Reviews In Depth

Top movie and book reviews that get beneath the surface

Pitch Black (2000) – A Neglected Classic


Pitch Black (2000), directed by David Twohy, is almost the perfect subject of review for InDepth – a movie widely dismissed as derivative sci-fi, schlock horror. Looking at the “top reviews” on Rotten Tomatoes reveals an establishment totally incapable of engaging with this film.  Robert Ebert is off put by the fighting crew and the implausibility of the existence of the aliens; Kevin Thomas from the LA Times complains that the movie gives us what we’ve seen a thousand times before.  Usually when a deeply subversive movie like this is misunderstood by the many, it is carried aloft by the cognoscenti few and branded cult. But this never quite happened with Pitch Black. Even those who express a liking for it often do so in the way one might confess to going off one’s diet of green leafy salads, or high brow sophistication of an accepted sort.   In actual fact, Pitch Black is one of the best movies in its genre.  If it exposes the total inability of contemporary audiences to go beyond the conventions of genre and engage critically with a text, it humiliates the professional reviewer class whose job it is to elevate our understanding.  InDepth takes pride in rescuing such films from the dust and putting them on the pedestal where they belong.

Pitch Black is indeed derivative – but said with as much context as is usually given by most reviewers, this tells you absolutely nothing.  Yes, it takes elements from a number of films – particularly Alien.  Many will also point out its roots in classic westerns like High Noon and Rio Bravo, or the B horror flicks like Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, and John Carpenter’s Precinct 13.  And like these movies, the characters end up fighting amongst themselves – making them easy fodder for the monsters that come to gobble them.  Finally, the central theme of all these movies is the central theme in Pitch Black too – what remains of humanity when surrounded by inhumane circumstance?  But to label it “derivative” isn’t even a description let alone a criticism.  Unless you think movies like Lynch’s Eraserhead are the only thing worth watching, then “derivative” might be thought by many to be a compliment.  Even Romero admitted to ripping off Matheson’s novel I am Legend.

As a piece of science fiction horror, it will not blow your mind.  The aliens look like a munted plasticine version of Giger’s original.  It’s motion sight idea was stolen for Jurassic Park.  Romero gave us splatter but there isn’t a whole lot of it here.  You’ll see it coming when a person gets eaten and you won’t jump out of your seat.  But aren’t these the essential elements of a sci-fi horror flick?  How can this movie be good when these aspects are so lame?

Well, we have a lot of ground to cover to answer that.  I’m going to start by walking you through the first scene in detail to show you just how well crafted this movie can be.  It opens with a classic shot of a long-barreled space ship heading toward the tail debris of a comet orbiting three suns.  Certainly another derivative aspect – but it looks nice and immediately gets you in the zone.

Pitch Black Opening Sequence

What’s great about the opening sequence is the way it so tightly and expertly sets up the central theme of the film, while at the same time getting across an enormous amount of information about the characters.  Vin Diesal’s baritone narration cuts in over the visuals to tell us what’s what.  Unlike most narration, it’s not artificial.  Whoever is talking (we don’t know who yet), is talking to themselves, not to us.

They say that your brain shuts down in cryo-sleep.  All but the primitive side, the animal side.  No wonder I’m still awake.

Audience – meet Richard B. Riddick.  We see flickering red lights and a blindfolded man chained at the mouth.  He’s a monster.  We know the central theme of the movie.  We know it from one line of dialogue and one single shot.

Riddick keeps thinking out loud.  Tries to assess his situation, what he has learnt about his fellow passengers.  As I said before, the narration isn’t artificial.  He isn’t telling us about them just because it happens to be a convenient way to introduce an enormous amount of important information (although it certainly is) – he’s trying to figure out where he is likely to be based on what he knows about them.  It’s completely in character and believable.  (Contrast with the corporate schmoe in Avatar who explains to Ripley why the mining operation exists – as if she didn’t know!)

What does Riddick learn – and what do WE learn?  He recalls the Arab voice of a “hoodoo holy man”; the smell of a prospector woman, a “free settler type” who, Riddick tells us, only take the back roads; and Mr Johns, his captor that plans to take Riddick to back to the slam – but Riddick has already figured it out.  This is a rag tag bunch – outsiders hiding from the law, or worse;  the kind of people who take the back roads, the kind of people who have plenty to hide.  This is their undoing – another thing Riddick quickly surmises.

The final set piece of the movie is set up with the very next scene.  Small meteorites from the comet debris go straight through the hull, killing the captain, and sending the ship hurtling toward a crash on a nearby planet.  The two remaining officers, Fry (Radha Mitchell) and Owens, are popped out of cryo in order to deal with the situation.  As the pilot, it’s Fry’s job to level the ship and prevent disaster, but she can’t get the ship level.  Without hesitation she prepares to ditch all the passengers and cargo in order to save herself, telling Owens that she isn’t prepared to die for them.  Owens prevents her and she still manages to level the ship and save some of the passengers.  Owens, however, is killed, leaving the crew grateful to Fry, but unaware she tried to kill them all.

