2025
Superman (PG-13)
04/08/25 20:35
Starring: David Corenswet
July 2025
Warning! This is NOT a movie review. This is a critique of the film. Intended to initiate a dialogue, the following analysis explores various aspects of the film and may contain spoilers. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. Ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!
Shocker: Superman (David Corenswet) loses his first fight!
Superman’s super-canine sidekick, Krypto, drags his broken body back to the Fortress of Solitude, where an army of robots tend to his injuries.
Meanwhile, on some foreign continent, a war is brewing between the Russian-esque Boravians and Middle East-style Jarhanpurians.
In Metropolis, the recuperated Superman battles a Godzilla-sized, fire-breathing alien that’s wreaking havoc on the city’s citizens and skyscrapers. The Man of Steel is assisted by the Justice Gang, comprised of Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi), Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced) and the Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion).
Atop a skyscraper in a different part of the city, supervillain Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult) plays overzealous puppeteer to dozens of computer experts, who work in tandem to devise a way to destroy Superman.
Later, over at the Daily Planet newspaper, Clark Kent (Superman in his ordinary citizen guise) and Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) bicker over the ethics of journalism. When Lois returns home at the end of the workday, she finds Clark cooking dinner in her flat. We learn, as they make out, that they’ve been dating for a few months.
Huh?
Yep. You’ve guessed it…this isn’t your father’s Superman movie (much to its detriment).
Spoiler Alert!
The latest film—simply named Superman—based on the eponymous, indestructible Kryptonian created by comic book legends Jerry Siegel (writer) and Joe Shuster (artist), is an absolute abomination. Aside from the meaningless “Godzilla-esque” sequence, ill-advised love story involving Clark/Superman and Lois (a sure-fire way to kill romantic tension is to have the couple finally get together—reference TV’s Moonlighting), stereotypical “country folk” portrayal of Ma (Neva Howell) and Pa Kent (Pruitt Taylor Vince), high-flying/low-IQ dog Krypto, incongruous sci-fi trappings (Lex’ high-tech setup that operates the movie’s mystery villain Ultraman, robots in Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, Mr. Terrific’s ball-like spaceship, a black hole, a pocket universe and an antiproton ribbon), goofy Justice Gang that constantly upstages Superman, panoply of generic villain sidekicks, low-stakes action sequences, thinly-veiled political commentary, aimless plot, utter dearth of star power, and instantly forgettable soundtrack by David Fleming and John Murphy (that only features a few minor refrains of John William’s masterful OG main title), one of the movie’s most controversial aspects is Superman’s morally reprehensible parents, Jor-El (Bradley Cooper) and Lara (Angela Sarafyan).
The key story element missing from this movie, that always worked in previous iterations of the Kryptonian myth, is Superman’s origin story. Here, we jump into the action with no context and no real reason to sympathize with Superman—especially since he’s portrayed as a loser right out of the gate, and does little to change that opinion during the rest of the movie.
Why did director/writer James Gunn eschew Superman’s powerful backstory? Maybe he didn’t want to commit the extra screen time, or maybe he felt the origin tale is passé, or maybe he felt others had already done a better job than he could. Whatever the reason, this movie starts out in a hole, with respect to audience empathy for the title character, that it never quite climbs out of. A massive narrative misfire by Gunn.
Nitpicks, you ask? The movie’s packed with ‘em. For starters, the Man of Steel now bleeds? And needs to pop his elbow back in place? Totally daft and inconsistent with what’s been established in earlier movies (I know nothing about the comic books).
And when is Superman going to install a better security system in his Fortress? Seems like Lex waltzes into the crystalline palace in every other movie. Maybe Baldie found the hide-a-key behind the third crystal pillar on the right?
Then there’s the well-worn contrivance of Metropolis being ravaged by some outside force. Here, an expanding rift cuts a swath through city streets. But the good guys figure out how to reverse the effect (with computers?) and the city is made whole once again. Huh? No structural damage to any of the buildings? No possibility of the loose soil creating sinkholes under the streets?
