1989 saw the release of James Cameron's The Abyss, the director's first film since monster-smash Aliens. The underwater adventure prompted a lot of media coverage, and - the film industry being the film industry - a couple of much lower budget imitators in the form of Deepstar Six and this movie.
As it turns out, both Leviathan and Deep Star Six are tonally rather different to the film they were obviously intended to trade off. Possibly The Abyss was not quite the movie everyone expected. They both take a much more "Alien, but underwater" approach than the film that prompted them.
And the Alien DNA in Leviathan's script is definitely strong. The cast are a bunch of working class stiffs who stumble across a derelict vessel where none is expected, and in investigating it, unknowingly bring a monster back aboard their own craft. Their employer is then complicit in their being trapped with the creature (though more in a callous 'cut our losses' way than an active 'deliberately seek it out' way). Heck, they even rig together flamethrowers as makeshift weapons to fight it.
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but does it make for a good movie? Well, I must admit that when I first saw them all on VHS, over 30 years ago, Leviathan was probably my favourite of 1989's three underwater adventures. Re-watching it now, though, it hasn't stood up well at all. Let's talk about how that can be.
In the film's favour, I think, is its cast. They are a recognisable if budget conscious who's who of 80s science fiction. Our primary leads are Robocop's Peter Weller, and Amanda Pays of The Flash and Max Headroom. Supporting them we have Ernie Hudson from Ghostbusters; and Meg Foster from They Live and Masters of the Universe. In terms of on-screen faces, the film feels like it is a reasonably high-profile effort.
I suspect that this recognisable cast, and particularly my late 1980s crush on Amanda Pays, probably contributed to teenage me being more upbeat about the film than it deserved. Watching it now, I'm mostly aware that Amanda Pays is no Sigourney Weaver. But then to be fair to her, her character is no Ripley.
A big problem with the film is that it lacks emotional consistency from the characters. An example is with Pays's character, Williams. After meeting the monster for the first time, Williams has an understandable freak out in the shower (a shower she takes while still wearing underwear - I guess Pays had a no nudity clause). The scene has Williams sobbing as she desperately scrubs herself, deeply freaked out by what she just saw. All of which is perfectly fine and reasonable ... but then two minutes later the script has her calmly fixing the lights, without any apparent concerns. It makes the earlier scene smack of the film-makers just wanting to get in a scene of Pays in a wet bra.
Another problem is the monster itself, which is a huge weakness in what is, after all, a monster movie. The creature is very slow and lumbering, both on screen and in script. In terms of the on-screen depiction, this is likely a result of the heavy suit. Clever editing might have concealed that, but the slowness is also true in fiction, which is a bigger issue. It only ever seems to catch anyone from ambush. A brisk stroll seems to enough to outrun it. Heck, even when it does its claws on someone, half the time they manage to wriggle free anyway. It's simply not very intimidating.
A big problem with the film is that it lacks emotional consistency from the characters. An example is with Pays's character, Williams. After meeting the monster for the first time, Williams has an understandable freak out in the shower (a shower she takes while still wearing underwear - I guess Pays had a no nudity clause). The scene has Williams sobbing as she desperately scrubs herself, deeply freaked out by what she just saw. All of which is perfectly fine and reasonable ... but then two minutes later the script has her calmly fixing the lights, without any apparent concerns. It makes the earlier scene smack of the film-makers just wanting to get in a scene of Pays in a wet bra.
Another problem is the monster itself, which is a huge weakness in what is, after all, a monster movie. The creature is very slow and lumbering, both on screen and in script. In terms of the on-screen depiction, this is likely a result of the heavy suit. Clever editing might have concealed that, but the slowness is also true in fiction, which is a bigger issue. It only ever seems to catch anyone from ambush. A brisk stroll seems to enough to outrun it. Heck, even when it does its claws on someone, half the time they manage to wriggle free anyway. It's simply not very intimidating.
If you're absolutely desperate to watch "Alien, but underwater", Leviathan is ... honestly, it is probably going to disappoint, even then.
No comments:
Post a Comment