Underwater (2020)
In the near future, Kepler 822, a research and drilling facility located at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, suffers a sudden and catastrophic structural failure. There are only six survivors. Mechanical engineer Norah Price (Kristen Stewart), Captain Lucien (Vincent Cassel), biologist Emily Haversham (Jessica Henwick), engineer Liam Smith (John Gallagher Jr.) and crew members Rodrigo (Mamoudou Athie) and Paul (T.J. Miller). As all the functional escape pods have been used and they are unable to contact the surface, the Captain suggests using pressurized suits to walk one mile across the ocean floor to the Roebuck 641 drill installation. There they will find more escape pods. However, it soon becomes apparent that the disaster was not caused by an undersea earthquake and that they are not alone as they make their journey.
In the near future, Kepler 822, a research and drilling facility located at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, suffers a sudden and catastrophic structural failure. There are only six survivors. Mechanical engineer Norah Price (Kristen Stewart), Captain Lucien (Vincent Cassel), biologist Emily Haversham (Jessica Henwick), engineer Liam Smith (John Gallagher Jr.) and crew members Rodrigo (Mamoudou Athie) and Paul (T.J. Miller). As all the functional escape pods have been used and they are unable to contact the surface, the Captain suggests using pressurized suits to walk one mile across the ocean floor to the Roebuck 641 drill installation. There they will find more escape pods. However, it soon becomes apparent that the disaster was not caused by an undersea earthquake and that they are not alone as they make their journey.
Underwater starts with all the hallmarks of a film that is very derivative of Alien. The technology and immediate environment all have an industrial aesthetic that is worn and feels used. The crew is made up of “working men” rather than clean cut academics and the corporation that owns and runs the facility is simply referenced by branding on bulkheads or on monitor lockscreens. The screenplay by Brian Duffield (No One Will Save You) and Adam Cozad is lean and moves quickly but there’s sufficient dialogue to get the measure of each character. The threat comes quickly during the film’s concise 95 minute running time and it is here that Underwater diverges from similar films. DeepStar Six featured a prehistoric Eurypterid and Leviathan had monsters caused by mutagens containing piscine DNA. Underwater has a distinctly Lovecraftian nemesis.
Director William Eubank maintains a tense and claustrophobic atmosphere. Due to the seven mile depth, there is no sunlight and the ocean floor is illuminated by the lights on the crew’s environment suits and from LEDs on equipment. Hence, for the first two acts the aquatic menace is seen only fleetingly and the shocks come mainly from jump scares. The death scenes are hectically edited and you certainly get the impression that something unpleasant has happened but you cannot see the detail. Although initially frustrating this becomes the film’s greatest strength as it becomes clear this is not just a case of an apex predator. The crew do a little theorising about what is happening around them but it is left vague and there are no convenient answers. The climax and final reveal work better as a result of this approach.
Underwater is an effective genre outing. It isn’t a masterpiece and certainly isn’t original. It takes some standard tropes from “creature features” and horror films and it tries its best to do something a little different with them. The $60 million budget covers a lot of ground, with the sets, production design and VFXs looking polished and plausible. The cast is competent and the characters likeable. Marco Beltrami’s score at times has shades of vintage John Carpenter and Alan Howarth. But it is the film’s final act that is responsible for making Underwater better than average. Casual viewers may not necessarily get the inference but those who are aware of the concept of cosmic horror should enjoy the eldritch payoff. Underwater is a well crafted rollercoaster ride, that doesn’t out stay its welcome and should be judged as such.
Primitive War (2025)
One of the most common objections raised regarding the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise is that the films are specifically made to obtain a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association, for purely commercial reasons. Hence, in all films, there is little on screen violence and the dinosaurs are mainly portrayed as a threat and a means of providing jump scares. When a character is killed by a dinosaur it usually happens off screen, is obscured by something else in frame, or is shown in long shot with very little detail. The realities of being eaten alive by a predator are conspicuously absent. Hence, audiences looking for films featuring more graphic dinosaur attacks, have not been well catered for apart from some minor direct-to-video titles. Primitive War finally fills this gap in the market with a frenetic genre mashup that strives to punch above is budgetary weight.
