It is more one-dimensional, its enjoyment more dependent on a local experience of its outstanding scenes. It must be said, however, that After Earth is upon repeated viewings not as durable as its equally flawed predecessor The Last Airbender from 2010, in many ways a “companion film”. The Star Wars universe, for example, could probably be hacked to pieces with an axe of logic, but that does not mean it cannot be a place where powerful fables can unfold, with a magnificent example in The Empire Strikes Back ( Irvin Kershner, 1980) – incidentally another film shot by Suschitzky. But such literal-mindedness sometimes does us a disservice. A lot of the criticism has revolved around perceived plot holes and related weaknesses. For example, it seems quite silly that the rangers, a military corps, are not utilising more powerful weapons than a futuristic cutlass, only good for close-range fighting. The background of this future civilisation is probably less carefully thought out than in most science fiction movies. The film is also richly endowed with visual rhymes, of which this is the most beautiful and resonant: It tends to evade close-ups during the boy’s trek, instead the filmmakers are looking for a different kind of immersion: the boy is consistently shown as a minuscule part of the environment, not seldom merely glimpsed among the trees and vegetation. Night Shyamalan and cinematographer (and Cronenberg regular) Peter Suschitzky depict events with a calm and elegant gaze, staging scenes with intelligence and sensitivity, often using a probing camera to gradually reveal the situation.Īfter Earth is not an action film but a lyrical journey of visual beauty, with some suspenseful intermezzos. When it hits its stride, however, as the fearful 15-year-old protagonist has to force himself to navigate the exceptionally hostile Earth of a thousand years into the future, this author finds it impressive, with several stand-out scenes. Sure, the first half hour of After Earth has problems. It will only engage with what can be gleaned from the words, sounds and images between the company logos and the end titles. Such speculative thinking has nothing to do with serious film criticism, however, and will be banished from this article.
After earth movie animals plus#
Was After Earth merely a massive megalomaniac vanity project from the Smith family? Was it just a fantastically expensive, star-making gift from father to son: “I’m going to buy you a blockbuster”? Was it simply a vehicle for Will Smith to prove to the world he was capable of doing a serious role, plus showing himself in an ultra-flattering light as a character of boundless machismo and military honour, superhuman endurance, coolness under pressure and perfect fearlessness? Was it merely a scheme to publicise Scientological thinking? Was it ultimately a case of advanced child abuse, hurling a boy into a role for which he was woefully unprepared?
After earth movie animals free#
Even though not credited as co-director, the elder Smith is supposed to have been responsible for the acting, at least for his son, and Shyamalan for the other aspects of the film.Įveryone is of course free to speculate about the motives behind making a movie. On this occasion, however, he had the pleasure of weathering the hailstorm of criticism together with Will Smith, originator of and central actor in the project, and his son, the inexperienced lead actor Jaden Smith. The second one is here.Īfter Earth (2013) was met with the hostility obligatory for a M. This is the first of two articles about After Earth (2013). There is also an article about Split (2016).
All the articles can also be accessed through this overview. There are several articles on each film: The Sixth Sense (1999, here, here and here), Unbreakable (2000, here, here and here), Signs (2002, here, here, here and here), The Village (2004, here, here and here) and Lady in the Water (2006, here and here). Night Shyamalan‘s five films from 1999 to 2006. The author is also behind an analysis project about M.
0 kommentar(er)
