Yeah, no, it’s literally a color out of space — it had been hitching a lift on an asteroid, apparently — and it’s not “like any color I’d ever seen before,” says Nicolas Cage (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Teen Titans Go! To the Movies), after the asteroid lands in the yard of his rural farmhouse one fateful night. Empty Lovecraftian grotesquerie will transpire, and it will be little more than an excuse for another now tediously ordinary rampage from Cage as the alien presence wreaks its havoc… which is probably all plenty of film fans need out of Color Out of Space.
I need more. I certainly don’t need a story that posits that a man needs to be influenced by unfathomable aliens out to take over our planet to do the things he does here. There’s absolutely nothing unearthly or even, alas, remotely unusual about a man turning to violence.
This latest from director Richard Stanley — perhaps best known for his 1990 cult favorite body-horror sci-fi Hardware — is another body-horror sci-fi, this one based on the H.P. Lovecraft story of the same name. (The director adapted it with coscreenwriter Scarlett Amaris.) Anyway, it’s pink. The color is pink. It’s not that strange, and it’s certainly not indescribable in that way that Lovecraft loved to not describe things: the horror was beyond imagining, etc. How do you depict a color that, according to the source material, is beyond human perception? You make it pink, it would seem. (I could go here: Do men not see pink? *argh*)
The difficulties of transferring Lovecraft to a visual medium when he was all about, at best, insisting that what he was writing about was outside human ken could have been completely sidestepped here: just don’t have Cage mention the weirdness of the color! But this is far from the only problem with Color, which seems to believe visual psychedelia is interesting in and of itself. It isn’t. Nor are what have long since become clichés of human reactions to alien encounters: odd smells, missing time, and so on. At this point, we’ve all seen The X-Files (and these things were already cliché in the 1990s… but that show did do fresh things with them). In the 21st century a new spin on Lovecraft is required… as in, say, 2018’s Annihilation, a clear and, indeed, avowed descendant of this very Lovecraft story, what with its alien life stealing a foothold on Earth.
And yet Color’s idea of a modern twist is the wife of Cage’s Nathan Gardner, Theresa (Joely Richardson: Red Sparrow, Snowden), complaining that the wifi isn’t working (it’s alien interference, natch). Their gradeschooler son, Jack (Julian Hilliard), makes “imaginary” friends with the alien presence; their teen kids Benny (Brendan Meyer: The Guest, Tooth Fairy) and Lavinia (Madeleine Arthur: Big Eyes) are hearing strange sounds and forgetting to do chores. Eerie! Not. When Ezra (Tommy Chong: Zootopia, McHale’s Navy), the stoner-hipper squatter(!) on their land, intones that it is “in the static, it’s in the moisture,” I laughed out loud: Someone finally made “lost” sci-fi “classic” Chubby Rain. And it’s as bad as Bowfinger led us to believe.
This is a movie in which someone says, “Looks like there’s a storm comin’ in,” and it’s impossible to tell whether that’s offered unironically or with a wink; in either case, it’s groan-inducing. If only Color had titled itself The Silence of the Llamas — the farmyard creatures Nathan has invested in, and which do not fare well when ET comes to town — I might have been impressed.
Nah, probably not.
first viewed during the 63rd BFI London Film Festival
Sorry, I tried reading this review but allergies are making my eyes water so all I could make out looked like “Go watch Annihilation again”. Will do!
“There’s absolutely nothing unearthly or even, alas, remotely unusual about a man turning to violence.” That’s a rather lazy generalization, and an offensive one at that. Imagine a critic’s review of the upcoming Birds of Prey stating “I don’t need to go to a movie to see women become hysterical and violent after not getting what they want.” Further icing on the cake is that while Nathan does descend into madness, the most violent thing he does to another human (when not saving someone’s life) is lock Lavinia in the attic. In fact, the mother becomes significantly more violent than The father. Your statement paints a picture of Nic Cage chasing people around with an ax trying to murder them and it’s not an accurate summation of the events in the film.
Are you suggesting that this is a thing that happens regularly?
That isn’t what ordinary, everyday male violence looks like, and it’s telling — in a bad way — that you think that’s what I’m talking about. Clearly you’ve seen the film, so perhaps you can reevaluate what I’ve said in the light of what is depicted in the film.
“Are you suggesting that this is a thing that happens regularly?”
I am not, it was hypothetical. If I read that in a review I would be as equally taken aback as I was when I read your statement. I think you are deliberately mis-characterizing the events in the film to make a broader statement. I think it’s rather telling that you failed to mention the violence committed by Theresa.
I think it’s rather telling that you don’t seem to understand larger cultural context.