But even more egregious than all these tenuous story elements or oversights is that the characters are just plain lazy. Superman doesn’t even lift a finger to help the Justice Gang in their efforts to defeat a dimensional imp because he wants to spend a romantic evening with Lois. Lois listens to Cat Grant (Mikaela Hoover) gab on while watching the gigantic alien demolish a section of the city on TV. What? The real Lois would grab her tape recorder and head into the fray faster than you can yell, “It’s a bird!” Then there’s Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo), who refuses to spend time with his ex-girlfriend, Eve Teschmacher (Sara Sampaio), even though she’s willing to give him an exclusive scoop on Lex’ many illegal activities.
These people aren’t heroes. They’re self-centered twits. Unfortunately, as awful as the characters are, the actors portraying them are equally abysmal. I normally don’t disparage actors, but the only cast members who turned in halfway decent performances are Brosnahan and Fillion. As the star of the show, Corenswet is singularly horrendous, and doesn’t deserve to wear the cape and tights. Hoult is pathologically melodramatic. The other cast members walk through their scenes like cardboard cutouts (Exhibit A: Wendell Pierce looks lost and bored as the normally-fiery Daily Planet editor, Perry White). Whoever played the mustachioed tech nerd on Lex’ team should go back to waiting tables.
The cringe-worthy acting makes enduring this rudimentary story even more unbearable. Granted, all of these Superman movies contain cartoony elements, but this film lowers the bar to a ridiculous level. Put simply, this isn’t a serious film. Or to flip the coin, it’s utterly silly.
And what’s even more silly than the movie itself, is the pre-release comments made by Gunn. Clearly intended as a dig against ICE agents, who are currently rounding up criminal non-citizens in our country, Gunn referred to Superman as an “immigrant.” The comment caused a firestorm in the media and, when given the opportunity to revise or retract his remark, Gunn doubled down, claiming the moral high ground.
This is a colossal unforced error. Why would you intentionally alienate (pun intended) half your audience with a controversial statement before the movie even opens? It wasn’t that long ago that studios produced movies that appealed to the broadest demographic possible, to make as much money as possible. Today, in the age of Dylan Mulvaney, ideology and advocacy are more important than money—perhaps because such in-your-face social experiments are being underwritten by moguls of the Soros ilk. Is this why Gunn didn’t flinch in the face of conservative backlash over his statements…because he’ll make his millions no matter what?
Another problem with Gunn’s comment is that it’s based on a flagrant misnomer. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, an “immigrant” is “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.” No part of that definition applies to Superman. He isn’t a person from Earth (human). He didn’t come to Earth—or America—of his own volition. Also, Superman takes up permanent residence on Earth because he has nowhere else to go.
Which brings us to a much more apropos word to describe Superman’s plight…orphan. Again, Merriam-Webster defines “orphan” as “a child deprived by death of one or usually both parents.” In Superman’s case, he lost his parents and planet in one tragic event. So, why does Gunn use the less accurate “immigrant” rather than the more accurate “orphan?” Because “orphan” doesn’t fit his political agenda as well as “immigrant.”
As for Gunn’s directing, it’s nothing earth-shattering. The shots of Superman flying through the air are much more kinetic than those in earlier movies. The wind whips through his hair and the camera moves around to reveal different aspects of his chiseled physique. The slo-mo shot of Superman protecting the little girl from flying projectiles is well done, but certainly isn’t a pioneering visual. Another slo-mo shot, when Superman punches a villain and his teeth fly toward the camera, looks like something you’d see in a video game. Superman cutting down an army of enemies with his Heat Vision is a gratuitous, jeopardy-free yawn-fest. Way too easy.
So, what’s this movie about?
According to the summary on IMDB, “Superman must reconcile his alien Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing as reporter Clark Kent. As the embodiment of truth, justice and the human way he soon finds himself in a world that views these as old-fashioned.” (Note: “human way” not the traditional “American way.”)
Okay, so what’s the movie about?
This reveals the film’s inherent identity crisis. The story is a jumbled mass of heroes, villains, plot strands and action sequences that ultimately have nothing to say about anything. What’s painfully obvious here is Gunn’s insatiable desire to mold one of the greatest heroes in pop culture into his own image.
How ironic that the movie’s Kryptonite is Gunn’s bloated ego.