The opening scene fulfills every conceivable requirement for a movie opening.  It gives us an enormous amount of information: the characters, the theme, the central conflict for our protagonist Fry – and none of it uses artificial tricks or devices.  The story telling is honest.

What’s more – it’s incredibly bold.  We have a story about an evil murderer among shady, back-road people – trying to survive on a desert planet.  Now how many movies like that are getting funded these days?  The formula is to stick us with a nice guy protagonist that shares our hopes and dreams and watch as he overcomes his difficulties.  But here our most sympathetic character is one that almost murdered the whole crew.  The only other perspective we have is Riddick’s and he actually IS a murderer.  It’s no surprise then that the climax of the film would involve these two facing off against one another.  But what two perspectives are being tested?  And how does it resolve?

Riddick is an anti-heroic character.  He is amoral and a self-confessed murderer, but also capable and self-sufficient.  Anti-heroes are common enough now to invoke a yawn, but this character is nevertheless quite an achievement.  The true art of the anti-hero is to make him as bad as possible and yet still have us either liking, admiring or respecting them.  Riddick is about as obnoxious as they come.  He has some of the elements of the Byronic hero – he rejects society, it’s morality, but he seems to lack all of those elements of the Byronic hero that makes that archtype sympathetic.  He’s not charming; he’s not a mere “bad boy” that the woman profess to disdain but secretly wish to bed.  He takes pleasure in making the other crew members fear him, particularly Fry.  So what is it about Riddick that has us sympathetic?

The answer to this question reveals some of the deep subtleties in this story.  Riddick gets our sympathy because through him a light is shone on all the hypocrisy and falsity in his other crew mates.  Fry tried to kill all of the other passengers.  Johns, Riddick’s captor, lets everyone think he is a cop and an upholder of law and virtue, when really he is a junky and a mercenary.  Riddick is just a job and a payday to him.  Even the minor characters all have their various flaws and inauthenticities: the Antique dealer has his materialism, the settler shoots another survivor out of fear of it being Riddick – even Jack, a girl who pretends to be a boy and constantly apes Riddick’s masculinity and violent tendencies.  Riddick sees through all of it.  He’s the only one who can accept what he is.

It’s no accident then that the director gave Riddick surgically enhanced eyes that can see in the dark but cause him pain when exposed to the light.  It’s not just a cool gimmick and plot device for a movie the half of which takes place in complete darkness.  He’s the one who can see in the dark because he’s the one who can see through the moral hyprocrisy of people in general.  The other characters are literally thrown into the dark in the second half of the movie when a total eclipse occurs.  But morally they are completely in the dark the whole time.  Riddick is authentic and true to himself and accepts the darkness for what it is.  The other characters all think they are living in the light and give off the airs that they do – but it’s false.  That’s why we ultimately sympathise with Riddick.

Fry is a character that is on the cusp of awareness.  She finds out who she is when she decides to kill the crew to save herself.  She can’t stand the self-loathing this knowledge brings.  For most of the movie she is much like the other characters.  She engages in as much hypocrisy as the others – particularly in her criticisms of Johns.  But her niggling doubt is clawing away at her from the inside.  Repeatedly she asks Riddick for help in guiding them all through the dark – but she also wants help in coming to terms with who she is.  Riddick obliges in both respects.

The climax comes when Riddick leaves the three remaining characters behind, trapped in a cave, unable to escape because of the monsters.  He reaches the ship and perpares to leave them all behind to die.  Fry takes the only remaining light and reaches Riddick before he takes off in the shuttle.  She begs him to help her save the girl and the priest.  Riddick gives her another option…

He offers the choice of coming with him and explains that if she takes more light to go back and help the others, he will leave her and them to die.  He gives her the guidance she asked for.  He shows her how to be authentic – how to accept the amoral reality that defines them all.  He tells her it’s easy.  All she has to do is just get on the ship.  But they both know this is a lie.  They both know the lifetime of guilt and self-loathing this entails.  Fry breaks down and cries.  She can’t face it.  Riddick helps her to her feet and gently leads her up the ramp.

At the last moment she learns to face her fear.  She chooses to sacrifice herself for the other two.  Riddick admires this – not just because it’s selfless.  Either option is as difficult as the other for a person who can see.  He admires it because the choice is authentic.  He decides to help her because she has proved that she truly believes her code – and that’s Riddick’s code.  We only learn that he has one at the very end.

There is a lot more I could say about this movie.  But hopefully I’ve gotten across the main idea.  It’s not perfect by any means.  But it certainly doesn’t get anywhere near the credit it deserves.  Sometimes I wonder if Twohy the director fluked it.  The sequel is a pretty average movie.  And he did borrow a lot of sci-fi horror cliches.  But ultimately I believe the imagery and themes are too tightly woven to be accidental.  Let’s hope for a return to form in the third installment.

