Review of Doomsday (2008) by Tino R — 01 Oct 2010

5.6/10.

Neil Marshall?s ?Doomsday? is a film that seemingly was ripped right out of a comic book. It could indeed become one, if it had the potential of a franchise. But then again, ?Doomsday? is a better film than some franchise-starters (an example would be ?Friday the 13th?), but that doesn?t make it intriguing. With ?The Descent?, Neil Marshall directed a frightening, flawless claustrophobic horror film in which he made himself a big name in horror/thriller cinema. ?Doomsday? proves that while he?s no legend, Neil Marshall can still make an entertaining film. While never interesting, ?Doomsday? is a good example of pure entertainment. Perhaps not the best entertainment around, but in many ways ?Doomsday? still felt like something that could only come out of Neil Marshall. Without the energetic action sequences and solid visual style, ?Doomsday? probably would have sucked. Thankfully, this is an adrenalin fueled thrill-ride for at least the last half of the film, and that?s why it was kind of fun to watch. Sadly, it?s flawed. The story isn?t very absorbing and the characters just aren?t well fleshed out. The violence is fun but stupid, and there just aren?t enough good ideas to create an interesting premise. Now, the good news is that there?s blood, violence, and energy within this little mediocre package of a film. That should make it all the more enjoyable for action fans and/or thriller fans, although even the hardcore genre fans will probably find something to bash about this film. Even so, it?s fun to watch. The cinematography is good and the music is pretty mediocre, making for a slightly artsy yet somewhat wasted attempt at an epidemic film. More zombies, damn it! Marshall?s directing seems a bit off here (at least when you compare his dedication to ?The Descent? to this), and a rather unbalances mix of gore and anti-scares only makes matters the slightest bit worse.

I like the way that ?Doomsday? starts out, but the rest of the first half of the film is less energetic than the second half. There?s not too much of a ?plot? here, given that most of the film is spent making use of violence and chase sequences. It?s entertaining, but in no way absorbing. So the idea is this: a virus is wiping out humanity, and one woman thinks she can find a cure. To do so, she must cross to the other side of the wall into the land of the savages and the infected. The heroin agrees to do so without ease, and soon gets dragged down under to the world of the men and woman at the level of savage beast. Will she escape? Certainly. In fact, it won?t take too long until she does. Sadly, the journey doesn?t end with her and a couple of survivors escaping the dark underworld of the cannibals, and the heroin goes on to find some medieval castle. And you know what that means, right? Knight VS. Futuristic Woman! Joy? Not really. Fun? Possibly. There?s not a whole lot of plot needed in this technically well constructed but substance-wise bleak epidemic flick, but that doesn?t mean that one eccentric loner shouldn?t go all out and add a little thing called ?plot?. Because despite what Neil Marshall thinks, we like plot. The audience WANTS a good story, not simply a ?good time?. But then again, at least a good time is provided. Some films can?t even manage to do that. Therefore, Neil Marshall has somewhat impressed me?again. Although this time, the film he directs is literally, nothing special. Would I have liked it better if it focused more on interest than explosions? Damn right I would. Would I have loved it if some huge actor came in the middle of all these explosions, shooting a gun about? Oh yes, but no luck there. So ?Doomsday? pretty much delivers a whole world of infectious disappointment in the story department, although otherwise it?s not half bad?for the most part at least.

The acting (more criticism alert!) can range from bad to so-so. In this case, the heroin, portrayed by Rhona Mitra, is so-so. Let?s face it: Her character just isn?t interesting. And neither is she, really, but at least she can act better than SOME PEOPLE. Bob Hoskins is actually pretty decent as an anti-tough guy role (for once), although he?s not a show stealer. The only potential show stealer is Malcolm McDowell, who does anything but. To be honest, this is simply another lesser effort from McDowell, who used to be able to portray complex characters. It?s a shame that even McDowell, a great actor, can decay with the rest of cinema?s films. It?s also a surprise. Damn, I hate surprises.

This is an action film rather than a horror film. It?s also a thriller rather than a zombie flick. The fact that it actually markets itself as a zombie film is just freaking hilarious all around, although as a thriller it ain?t half bad. Sure, it?s got explosions which genuinely generate thrills. I don?t really like explosions, since they seem to take center stage most of the time. However, that does not make this film a bad one. It?s an action flick and a pretty decent one too. The actual action sequences are filled with unending energy, and anything in between simply feels a bit too bland. The story definitely hurts the film overall, but it?s still sort of fun. The film is pretty well shot in some scenes, although in others it feels a tad too bland for its own good. The film?s visual style is meant to create a gritty feel, and in doing so the lighting isn?t all that good for the more intense action sequences (most of them being towards the end). Tyler Bates provides a decent score which certainly mixes in with the level of violence and all, but never adds up to a compelling original score. The film?s gore is also a seemingly major aspect. While it never completely relies on it alone, ?Doomsday? features a handful of bloody death sequences. Luckily, none of them are prolonged. There are torture scenes, incineration scenes?you name it, and ?Doomsday? has most likely got it. This ain?t a ?torture porn? flick, and it?s more of an action film than anything else. None the less, it feels a tad unfulfilling when it?s over. But then again, what more did I expect?

Visually cool but anything but arresting, ?Doomsday? is forgettable but fun filmmaking. It?s the worst out of Neil Marshall?s films, and hopefully it stays that way. Luckily, that still makes it pretty decent. I might watch it again to have a couple potential laughs, but nothing more. If anything, the film needs to be either more ridiculous or more serious. Either way is fine, but I?d like a little thing called ?plot? and another little thing called ?characters?. Neil Marshall has provided both things in his past outings, although not here. Not here at all. If you must get your action film fix, then watch ?Doomsday?. It?s fun for a one-time sort of thing, although it?s not a whole lot more. It can be boring as well as too fixated on violence, although it never forgets to NEVER stop being actiony. If I say action flick, I mean action flick. I don?t necessarily mean this mediocrity?but it should do. Only watch it if you?re a part of the not-to-expanded target audience.