One of the most common objections raised regarding the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise is that the films are specifically made to obtain a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association, for purely commercial reasons. Hence, in all films, there is little on screen violence and the dinosaurs are mainly portrayed as a threat and a means of providing jump scares. When a character is killed by a dinosaur it usually happens off screen, is obscured by something else in frame, or is shown in long shot with very little detail. The realities of being eaten alive by a predator are conspicuously absent. Hence, audiences looking for films featuring more graphic dinosaur attacks, have not been well catered for apart from some minor direct-to-video titles. Primitive War finally fills this gap in the market with a frenetic genre mashup that strives to punch above is budgetary weight.
In 1968 during the Vietnam War, Colonel Jericho (Jeremy Piven) orders Vulture Squad, a reconnaissance unit, to track down a Green Beret platoon that has gone missing on a classified mission. Sergeant First Class Ryan Baker (Ryan Kwanten) is concerned about the secrecy surrounding the mission and well being of his squad. After being dropped by helicopter in a remote region of the jungle the squad finds evidence of a firefight along with a large bird-like foot print. Upon searching a tunnel complex they are attacked by a pack of Deinonychus and are split up. Baker along with new squad member Verne (Carlos Sanson) are rescued from a Tyrannosaurus attack by a Soviet paleontologist, Sofia Wagner (Tricia Helfer), who shelters them in a nearby bunker. He learns that a Russian General has been experimenting with a particle collider, resulting in wormholes and the dinosaurs’ presence.
Primitive War takes the standard genre tropes found in Vietnam War movies, along with those common to “creature features” and mixes them together with B movie aplomb and the candid honesty inherent in Australian exploitation cinema. The result is fast paced, violent and thoroughly entertaining. The computer generated dinosaurs and animatronics are broadly good and when it does start to get a bit sketchy, it’s not a deal breaker because it is clear that the production is really trying hard to do it best with what its budget. Furthermore, rather than just resting on its high concept, exploitation laurels, Primitive War even takes a stab at focusing on characters and getting audiences emotionally invested in the protagonists. You could argue that it tries a little too hard but the film is ambitious and that is a praiseworthy quality these days because so many film productions do exactly the opposite.
Based on books by Ethan Pettus, who co-wrote the screenplay with director Luke Sparke, Primitive War strikes the right tone with its hard boiled, military dialogue and hyperbolic kiss-off lines. I especially enjoyed “Come get some, you Foghorn Leghorn motherfuckers”. The cast, who are mainly from television, acquit themselves well and the screenplay endeavours to give this dirty half-dozen some back story, touching upon such themes as PTSD and survivors guilt. The set pieces are violent and the dinosaur attacks show the reality of being devoured alive. Considering the $8 million dollar budget, the visual effects hold up well. There are some sequences that don’t work as well such as an aerial attack by a flock of Quetzalcoatlus but the film strives to style it out with its pacing. The dinosaurs reflect contemporary scientific thinking, hence many are brightly coloured and feathered.
Primitive War is a superior example of exploitation filmmaking. It makes its pitch quickly and efficiently to the audience and doesn’t waste time delivering upon viewer expectations. What stands out about this production is that it doesn’t allow its financial constraints to impact upon its creative ambitions. Director Luke Sparke and the cast clearly took the film seriously and strived to do their best. The result is a film that is ambitious, entertaining and exactly what was promised in the trailer. There are some rough edges along the way but that is to be expected. This isn’t a big studio production. Perhaps it could have been a slightly tighter 110 minutes instead of 133 but there are far more bloated, self indulgent films out there. Like most of the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise. Unlike a lot of mainstream films these days, Primitive War is an honest film. If you want dinosaurs versus soldiers during the Vietnam War, that is what you get.
Fluke (1995)
Fluke is a curious film about a man who is reincarnated as a dog and his subsequent realisation that he may have been murdered. It takes an adult novel by British author James Herbert, which is filled with philosophical musing and strives to adapt it in a far more family friendly fashion. The result is a somewhat bipolar production which thematically alternates between existential introspection and Buddhism. It then strives to deliver its message in a Disneyesque idiom. Children will potentially be confused and upset by what they see and adults will be wrongfooted by the continual shift in tone. Fluke was not a critical or commercial success upon release and the flaws that were identified by critics at the time still ring true today. That being said, Fluke is still an interesting and entertaining film, despite its faults.
