Directed By M. Night Shyamalan

Starring – Gael Garcia Bernal, Vicky Krieps, Rufus Sewell

The Plot – A chilling, mysterious new thriller about a family on a tropical holiday who discover that the secluded beach where they are relaxing for a few hours is somehow causing them to age rapidly, reducing their entire lives into a single day.

Rated PG-13 for Disturbing Images, Brief Strong adult Language, Partial Nudity, Strong Violence and Suggestive Content

Old – Official Trailer [HD] – YouTube

POSITIVES

– Intriguing plot. Because Shyamalan prides himself on the elements of good mysteries for the entirety of his 22 year career, “Old” is yet another compelling gimmick to capture the attention of its audience, cloaking its characters and environment in a blanket of ambiguity that constantly pushes the rules accordingly. This is not only presented with little to no levity in the progression of the narrative, to keep the anxiety of the film firmly unraveling at all times, but also plays into the imagination of the writer/director, whose limitless appeal articulates that literally anything is possible in a story so freshly diverse from anything else that we’ve seen in quite sometime. In the dissection of the answers, we the audience gain just enough intel of the situation with the trial and error that the characters constantly find themselves in, becoming all the more compelling when the laws of gravity take shape, and the tragic elements of the conflict become all the more apparent. Because the conflict’s grip is so tight on the overall focus of the story, we find ourselves in the same inescapably bleak situation as our fictional protagonists, feeling at eye level with the mysteries of the unknown that sneak up on us on more than a few occasions.

– Superb casting. While the performances left plenty more to be desired, I can at least say that the believability between similar characters in three respective aging timelines were brilliantly selected to attain believability in their evolutions. This goes far beyond a defining trait like a wig or facial scar to render the results, instead relying far heavier on likenesses and subtle make-up schemes that capably bring to life an older version of the character we’ve previously been saddled with. In addition to this, the personalities of their embodiment feel all the more synthetic with what’s previously established with the characters, speaking volumes about the child inside that is still persevering against a personal appearance that is conveying anything but. Most movies overlook this element of investment with the characters, but “Old” and Shyamalan have definitely done some vast studying at finding all of the pivotal pieces to convey the bigger transitions within these respective characters.

– Tragic element. On a metaphorical stance, and one that undoubtedly presents the single biggest gain for the movie’s unorthodox gimmick, “Old” is a story about the frailty and urgency of time, and how it holds us captive with those closest to us playing victim at the hands of its clutches. Because of this, you could easily throw out the conflict and the dumbed down resolution that is churned out during the climatic third act, and just appreciate this film for the unforeseen poignancy that depicts time with more physical and mental heft than a majority of films with similar parallels to the concepts of time. For our family of protagonists at the forefront, it’s effectively unnerving because when we are introduced to them, we can’t help but pick up on the bigger picture that is hanging in the distance of their futures, full of many possibilities and outlooks that reside somewhere nearby, once this vacation is over. When the minutes turn to hours, and then years, it becomes grating to the initial adversities that they were previously facing, and preserves a consistency of urgency that quite literally forces them to appreciate the minutes in ways that we the audience should every single day of our lives.

– Production perks. Credit to Shyamalan for immersing us in the bodily conflicts of its protagonists with some measures in sight and sound that manipulates our interpretations. Measures like a blurry lens conveys an ocular decay that is very resonant of the aging process, and the muffled sound designs during particular sequences with a certain character at the helm illustrate frazzled hearing that puts them at a dreaded disposition. Both of these elements enhance the aging process in ways that I wish the make-up production would’ve articulated for its older characters, all the while cementing Shyamalan once more as an experimental filmmaker who never lost the desire to quite literally push the envelope with his presentations. Not everything in “Old’s” case renders positive rewards, but these immersive qualities that vividly put us in the shoes of those saddled with it, grants another in a series of glaring conflicts for the characters, proving that the kids aren’t the ones with the most to lose, at least immediately.

NEGATIVES

– Rapid fire pacing. It’s easy to understand what Shyamalan was going for in unraveling his narrative with abrupt sequencing, playing into the perils of time that quite literally flow without warning during the film, but it creates many problems with the believability of the storytelling, as well as the flat characterization that makes this all the more difficult to fully invest in. On the latter, we’re given the bare minimum, both about this family, and their beach neighbors, that wholeheartedly compromised my interpretation of them, making me feel as careless as possible to the tragedy of their plight, despite the movie quite often spelling it out to me invasively. On the former, there’s very little time in the balance for the audience to soak up the stakes and evaluate the change in environmental temperature that occurs every few minutes or so, as the result of a new twist in the motorized machine. It undercuts many moments of dramatic tension and magnetic momentum for a series of repetitious scenarios that play out about the way you would expect, making “Old” one of the hardest of Shyamalan’s films to invest in, despite the fact that I feel there are three worse films in his respective filmography.

