Rated R for language
Cast: Hayden Christensen, John Leguizamo, Thandie Newton, Jacob Latimore
Director: Brad Anderson
I realize that demanding an explanation in a science-fiction thriller can come off as unforgivably indolent, but when a movie spends a good ninety minutes pondering a multitude of potential explanations regarding the strange disappearances that have permeated downtown Detroit and never offers up its own theory as to the cause, the viewer is given little to nothing to consider. There is a great deal of technical skill on display here. A lot has been brought to the table. The caveat, however, is that all that potential rests at the mercy of the filmmakers' ability to follow through. Screenwriter Anthony Jaswinski ended up blowing his no-hitter in the bottom of the ninth.
I suspect the open-endedness at the film's conclusion was intended. The movie seems to want to invite discussion as to what is really transpiring. The thing about inviting debate, however, is that you need to divulge some sort of statement or theory that ignites the discourse. Here we're given all manner of half-baked guesses as imparted by the characters. The movie's atmosphere is choked with a profusion of possibility. But instead of disclosing its own belief in the supernatural root cause, the film provides a deus ex machina ending of sorts, then the whole thing starts up again.
Am I being unfair? I might be. I realize the compendium of short story literature is inundated with tales that do require reader interpretation to fill out their respective meanings, and that some short films would perfectly embody the frame of a Twilight Zone episode. This type of story could easily fit that bill. As a B-grade thriller, the movie more or less works. But what fueled my disappointment, I think, is that the film spends a seemingly vast amount of time offering up intriguing possibilities, then ducks out at the eleventh hour. This is a movie that wants to be perceived as bold, but lacks the requisite boldness.
The story taps into the primal fear of the dark. In this case, a wave of intermittent blackouts has sized Detroit. These are no ordinary losses of power, though. In a matter of seconds, menacingly-shaped shadows emerge from the blackness to snatch up anyone resting unguarded in the dark, leaving only their clothes lying in a bundle atop the ground. Our first thought, of course, is the Rapture. That's one possible explanation imparted by the movie. There are others, too. Both scientific and otherworldly. The movie also makes historical reference to Roanoke Island, and even the mysterious word croatoan makes an appearance.
Within a span of 72 hours, there is no longer sunlight. Or power. What keeps the shadows away from the small band of survivors is an aversion to any kind of light source. Holed up in a bar powered by a backup generator are Luke (Hayden Christensen), a television news reporter who recently relocated. Rosemary (Thandie Newton), a newly-clean-and-sober mother of a missing infant with relatively strong religious convictions. Also, a regretful romantic named Paul (John Leguizamo) who works as a film projectionist, and James (Jacob Latimore), an armed young boy who puts up a tough exterior, yet refuses to shoot anyone lest he be the only one left in the dark. Each character brings their own "interpretation" of what might be occurring. (Rosemary with The Rapture, Paul with the historical references, Luke with the otherworldly possibilities.) In a way, the cast of characters almost seems too utilitarian for their own good. The plot leans on them for explanation more than they lean on each other for survival.
Despite my disappointment, the movie is a close call. Director Brad Anderson ("The Machinist," "Transsiberian") employs a slew of nifty filmmaking techniques to convey the ubiquitousness of the danger while continuously feeding our interest in the event's origins. (The movie is more fascinating than scary. I don't mind that.) But it falls short due to a lack of nerve.
It walks its own self-imposed tightrope, and the irony is that tumbling to either side would have been a step up. Either cut it down to a film short, or follow through on any one of the intriguing explanations brought to light. Yeah, I get that the movie wants us to ponder the events. But pondering a concept is one thing. Trying to second-guess the intent of the screenwriter is something else. It's not really a bad movie, and does contain a lot of potential avenues of intrigue. It just makes the unfortunate decision to not follow through on any.
* * 1/2 out of * * * * stars