Though the movie’s main theme is a muddled mélange of moral messages, there are a few ancillary topics that can be plumbed for meaning, such as…
Anger
Clark/Superman and Lex are angry for much of the movie. They shout their dialog and frequently resort to violence, which makes it hard to decipher which is the hero and which is the villain. After Lex ransacks Superman’s Fortress, a hostile Superman crashes into Lex’ office, violently tosses Lex up against and desk and smashes furniture and computer terminals. Strangely, Superman isn’t riled up over Lex invading his arctic retreat, but because he mistakenly thinks Lex stole his dog. What was this Superman like as a teen?
Aside from such petulant behavior, unbefitting of a hero, the most disturbing aspect of this scene is that it holds up a mirror to our society at present. Seems like everyone is outraged these days. Some may be fired up over a specific cause, but many are just mad because it feels good…their amygdala has been hijacked by fearmongering news outlets that pit one half of the country against the other and frequently use words like “racist” and “Hitler.”
Anger is the easiest emotion to default to when things are going bad. That’s why infants and kids throw temper tantrums when they don’t get their way. But when adults regress to childish behaviors, society starts ripping itself apart at the seams…as we’ve witnessed in our inner cities in recent months.
Slavery
The movie uses the term “metahumans” to describe any individual living on Earth that exhibits superpowers (this includes Superman, the Justice Gang and Lex’ superpowered cronies). In the X-Men universe, these individuals are referred to as “mutants.” And, just as the mutants are rounded up in one of the X-Men movies, so too are the metahumans in this film. Of course, the subtext here is that deporting undocumented migrants is inhumane. But there’s a huge difference between Superman (not an alien, but an alien lifeform) and the millions of people (including thousands of criminals) who’ve illegally entered our country over the past few years, right?
The metahumans are transported to the pocket universe, where they’re incarcerated in translucent cells reminiscent of those in Escape Plan. When Superman finally escapes his cell, with the help of fellow metahuman Metamorpho (Anthony Carrigan), you’d expect him to do the heroic thing and release the other captives. Instead, this self-serving Superman flees the pocket universe and leaves the other imprisoned metahumans to fend for themselves. Just another head-scratching scene in the aimless movie.
So, is Superman the worst film in franchise history? Without a doubt.
As awful as Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is, this movie still edges it out. And before you bring up Superman III, consider that it actually had some semblance of a plot, a diverting return to Smallville, one of the most compelling subplots of any Superman movie when the Man of Steel turns evil, and, as an added bonus, many of Richard Pryor’s jokes are funny—unlike the “humorous” lines in this film, which land like lead balloons (I only laughed once).
Superman III was a serious attempt at making a lighter, more comedic (counterbalanced with the dark subplot) film. This Superman seeks to modernize the franchise, and in its wholesale attempt at appealing to Gen Zers, the movie is unwittingly reduced to something far worse than silly…it’s utterly meaningless.
Though this certainly isn’t the first vacuous action flick ever made, it’s disappointing that someone of Gunn’s directorial eminence would churn out such a soulless movie; rife with misguided messages that masquerade as the truth.
Gunn has given us the kind of self-absorbed hero our narcissistic society can identify with…and deserves. His version of Superman seethes with anger, lacks moral courage, is indecisive when faced with simultaneous crises, is overly concerned with his self-image (he spends his downtime thinking up soundbites he can use in interviews), is selfish (he chooses a romantic evening with Lois over defending the city) and incompetent (he gets beat up by himself).
In fact, this Superman, much like the movie itself, is anything but super.
Rating: 2 out of 4
The Last Rodeo (PG)
09/07/25 19:02
Starring: Neal McDonough
May 2025
Warning! This is NOT a movie review. This is a critique of the film. Intended to initiate a dialogue, the following analysis explores various aspects of the film and may contain spoilers. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. Ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!
Can eight seconds feel like an eternity? It can if you’re holding on for dear life as a seething bull violently jostles your body in a dozen different directions.
Three-time bull-riding champion, Joe Wainwright (Neal McDonough), blows off multiple invitations to ride in the Legends bull-riding event in Tulsa, OK. But when his grandson is diagnosed with a brain tumor, Joe chooses to put his body on the line by signing up for one last rodeo.
