A Scientist at the Movies Reviews by Greg Paris

The Evaluation System Reviews by Title Reviews by Date

Reviews from Video Reviews of the Classics Personal Background

Title: The Reaping

Date Viewed: 4/8/07

Details:

Hilary Swank

David Morrissey

Idris Elba

AnnaSophia Robb

Stephen Rea

Director: Stephen Hopkins

Score: 0

The Review: In the small town of Haven, Louisiana, something wicked this way comes.

This is not primarily a horror film. A bit of a mystery thriller, it is closer to pseudo-religious, semi-Satanist mystical bullsh-t -- a smattering of Rosemary's Baby, a bit of End of Days, and, oddly coincidental (considering the time of year of the release, Easter, and what was on broadcast television the previous night), a bit of Ten Commandments plagues. Dr Winter (Swank) and her associate (Elba) are academics who choose to debunk miracles into their scientific components. They get called in to investigate a "river turning into blood," and things spiral downward from there.

OK pacing; and not over-long (under two hours). Occasional thrills and scares to keep you jumping in anticipation. AnnaSophia Robb is quite a kid; she's developing into quite an actor, with a surprising breadth of ability in someone so young: an annoying brat in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; a stunning & vital teen in Bridge to Terabithia; and here, the focus of both the town's ire and Winter's investigation. Although, granted, Robb does not have a lot of dialog in this flick -- but she does manage to convey a decent blend of confusion, world-weariness, (justifiable) fear and spookiness.

Several reviews of Reaping have used the phrase "anti-science." "Not so, master secretary." Yes, the protagonist is a rationalist debunker, and yes, she is also an apostate minister who went through a crisis of faith. It's very clear where she stands, and abstracting from her recent experiences, the over-a-dozen events she has investigated have all proven to have rational scientific explanations. But the screenplay, in essence, "cooks the books" and serves up a stew in which the evidence is very clearly pointing in a specific direction. The audience's point of view is that of the protagonist's, so we see that the frogs did not hatch from surplus eggs from a poisoned Nile. The methods of science are not fail-proof, nor always guaranteed to filter the evidence so as to produce a rational explanation; often puzzles remain. Science is not so prejudiced as to demand the evidence fit a straightjacket. The evidence must meet certain standards of objectivity and reproducibility, and the hypotheses must follow from the context and evidence with certain standards of logic, proof and parsimony -- but there's no guarantee a problem will be resolved, especially not with a clear "scientific" explanation. The protagonist is dragged into the presence of evidence she can clarify but cannot easily explain; in a pragmatic sense, though, she is able to reach an accommodation. This does not seem "anti-science" to me -- a paranormal experience or psychotic break, perhaps; entertainment, for some; a work of fiction, most certainly.

(8-Apr-07)

Back to the chronological list of reviews