“Lars Shrike Walks the Night” follows the title character, who struggles to piece together who he is in a hostile desert landscape. Pulled into an increasingly strange odyssey, he begins to question everything.
The film has a large legacy behind it that many likely didn’t know about — including myself. This is part of writer-director Gary Walkow’s loosely connected universe, including “The Trouble with Dick” (1987), “Crashing” (2007) and “The Trouble with Dot & Harry” (2015). Even if you’re unfamiliar with these previous installments, you can still enjoy “Lars Shrike Walks the Night.” It will likely even have you seeking them out afterward.
From the start, Walkow injects humor into the premise. This comes from Lars’ outfit, his talking “chrono-blaster” and the strange “turdfish bird” creatures that surround him. And of course, the immediate fourth-wall breaks.
“Am I narrating?”
This narration is integral to the movie. From the synopsis alone, the audience is meant to question Lars’ sanity. His inner monologues heighten this untrustworthy nature even more, as he constantly lays out obscure scenarios, shakily talks himself through basic tasks and remains skeptical of his own reality. While narration can often be a fallback option for films to explain rather than show, that’s not the case here. Lars is alone for the majority of the 85-minute runtime, meaning he is left to his own thoughts rather than engaging in spoken communication with others.
“Lars Shrike Walks the Night” may take place on a prison planet (or does it?), but obviously… it’s filmed on Earth. To achieve an out-of-this-world effect, a rocky environment is mixed with green color grading. This isn’t the case for the entire movie, however, as it shifts back and forth between a more standard visual palette and the viridescent hues, alongside moving from desolate to rural settings. This transitioning may seem “cheesy” in theory, but in this instance, it effectively makes the ordinary feel abstract in practice. Director of photography Connor Bjornson keeps the camera locked in on Lars at all times. Rather than utilizing wide shots to capture the environment, he focuses on the detailed character reactions to what surrounds him. The editing and sound design also play a major role in conceptualizing Lars’ thoughts, with jump cuts and rhythmic stutters used to emphasize his confused state.
Through both the audio and imagery, Walkow keeps you guessing right alongside Lars himself. The likely outcome is made clear, but there’s still a hint of doubt that never goes away.
“Lars Shrike Walks the Night” heavily relies on the performance of Kelsey Grammer (Lars). Most of his physical performance is void of words, focusing on facial expressions and mannerisms while doing exactly what the title states: walking. Almost all of Grammer’s dialogue comes through the narration, where he is able to convey the provocative nature of his character. Also appearing are David Klennon (Richard Kendred), who originally portrayed Lars in “The Trouble with Dick,” alongside Christine Lin (Lottie).
Despite its short length, “Lars Shrike Walks the Night” isn’t always engaging. The knowledge that this is a “sequel” of sorts eliminates some sense of mystery, making specific segments of the runtime less compelling. The final act of the film, especially, struggles with over-explaining and paying homage rather than propelling the story forward.
Amid all of the clarification, though, is a fascinating question: why? That may sound silly in writing, but in the context of “Lars Shrike Walks the Night,” it’s almost existential. The film examines the meaning of life itself, why we are who we are and the scope of our existence.
“My science fiction thriller is about the terrors and thrills of existence,” Walkow said. “Lars Shrike escapes from a prison planet — or does he? Is Lars Shrike delusional, an amnesiac or from outer space? I want viewers to experience the mystery and drama of Lars’ slippery, confounding existence.”
“Lars Shrike Walks the Night” is a simple yet profound journey through subsistence. The film sometimes gets lost in logistics, but remains gripping in its insightfulness.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
