Andromeda Review: Visually Stunning, But A Victim Of Its Own Ambitions
★★★☆☆
Spoilers ahead
The newest short film to grace the indie scene is Andromeda, a sci-fi thriller fusion from director Josh Gabor, whose past works include the acclaimed Archaic Evil. Andromeda seems almost a continuation of Gabor’s previous film, with many of the themes and casting carried over from Evil. There is a definite coming-of-age element to the making of this film. Archaic Evil was a bizarre, surreal, almost dizzying experience, pulling on the magical and the unknown as central keys to the story. The same is omnipresent in Andromeda.
Set in early 70s New Zealand, Andromeda follows the aptly named Leo (Valerian Norman) as he seeks to join the secretive, parasite-hunting firm run by Hal (Charlie “the Beast” Howlett). The film opens with an exposition about that very parasite, which we soon learn sits at the crux of the whole production. Gabor opts for a slightly cliché news-reading. However, the 70s flair and regular splices of real-life footage creates a unique ambience that leads nicely into the film itself.
The first sequence of the film is approached non-linearly, with regular cuts between the present and, what I presume is, the past. Though by the end of the film we know, for the most part, how all of this fit, I could not help but feeling confused and a little dizzy. The first act of the film carries on very much in this style. There are a series of fast-paced scenes with quick moving shots. Very little is dwelt on for very long.
We watch as Leo burns a home and Noah tries to stop him, and how Ray (Karl Soltau) is thought to be taken by the parasite, and is nearly trapped in this burning. The relationships between our characters start to unravel. The complexity of these relationships is a certain highlight of the middle stretch of the film, and through some rocky but impassioned acting this complexity is nicely explored. However, it is in this middle stretch that some of this film’s weaknesses are most present. Most notable is the non-linear style, and the multiple scenes all taking place at once, both serving for little more than to create some confusion in the viewer. The number of characters is not necessarily the weakness, though the film might have benefitted from the omission of at least one. Rather, I feel Gabor should’ve focussed his powers on a more streamlined story. One scene at a time is plenty enough. The film’s style of quick-moving shots combined with its short runtime simply couldn’t accomodate the added complexity of interchanging scenes.
However, just as the weaknesses of the film are most present in the middle, so too are the strengths. First among them is the film’s shooting. It is abundantly clear how meticulous Gabor was with the recording of this film. Every shot seems thought out and deeply intentional. The lighting is gorgeous and the colour-grading pristine, and one can almost get lost in the film as a visual piece, regardless of its storytelling merits.
I found the ending much better in concept than execution, and would’ve benefitted greatly from some more time spent. Overall, this seems to be a common theme throughout the film. Given its length, it simply did not have the breathing room for such an ambitious story as was presented. More drafting of the script was needed, with some tough but necessary refining. The story should’ve been refined in scope. And perhaps even a character culled — Noah (Torma Groves), though well acted, I felt was entirely redundant as a character. With some refining, there would’ve been much more room for each scene to breathe, for each character to become familiar and connected to the audience. As it is, such a breadth of story and character allows each scene to be little more than barebones.
Visually stunning, and oozing with missed potential, Andromeda is a worthwhile watch and a welcome addition to the sci-fi and indie canons.
