Arcadian

I'd Watch It Again

"Arcadian" claws its way onto the screen with a promising premise: a post-apocalyptic world where a father and his sons fight for survival against nocturnal horrors. Nicolas Cage delivers a subdued performance as Paul, the father desperately clinging to normalcy for his children.

Nicolas Cage is, as always, a compelling presence. His performance grounds the film, even when the shaky cam and creature design falter. The young actors portraying his sons are believable as well.

Overall, Arcadian is frustrating. It has the potential to be a terrifying exploration of survival, but shaky camerawork and underwhelming creature design hold it back.

Don't watch this move right after you eat something. The super shaky camera work could make you sick. 5 minutes into the movie I could not bear it. Just too uncomfortable.

The story line is easy and straightforward: people try to stay alive after some sort of apocalypse.

What is missing from the movie is the horror and the family dynamics. You either make the move very scary or you focus on the family and the bonding. Or make both the focus. However, this movie does not have enough either. Turns out the movie becomes boring and losing focus. So people can easily predict what's to come in the next 3 minutes.

It could be much better if they add some mysteries to the creatures. What causes the apocalypse is not that important to me.

There's a place for shaky, hand-held camera-work. The opening scene to Saving Private Ryan, for example, is a masterpiece. Here, however, it's merely annoying. For much of the film it takes the viewer out of the narrative, as they struggle to work out what exactly is going on. I might add that the shaky camera-work even makes a pointless return for the closing credits.

Set in the near future, when most of humanity has been wiped out by an unspecified cause; and where the few survivors are obliged to barricade themselves indoors during the hours of darkness, as they are under attack from strange alien creatures, the film centres on Nicholas Cage, who lives with his twin teenage sons (Jaeden Martell and Maxwell Jenkins) and survive by foraging and subsistence. Another, larger, family group lives a short distance away. Both families keep livestock, which seem to be immune from nocturnal attack, for no apparent reason.

Cage fades from the narrative for a long stretch, and the film is carried by the two boys plus Sadie Soverall as the daughter of the neighbours. All three turn in solid performances, but are done no favours by the tissue-thin (and hole-ridden) plot, listless dialogue and woeful camera-work. Quite apart from the shakiness, it's often difficult to work out what exactly is going on. Yes, most of the dramatic scenes take place in darkness, but there are ways of making it possible to follow the action.

As an aside, a quick check of the the current ages of the juvenile leads, compared to their on-screen appearance, suggests that this film was shot at least four years ago, and has spent most of the intervening time in post-production hell, as the editors tried to get something coherent out of what they had. I presume they did their best.

The creatures themselves are great when they're unseen or only hinted at. When they make a fuller appearance, however, they're very disappointing.

A watch-and-forget film.

A father and his twin sons have survived the end of the world for fifteen years. As teenagers, the boys have grown into young men and become independent and rambunctious. As they quarrel and go their separate ways one day, their lives are threatened again, and they must fight for survival.

This is a simple end-of-the-world, post-apocalypse survival movie. The story gets straight to the point, giving little to no backstory on the characters or what caused the world's end. There is not a lot of action and a bit of suspense. The runtime of the movie is short. This might not be worth watching in theaters, but it is worth streaming.

Adroitly written dialogue, believable characters, nice special effects, creative enemy design and a coherent, concise story that makes sense. They also did away with a lot of detail for background to put us into the moment. Very much the essence of "less is more" in every scene and it works well. Nothing's missing, and there's just the right amount of what we need to know.

But is it a good film? It's work like this that makes me appreciate how complicated and involved filmmaking actually is. Arcadian is arguably a competent piece of work, but none of it will stay with me. I enjoyed everything I watched along with how it was put together, and yet had I not seen it at all that would have been okay too. This would also not be on my list of recommendations unless it was for a fan of the genre, and even then I would tell them to curb their expectations. There's something about the way it was shot that hurts the movie, and whatever it is reduces an otherwise decent film into something that's rather forgettable.

If you're a fan of the medium and appreciate the artistry I would say this is worth your time. If you're looking to passively enjoy something in this genre there are better options out there.