Fluke is a curious film about a man who is reincarnated as a dog and his subsequent realisation that he may have been murdered. It takes an adult novel by British author James Herbert, which is filled with philosophical musing and strives to adapt it in a far more family friendly fashion. The result is a somewhat bipolar production which thematically alternates between existential introspection and Buddhism. It then strives to deliver its message in a Disneyesque idiom. Children will potentially be confused and upset by what they see and adults will be wrongfooted by the continual shift in tone. Fluke was not a critical or commercial success upon release and the flaws that were identified by critics at the time still ring true today. That being said, Fluke is still an interesting and entertaining film, despite its faults.
A mongrel street dog puppy is adopted by a elderly homeless lady called Bella (Collin Wilcox Paxton). She names him Fluke (Matthew Modine). After Bella dies, Fluke is befriended by a street-wise dog called Rumbo (Samuel L. Jackson) who teaches him to live in the moment. Fluke and Rumbo spend time with Bert (Bill Cobbs) who runs a burger stand. They also visit a scrapyard, run by Boss (Jon Polito). Fluke has recurring dreams about a man and a car crash. He eventually recalls a past life in which he was a successful businessman who had a wife and son. He feels compelled to seek them out and leaves Rumbo on bad terms. After tracking down his former wife, Carol (Nancy Travis) and son, Brian (Max Pomeranc), he eventually becomes their family dog. When his ex-business partner Jeff (Eric Stoltz) arrives Fluke suspects he may have been murdered by him in his former life and seeks to protect his family.
Director Carlo Carlei gained the attention of MGM studios, when they acquired the US distribution rights for his previous Italian film, Flight of the Innocent. He was given a one picture deal and subsequently wrote an adaptation of the James Herbert novel. Being an international filmmaker, Carlei takes a far more matter of fact approach to some of the story’s more adult themes. People die and the world moves on. Animals are treated cruelly. At one point Fluke is stolen and used for experiments by a cosmetic company. Later during a car crash, he is thrown through the windscreen. Although not particularly graphic, these scenes are shown candidly, lacking the emotional soft pedalling common to US filmmaking. However, many other scenes involving Fluke and Rumbo’s adventures are shot in the style and manner you’d expect from this genre.
Despite the rather unbalanced style and approach to the subject matter, Fluke has a respectable cast and production values. Performances are solid and the cinematography by Raffaele Mertes is colourful and quite dynamic. There is also a suitably poignant score by Italian composer Carlo Silotto, who doesn’t usually write for many mainstream US productions, as he doesn’t view them favourably. What CGI there is is mainly confined to brief glimpses of the afterlife. Overall Fluke gets its story across in an efficient 96 minutes. If it had been made by an independent studio and leaned more into the darker themes of the plot, it could have been a superior film. As to how contemporary audiences receive it, that remains a lottery. If you watch Fluke with the understanding that it’s not Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey and the ending is not especially happy, then you’re better prepared.
Sting (2024)
When reviewing Sting, one critic stated that the small scale setting and thus, low stakes (IE only a few peoples lives are at risk), made the film not especially memorable. I consider this to be a somewhat spurious criticism. It is the very fact that Sting takes place in such a commonplace environment, with the main characters being everyday people that makes it different. There is a clear focus on well defined characters and their backstory. Unlike so many contemporary films, I actually gave a damn about the protagonists in Sting. An integral aspect of the horror genre is the ability to take a well known and familiar trope and provide a different and absorbing spin on it .It would appear that some audiences have been belaboured over the head by so many overblown and bombastic blockbusters, that the very notion of depicting small, localised and intimate events in a film, seems to bamboozle them.
