Skip to main content

A Nonsensical Wreck That Must Be Seen To Be Believed


One of the earliest shots in Serenity is of a man in a finely tailored suit standing on a beach holding a briefcase. He watches a fishing boat pull into harbour and then wades through the shallow water to get to it. It’s the kind of striking image that conjures memories of Lost, and this movie is quite a bit like Lost: a mess of plot points and character motivations that comes to no satisfactory end, but with a twist more outlandish and bizarre than even that show could ever conceive.
Talking about Serenity in a standard review is a tough task because so much of what makes this movie from writer-director Steven Knight so utterly baffling is in elaborate plot details and spoiler elements. To get to the meat of this movies’ severe structural and tonal problems requires discussing it in more depth than this type of short-form critique allows. But I especially want to avoid spoilers for this movie because I think people should absolutely see it. It is not going to be in any way what you expect and I’ll be surprised if 2019 yields a better more glorious misfire of a movie than Serenity! That being said, I may spoil some minor details, it’s just unavoidable.
Baker Dill (Matthew McConnaughey) is a fisherman on the remote Plymouth Island whose day-to-day life consists of taking tourists out on his boat the Serenity, and his quest to catch a giant tuna nicknamed “Justice”. One day he’s approached by his ex-wife Karen (Anne Hathaway) from whom he’s been estranged and has a son, with a proposition: that he take her abusive husband Frank (Jason Clarke) out on the water and murder him. As he contemplates this he begins to notice strange things on the island that coincided with the arrival of Karen and Frank.
That premise sounds corny and it is, but it also has shades of neo-noir to it which makes it feel like an interesting throwback to something like Double Indemnity or Out of the Past. Even the cast perform it in slightly outdated, over-the-top ways that hearken back to that style of film. But where those movies (the good ones at least) had complexities to their characters and plots that kept you interested, Serenity has only the shadow of that, its’ genuine attempts to be complex coming off as absurd, such as the relationship Baker has with his son and everything having to do with the aforementioned strange man on the beach (Jeremy Strong). It doesn’t help that this is a terribly written script even by film noir standards, little of the dialogue feeling organic and the characterization even less so. The movie really goes the extra mile in depicting Frank in as awful a light of possible, which is kind of intentional, but still lazy. And Baker is pretty poorly defined as well, even with more development than anyone else, merely going from a lesser Charlie Allnut/Quint type character to a one-dimensional paranoid lunatic who’s fun to watch but is in no way interesting.
That being said, I do believe the cast is trying their best with the material. Matthew McConnaughey and Anne Hathaway are not at fault with any of this, because I can’t see anyone making anything good out of this writing and direction. Diane Lane and Djimon Hounsou also make appearances that are a little sad to witness but are likewise giving their best effort. And it is that effort that makes a difference. The cast genuinely is trying to take this movie seriously, and ultimately it makes the experience of watching it all the more astounding.
Because the writing and the acting isn’t the movies’ weirdest quality. There’s a twist in Serenity. An absolutely bonkers twist -one that may even be more bizarre than the most eccentric of Shyamalan movies. You might be able to catch on to it after a bit, though you’ll think, ‘no, that CAN’T be it’; but oh, yes it is! And when it is revealed it’s mesmerizing to watch the movie deal with it. In a way it tries to excuse the poor writing and character through some half-sensible logic (it doesn’t); and even then it continues to gob-smack you. In light of the twist, certain aspects of the movie, a handful of scenes, become way more troubling or ill-thought through. I’m sure the movie didn’t intend to be Freudian for example, but it becomes an interpretable lens impossible to avoid. There are some themes tied into the twist as well and an horrible message that seemingly attempts to justify homicide. In all of it, the film is clearly reaching for some big ideas but is completely bogged down by the radical turn its story takes, that none of it has any meaning.
The end result is that Serenity is an incompetent mess, but one that at times might seem secretly genius as an exercise in surreality and expectation subversion for its own sake. It’s the kind of film made for a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 riff, and just as fun with the right group of friends. This might not be that good a review, as I’ve kept it as intentionally vague as possible. I went in with no expectations at all, not even knowing its base premise, and was blown away by the unpredictable depths of its awfulness. If so-bad-its-good movies are your jam, Serenity is not to be missed!

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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....
1 comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more