X-Files: I Want To Believe

While I cannot deny the new "X-Files" big screen movie (titled I Want To Believe in homage to an iconic image from the long-running sci-fi/horror/mystery television series) is certainly unusual, weird and bizarre; there is, unfortunately, no fun, suspense, or scariness in all the peculiarity.

As a casual fan of the show, I always preferred the standalone episodes to the conspiracy through-line, the UFO/alien-abduction angle, and the personal family crises of the two main characters, FBI Agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson). So when I heard that this movie, coming 10 years after the first feature and six years after the ending of the series, did not require prior knowledge, I thought that was a good idea. The characters (and the actors) had real chemistry, and the stories were almost always engrossing — perfect for a new leap to the big screen without any of the baggage. Add an amazing, underrated actor like Billy Connolly to the mix, and you can't go wrong… right?

Connolly plays Father Joe Crissman (Christ, man - get it?), a fallen, broken figure who's been bestowed with vile visions he insists are from God (not to mention an occasional ocular ooze even a vat prescription-strength Visine couldn't cure). The victims he sees are in pieces, but no one puts it all together as a possible serial situation until a female FBI agent disappears under the same strange circumstances. Mulder and Scully are quickly called into action.

"Spooky" Fox Mulder, who always had an interest in the agency's seemingly supernatural or extraterrestrial cases, is intrigued by the brutal and unexplainable nature of the crimes. Scully, who's tried to distance herself as much as possible from her old, dangerous career, is determined to rescue her colleague — Father Joe insists the agent is still alive, and well, everyone wants to believe that.

Enter another female/male team of Bureau investigators, ASAC Dakota Whitney (sounds more like a stripper's name… played negligibly by Amanda Peet), and Agent Mosley Drummy (Alvin 'Xzibit' Joiner, giving an otherwise fallow character some scintilla of weight), and let the chase begin.

But not before everyone talks about it. A lot. Don't get me wrong; I don't mind dialogue (Louis Malle's My Dinner With Andre is a favorite of mine), but it should advance the plot or help heighten suspense. After awhile, I was beginning to think I was experiencing the clunky machinations of a recycled, particularly angst-ridden "Thirtysomething" script. The pacing is as piecemeal as Frankenstein's monster (except for a sizzling half-hour in the third act, which is ultimately trumped by a disappointing conclusion), and the few attempts at the show's signature snarky, dark humor fall miserably flat.

There is far too much exposition and verbal probing that only half-hints at Mulder and Scully's past: On the show, the couple had an ill-fated son, William, together (and oh, yeah: Mulder's sister was abducted by aliens - that old chestnut is revealed in an aside as the four agents drive down a snowy road, talking).

The above is not at all germane to today's story, so mention of it should have either been left out entirely or incorporated into the murder mystery. (There is a dangling subplot about a child in danger that may have something to do with William but if that was its purpose, it didn't work). Adding these footnotes to the dialogue at hand only invalidates the assurance that you needn't have seen the TV series to "get it".

I hate to have to say all this, as I genuinely like the actors and filmmakers, and I do believe they all possess talent, but the only one who comes through this whole ordeal unscathed is Connolly. His performance as the afflicted, blighted priest goes above and beyond the material; while it's not quite enough to recommend the movie, it's noteworthy.

= = =

Reviewed by Staci Layne Wilson

Addendum — SPOILER —

There is one scene in which Mulder is met with an assault by a guard dog. You don't actually see what happens, but later on the dog is heard off-screen whimpering, then shown with its jaw torn off (presumably by Mulder's hands in self-defense). I love animals, but I honestly don't mind seeing them violated onscreen if is for some good reason (for example, the horses being blinded in the movie Equus; the dogs being shot in No Country for Old Men; or the cats being eaten in Four Flies on Grey Velvet).

Granted, I don't like it, but if it fits in with the story or it informs the character, then so be it. But I don't think Mulder had to do that; or at least, I didn't need to see it. There was a fence nearby; he could have thrown the dog over the wall, or maybe it could have just been implied he somehow disabled the dog or even killed it. I found that image of the suffering animal prostrate in agony overly offensive (especially for a PG-13 movie).