DEEP IMPACT

This absolutely typifies the attitude of certain sections of the media towards the cinema, their disregard for their readers and shows, once again, why the world needs this Web Site. On May 15th the Guardian film "critic", Richard Williams, reviewed Deep Impact and awarded it one star out of five. A single paragraph dismisses the film as "a brainless blockbuster in which the planet is threatened by a meteor the size of Everest and only American courage, ingenuity and pious philosophising stand in the way. " On the opposite page he devotes four columns to reviewing Pedro Almodovar’s latest film which he apparently liked. 

Now it may be that Deep Impact is indeed a not very good film but millions of people are going to go and see it and many have been eagerly waiting to see it. These people, and I’m one, like a good blockbuster film, enjoy science fiction and are interested in what can be achieved technically on film. We don’t expect to find the answer to life’s many mysteries nor to be mystically illuminated about the nature of the universe. We just fancy seeing an exciting and spectacular film. There is also a practical aspect to what we seek in film reviewers. As it happens, Almodovar is one of my favourite directors but there is little point in rushing out an early review of his latest because my local multiplexes (multiplexi?) will never never ever show this film. I will have to wait months on end to go to an obscure local art cinema to see it or, more likely, wait until it becomes available on video. Only gits in London or Mutt in Birmingham are going to see Almodovar’s films anytime soon. The rest of us (does the word "majority" ever occur to film critics?) will wait patiently but in the meantime can go and see Deep Impact. We want to know if it’s any good and, if it isn’t, we want a full explanation as to what its faults are, not some smartarse remarks.

Are you listening Richard Williams? No, I don’t suppose you are because you only write for pseudo-intellectuals who live in London. You’d be too afraid to admit liking a popular film even if caused you a spontaneous orgasm.

2 THE REVIEW

I should confess that I wrote the rant before I went to see the film. I was/am so angry that someone whose job it is to be a critic can dismiss a film so quickly when more people are waiting to see it than all the other less commercial films of the week put together. Often commercial = crap and I would be the first to admit it, as I would be the first to do a hatchet job on a film that deserves it. The point is though, that the job of the critic should be to tell you what is wrong with the damn thing in the first place! Anyway, I feel no better about Mr Richard Williams and his views after the seeing the film than I did before. In fact I am even angrier that the critic of a leading national newspaper can treat his audience with such disdain.

Let me tell you about the audience and then I will tell you about the film. Sometimes I am a little nervous about audiences, thinking that they are going to crunch popcorn and talk through the film whilst spitting on the ceiling etc. Sometimes I am right. In this case I was not happy to find myself in the middle of a bunch of young men who were greatly amused by the fact that they could annoy their neighbours by making their seats squeak and who broke out in gales of laughter over an advert featuring a weak joke about frothing beer cans and babes in swimsuits. I fully expected to spend more time trying to filter out their noise than watching the film. The film began without titles with an attention-grabbing opening. The previously noisy lads subsided immediately and never made another sound throughout the two and a half hours of the film except to laugh at the funny bits, gasp at the gaspy bits and surreptitiously wipe away a tear at the emotional bits. Now, if I was a clever Guardian-type critic I could leave it that and not tell you a single other thing about Deep Impact. The audience reaction says it all. But no, for I am The Lizard, film critic to the net, and I shall go on to tell you more about the film itself. (It’ll never catch on).

An Everest-sized comet is heading towards the earth and threatens to extinguish all life thereon. But we know, because we’ve seen the trailer beforehand, that a brave group of astronauts will be trying to head it off by placing nukes on it. We also know that at least part of the comet is going to hit the earth because, again, we’ve seen the trailer. In between finding out about the approaching nemesis and the final effects-laden ending we follow the lives of a young man who discovered the comet, the president of the US of A (Morgan Freeman), the team of astronauts led by a grisly bit loveable old Robert Duvall and a journalist (Tea Leoni) who breaks the story and becomes the top news anchor, broadcasting the events as they unfold. This is also a film which makes full use of a large cast of supporting actors often culled from TV shows like Hill Street Blues and E.R. The whole thing is directed by Mimi Leder, herself a graduate of E.R. and the recent Clooney-led Peacemaker.

One of the first things to strike me was how good the script is and what a verbose film it is. People are talking to each other all the time and many of the scenes are full of busy newsrooms or presidential Q and A sessions or mission control rooms. I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised, given the background of the people involved, but the busy scenes with intercutting dialogues and story strands work just as well on the big screen as they do on TV. Special mention must also go to the idea of how Leoni gets into the plot – this was a really clever idea, well written and expertly handled. To tell you what it is would be to spoil it, though you can figure it out from the trailer (damn trailers! I think the time has come to ban them). This is a people film as much, if not more than, it is an effects film and the script mostly does a good job of making you care about them and believe in them. Just occasionally it strays into heavy-handed manipulation of the emotions but it is difficult to see how this could be otherwise, given the subject matter. The American gung-honess also comes out in Freeman’s president but it’s best to ignore these bits as they are few and far between. (What do you expect? This is an American film made by Americans primarily for consumption by Americans).

As far as the acting is concerned everyone with a decent bit of script does well. Leoni is particularly good and always manages to convey that feeling of "I really don’t know what the hell is going on but I’m getting away with it " that the story demands of her. Robert Duvall, an American national treasure, is excellent as the world-weary astronaut and this was a bold piece of casting when you imagine some suit trying to argue that the part should be played by Leonardo Di Caprio or some other infant. I suspect that the film could have managed without the young astronaut part but Elijah Wood manages to look suitably youthful and enthusiastic, as does his girlfriend. Morgan Freeman gets away with playing the president because he is Morgan Freeman though his was the most cardboard cut-out character in the whole piece.

So what is wrong with the film then? Well I’ve already mentioned the president – ugh! I was a little disappointed with the depiction of events on the street. I feel sure that there would be much more violence if this happened for real and the rows and rows of motorists waiting patiently for death by drowning were far too stoic about their fates. The FX were also a little patchy. Sometimes they were really excellent but at other times you could see the joins and the models. Perhaps we are all getting too blasé in these days when every other film destroys half the world or flies starships twice around the universe. All the same I was faintly disappointed by a few of the FX shots. 
This is not a film that will change your life. Nor is it likely to ever figure in your list of the 10 best films of all time. Nevertheless it is a much more than competent blockbuster which is well cast, well scripted and enjoyable. The science, for once, has been thought though and is mostly plausible (the one really notable exception is covered in Mutt’s review). Also it looks like a film; a vehicle put together to utilise the things that cinema does well and the constantly moving camera brilliantly conveys the action of both the story and the character interactions. You’d have to be dead or a Guardian film critic (or both) not to find something to like here.

3 THE THEORY

A fundamental of all healthy civilizations is the art of storytelling. Whether it is around the campfires or around the cathode ray tube, all societies use storytelling to convey teachings as well as for entertainment. If you want to see a sub-text for this film you don’t have to look hard. You are being invited to contemplate what is really important in your life and what you would do if you knew you were likely to die at a pre-determined point in the near future. Luckily you can get to do this around the safety of the campfire this time around. You can also bask in the reflected glory of those heroic figures in the story who will make the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that their friends and family or even the earth herself can go on living. And if you can get a cinema full of people to reflect on their own mortality and the qualities of service and sacrifice then I reckon you are doing a damn good job of keeping the story – telling tradition alive and useful. I’ve read Joseph Campbell you know and he made a lot more sense to me than ever Richard "I am a proper critic" Williams did.
 

Home | Reviews | Reputations | Contact the Lizard