Review of Life (2017) by Theomancer — 25 Mar 2017

I'm a diehard sci-fi fan, so it's not simply "non-scifi critics" who think this movie is bad.

Instead of an awesome suspense/thriller in the cold darkness of space, this quickly becomes fundamentally a lame "monster movie." It's utterly a B-movie that was given access to a triple-A budget. Incredible sets, fantastic aesthetics, gorgeous visuals -- and just awful application.

This movie is basically the opposite of good sci-fi. Oftentimes, sci-fi stuff will have great characters and story, but with a low budget -- but you can be somewhat forgiving on the aesthetics because the material is worthwhile. This movie is the opposite of what you want: great visuals to wallpaper over the terrible film beneath.

***** SPOILERS BELOW *****.

The movie is great in the beginning, when they're still doing all the set-up. When the life-form is still small-but-growing, it's an interesting and intriguing film. But there's an inverse relationship between the size of the creature and the quality of the film. At first, it's this horrifying amoeba-like (octopus-like) being, very otherworldly, and therefore allows the imagination to "fill in the blanks" and make the prospect of such a creature extra frightening. But the filmmakers eventually go so far as to even give the creature a face(!!), and it just destroys the immersion and "verisimilitude" of the film. It's fine and cute that they give the life-form a little pet name in the beginning, when it's a lab specimen -- but the continued use of its little pet name when it becomes a ravenous killing creature is just obnoxious.

The fact that they even swap the camera to "monster-vision" to give us the perspective of the creature at one point is just borderline campy -- but again, a triple-A budget version.

I do love sci-fi: I love Star Trek (every series!), Battlestar Galactica, The Expanse, ALIEN, Firefly, Star Wars, etc. "Life" is fine as a cheap thrill monster flick with great visuals, but it's not a great film. It's bad.