Brought to us by Angel Studios (Homestead), The Last Rodeo is a faith and family focused film directed by Jon Avnet (Fried Green Tomatoes). As its name suggests, Rodeo is also a sports film, with roughly a quarter of its action centering on bull-riding. The pulse-pounding cinematography is superb, riveting viewer interest with ferocious, nail-biting action sequences. These scenes provide some much-needed action to counterbalance the movie’s many somber moments.
Avnet co-wrote the script with McDonough and Derek Presley. Though heartwarming and crowd-pleasing, the film often feels like a Lifetime drama, especially during the talky character moments. Fortunately, these emotional scenes aren’t unbearably sentimental. This is largely due to the realistic, restrained performances of the stellar core cast, which is comprised of McDonough, Sarah Jones as Joe’s daughter Sally, Mykelti Williamson as Joe’s long-time friend Charlie, and Christopher McDonald as the opportunistic rodeo organizer Jimmy Mack.
The film explores several themes, including: the power of friendship, doing whatever it takes to provide for family, the reconciliation of an estranged father and daughter, an old veteran vying against a field of young upstarts (a la Cars), and a man who stopped believing in God after the death of his wife eventually finding his way back to faith (a la Signs).
In the end, Rodeo is a fairly uncomplicated, largely predictable movie with a plot built on farcical elements (Joe competing for a championship in his upper 50s) and contrivances (Charlie tells Jimmy about Joe’s ailing son and Jimmy spills the story to news agencies, which help raise awareness and financial support to help cover the boy’s exorbitant surgery).
But it’s also an inoffensive, inspiring film that should leave audiences feeling uplifted and hopeful—that despite what’s transpired in our inner cities in recent months, our society might just survive if we pull together to help the less fortunate among us.
Otherwise, this might be America’s last rodeo.
Rating: 2½ out of 4
Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning (PG-13)
26/06/25 20:46
Starring: Tom Cruise
May 2025
Warning! This is NOT a movie review. This is a critique of the film. Intended to initiate a dialogue, the following analysis explores various aspects of the film and may contain spoilers. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. Ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!
“The world is changing, the truth is vanishing, war is coming.”
Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning picks up almost immediately after the events of the previous film, Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (2023). When we last saw Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his team, they were faced with the daunting task of outwitting an advanced AI (lamely named “the Entity”). Now, to prevent a nuclear holocaust, Ethan must use a cruciform key, an object he acquired in the previous movie, to unlock a computer drive containing the source code that can destroy the Entity.
Acting as the Entity’s liaison is Gabriel (Esai Morales), an assassin who tries his best (but fails miserably) to be a top-tier villain. Gabriel always seems to be several steps ahead of Ethan and his team, which is no surprise since he’s receiving instructions from the Entity. So the question becomes, will Ethan’s plan to do the exact opposite of what the Entity expects actually work? And, to add a ticking time bomb element to the plot, Ethan’s team must figure out how to stop the AI before it hacks into every nation’s nuclear arsenal and obliterates the planet.
Sound like an impossible task?
Don’t sweat it.
Even though it takes Ethan and his team nearly three hours to complete their mission (it only took 2 hours for them to save the world in the first film), doomsday is averted and life goes on as if nothing happened; which is ironic, since after watching this film, your life will go on as if nothing happened too.
That isn’t to disparage the movie’s two protracted, well-crafted action sequences—one takes place in the depths of the ocean and the other occurs high in the sky—but the balance of the film is a retread of earlier Missions. Indeed, a couple of the movie’s montages recycle clips from previous films; one dispenses brief images to refresh the audience’s memory and another is used to produce feelings of nostalgia.
In an attempt at bringing the series full circle, the story hearkens back to a few key characters and objects from the earlier movies. For starters, CIA analyst William Donloe (Rolf Saxon)—viewers will remember him as the poor fellow who took several trips to the bathroom while Ethan made his pulse-pounding descent into the computer room on wires in the first film—has a significant role in this movie. Also, U.S. Intelligence agent, Jim Phelps Jr. (Shea Whigham), is the son of Jim Phelps (Jon Voight), the villain Ethan bested in Mission: Impossible (1996). Another allusion to the OG movie is the NOC list; the item multiple parties vied to possess.
Mission: Impossible III (2006) gets some love with a mention of villain Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), montage clips of Ethan’s wife Julia (Michelle Monaghan) and a reference to that film’s destructive MacGuffin…the Rabbit’s Foot.
