Ariana DeBose | 100Films.co.uk

Here we have the kind of film that gets branded as “science-fiction”, simply because it’s set in space; but, as an opening title card is at pains to point out, the actual setting is the present day. Mankind has a permanent presence in space on the eponymous International Space Station — that’s not sci-fi, that’s reality. Any speculative elements here are no more implausible or futuristic than in, say, a Jack Ryan story. Heck, James Bond films have routinely featured more impossible, fictional gadgets than anything seen here, and no one’s seriously describing those as “sci-fi” — except maybe Moonraker, and that’s really only because it’s set in space. That said, if we take the genre at face value — fiction about science — well, space exploration is pretty sciencey, and the I.S.S.’s crew are scientists, so, yeah, I guess maybe it is science-fiction, in a literal sense.

Anyway, as I said, the film is set in the present day, with the I.S.S. currently crewed by three American and three Russian astronauts. Is that often the case? I think they’re the two primary countries to crew the station, but astronauts of various nationalities end up on there; I’m just not sure how regularly. It certainly simplifies the film’s plot to keep everyone distinctly on one of the two sides, because of what happens next: down on Earth, war breaks out between the US and Russia, and each trio’s commander is instructed by their respective ground control to secure the station as a key asset. (Why would a war on Earth care about a scientific research space station at a time when space is hardly a key battleground? The film does have an explanation for that.)

It is, in my view, an enticing setup; indeed, it’s what sold me on watching the film as soon as I heard about it. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have any fresh ideas beyond that inciting incident. What unfurls over the next hour-or-so (after a bit of character establishment and plot setup — the film runs under 90 minutes before credits) is a moderately tense “who can be trusted?” thriller, with both sides dubious of the other’s intent, as well as degrees of distrust within their own camps. But it never manages to take that anywhere surprising, with every twist feeling first-idea obvious. It’s not that the film telegraphs these narrative turns, but if you’ve seen a thriller before, you’ll likely expect every one.

Perhaps if the sides hadn’t been so neatly divided — if there had been crew members from other countries, with conflicting loyalties — the film would’ve had more juice. Part of the problem is a limited cast size: the crew is just six people; teams of three are already quite limited for generating internal conflict, so if you cut that down to two with two floating (pun semi-intended) members… Well, now we’re perhaps getting into the territory of judging the film for what it isn’t than for what it is. Nonetheless, it feels like maybe those involved could or should have spent more time exploring those possibilities themselves.

Presumably this was a relatively low-budget endeavour, given the shortage of marketing push (its UK release, three whole months after its US bow, seems to be fairly limited) and lack of major star wattage — though there’s a fair chance you’ll recognise most of the cast, depending what else you consume. The lead is Ariana DeBose, of West Side Story and “Angela Bassett did the thing” fame. Her commander is the generally-recognisable Chris Messina, with the American side rounded out by John Gallagher Jr, who I always remember from The Newsroom, but has also been in the likes of Westworld and 10 Cloverfield Lane. The Russians are led by The Americans’ Costa Ronin, alongside the prolific Pilou Asbæk (Borgen, Game of Thrones, Ghost in the Shell, etc) and the only cast member I didn’t recognise, Masha Mashkova (maybe you’ll know her if you watched McMafia).

Despite the limited cost, the realisation of space and weightlessness is decent — don’t expect Gravity when one crew member sets off on a spacewalk, but the effects are more than serviceable. I’m even curious how they achieved weightlessness — I presume they didn’t have the budget for Apollo 13-style “vomit comet” flights, nor Interstellar’s complex rigs, and sometimes you do suspect the actors are just bobbing around a bit, but it mostly works. Sadly, the current Blu-ray release is entirely extras-free (not even a trailer), so it remains a mystery to me for now.

It’s a shame that I.S.S. doesn’t offer something exceptional enough to elevate it to the ranks of those other space films I just mentioned. Personally, however, I just fundamentally enjoy seeing films set in the present-day/near-future of real-world space exploration, so I’m still glad it exists.

I.S.S. is in UK and Irish cinemas from tomorrow, Friday 26th April 2024. It’s the 29th film in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2024.

I remember when I first heard about this remake, I couldn’t quite understand what they were going to add by redoing it. The original is a widely-acclaimed classic — why remake it? I should’ve remembered one of the golden rules of cinema: always trust Spielberg.

If you’re somehow unfamiliar with West Side Story, it’s a reimagining of Romeo and Juliet set in 1950s New York City, with the two warring families replaced by two warring street gangs. Although the teenage love story is still present, obv., the strength here is more in its depiction of cultural clashes between different groups of immigrants — essentially, the heart of the American experience. Like most musicals, it started out on the stage before being filmed in 1961. I’m not going to dispute the classic status of that film, but it has dated — most problematically in the use of brown face to depict Puerto Rican characters, but also in its overall style, which, though shot in part on the real streets of New York, is quite stagey. Plus it made various changes to the original work, primarily in the order and therefore context of multiple musical numbers; something that Spielberg, as a fan of the stage production, sort to restore.

In short, it worked. Well, I’ve never seen the stage production, so I don’t know if this film is more faithful to it, but it feels like a superior execution of the constituent elements. Primarily, it deepens some of the characters and their motives, most especially Tony (the Romeo figure) and Chino (his ostensible love rival, though you’d be forgiven for missing that entirely in the ’61 film). In the original film, I almost felt like Tony and Maria were a subplot, only being regarded as the leads because they’re Romeo and Juliet in what we know is an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. Here, they get more screen time, both together and apart, and more shades to their characters, so it actually feels like they’re the leads. That doesn’t suddenly make them the most interesting characters, but you can’t have everything.

This added depth comes from the screenplay as much as the performances, which were great in the original but are fantastic here too. The Oscar-winning turn by Ariana DeBose as Anita is indeed the standout, but Rachel Zegler is perfectly sweet as Maria, and Rita Moreno thankfully has more to offer than just a tribute cameo in the Doc role. There was a lot of talk that Mike Faist was snubbed by awards for his Riff. He’s good, but doesn’t quite equal Russ Tambyln for me. The weak link is clearly Ansel Elgort as Tony. I had wondered if people were just saying that because of the allegations against him, but he’s not ideal for the role. That said, I do think he’s adequate, and the only reason to find his presence actively distasteful is if you can’t set aside the real-life stories.

All these comparisons are inevitable, and it’s mostly in the eye of the beholder which individual aspect is better in which version; but I think it’s undeniable that Spielberg’s film looks more cinematic. It’s not just superior to the ’61 film, but a masterclass in itself: the lighting, the shot composition, the camera moves, the blocking; several songs are more excitingly staged than in the original, not least arguably the most famous, America. DoP Janusz Kaminski has been doing sterling work with Spielberg for decades now, so perhaps it’s easy to overlook just how talented they both are. In an era when mega-budgeted films increasingly look like TV shows that lean on green screen to scrape by, this is Cinema at its purest.

Perhaps that’s why, overall, I prefer this version. Sure, the original is a classic, but Spielberg’s film is ultimately more cinematic (less stage-minded), less campy (though it doesn’t entirely ditch that aspect), and more modern, but appropriately so (with race-appropriate casting instead of awkward brownface). It’s perhaps proof that any remake can be worthwhile if done for the right reasons by the right people.

West Side Story placed 7th on my list of The Best Films I Saw in 2022.

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Tag Archives: Ariana DeBose

I.S.S. (2023)

West Side Story (2021)