When reviewing Sting, one critic stated that the small scale setting and thus, low stakes (IE only a few peoples lives are at risk), made the film not especially memorable. I consider this to be a somewhat spurious criticism. It is the very fact that Sting takes place in such a commonplace environment, with the main characters being everyday people that makes it different. There is a clear focus on well defined characters and their backstory. Unlike so many contemporary films, I actually gave a damn about the protagonists in Sting. An integral aspect of the horror genre is the ability to take a well known and familiar trope and provide a different and absorbing spin on it .It would appear that some audiences have been belaboured over the head by so many overblown and bombastic blockbusters, that the very notion of depicting small, localised and intimate events in a film, seems to bamboozle them.
Charlotte (Alyla Browne ), a rebellious 12-year-old, lives in a rundown apartment block with her overworked stepfather, Ethan (Ryan Corr), her mother Heather (Penelope Mitchell), and her infant half-brother, Liam. Frequently left to her own devices, Charlotte discovers an unusual spider which she catches and keeps in a jar. Unbeknown to Charlotte, the spider originated from a luminous meteor that landed in her great-aunt's apartment. Charlotte nurtures the spider, which she names Sting and it subsequently grows at an astonishing pace. Initially, she conceals its increasing size, but as it becomes more challenging to keep hidden, her stepfather and the neighbours begin to observe unusual happenings within the building. Sting's rapid growth and voracious appetite soon result in the demise of pets and residents alike. Is Charlotte’s family safe?
Director Kiah Roache-Turner, builds the tensions with some clever jump scares based around shadows and household objects being mistaken for Sting. As for the spider itself, it is very well realised by Weta Workshop, Cumulus Visual Effects, and Spectrum Films. The majority of the visual effects are practical. Sting manages to provide gallows humour, with its wise cracking exterminator and comedy pets, along with the required horror elements of a “creature feature”. However, what makes the film more interesting than standard genre outings are the characters and the central theme of a daughter reconciling with her stepfather. The human aspects of the story are well handled and have a Joe Dante-esque quality. As I’ve said before, not every film has to be a cinematic milestone. A small, focused story that is well done, is a perfectly entertaining proposition. Sting provides exactly that.
Mimic: The Director's Cut (1997)
When I first saw Mimic in 1997, I was impressed by the fact that it offered a different perspective on the monster movie genre and that it seemed to have moments of greater depth than you'd expect from such material. Later on when I became more aware of the works of writer, director Guillermo del Toro, I learned that this movie had had a troubled production and that Miramx had imposed specific requirements upon the final cut of the film. This explained some of the movies inconsistencies and hinted at a far more ambitious artistic endeavour by del Toro. Initially Mimic was conceived as a thirty minute short and part of a three part anthology movie. However it along with the sci-fi film Imposter were both deemed to be of sufficient merit to be developed into feature length productions.
When I first saw Mimic in 1997, I was impressed by the fact that it offered a different perspective on the monster movie genre and that it seemed to have moments of greater depth than you'd expect from such material. Later on when I became more aware of the works of writer, director Guillermo del Toro, I learned that this movie had had a troubled production and that Miramx had imposed specific requirements upon the final cut of the film. This explained some of the movies inconsistencies and hinted at a far more ambitious artistic endeavour by del Toro. Initially Mimic was conceived as a thirty minute short and part of a three part anthology movie. However it along with the sci-fi film Imposter were both deemed to be of sufficient merit to be developed into feature length productions.
Initially Mimic appears to be just a standard creature feature, yet it soon becomes apparent that there’s more depth to the story than is usual for the genre. Cockroaches are spreading a fatal virus among the Manhattan's infants. Entomologist Susan Tyler (Mira Sorvino) genetically engineers the Judas Breed, a large insect that releases an enzyme that kills off the disease-carrying roaches by speeding up their metabolism. The Judas breed is also designed to only have one fertile male, which remains in quarantine, thus condemning the species to alleged oblivion. Naturally things do not work out as planned and three years later, Health Inspector Dr. Peter Mann (Jermey Northam) along with his detective friend Josh (Josh Brolin) become aware of increased deaths among the illegal immigrant and homeless communities.
