What happens when you rip off every action hero movie made from 1980 up to the present day, take elements from all the popular Sci-Fi films, add an actor who is the modern day Schwarzenegger or Stallone, and very loosely base it on a film which was a mixed bag but a cult hit? You get The Chronicles of Riddick.
From the tone of his voice, the grave and solitary type, to his demeanor, Riddick is every one-man-army-against-the-world cliche that has ever been used. Of course every one-man-army has to have a sensitive side; the moody, dark exterior revealing the true inner-self of a so-called killer that like to roll around in the lush green fields of grass with his newly born kittens. Humour was definitely not written into the script, but unfortunately (or fortunately if you’re so inclined) it is the experience you receive when watching this film.
The story is severe Beenherebeforesville. Evil must kill evil to save the world/universe/city/peoples ad nauseum. Riddick is a supposed anti-hero, a term often misused, but honestly, he comes across as a Care Bear. There’s a definite lack of continuity in the character and his development. You’re never convinced Diesel is a character; instead it feels like watching this large man pretending to act. There’s nothing brooding about the poor sod, as much as he tries to grimace and pull a mean face, he always, somehow, comes across as the type of guy who takes your grandma to the local supermarket to do the shopping. His physique is great for the role, unfortunately, his acting skills aren’t anywhere near as toned.
It seems obvious that the film makers lacked ideas, as we see an almost repeat scene with a slightly altered background by which Riddick leads the cast against harsh terrain. For those who have seen the first film, Pitch Black, you’ll understand what I’m talking about. For those that haven’t, the scene’s were more intense in the original (and that is saying a might lot). What bugs about this film, is it’s impersonation to suggest that the female characters are in anyway equivalent. They are limp characters, who serve little to no purpose. They may as well not even be there in all honesty, serving as minute diversions in what are essentially token gestures.
Actually, to say it was boring would be a touch harsh. The use of CGI was far too often hit and miss. When it worked, such as during the fight scenes, it worked brilliantly
The Theatrical Cut and the Directors Cut both have elements added and removed, however, the Directors Cut is how the Director intended things to be, hence the moniker. In reality, there is little to distinguish between the two; the scenes are either action oriented, or provide a little more background information. Overall, however, neither really changes the story in any way, shape or form to truly be worth the cost of watching both.
I felt Thandie Newton perhaps came off as one of the more convincing characters. She’s a beautiful lady, but again, her acting leaves a lot to be desired. The faces she pulls when looking frightened or distraught are similar to that in a comedy. Now, I’m guessing Chronicles of Riddick wasn’t intended to be a competitor for a Farrelly (?) Brothers comedy. Still, she camps up the character plenty, and does it while still looking quite stunning. Judi Dench was totally based in a role that really made no difference. Her existence was almost pointless, as the prophecy could have been written in a book and it would have made her redundant. Alexa Davalos is athletic, but again there is little in the way of character, and more a case of something for the boys.
In the end, that is what this film is: one for the boys. A teenage popcorn fest aimed at providing a generation of film goers similar thrills that Star Wars and Back to the Future did for another generation. It’s taken all the hero elements of films from the 80s and shoved it up the rectum of essence of Sci-Fi, but not quite really achieving Sci-Fi status, simply because there is nothing we haven’t seen before. The best Sci-Fi films always have something new to show in their ideas, but Chronicles of Riddick really fails, and essentially bores.
Riddick is every one-man-army-against-the-world cliche that has ever been used
Actually, to say it was boring would be a touch harsh. The use of CGI was far too often hit and miss. When it worked, such as during the fight scenes, it worked brilliantly. When it failed, such as the monster creations and certain deaths, it bombed. Things looked CGI and just far too out of place to be convincing. Jurassic Park was more amazing with it’s mix of animatronics and CGI than CoR is with its creatures. Quite sad really. The film is, however, very, very pretty. The vast scale of terrain, with the undulated chasms of a volcanic planet are really very beautiful to see. But that is the problem. It’s all style, and no substance.
We haven’t had a real adventure, or Sci-Fi or otherwise for a very long time. Nothing that really touches the classics of the 80s and early 90s for scope, originality, fun and sheer entertainment. CoR felt like a girl who likes to have her nails done at the weekend, wear a tonne of perfume, and look pretty enough so that everyone will look at her as you walk with her. Once you get her home, and start removing all the things that attracted you to her, you find what you have is someone who is not only average, but also rather shallow in trying to be something they’re not. In short, an illusionary distraction, and you fell for it hook line and sinker. If anyone says this film is complex, they need to have their head checked. This film is as basic, and as simple as they come.
Verdict: Pretty, yet shallow Sci-Fi yarn. Recycled goods for 2004.