BAND OF BROTHERS or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN--or a war classic like PATHS OF GLORY--and one can immediately see how far this film falls short of giving us the real story behind this remarkable brotherhood of men who dared the largest army in the world to protect their homeland.

(By the way, there's an intriguing historical error in the film that was made, I'm sure, to make sure all the "guys" in the audience didn't barf: A comment is made by one of the Spartan soldiers that makes clear that Spartan men don't have sex with other men like those people in the other City States. WAY WRONG: The Spartan boys, taken from their homes around 7 years old, were often ENCOURAGED (as they grew older) to develop both emotional and physical relations with the other men in their company--two men were often paired up as "special friends". This didn't mean they were "gay" in our modern sense (which was a message the film makers wanted to avoid)--most had wives and children back in the City. The reason for NOT discouraging such relations was to ensure loyalty and devotion. The thought was that you'd be even MORE willing to lay down your life for a fellow soldier if you had been intimate with him. Once again, this historical gaff in the film says a lot about our heterosexist society. But again, most of the people seeing a film like this are seeing it for the visuals and the "fun" of the action--they're not seeing it for deep psychological insights or historical accuracies.)

So if you want a popcorn-crunching diversion that you can pop in your DVD player, go for it. If you want a real film about the individuals who fight in a war (often for a cause) try FULL METAL JACKET or THE THIN RED LINE.