Atmospheric Film Filled With Squandered Potential

Rating: 6/10 (13 June 2010)

Part 'The Black Hole', part 'Sunlight', 'Event Horizon' meshes the epic sci-fi 'base under siege' by mad scientists and the forces of nature plot of both while failing to achieve the greatness of either, eschewing intelligence and depth for shallow, B-grade disposable fluff that entertains just enough for the audience not to feel too cheated and earns the studio a fast buck. Top-drawer actors and well-crafted flashy effects are used to gloss over a meaningless plot and a wasted opportunity, for 'Event Horizon' explores some intriguing concepts and has several elements of a decent film.
Since I first saw it on the big screen, one thing that had always stuck in my mind about 'Event Horizon' was that eerie atmosphere. Director Paul Anderson should certainly explore the horror genre, being adept at building a climate of tension and foreboding. This accentuates the story's central premise: that the ship 'Event Horizon' itself has somehow become affected by the forces it encountered in another dimension. Anderson does a good job of actualising these indelible phenomena on the big screen, keeping the characters and the viewer on edge: we know all hell is going to break loose, but not why or how. He is helped in this goal by the tried and tested talents of an experienced visual effects team that includes department supervisor Richard Yuricich, who earlier proved himself in such greats as '2001' and 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture'. The result earned 'Event Horizon' the description 'weird' when it first came out and the viewers' inability to qualify what they were seeing was one of the film's greatest strengths - no one was entirely sure how real the unexplained anomalies were, which the ending capitalizes upon.
Unfortunately, these efforts are severely undermined by a script that has no interest in exploring the incredible scientific concepts behind the conflict, rendering all the unanswered questions and 'Shining'-style sequences meaningless. It's rather like launching into an intelligent conversation with someone who suddenly decides things are getting too 'heavy' before retreating to the safer topic of whether or not Simon Cowell deserves a knighthood. This has the knock-on effect of ensuring that much of the characters' dialogue is as two-dimensional as their characterisation: if there's a scientist aboard, the chances of him still being sane by the closing credits are about as likely as any military characters present exploring the Kip Thorne ruminations on wormhole theory. The point is not to suggest that anyone should have lapsed into a Carl Sagan lecture on the nature of the universe - those who have sat through the works of Dan Brown will, if still awake, be all too familiar with storytellers more interested in being didactic than genuinely entertaining. Rather, it's the usual desire by the studios not to alienate the meat-heads in the audience with too much of this thing we call 'thinking'. This doubtless also explains the choice of music for the beginning and end credits, which hurriedly promises "don't worry - there's gonna be shootin' 'n killin'" - although Michael Kamen's incidental score is thankfully more in tune with his usual standard.
Still, Laurence Fishburne and Sam Neill are no strangers to film work held together by more money than brains, the Matrix sequels and pointless 'Under The Mountain' remake being more recent examples. Both are capable of giving so much more, with Neill as usual the best-served out of a modest banquet. Once remembered for playing the son of Satan, this is a man who can convey a great deal without ever saying a word. His Dr Weir alter ego, however, needed far more development if we were to be sympathetic with his plight. Fishburne is never allowed to explore any facial expression other than serious concern, although this might have something to do with his polar opposite in the form of Cooper, as played by Richard T. Nelson, whom I really want to believe is not simply there to be the token 'Funny Black Man', but Cooper is really convincing in the role. Other luminaries worthy of mention include Katherine Quinlan and Jason Isaacs, but only because we've seen them act elsewhere, and Sean Pertwee follows his father into sci-fi for the first time to lesser acclaim, though he is hardly provided with much of a challenge.
Much of my annoyance at the lack of effort put into 'Event Horizon' stems from the fact that I am the right demographic for sci-fi/horror. It's frustrating to see a film that in some ways explores themes and story lines I enjoy, but stops short, terrified that it might actually become something truly decent. On the one hand, I could argue that later successes like Danny Boyle's 'Sunshine' raised the bar for the genre, leaving half-baked efforts such as this dancing the limbo beneath it with miles of clear headway up top. Yet precursors like 'The Black Hole' and 'Alien', which, while not necessarily exploring more intelligent story lines, were constructed with greater maturity by genuine film-makers like Ridley Scott, not interested in assembling a film with the help of a marketing team and interested in proper scripting over cheap thrills. Funnily enough, those are the films people still remember today.
As such, 'Event Horizon' bears up well in appearance, but falls short once you take a closer peek. It feels like a very emblematic Hollywood blockbuster, half-filled with genuinely-talented artistes, but driven by a studio anxiously matching their box-office winning formula with audience demographics. Closer inspection reveals that its high aims are in fact the shadow of a much shorter arm outstretched in front of the wall where the puppetry is being performed for short-term gain only. Do yourself a favour and dig up the classics or watch considered efforts like 'Sunlight' instead. If like me, you haven't seen 'Event Horizon' since its original release and its spooky atmosphere left you with fond memories, keep it that way.