Sean Keller and Jim Agnew whipped up a screenplay with some fabulously dark ideas, and the most obvious ones - a killer effectively given license to kill again and again, a scientist creating life only for it to be destroyed - aren't even the most insidious ones. There are deeper notions on hand of freezing a person's social development at a critical nadir, of locking a person into an encouraged cycle of violence, and of generally denying a person what they need (socialization, mental healthcare, and so on), and more, including the punishment of innocence and the lack of accountability for evil. That's to say nothing of how these can be applied to real life scenarios. These are great ideas ripe for science fiction and horror storytelling. I'm just not sure that they meet their full potential in 'All that we destroy.'
Incredible works can be achieved in cinema on the strength of themes that are slowly, subtly woven into a story, and this has been true in genre cinema as much as in dramas, westerns, and so on. Sometimes those themes come to us in pictures that are quiet and nuanced, and sometimes they come to us in pictures of stark violence and brutality. There's no especial reason why this flick couldn't have met with similar success on the strength of the underlying thoughts. I think my trouble with it the specific foundations of plot development and scene writing in Keller and Agnew's screenplay, and the manner in which director Chelsea Stardust brought it to fruition. I mean to say: the film is very upfront about its bigger ideas and themes (as opposed to gradually, mindfully drawing them out), and about the entirety of the scenario; plot development feels blasé even as there is a discrete narrative with discrete progression. For the preponderance of the length, despite all the skill illustrated by those involved and all the violence, this bears far too lax a tone, and too little vitality, to provide a spark for the fuel that we plainly see laid out before us. That vibrancy does come in the last quarter of the length, but by then it seems too little too late, and the ending is also just too straightforward to really capture the imagination.
It's well made. From stunts and effects to post-production visuals; from costume design to art direction, hair, and makeup; from music and sound to cinematography and editing - there's a lot to like here. The cast give able performances. Under Stardust's direction, however, and within the fairly forthright slant of the material, there are no real secrets for the actors to hold to their chests, no underlying truths to inform their characters and their acting that are not already exposed for us. The themes and ideas could have been employed more meaningfully, and as they were employed here, it just makes the presentation come across as rather flat. I don't think this is bad; I did like it, and I'm glad I took the time to watch. I do think that it is all too lacking, broadly, and I think it comes up short and unimpressive. I look forward to seeing more from all involved; would that 'All that we destroy' had been more judicious and careful about how it exercised its potential.
Incredible works can be achieved in cinema on the strength of themes that are slowly, subtly woven into a story, and this has been true in genre cinema as much as in dramas, westerns, and so on. Sometimes those themes come to us in pictures that are quiet and nuanced, and sometimes they come to us in pictures of stark violence and brutality. There's no especial reason why this flick couldn't have met with similar success on the strength of the underlying thoughts. I think my trouble with it the specific foundations of plot development and scene writing in Keller and Agnew's screenplay, and the manner in which director Chelsea Stardust brought it to fruition. I mean to say: the film is very upfront about its bigger ideas and themes (as opposed to gradually, mindfully drawing them out), and about the entirety of the scenario; plot development feels blasé even as there is a discrete narrative with discrete progression. For the preponderance of the length, despite all the skill illustrated by those involved and all the violence, this bears far too lax a tone, and too little vitality, to provide a spark for the fuel that we plainly see laid out before us. That vibrancy does come in the last quarter of the length, but by then it seems too little too late, and the ending is also just too straightforward to really capture the imagination.
It's well made. From stunts and effects to post-production visuals; from costume design to art direction, hair, and makeup; from music and sound to cinematography and editing - there's a lot to like here. The cast give able performances. Under Stardust's direction, however, and within the fairly forthright slant of the material, there are no real secrets for the actors to hold to their chests, no underlying truths to inform their characters and their acting that are not already exposed for us. The themes and ideas could have been employed more meaningfully, and as they were employed here, it just makes the presentation come across as rather flat. I don't think this is bad; I did like it, and I'm glad I took the time to watch. I do think that it is all too lacking, broadly, and I think it comes up short and unimpressive. I look forward to seeing more from all involved; would that 'All that we destroy' had been more judicious and careful about how it exercised its potential.