The Island

…is repugnant in every way

2005

Director: Michael Bay

Starring: Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johansson, Steve Buschemi, Sean Bean

I wouldn't.

THE SETUP:

Bunch of clones live to be selected to go to ‘The Island,’ which is really where they’ll be harvested for organs for their genetic originals.

DISCUSSION:

Ugh. I love cheesy sci-fi, especially dystopian future sci-fi, so I got really jazzed to see The Island, which promised [and delivered] to be a lower-reading-level mash-up of THX-1138 and Logan’s Run, but soon enough the relentless ugly viewpoint of the movie and the OUT-OF-CONTROL PRODUCT PLACEMENT conspired to make enduring this thing a chore.

Where shall we start? How ‘bout with the treatment of women here? This is expressed most plainly in McCord [Steve Buschemi], Ewan McGregor’s friend who helps him escape. McCord, who looks like Steve Buschemi, inexplicably has a supermodel-quality girlfriend, implying that he keeps her around as a sex object and that what she’s getting from the relationship may not entirely be satisfaction of her emotional needs. She is around to let the guests in and sit them down, but then McCord dismissively sends her off to fetch booze, which she happily complies with. We later see the French maid and nurse outfits that she apparently wears for their sex. Yep, the movie implies, she’s a slut, and she’s there for the man’s pleasure. The movie’s viewpoint is that this is FUCKIN’ AWESOME, don’t you agree, dude? We later have a completely unnecessary ‘joke’ about how you should never trust a woman with your credit card. Even Jordan [Scarlett Johansson] is leered at with every opportunity that arises. It starts ugly, and doesn’t get much better.

Then how about we throw in a few unnecessary gay jokes that deliver the old ideas that it would be the most mortifying thing in the world for someone to think you’re gay, and later that gays are effeminate “chatty cathy’s” who preen and fawn over real men, and turn into simpering little girls powerless to defend themselves when challenged? Or how about the film’s relentless fetishizing of cool cars, awesome motorcycles, and gadgets of all kinds? Or how about its wanton unconcern for the numerous bystanders obviously killed or maimed by our heroes’ explosive escapes? We don’t see them, and the movie would rather we not think of them.

And what about the casual use of holocaust gas chamber imagery? Is that issue just so played-out that it’s material for blockbuster summer entertainment? Maybe next time we can have Vin Diesel deliver some whup-ass to a darkie who plans to crash an airliner into a skyscraper? That would be fuckin’ awesome, no? That’s summer FUN!

And let’s not forget the film’s ultimate message that evil doctors with God complexes want to use clones [i.e. stem-cell research] to cure the ills of the sick, and in order to do that need to cover up the fact that the clones are thinking, feeling viable human beings? And why not include a scene wherein these embryonic fetuses are wantonly slaughtered? The film even includes an unmissable shout-out to Jesus, which got applause at the showing I attended.

And what about the wall-to-wall product placement? I didn’t count the exact number of references, but I know it’s more than ten and probably closer to [if not above] twenty. There is NO attempt to integrate these cleanly into the storyline, they all receive loving product shots devoid of critical context. The most appalling is a full-on, dead-center product shot of a bottle of Michelob. I think the movie is trying to have it both ways by portraying this future society as an extension of our own, in which products are inextricably linked with our daily lives, but in order to pull that off, your movie needs to express some critical distance on this phenomenon. This movie portrays it as a logical part of life, and seems to see nothing wrong with it. With the amount of advertising being done here, they should pay YOU to see this movie. Why not issue a coupon packet to audiences as they enter the theater, or set up product kiosks in the lobby? That’d provide synergy and drive sales.

And that critical distance is entirely what’s missing here. The point of view of this movie is that random violence, outrageous sexism, rampant consumerism and corporate disregard of human life is just the way it is, but at least it looks fuckin’ cool when a guy crashes into a glass bar in a public place. With the recent real-life specter of the intrusion of bombings and killings erupting at random in any urban setting, I’m surprised [well, not really] that this film treats that as just the way of the world, so you should garner all the hot babes and cool gadgets that you can, and fuck everyone else.

Now, some of you may be saying “Dude, it’s just a movie!” I understand that, and if the movie were capable of delivering genuine movie fun, one might be more apt to overlook it, but it can’t. It would also be another thing if the movie were constructed without a cohesive viewpoint, but it does have one: it has the viewpoint of an overgrown horny 14-year-old boy, with all the lack of conscience and moral absolutism that it implies. Yeah, you’re just going to watch explosions in air conditioning, but just as an adult wouldn’t want to hang out with a group of video-game addicted 7th graders who won’t stop making puerile jokes, you wouldn’t want to hang out in this movie.

If you want to see a movie that, by way of contrast, very successfully integrates real-world terror imagery by tying them to a responsible and intelligent viewpoint, see War of the Worlds. That movie can get away with trafficking in very real 9/11 horrors because it presents them in the context of a critically distant viewpoint and engages the issues that arise seriously.

So, the movie itself? I was surprised how little resonance the story had. I mean, we’re talking about a quest to escape mass enslavement and free others from being killed, but eh, whatever. I think that’s a result of the movie’s viewpoint that this is just the way the world is. The constant extreme close-ups and relentless movement on screen also conspire to rob the action moments of any genuine excitement. In the desire to make movies that are “roller coaster rides,” someone forgot that even roller coaster rides have ups and downs.

I like how the poster and trailer for this film say “from the director of The Rock and Armageddon.” Huh, how could they have neglected to include the title Pearl Harbor? There’s also a clone/original confusion scene included here in the inexplicable hope that none of the mainstream sci-fi audience has seen Star Trek 6. I was also surprised that the movie includes a giveaway image from the climax of this film in the trailer and ON THE POSTER. You’ll also note that the earlier poster design was revised into a more cleavage-friendly version. I was really surprised that the film, for all the build-up to it, failed to include a shot of the holographic scales falling off the eyes of the oblivious clones. That’s an easy payoff, and it’s curious that it wasn’t exploited.

And, though we’re used to it, can we be permitted a sigh of disappointment that at some point the promising Scarlett Johansson apparently said “Integrity? What-EVER!”

Yesterday I was at Coney Island and ate at the boardwalk shacks. This film is the equivalent of the Italian sausage sandwich I ate there: at first you think “Ooh, that would be fun, to consume something really greasy and trashy,” and a few minutes afterward you think “God, I’m gonna barf.”

SHOULD YOU WATCH IT?

I don’t suppose I could stop you, if you have your mind set.

RELATED MOVIES:

LOGAN’S RUN is the model for this movie, is a lot more fun and was done better.
THX-1138 is another obvious reference, and is engaging for a while, but the ending is such a dud it leaves a bitter aftertaste.
WAR OF THE WORLDS provides an excellent contrast to this movie, by showing how real-life political events can be successfully used when presented within a thoughtful viewpoint.

Bad movies | Gay movies | Movie reviews | Video reviews | Video guide