1 out of 5

Directed by: Chelsea Stardust

Roger Ebert’s reviewers (obviously my main competition in this online criticism shtick) and I have mostly disagreed on the Into the Dark entries: ones they consider as flubs, I’ve enjoyed for their B value; ones they consider as artier successes I’ve felt have way missed the mark.  We’re expecting different things from the series.  However, I’m very much aligned with the take on Mother’s Day entry All That We Destroy: that it’s wasted potential.

While I could say some of the other Into the Darks don’t explore their subject matter fully, that’s different from what we see in Destroy, which actually puts it all on the screen, and then…?  And then…?  I’m not even sure.  There is a conclusion to the ‘film,’ but only because it has to end at some point.  Otherwise, writers Sean Keller & Jim Agnew and Chelsea Stardust give the entire concept to us damn near the start: Dr. Victoria Harris (Samantha Mathis) is a geneticist, spearheading – in the distant, distant background of the film – the cloning of organs, while at home in her spacious mansion, she actually has the ability to clone humans, or at least one human, Ashley (Aurora Perrineau), who’s been created multiple times so that Vic’s serial killer son, Spencer (Israel Broussard) can re-experience the kick of killing her again and again.

There are multiple fascinating directions to take this, and some beats suggest the film maybe hoped to dig in to some of the gender dynamics of relationships, and violence, and expectations, but instead… well, we just get to see Spencer kill Ashley multiple times, and Vic fret over how to use this to curb her son’s killerly tendencies.

Director Chelsea Stardust and her production crew do a fair enough job of making what might’ve only been a couple sets seem like a huge living space, but otherwise, this is ridiculously mundane filmmaking, told in bland greys and whites with a completely unemotional camera, and character direction that never gives us much reason to side with or against anyone.  Additionally, there’s a bizarre inclusion of ‘near future’ tech that’s just distracting due to its pointlessness, with embarrassing effects to make sure we’re aware – it’s technology! – that reeks of an afterthought to try to punch things up a little.

The most offensive, or disappointing, aspect of this is that the wasted potential is truly apparent right from the start: something about giving away the entire premise within the opening scenes (and the humdrum way it’s presented) speaks to a lack of confidence in winding it into a deeper conversation throughout the film.