Where Mimic stands out from other run-of-the-mill genre offerings, is its unusual characters and greater depth of narrative. The creation of a genetically modified Judas breed is played out against the struggles of our husband and wife protagonists attempts to have a baby. There is also an engaging sub-plot involving a shoe shine man and his autistic Grandson. The boy’s savant ability to identify shoe sizes at a glance, is cleverly utilised as he is the first to witness the mimics of the title. Unable to place them within the context of his world he refers to the one he sees as Mr. Funny Shoes. Mimic is another member of that rather exclusive cinematic club in which the death of a child is shown on screen.
The recent director's cut of Mimic adds an additional six minutes of footage to the existing print. Guillermo del Toro has striven to alter the overall feel of the film through additional editing and the use of colour filters. The audience does not necessarily gain any new insights into the story but the characters feel more rounded. The underground sequences have a more atmospheric feel to them and a stronger sense of menace. The revelation that the insects have learned to mimic the appearance of humans has a greater impact this time round. The tone of the movie, particularly the humour now takes on a distinctly darker hue. Overall the director's cut of Mimic is a refinement of the theatrical print.
Mimic was del Toro's first major US feature. If he made this now, I believe it would be a far more experimental picture. This revised improved version still remains a curio, rather than a classic; a hybrid mixture of the director's lyrical and cerebral approach to horror, along with the trappings of a more commercial picture. It is an odd blend but none the less very watchable. The film benefits from strong performances, especially Charles S. Dutton as a world weary transit policeman. There are also some solid shocks and jumps to be enjoyed. Yet even in this new format Mimic doesn't quite achieve the heights of the directors later works. However, del Toro even under these circumstances is still a far more inviting and enthralling prospect than your average horror hack.
Prophecy (1979)
During the seventies, Hollywood started looking to ongoing societal and political concerns as a source of material for movies. Hence, the energy crisis, terrorism and global pollution quickly found themselves being subsumed into hastily written screenplays, in attempt to be topical, commercially successful and relevant. Prophecy based upon a novel by David Seltzer tackled not only the issue of pollution but also the ongoing disenfranchisement of Native Americans. Paramount studios went so far as hiring an established director of note, John Frankenheimer. In many respects this movie should have been a bigger success with a reasonable budget, robust cast and studio support. Sadly it did not fare well, either critically or at the box office due to obvious flaws in the production. Despite his outstanding body work, (Birdman of Alcatraz, The Manchurian Candidate) Frankenheimer was not the best choice of director for a genre movie such as this and he was also going through a period of alcoholism.
During the seventies, Hollywood started looking to ongoing societal and political concerns as a source of material for movies. Hence, the energy crisis, terrorism and global pollution quickly found themselves being subsumed into hastily written screenplays, in attempt to be topical, commercially successful and relevant. Prophecy based upon a novel by David Seltzer tackled not only the issue of pollution but also the ongoing disenfranchisement of Native Americans. Paramount studios went so far as hiring an established director of note, John Frankenheimer. In many respects this movie should have been a bigger success with a reasonable budget, robust cast and studio support. Sadly it did not fare well, either critically or at the box office due to obvious flaws in the production. Despite his outstanding body work, (Birdman of Alcatraz, The Manchurian Candidate) Frankenheimer was not the best choice of director for a genre movie such as this and he was also going through a period of alcoholism.
Dr. Robert Verne (Robert Foxworth) accepts a job from the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate a dispute over potential pollution between a logging company and a Native American tribe in Maine. Dr. Verne's wife Maggie (Talia Shire) accompanies him on the trip. She is pregnant but has not yet told her husband as he is conflicted about bringing children into such a problematic world. On arrival in the remote logging town, the mill director Bethel Isley (Richard A. Dysart) is inclined to blame all problems on the local Native American community. Especially the disappearance of several tourists and search and rescue workers. However, he extends all possible courtesy to Dr. Verne, showing them around the paper mill plant and providing them with a remote woodland cabin so he can test the water. The local Native American community leaders, John and Ramona Hawk (Armand Assante and Victoria Racimo) appeal to Robert and his wife that they are not a community of drunks but are being poisoned. They tell of illness, premature death and of children born with birth defects. But Ramona’s old grandfather speaks of Katahdin, a spirit that “is part of all things created” who has awakened to protect the tribe.
