Film review: Serenity (2005)

The next stop will be Sharkjump Central. Please mind the gap.

(cross-posted from here)

Serenity is, perhaps, one of the most bizarrely-birthed movies of recent years. Based on the TV show Firefly, created by Joss Whedon (of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Dollhouse fame) it joins the elite club, also occupied by Star Trek: The Motion Picture, of movies spawned from cancelled TV series.

Firefly, ostensibly, is a “space western”. The clash of genres sounds bizarre here, but trust me: it works superbly. Nathan Fillion (an actor no-one in the UK has ever heard of, unfortunately, seeing as he’s arguably a better actor than Milo Ventipuckermouth off Heroes and his face looks less like a rat’s arse) stars as Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the spaceship Serenity, an ageing, cramped rustbucket that’s like the twenty-sixth century equivalent of a Victoria line Tube carriage.

(Warning: spoilers follow.)

Part of the reason Firefly was so superb, apart from its unique setting, rich visual design and excellent storytelling, was the fact that all the characters felt unique, and therefore real. Reynolds, for example, has a predominantly rather dark, brooding and withdrawn character that is deeply scarred by the fact he was on the losing side of an inter-planetary civil war.

However, in the first episode of the series, he plays a dark, cruel practical joke on the ship’s new doctor, and then has a laugh about it with the other members of the crew. He’s dark and brooding, alright, but he’s also got a sense of humour: these little things instantly add an extra dimension to each character, and make them feel real.

Serenity, on the other hand, appears to dispense with the complex and rich characterisations of Firefly for an altogether simpler and more bare story, both in terms of characters and plot. Everyone seems to have become a one-dimensional parody of their former selves: “angry guy” Reynolds softens up around “slut” Inara, while “nasal tit” ship’s doctor Simon and his “mad psychic” sister River do a lot of shouting and running. Meanwhile, priest Shepherd Book, one of the most consistently intriguing and fascinating characters in Firefly, is relegated to around two scenes, and Kaylee, the proudly girly and delightfully likable engineer, turns her previous crush on Simon into servile fawning. And the previously witty-and-madly-in-love coupling of first mate Zoe and pilot Wash? That turns into a recursive loop of shouting matches followed by cries of “oh my god, baby, TALK TO ME.”

All these characters are played excellently by the respective actors, considering the apparent offal they were given to work with. The direction is also reasonable, although much, much darker than Firefly’s and toning down the Western aspect significantly in favour of a more “sci-fi” environment. (When it comes to Firefly, think “Blade Runner, but brighter and more Western.)

The thing is, not one part of the movie feels “better” than the TV series. A common criticism of film adaptations is that they feel like an extended TV episode; this is worse, where the movie feels like a failed attempt to revive the TV series. In this way, it shares yet more characteristics with Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Along with characters who are impossible to care about, there’s also a plot that draws on the worst tendencies of the TV stories and exacerbates them greatly. There’s zombie-like “Reavers”, a cretinous government operative played by that security advisor out of 2012, an almost Scooby-Doo like plan from Reynolds and a terrible, terrible example of deus ex machina which leads to an immensely unsatisfying ending.

Overall, if you’re at all a fan of Firefly, you’ll feel short-changed by Serenity, and if you see Serenity having not seen Firefly, you’ll be put off it unnecessarily. This is not good.

Perhaps I’m being unfair: overall, it’s not a bad movie. It all looks exceptionally pretty, considering its low budget, and it still has a few signature Firefly touches: space is still silent, and River has her entertaining “childish” moments. However, it certainly doesn’t live up to its predecessor, and is most definitely overrated: claims that it’s “the finest sci-fi movie ever made” are incredibly overblown (that merit still goes to 2010, the original The Day The Earth Stood Still, Star Trek II/III, Alien(s) or Blade Runner.)

With the previously-established cast of clichéd peripheral characters and out-of-character main cast, you’d probably be doubtful they could squeeze another one in. And you’d be wrong.

Just to complete the set, “Mr. Universe,” a mysterious and reclusive techno-wizard who lives on an isolated planet with his sex doll wife, who finds a “subliminal message” encrypted in a TV transmission and then checks the timestamp on a few computer files. As with Star Trek, it’s set too far in the future to earn a place in the Implausible Computers Guide: however, as far as technology goes, these elements dance between the clichéd, the inane, the passable and the ridiculous.

Overall, I’m finding it very hard to like Serenity. My expectations were high, and were simply not met—however, it’s still a reasonable enough film. Hence, it’s gaining a score of 6.5 out of 10.