Skip to main content

Valerian and the Movie of a Thousand Problems


          Luc Bisson is a fascinating director to say the least. One who’s dipped his toe into multiple genres and made a wide array of films from Nikita and Leon: The Professional to Lucy and the Arthur and the Invisibles series of animated movies. One of his most popular films is the 1997 cult classic sci-fi movie The Fifth Element, which though it has some bad writing and plotting, is a thoroughly original story with memorable characters. The same can’t be said for Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, based on a classic series of sci-fi comics in France, and which no doubt hearkens back to Bisson’s twenty year old film in its layout and weirdness.
          Valerian (Dane DeHaan) and Laureline (Cara Delevigne) are a couple agents of a galactic government police force who obtain a mysterious pearl connected to a believed-to-be extinguished race. Once they take it to Alpha, the titular city of a thousand planets, they learn it’s far more significant and there’s a lot going on that they hadn’t anticipated.
          This story feels incredibly pulpy, in that the comics it’s based on must be inspired by early science-fiction writing. It definitely feels like something Edgar Rice Burroughs would have come up with. Unfortunately that also makes it reminiscent of Disney’s disastrous John Carter. The plot of this movie is way too convoluted and not well conveyed. Though any movie that begins with a montage set to David Bowie’s “Space Oddity” will gain your interest, it’s entirely lost very soon. The story is often hard to keep up with and it doesn’t even feel like Bisson’s all the invested, rather he feels more obliged to show us various aliens and technologies through detours that amount to very little. And these alien designs and technological inventions are creative but are also really lazy. As cool as it sometimes may be to see what a certain tool does, the rules aren’t explained so they just come off as deus ex machinas for given situations. For example, it’s really convenient that Valerian just happens to have a device on him that can tear away at a specific substance he briefly becomes cocooned in. Yet this movie both explains too much and not enough. The exposition is handled pretty poorly or else it’s with relation to something we don’t care about. The writing can get pretty horrendous too with few of the characters being believable or even likeable. 
          Cara Delevinge was one of the least compelling parts of Suicide Squad, and this movie does her no more favours, as she’s stale as can be. Dane DeHaan fares little better, and neither is able to quite overcome the heavy dialogue and concepts of the film they’re in. And their relationship is incredibly irritating too. He has the hots for her and she frequently turns him down making for interactions and comedic banter that might as well be from an episode of Mad About You rather than what’s supposed to be a space opera. Also, why is the movie named for Valerian when he and Laureline have equal screen-time, save the day together, and are from a comic series called Valerian and Laureline? It’s as unfair to Laureline as Delevigne’s performance. But nobody really comes out of this movie well. Talents like Clive Owen and Ethan Hawke are wasted (Hawke at the very least tries to give a performance). Sam Spruell and Amelie’s Mathieu Kassovitz sadly have to add this to their resumes, and Rutger Hauer appears for a minute. It’s sad when one of the best parts of the movie might actually be Rihanna, purely for her character being a decent effect.
          The film opens on an extensive sequence detailing the daily life of a race of aliens who are so poorly composed it looks like an animated movie. The uncanny valley is disconcerting, and on top of that, they remind me too much of the aliens from Avatar, in more than just their physicality as the film goes on. The effects all around don’t look real, with the occasional exception, such as a Jabba the Hutt rip-off voiced by John Goodman (who wisely went uncredited with Elizabeth Debicki). But generally the world’s hard to believe in. I like that the aliens have something of the practical design of the creatures in The Fifth Element, but why didn’t Bisson just make them practical again? And a number of the aliens are really annoying as well. 
          Say what you will about The Fifth Element, some of its story problems and last minute anti-war theme, but it had charm, effective visuals, and really likeable, entertaining characters. Valerian has none of these. There are ideas and characters here that have promise, but the whole films plays with them awkwardly; and at the end of two and a quarter hours you leave the theatre having gained nothing. 
          This is a great time for movies. Dunkirk, The Big Sick, War for the Planet of the Apes, and Baby Driver are all still playing, so don’t waste your money on this.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...