dustin hoffman

cover

I’ve previously mentioned how The Silence of the Lambs helped me to become a lifelong reader. Well, Michael Crichton was no small slouch in that regard either. He became the first author that I really followed. I have fond memories of a couple of friends and me discovering his books and fighting over who would get to check one of the books from the school library first and who would have to wait.

The first book of his that I read was The Andromeda Strain – about an alien virus that crashes to Earth aboard a satellite and the scientists that study it. I loved it. I loved its realism and attention to detail. Just now I’m realizing that the Hannibal Lecter books by Thomas Harris and the stories of Michael Crichton appealed to me in the same way. Harris dug into the details of forensic and behavioral science – why serial killers behave the way they do and how the F.B.I. catch them. Crichton also leans heavily into his science background. Both authors lay out science in an organized and detailed manner. That appealed to me in some way.

I don’t remember much about Sphere. I remember reading it on the bus – slouched down, knees on the seat in front of me. But I don’t remember much of the actual story. Except that, I was disappointed in it.

I was even more disappointed by the movie which took quite a few liberties with the book, though again my memories are fuzzy.

But it has been many years since I saw the film, and sometimes movies I was disappointed with as a college kid become better with age. Since this is Sci-Fi in July and that film stars Dustin Hoffman, Samuel L. Jackson, Sharon Stone, and Liev Schreiber I decided to give it another try.

Friends, it has not gotten better with age.

The basics of the plot are pretty good, especially in the beginning, but then it does a deep dive into stupidity and never recovers.

So, a ship is discovered at the bottom of the ocean. Several inches of coral have grown over it. Coral grows at a specific rate which indicates the ship has been down there for three hundred years. Since humankind didn’t have spaceships 300 years ago it is determined that this ship is extra-terrestrial in origin.

A few years prior psychologist Dr. Norman Goodman (Hoffman) was tasked by the Bush administration to write a paper detailing what should be done if aliens were discovered on Earth. He filled in some procedures and proclaimed you’d need an astrophysicist (Schreiber), a mathematician (Jackson), and a marine biologist (Stone).

That’s a very Michael Crichton setup. He loves putting together a crack team of smart people to solve a crisis. But in this story (or at least this adaptation of this story) Goodman half-assed that paper. He needed the money and didn’t think anyone would read it. All of the scientists he claimed they’d need were just people he knew. Some of these folks are super smart, but they aren’t exactly the elite group of people one might actually ask for.

The military has already established a sea station on the ocean floor next to the spaceship. Our heroes take a sub down and investigate. Inside the ship they discover a few things I won’t spoil but also a large CGI sphere. It reflects everything around it except for the humans suggesting it is an intelligent life form.

One of the characters later goes inside the sphere but when he comes out he can’t remember anything. Soon after strange things start happening like the base station is attacked by a giant squid and strange sea snakes come out of the sink. Meanwhile, up above a huge storm has rolled in causing the Navy ships to have to leave for a few days, stranding our heroes down below.

At some point, the alien starts talking to our heroes through text messages on the computer. It is friendly at first and then it begins acting like a petulant child. Luckily, our psychologist knows how to talk to angry children. For a little while at least

For a little while I enjoyed the film. The basic setup is solid and I like the actors, but the longer it rolled the sillier it becomes. And stupid. As I said one of the things I liked about Crichton is that he took science seriously. He loved to get into the details without letting the story get bogged down. He probably made some stuff up, but he did it well. The film takes a lot of shortcuts with the science and it makes the film worse.

Director Barry Levinson is known for his character-driven dramas and he is clearly out of his depth with this blockbuster-fueled science-fiction horror story.

Sometimes it is best to remember that a movie is bad, and not try and prove those memories as faulty.

messenger the story of joan of arc poster

What happens when you take a talented French director, his model/singer/actress wife, and one of the greatest actors of the 70s, and make a movie about one of the most renowned saints of France? You get a giant mess is what. The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc is loaded with lots of talented people, is filmed gorgeously, and is mostly a lousy, muddled film.

The story of Joan of Arc (or Jeanne d’Arc as they call her in France) is well known just about everywhere. Joan is a poor peasant living in a small village in France during the Hundred Years’ War with England. She begins seeing heavenly visions that tell her she is God’s messenger to rid her country of the bloody English. Somehow she convinces Charles, the Dauphin with visions of being king, to give her an army to storm Orleans. Using unconventional methods she leads her army to victory. The Dauphin is crowned king and mostly forgets about Joan. She leads an unsuccessful siege on Paris is given over to the English, tried and burned at the stake, several hundred years later she is sainted by the Catholic church. The Messenger covers most of this relatively faithfully, and beautifully.

Luc Besson is a talented director filming such classics as Le Femme Nikita (1990) and The Professional (1994). His talent is presented here in his ability to create interesting and beautiful shots but is lost in creating a cohesive story. He doesn’t seem to know what to do with the story about the young saint. In parts, it seems earnest in its recreation of this revolutionary with heavenly visions, but then it sinks into a near parody of itself and in the end sinks towards a reinventing of the events themselves asking Joan herself whether or not her visions were real or mere psychosis.

Milla Jovovich is a pretty face who has mostly been in forgettable, silly comedies and the Resident Evil franchise which might as well be considered a silly comedy for all its worth. Here, she has two modes of acting, a strange amphetamine delivery of her lines as if she couldn’t spit them out fast enough, or a snarled scream as if acting was merely being the loudest person on the set. It is not a nuanced performance. For the entirety of the film, she seems completely out of place.

The battle of Orleans is tame at best. There are virtually no scenes of real ambitious spectacle. We are given nothing to inform us of her revolutionary forms of combat. Instead, her method seems to be screaming a lot and jumping a horse over the enemy’s fence. Later the storming of Paris is so humorous it is sad. Joan screams and screams that she needs backup while a few soldiers randomly knock on what must be the Paris gates. These soldiers are so bewildered a pathetic looking they seem more out of a Monty Python sketch than a serious film about war.

Beyond the visual elements, the only saving grace is Dustin Hoffman’s performance as the Grand Inquisitor or Conscience. It is a fine performance from a fine actor, but it is a peculiar character. He spends his time questioning Joan’s own sanity. Could her visions in fact be some form of psychosis or fantasy? Could crucial moments in her life like finding a sword in a field in fact be a simple coincidence? Good questions in the history of the real Joan of Arc, but they seem out of place here. Nowhere in the film are we led to believe Joan is nothing but the real thing. Why bring these questions into play during its climactic ending?

The film would have worked much better by believing wholeheartedly in Joan’s purpose and vision. Or questioning her visions from the beginning, a revisioning of the myth could be very interesting. Instead, it kicks its legs out from under itself by bringing her into question so late in the film.

What we get in this portrayal of Joan of Arc is some pretty visuals and a fine performance from Dustin Hoffman. Try renting one of Luc Besson’s earlier films and pick up anything from Hoffman’s heyday in the 70s, they will be worth your dollar and your time far more than anything thing to be found here.