Being a seventies movie Prophecy is guilty of a practice that is happily not so common these days. Namely, casting actors of the wrong ethnicity into specific roles. Having a “known name” on a movie poster is one thing but it’s somewhat eggerious when a production casts racially appropriate actors for minor roles but does not do the same for major characters. The issue here being Armand Assante, an actor of Italian descent, playing a Native American. Despite this decision, the cast perform well. The relationship between Robert Foxworth and Talia Shire is plausible, although “of the time”, especially in the way that he listens to her but doesn’t hear what she’s really saying. Richard A. Dysart gives a good supporting performance, as the die hard company man. His character reflects a lot of the entrenched prejudices that were all too common at the time. The script introduces several interesting themes such as attitudes on ecology and the risk of a baby with birth defects but these plot lines are sadly abandoned when the monster turns up. Prophecy was also one of the first major studio movies to be filmed in “Hollywood North”. Vancouver became a regular substitute for parts of the US and a centre of film production hence forward.
But the main problem with Prophecy is not so much the inconsistencies in the script, which is a common issue in genre movies but the way the central monster is filmed and revealed. The basic design by The Burman Studios is sound but the way it is lit and shot is not flattering. The Xenomorph in Alien is essentially a man in suit but it is shown in a way that often minimises this. The mutant Bear in Prophecy is not handled with such care. Neither Frankenheimer or his crew had much experience of dealing with these sorts of issues and although the editing by Tom Rolf does much to try and correct the problem, it doesn’t always work. The monster was originally conceived to be a chimera and have attributes of multiple animals; just as a human foetus exhibits similar traits during its development. But this proved potentially too complex, so the scope of the special effects were reduced. Frankenheimer also decided to secure a lower rating and so removed some of the more violent scenes. Hence the movie feels that there is content missing and the gore has been toned down to a minimum.
Prophecy could have been a far better movie under different circumstances. If the Native American aspect of the plot was explored further and there was a degree of ambiguity as to whether the monster was just a mutant or Katahdin the avenging spirit, then the story would have been a little more engaging. The issue of Maggie’s pregnancy and the problems she could face is another aspect of the plot that could have provided more human drama. Then there is the matter of Katahdin itself. Irrespective of the way the special effects were shot, the more violent scenes should have remained in the film. As it stands, the theatrical cut of the movie is a little anticlimactic. However, Prophecy is still entertaining and an interesting reminder of a time when big studios were still prepared to explore the horror genre in different ways, with robust budgets and high production values. Something that doesn’t happen quite as often these days. The ending that hints at a potential sequel naturally didn’t happen.
Nope (2022)
In Agua Dulce, California, the Haywood family trains horses for film and TV productions. One day at the Haywood ranch, small metal objects unaccountably fall from the sky. One of which, a nickel, kills Otis Haywood Sr (Keith David). His children, Emerald “Em” Haywood (Keke Palmer) and Otis “OJ” Haywood Jr. (Daniel Kaluuya), continue to run the business. However, due to the loss of a contract, they have to sell some of the horses to Ricky “Jupe” Park (Steven Yeun), who operates a Western theme park called Jupiter's Claim. One night, the Haywood’s notice the electricity supply fluctuating and their horses violently reacting to an unknown presence. They discover that something has been taking their horses and regurgitating inorganic matter, which OJ believes caused their father's death. The Haywood’s decide to obtain proof and subsequently ask electronics store employee and UFO enthusiast, Angel Torres (Brandon Perea) to set up surveillance cameras.
In Agua Dulce, California, the Haywood family trains horses for film and TV productions. One day at the Haywood ranch, small metal objects unaccountably fall from the sky. One of which, a nickel, kills Otis Haywood Sr (Keith David). His children, Emerald “Em” Haywood (Keke Palmer) and Otis “OJ” Haywood Jr. (Daniel Kaluuya), continue to run the business. However, due to the loss of a contract, they have to sell some of the horses to Ricky “Jupe” Park (Steven Yeun), who operates a Western theme park called Jupiter's Claim. One night, the Haywood’s notice the electricity supply fluctuating and their horses violently reacting to an unknown presence. They discover that something has been taking their horses and regurgitating inorganic matter, which OJ believes caused their father's death. The Haywood’s decide to obtain proof and subsequently ask electronics store employee and UFO enthusiast, Angel Torres (Brandon Perea) to set up surveillance cameras.