– Unbelievable dialogue. There’s an overall lack of cadence and subtlety to the surface level dialogue dispersed throughout the film that glaringly points to the spoon-fed exposition to the audience being influenced and initiated off-screen. This not only leaves the characters feeling hollow and underdeveloped in conjunction with the underwhelming characterization that I previously mentioned, but unveils matters about the mystery in ways that feel unnatural for these conclusions materialized in the perception of the characters. The lines themselves are every bit as obvious as they are unintentionally laughable for how they’re delivered, making the script feel like a series of choreographed bullet points that we the audience can translate from a mile away, especially considering no two people in the human language ask a question while literally spelling out everything about the situation that they are asking about in the first place.

– Flat cast. Considering I am a fan of Bernal, Krieps, and especially Sewell, it’s more than a little disappointing that they are directed with a level of laughably bad over the top deliveries, complete with tonally incoherent scenes among the worst in Shyamalan’s career. In this respect, I don’t blame the cast themselves for the lack of their depth with one another, albeit except for Bernal and Krieps, who persist their respective characters without a single ounce of chemistry between them, and sleep through two characters who should be a vital part of this plot, but are constantly eclipsed by the bigger bizarre characters emitting from around them. The child characters are fine enough, mainly Thomassin McKenzie and Alex Wolff both handing in another movie-stealing effort, but the delve into their characters isn’t as deep as the waters surrounding them, and when combined with Shyamalan’s overtly melodramatic enveloping leaves plenty more to be desired in a cast that should’ve made up one of the director’s more promising ensembles.

– Illogical consistencies. Where do I start with this one? In fear for spoilers, I will keep it to the matters that can easily be seen in the movie’s marketing trailers. My favorite is definitely how the kids’ swimsuits somehow evolve and grow with their respective characters, despite the fact that their bodies are four or five times bigger, only thirty minutes into the isolation. One character is given an adult bikini, but that only begs the question why this character carried with her a second bikini, especially considering she was already wearing one. Beyond this, it’s the rules of gravity themselves that can’t be manipulated, regardless of this movie taking place on planet Shyamalan. For instance, how the kids age so dramatically, but the adults don’t have a single wrinkle, despite a character quite literally saying this. Nobody’s hair ever turns grey, no one starves despite the fact that literal years are flying off of their lives in a matter of minutes with none of them eating a single bite, and one character still grows facial hair despite the rules establishing that hair and fingernails don’t grow because of dead material in their DNA. If the movie isn’t going to follow the rules that it sets up, then I will have an even difficult time investing in this already silly plot.

– Horrendous cinematography. The winner for worst influence behind the lens goes to Shyamalan and longtime cinematographer Mike Gioulakis for constructing some of the most distracting frames that I have ever seen put to a professional film. Most of it is within the movement of the camera itself, persisting a series of long takes that on their own are impressive enough, but compromised when it focuses more on reactionary shots instead of focusing on what is happening in the context of the scene. It takes attention away from where it rightfully should be, and places it on characters who have little to no relevance with what is taking shape. On top of this, the framing itself is among the worst I’ve ever seen, often cutting off characters’ faces during pivotal moments of dialogue delivered from them, and other times depicting these strangely unappealing angles that are a chore to cohesively interpret just what is happening. It’s the one element of production that will inevitably be remembered most for the movie, just for all of the wrong reasons that overcomplicate the execution of scenes that should’ve been given a grounded approach.

– Underwhelming climax. One positive to this respect is that the mysteries of the movie and ensuing plot are revealed, but they resonate with a complete lack of impact, especially considering how it’s framed for the closing moments of the film. The revelation itself feels like a bit of an afterthought, especially considering there are two fade to black sequences, where it feels like the movie could’ve ended at either one of them. For my money, I would’ve rather the film, like the novel it’s based on, just leave the mysteries of the island a secret of the culture. In trying to answer too much, it takes away the mystique and ambiance of the plot conflict undesirably, sending audiences home with every loose end tied, but in a way that deconstructs all of the hard work set by its rules and logic during the first half set-up. But I guess the benefit to that is we won’t get a sequel, so right on.

My Grade: 4/10 or D-