Color out of Space

"Now all my tales are based on the fundamental premise that common human laws and interests and emotions have no validity or significance in the vast cosmos-at-large. To me there is nothing but puerility in a tale in which the human form – and the local human passions and conditions and standards – are depicted as native to other worlds or other universes. To achieve the essence of real externality, whether of time or space or dimension, one must forget that such things as organic life, good and evil, love and hate, and all such local attributes of a negligible and temporary race called mankind, have any existence at all.Only the human scenes and characters must have human qualities. These must be handled with unsparing realism, (not catch-penny romanticism) but when we cross the line to the boundless and hideous unknown – the shadow-haunted Outside – we must remember to leave our humanity and terrestrialism at the threshold."- H.P. LovecraftSo the storyline is as such, a meteor falls into the yard on a farm belonging to the Gardener family. As the story progresses it becomes known that a living, cognizant threat dwells in the well on the farm and begins changing the local flora and fauna. The residents become psychologically and physically affected by the presence as well…I have to say I absolutely love this film! It is one of the more faithful film adaptations, if not THE most faithful, I have seen of Lovecraft’s work. I had read the story, “The Colour Out of Space” a week before seeing the film and both left me with the same helpless and haunted feelings. Now the film, being a modernization of the tale, does take liberties with the material, however, it is all well within the spirit and (to some) sanctity of the story. Example? The Gardener family has been living on a farm for a year when the meteorite impacts and things get strange pretty fast (when you think about it, it would have to be an accelerated process in this digital day and age) rather than the changes taking a year to reach full swing as they do in the original story. And that's just one of many changes made... But don't worry, the literary framework is all very much in tact regardless.Director Richard Stanley digs right in making the viewer at home with the Gardener family in a down-to-earth way that makes you care about them, especially once the Shit hits the fan... And it hits hard! The family, at the point in time that we encounter them, is strained emotionally from the mother having battled with cancer and prevailed. That was a personal touch given to the film as the director’s mother had passed away from that. As in the story there are three children; Benny is the oldest who escapes by smoking weed with the local squatter Ezra (beautifully performed by Tommy Chong), Lavinia who is the middle child who wants nothing more than to escape and then there’s the youngest, Jack who is caught in the middle of it all. The family interactions and dialogue in the beginning of the film set the stage as to who these people are and for what is to happen to them.I do not dislike Nicholas Cage as an actor, for me it's hit or miss depending on what project it is that he's in. For this film, once the weird sets in, Cage fluctuates between a father doing his best to hold his family together following an emotionally trying ordeal with his wife and the persona of his abusive father in a way that seemed slightly cartoonish to me at first, but the crazy is appropriate for what happens to this family during the course of the film. For me Cage controlled the fluctuation well... And the remaining cast members react to him recognizing his behavior which is heart breaking for them as the family falls to ruin. It's convincing... Or at least convincing enough. I read that the enthusiasm and energy he brought to the project helped make the film and make it what it is... You'll hear no complaints from me. Madeleine Arthur who portrays Lavinia Gardner was definitely a standout in this film though not in a way that would detract from the other characters/performances. The family chemistry really works in the film.The meteor impact was not your usual rock falling from the sky bit either. This is definitely stranger and more disturbing. Those two words describe this film perfectly. Now once the changes begin some of it is subtle and some of it is anything but! So, subtle... The glistening of the "color" in the ice cubes from the well water in Nathan Gardener's drinks. Not so subtle... Let's just say you won't ever look at Alpacas the same way. The practical creature fx and the digital visual fx combined are used beautifully in this film. It's a good thing Stanley is so well read in this type of fiction because he and his team nailed it. The color, the strange and mutated flora and fauna... It is clear this property and family are being invaded by an otherworldly presence that the director leaves as much to ambiguity as Lovecraft did on paper.The threat cannot be understood or quantified or explained by any knowledge or science we possess. THAT is the essence of Lovecraft's story and that is how Stanley presented the film. And there is some pretty harrowing stuff in this film and while jarring and even heartbreaking... The threat never wavers... It is what it is and it does what it does... It takes what it needs and it leaves ruin in its wake. Even if you haven't seen the film yet, if you've read the story that should come as no surprise.I don't want to spoil anything so I'll stop there and recap: The cast is great, it is truly a nightmare watching this family endure what it does. It is frightening, disturbing and relentless. The film is true to the story despite changes made and devoutly faithful to the spirit of the writing. I was honestly shocked at how spot on this film is... Not because I had any doubt in Richard Stanley's abilities, but because I never thought anyone would get it this close!

The good: The visual effects with the color prisms and the overall landscape was truly a work of art. The chaotically beautiful set decor made an excellent ambiance in reference to the Color. Beautiful at most times. Tension was all right. Nic Cage's performance was over-the-top and ridiculous as expected, but what better actor to portray a man losing his mind? Madeleine Arthur was superb in her role. Cage and her basically carried the acting. The use of the source material and the subtle references to other Lovecraft works were nicely done. I caught myself often staring in confusion and awe. This should be a good thing for any Lovecraftian work. "The inability of the human brain to correlate all" of the content in the events portrayed are an important part in cosmic horror and this was well done.***SPOILER***The bad: Though I hold The Thing in high regard, I'm not a big fan of films using the cliché, especially with CGI effects. A lot of the creature VFX was downright horrid. Call me a sucker for practical effects, but it usually just ends up looking better in my book. I wanted to have more of a scare, but the film didn't really deliver on that front. The main thing that kept me glued to the film was picking up on what I remember from the novel. For the uninitiated, it can be very confusing and it won't be immersive enough to grip you in, so I can understand why it did poorly in box office.The ugly: More spoilers ahead. Everything about the "Mommy" monster was just meh. It was meant to be disturbing, but I felt like I was forcing myself to be disturbed by it. The initial shock was supremely well done, but it wore off quickly. It should've been left as a quick peek to leave the impression and no more. The alpaca monster scene was better, IMO.Conclusion: An entertaining watch for any true H. P. Lovecraft fan, and possibly for horror fans, but not a film for everyone.End notes: 'Providence' is a reference to a letter Lovecraft wrote in which he jokingly said "...I am Providence".