Be Sociable, Share!
Did you like reading this post? If so, please help me write more by linking to it, liking it on Facebook, tweeting, and +1-ing it on Google+ and all that stuff. Every little bit helps.

Post Metadata

February 26th, 2010



2 to “Pitch Black (2000) – A Neglected Classic”

  1. Jon B says:

    Well, well, well….. this is a very interesting article to say the least.

    While I certainly disagree that Pitch Black is any kind of bona-fide classic, it certainly has its share of potential that could have made for a GREAT movie.

    Unfortunately, you’re right, the director did fluke it. The character development isn’t necessarily hackneyed, but the dialogue is often stilted and delivered in an eye-rolling fashion. They seem to constantly end up shouting their lines as if this is supposed to bring ‘intensity’ to the moment. It meshes all too well with Twohy’s “jump cutting” style of film making. Too much of it is flashy nonsense. And this incorporates about half of the film.

    Fortunately the other half is very moody and dark, as the title would suggest it is. Vin Diesels deep, rich voice provides great narration. The fantastic opening scene as the spaceship crashes is brutal, gritty, and sets the tone instantly. Another thing I liked was how the film set up a wide variety of characters to explore and observe as they poke around the planet and learn its secrets. And finally the aliens. While they are a bit of a homage to Giger’s Alien, they possess enough unique traits to make them feel fresh. The CGI is solid throughout and the sound effects and animation of the beasties certainly makes them seem like the slithery crawly things you find in dark, damp places.

    However, the cons still drastically outweigh the pros. The problems start to become all to noticeable when the actual eclipse occurs. Plenty of tension beforehand as the survivors race to repair the shuttle is left behind as all the interesting characters are stupidly whittled down and become monster bait. The fear of the approaching darkness is more effective than the darkness itself, which is a shame. By this point is when the film becomes trite and predictable.

    There are still a few key scenes that hint at what could have been. A brilliant final showdown


    between Riddick and Johns provides a great mini-climax to their relationship, although Johns is certainly one of the best characters to go out too soon.

    The end scene with Fry confronting Riddick as he prepares to abandon them is poignant, as she hopelessly wrestles with a lost cause. But the scene is too short and underdeveloped to provide any lasting mark on the rest of the film.


    I guess the biggest flaw of the film is the character of Riddick himself. While Vin Diesel certainly “shines” in this role, the character is too (I’m getting sick of this word as much as the next guy) underdeveloped again. For all the talk of this dude being a murdering ex-convict who wouldn’t hesitate to kill anyone in his way, in the end, Richard B. Riddick ain’t such a bad guy. We’re never shown this man performing any brutal, heinous acts of savagery that give him his reputation. In fact, he’s a bit of a softie by some anti-hero standards. He’s too likable to provide any gravitas that repels and disgusts the majority of society, and yet draws in odd beacons like the Fry character who are curious enough to probe into what separates men from animals. In fact, the initial script (before it was revised by Twohy), was to have Riddick killed off at the end and for much of the story to revolve around Fry. Perhaps this would have been a smarter move, but either way, the character arc of Riddick is much too suburban to provide a real punch that the film needs by the end.

    Your witness my own hand.


    I very much liked the parallel that you drew between the morality of the film and Riddick’s eye shine ability (especially describing how he is ‘blinded by the light’, the truth is often what burns us out).

  2. Dan Haggard says:

    Hi John,

    Sorry for a slow reply to such an awesome comment – somehow the notification didn’t get through to me.

    I can see where you are coming from. To a large degree one has to pretend the elements that you identify aren’t really there in the movie to be able to appreciate the ones I highlighted. It depends on one’s own temperament as to which features are going to be more salient.

    Your view on Riddick himself is interesting. I’m not sure if having seen him commit various acts of savagery would have had a salutary effect on the story. It depends exactly on how those scenes would have been constructed. In essence he’s not a bad guy – he just doesn’t give a shit about most people because they don’t have any code that they live by. He won’t stick his neck out for them. He will murder people if they try to take him down – but he’s not going to kill innocent people. Part of what the movie is doing is keeping that fact hidden until the very end. We don’t know for sure that Riddick has a code until Fry demonstrates she’s willing to live up to the moral view she has of herself.

    But perhaps the kind of scene you are looking for would involve a moment earlier in the film where one of the dubious characters are forced to depend on Riddick for survival – and he could just walk away and leave them to die. This would indeed heighten the tension in the final scene because we would be convinced of the possibility that he might just leave the rest of them to die – and would provide further emphasis as to the reason why he chooses to help Fry and the rest.

    Anyway – I very much appreciated your comment. Glad you enjoyed the article.

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. All Things Daniel Haggard / Pitch Black (2000) A Neglected Classic 12 03 10
  2. Why Star Trek is Better than Avatar | Reviews In Depth 12 03 10

Leave a Reply