There are also many similarities between Dead Reckoning and The Final Reckoning since the films are a continuous, 2-part adventure. Many actors have reprised their roles in The Final Reckoning including: Morales as villain Gabriel, Hayley Atwell as uber-thief Grace, Pom Klementieff as the aptly named French assassin Paris, Angela Bassett as President Erika Sloane, Henry Czerny as CIA director Eugene Kittridge, along with many others.
Also returning for this film is director Christopher McQuarrie. McQuarrie excels at realizing the movie’s action sequences, but struggles to sustain viewer interest during slower, talky scenes. To break up the monotony, the director employs various storytelling strategies, including montages and flash forwards (a technique used in heist films like Ocean’s Eleven or action films like Avengers: Endgame to depict what the characters will do when they carry out the intricate capers being discussed during the long-winded planning session). Unfortunately, these gimmicky attempts at punching up the action, along with the overly dramatic music by composers Max Aruj and Alfie Godfrey, make the scenes play out like those on a typical TV procedural. McQuarrie’s most annoying directorial choice is his fixation on the “poison pill”—he cuts to closeups of the flash drive countless times, especially during the biplane scene.
Writers McQuarrie and Erik Jendresen have churned out a story that never quite takes off. There are some decent story elements here—both new and rehashed—but there’s an apparent abandonment of character development since the writers assume the audience already knows the IMF team by now. The series’ tropes are so well-established they’ve become hackneyed; and yet, the writers do little to divest themselves of these expected elements (i.e., the ole latex mask gag) or predictable patterns (i.e., defeating the enemy with milliseconds to spare). And the dialog they’ve written, especially the voiceover narrations for Ving Rhames’ Luther Stickell, is rife with stilted speech and fortune cookie platitudes. Examples: “Our lives are the sum of our choices,” and, “Those we never meet.” President Sloane says Ethan is “the best of men in the worst of times.” Okay, that one’s kind of cool.
As the star of the show, the success of the Mission movies lands squarely on the shoulders of Cruise, who always rises to the occasion, regardless of what the writers and directors throw at him. The 62-year-old actor is in amazing shape (as evidenced in the treadmill scene) and still does his own stunts. Though some throw shade on Cruise’s skill as an actor, no one can question his dedication to the craft. And if they do, I dare them to dangle from an upside-down plane with only a seatbelt to hold onto like he does in this movie.
The main theme of The Final Reckoning is the same as in the previous film: fear of AI and its destructive potential. To avoid being tracked by the Entity, global intelligence agencies unplug and go dark. Ethan receives his mission briefing on an old VHS tape. Gabriel flies a vintage biplane, which can’t be controlled by the Entity. This reversion to analog over digital is reminiscent of the Battlestar Galactica reboot (2004), when survivors of the Cylon onslaught use older, non-hackable Colonial Vipers to repel enemy forces.
These movies aren’t typically known for their dramatic character interchanges, but there are two meaningful scenes where Ethan makes amends with those he’s hurt in the past. When Ethan apologizes for ruining Donloe’s career, the CIA analyst, who was reassigned to an arctic outpost after Ethan hacked into the database on his watch, forgives Ethan without hesitation. Not only did the demotion rescue Donloe from a career spent in mindless tedium, it changed the trajectory of his life when he met his wife. Donloe returns the knife Ethan accidentally dropped onto his workstation decades earlier, effectively burying the hatchet between them.
The other individual Ethan hurt, though indirectly, was Jim Phelps Jr. Phelps could be angry that Ethan’s actions lead to the death of his father, but his motivation isn’t revenge. When Ethan extends his hand to propose a truce, Phelps transfers the gun from one hand to the other and shakes Ethan’s hand in a gesture of forgiveness. A touching moment.
The globe-trotting story was shot in Norway, South Africa and London. As with the other Mission films, the production elements in The Final Reckoning are superb, especially during the major set piece action scenes.
In the final analysis, The Final Reckoning is a rote doomsday scenario that could’ve been transplanted from any other spy/thriller/action movie. It goes overboard with fan service and is a “Best Hits” pastiche of the earlier Mission movies. It’s a predictable, safe series capper that doesn’t deliver the kind of bang such a storied franchise deserved. Sadly, not even the exciting final 30 minutes can make up for the movie’s slow start and standard, cookie-cutter plot.