What cultural context? What you are describing does not happen in the film. You need to be honest, you read a brief synopsis before seeing the film and based on that you made up your mind what is was about and what you thought of it before you watched it. You then carried so much of your own personal baggage into the theater that you watched a film that only exists in your mind. This is not The Shinning, there is not a shred of aggression displayed by Nathan until long after the effects of meteor take hold of the family unit. Cultural context? How bout this: 70% of children who are murdered by a parent are murdered by their mothers, yet you completely (conveniently?) fail to acknowledge the mother trying to murder her own daughter, and instead focus on the (almost non existent) violence of the father because that fits your agenda.
Not in the least.
Bingo. You’re thisclose to getting it…
A bad movie based on a H.P. Lovecraft story? Surely you jest…
The film is actually quite excellent.
Truly, a compelling argument…
maybe not? https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/color_out_of_space
You’re genuinely suggesting that because a majority of critics express a certain opinion, that opinion is fact?
Of course not. I’m just saying that a movie isn’t necessarily bad just because one critic says so. Need to look at the big picture. The aggregate.
I’ve followed you and supported you for many years now. My tastes tend to jive with yours. But if I see you are an outlier on a particular movie I will take the time to read other reviews as well. That’s all I mean.
MarkyD, MaryAnn puts a link to RT on every review. She has for years. So, what exactly is the purpose of you linking there, if not to say “Nuh uh, it’s good actually”?
We’ll see.
For what it’s worth, I’ve seen some movies based on Lovecraft’s work that were worth seeing — Reanimator and Cabin in the Woods being the most obvious examples — but then again I’ve seen a lot of Lovecraftian schlock that was almost unwatchable. All too often, it seems that the bad movies outnumber the good. (A thing that seems to happen a lot to movies inspired by horror writers. Just look at all the cinematic junk inspired by writer Stephen King.)
If you find something to like in this movie, more power to you.
In the meantime, I can’t help pondering what it means that the same short story that inspired this movie has already inspired four other movies — only two of which I remember hearing about. And that the one movie of those that I did see — Die, Monster, Die! — had a movie trailer that had MST3K written all over it. However, YMMV…
I’d say that Cabin in the Woods is more a reaction and a response to Lovecraft — a critical one — rather than based on his work. Which is, perhaps, it is so brilliant.
Was anyone actually anticipating this movie? Why is this bringing out the broflakes?
They’re just very angry that women are allowed to have opinions on the Internet.
We’re used to crossing our arms over our beer guts and pontificating (only in basso profundo voices, natch, because we have testosterone OVERFLOW), and having only awed feminine silence to enjoy while we nod sagely.
I hope it’s obvious I’m joking. I never know any more. ;)
Watched this movie, despite MaryAnn’s review, over the weekend — not because I don’t trust her reviews in general, mind, we have just disagreed on a few films. I wondered if it could really be that bad. Well, to my mind, it’s actually worse. I am an old-time Lovecraft fan, and have a particular fondness for this story, and I hated what Richard Stanley did with it. Perhaps the only “faithful” aspect of this version is that there are no characters to speak of — HPL couldn’t really write them and neither, apparently, can Richard Stanley. I knew nothing about these people that made me care about them in the smallest way. And why, why, why telescope the action into what feels like a weekend when, in the story, it (and the decay and misery and … changes) take place over a long period, which is one of the horrible things about it — the creeping, and gradual nature of it. Why make the color an entity with something like consciousness instead of the otherworldly energy it is in the story? because if you do, you have to answer questions like “what point is there in some of the horrible things the entity does, except to prove that it’s a huge asshole?” And there are no answers to those questions. Some of the visuals are remarkable, but the film has nothing to anchor them: no characters, no unity, no point. My opinion of course. I might try watching it again.
Huh. We saw completely different movies, apparently. And you have zero Lovecraft knowledge. So. This is the first and last review I will read from you.
I’m surprised she got in to see the movie. The gatekeepers made me take a test about Lovecraft first.
Sorry, it’s early in the morning, and I’m feeling even snarkier than usual.
I’m crushed. How o how will I survive?
>Itdz Pink XD
You do realize this was a film right? And were a bit short on inexplicable and indescribable colors. The magenta hue was chosen because it is the only color that does not emit it’s own light waves. The color you perceive as magenta is actualy a construct of the brain when both red and blue light is presented. Hope this helps. English is not my first language, apologies if this was not said right.
The only thing I would like to correct about this review is the color isn’t pink. The color shown is magenta. Magenta can not be seen in the visible spectrum, meaning our eyes can not see this color. So, it makes perfect sense that they would choose that color because the science backs that decision.
sorry, but didn’t you just *say* the colour is “Magenta”? how can you both see the colour and not see the colour?
LOL!