Still, The Final Reckoning is one of the cleanest action movies I’ve seen in recent years. And, I’d go back to the theater just to see the heart-stopping biplane confrontation…one of the most ingeniously storyboarded and executed action sequences I’ve ever had the pleasure of beholding.
Bruce Geller’s Mission: Impossible first aired on TV in 1966, and the first movie was released in 1996. Now, after 29 years and 8 films, Cruise’s movie mission has finally come to an end. But will the mission continue with other actors?
As we’ve learned from watching these movies, anything is possible.
Rating: 2½ out of 4
Survive (Not Rated)
13/02/25 23:09
Starring: Emilie Dequenne
January 2025
Warning! This is NOT a movie review. This is a critique of the film. Intended to initiate a dialogue, the following analysis explores various aspects of the film and may contain spoilers. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. Ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!
A family of four enjoys a vacation aboard a yacht in Caribbean waters near Puerto Rico. After an incident where the mother almost drowns, the family celebrates the son’s birthday and takes a family photo. The peaceful moment is soon shattered by a violent sea storm that rocks the boat and knocks the family unconscious.
When the family rouses the next morning, they realize their lives have been turned upside down…literally. The boat now sits atop a cliff overlooking an expansive desert. Calling for help on the marine radio, the family reaches a scientist who tells them the Earth’s poles have reversed, and will reverse back in a matter of days.
Embarking on a perilous journey to find the scientist’s submersible craft, the family soon discovers that this new Earth is as strange, and deadly, as an alien planet.
Okay, I can suspend my disbelief with the best of them, but the nitpick alarm was blaring in the back of my head for much of the movie. First of all, what family takes their pre-teen son out on a boat in the middle of the ocean for his birthday? Maybe consider a backyard barbecue instead? Or Chuck E. Cheese?
Second, what would it do to human physiology if the Earth’s poles were suddenly reversed? At the very least, wouldn’t it throw off the equilibrium? Produce headaches? Nausea? The characters in the movie carry on as if functioning in a reversed polarity world was an everyday occurrence.
Most egregiously, from a scientific standpoint, the characters assume that because the Earth’s polarity was reversed, landmasses and oceans also traded places. I’m no science expert, but this concept is utterly daft. How can there be an even swap of land to water and vice versa when the Earth is roughly 70% water and 30% land? If I called my science geek buddy and told him this plot element, I’d bet all my money I’d get at least a snicker out of him, if not an outright guffaw.
Further stretching the film’s credulity is the large crabs, which pursue the survivors like a swarm of earth-bound locusts (for Stargate SG-1 fans, the crabs rapidly advance like an army of Replicators). Is this behavior scientifically accurate? No idea. But, like the rest of the movie, the creepy crabs seem contrived; deposited into the story merely to create dramatic tension.
So, what kind of movie is Survive? Well, as can be inferred from the title, it’s a survival movie…as well as a disaster movie. It’s a family adventure flick with shades of TVs Land of the Lost, sans dinos. It also has fantasy/sci-fi elements. Strangely, Survive has a slasher film subplot. Also, there are a few callbacks to Jaws (1975), including an underwater shot of a woman swimming in the ocean and the name of the boat, Orca. The final shot of the demolished city recalls similar tableaus in a myriad post-apocalyptic movies ranging from the Divergent series (2014-2016) to The Day After Tomorrow (2004).
Though the story deals with polarity shifts, its plot is riddled with bizarre tonality shifts. It’s like the movie can’t make up its mind what it wants to be. Or, perhaps it seeks to attract a wider audience by mashing up elements from many genres into its narrative potpourri. But, like the movie’s main plot device, this strategy achieves an opposite effect than desired, leaving the audience out to sea.
Produced by several French companies, Survive noticeably lacks the sheen of a major Hollywood release. Its production elements are wildly uneven. Major debits include the subpar music and use of fade to black edits when transitioning from one scene to another, which makes Survive feel like a TV movie. To its credit, the movie boasts gorgeous desert locations and excellent cinematography.
The acting is also hit or miss. As would be expected, the adults turn in better performances than the kids; but they’re all forced to make the most of the script’s remedial dialog. Oddly, the characters mostly speak English in the first half of the film, but mostly speak French in the second half of the film. Maybe the effects of the polarity switch finally caught up with them.
It’s extremely disappointing that this ostensibly family film is pervaded with profanities. The movie is Not Rated, which probably has to do with its foreign production. However, judging by U.S. standards, this almost certainly would be an R-rated film.
There are several bloody and gory scenes in the movie, including a protracted sequence where one man stabs another in the chest and then in the throat, causing blood to overflow his mouth. The same man brutally attacks a woman, who survives the encounter and later gets her revenge in an uber-bloody sequence where she viciously stabs the man several dozen times—spatters of blood gush into the air with each thrust. The next morning, we glimpse a trail of entrails leading to the fly-ridden corpse. To complete the macabre scene, a crab skitters out of the man’s face, a la the scarab crawling out of Imhotep’s face in The Mummy (1999). Not recommended for those with a weak stomach.
The movie’s views on science are evident from the start: we’re told that there have been five mass extinctions in Earth’s history and that the sixth is about to begin. This teases the movie’s close adherence to Darwin’s theory of “natural selection.”
When we first learn that Earth’s poles have been reversed, the father quips that the conspiracy theory nuts were actually right. The captain of the submersible vehicle confirms this, saying, “Maybe the Earth has decided to eliminate men before they destroy it.” This is a similar sentiment to what Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) espoused in Jurassic Park (1993), “Dinosaurs had their shot and nature selected them for extinction.”
This presupposes that Mother Nature has the power to wipe out entire species, or all life on Earth, at a whim (the recent, tragic, fires in Los Angeles would seem to be further evidence of this). Though the threat of natural disasters is always present, and bad things happen to people all the time, should we live in fear of Mother Nature’s wrath? If it’s our time to go, there’s nothing we can do to stop it, so might as well live each day as if it’s the last, right?
While on the topic of Mother Nature, Survive slyly weaves an environmental message into its narrative. As the movie opens, the camera frames a discarded sandal at the bottom of the ocean. Later, when the ocean floor becomes a desert, we’re shown various ways humanity has impacted nature: we see a large dump of toxic waste, a crashed plane, cargo containers surrounded by strewn items, and sections of the desert littered with empty water bottles, kids’ desk chairs (strangely without legs), and toilet bowls. The latter is a clever reminder that the movie’s post-apocalyptic world has literally gone to pot.
The movie also makes commentary on how ill-prepared we—particularly our screen-bound young people—are as a society to deal with the exigencies of survival situations. In two instances, a teen girl, who is listening to music with her headphones, is completely oblivious to life-and-death emergencies happening nearby. Later, she forgets to tighten the lid on the canteen, depleting the family’s supply of drinking water. This forces her younger brother to drink water out of a brackish pool, which makes him sick. At one point, the young woman loses hope and repeatedly yells, “We’re all going to die!” These examples beg the question, how well would civilization function in a post-apocalyptic world without Siri to provide practical guidance?
For the most part, the movie exhibits good parenting. A father patiently teaches his son how to cast the line from a fishing pole. The idolizing son expresses confidence in his father’s ability to get them out of their predicament. He quotes one of his dad’s favorite sayings, “Every problem has a solution.”
The mother’s unwavering focus is the safety of her kids. On several occasions, she proves her willingness to sacrifice herself for them. In a movie bereft of meaning, this heartening example of maternal love serves as its saving grace.
The most merciful aspect of this movie is its ninety-minute runtime. Adding another half hour to this predictable, irredeemable mess would’ve been a special form of torture.
So, what does the film accomplish? In its attempt at cramming tropes from many different genres into its story, the movie ends up saying nothing. Due to its incessant profanities and graphic elements, it isn’t even an enjoyable popcorn flick. It’s the type of substandard story that gives B-movies a bad name. In fact, it’s more like a C-movie (C for Crabs).
It’s a shame to think of all the good movies out there that never get made because of financing when a meaningless piece of schlock like this film gets released. Maybe Darwin’s theories also work backwards in a reverse-polarity world. As this movie proves—in terms of its characters, story, and overall production—there is such a thing as “survival of the unfittest.”
Rating: 1½ out of 4