Nope is a contemporary telling of an old tale. It has many of the standard tropes you expect from the “creature feature” genre but with a contemporary spin. Just as George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead is also a vehicle for a critique of capitalism and consumerism, director Jordan Peele tackles a wealth of sociopolitical points via Nope. He dissects modern media culture, internet fame and the relationship between race and employment. There are no traditional white scientists, didactically explaining things and expediting the plot in received English. The protagonists are all blue-collar workers, who speak and act in a realistic manner. The cast are very good, and the characters are interestingly quirky. The screenplay’s innovation comes from showing a group of people who usually are not the traditional participants in such genre movies. Yet they figure things out on their own terms and the conspicuous absence of the military, local police or newspaper reporter is refreshing.
Nope also excels in depicting a truly original monster. One that is genuinely scary because of the nature of the threat. The digital effects are subtle and it is not until the climax of the film that the audience gains a clearer grasp of the nature of the creature. One sequence is reminiscent of a comparable scare in The Borderlands (2013) and some viewers may consider this a step too far. However, if you’ve made it this far then I would argue that you’re pretty much onboard with wherever Nope is going to go. Although it can be argued that being 30 minutes shorter may have helped proceedings. There is an entire subplot involving Ricky “Jupe” Park, who was a child actor in a sitcom with a chimp called Gordy. This fascinating and tragic vignette seems a little incongruous in relation to the main story and may well have worked better as the basis for a separate film. Minor criticisms aside, Nope is creative, different and superior to much of current mainstream horror cinema. However, its niche approach may not be everyone's cup of tea.
Meg 2: The Trench (2023)
Back in 2018 I wrote the following about The Meg in my review. “My interest doesn’t go so far as a sequel. This sort of movie is the equivalent of a greasy burger you buy at the funfair. It’s fine once in a while as an indulgence, despite the fact that you know it’s bad, but you would soon tire of them being a regular part of my diet”. Five years later, I foolishly thought it may be “fun” to give the sequel, Meg 2: The Trench (2023), a go. Especially in light of the fact that it’s directed by Ben Wheatley. Surely such a filmmaker would bring some creativity and a fresh perspective to this franchise? Nope. Turns out he didn’t. Meg 2: The Trench lacks everything that made its predecessor tolerable. This superfluous sequel is an uninspired, poorly written mess which confuses turning everything up to eleven with entertainment. It gets nowhere near “it’s so bad, it’s good” territory. Instead it makes the biggest mistake a film of this nature can do. It’s dull.
Back in 2018 I wrote the following about The Meg in my review. “My interest doesn’t go so far as a sequel. This sort of movie is the equivalent of a greasy burger you buy at the funfair. It’s fine once in a while as an indulgence, despite the fact that you know it’s bad, but you would soon tire of them being a regular part of my diet”. Five years later, I foolishly thought it may be “fun” to give the sequel, Meg 2: The Trench (2023), a go. Especially in light of the fact that it’s directed by Ben Wheatley. Surely such a filmmaker would bring some creativity and a fresh perspective to this franchise? Nope. Turns out he didn’t. Meg 2: The Trench lacks everything that made its predecessor tolerable. This superfluous sequel is an uninspired, poorly written mess which confuses turning everything up to eleven with entertainment. It gets nowhere near “it’s so bad, it’s good” territory. Instead it makes the biggest mistake a film of this nature can do. It’s dull.
Five years on from the first film, Jonas Taylor (Jason Statham) now works for Mana One Marine Research centre, which is currently exploring the depth of the Mariana Trench where the Megalodons and other unknown ichthyofauna live. Along with company director Jiuming Zhang (Wu Jing), Taylor takes two submersibles to an uncharted part of the trench and finds to his surprise an illegal mining operation on the ocean floor. They are ambushed by a mercenary named Montes (Sergio Peris-Mencheta) and forced to abandon their vessels and walk along the ocean floor to reach the unknown mining base. After contacting Mana One, they learn that the rescue submarine has been sabotaged. Furthermore, an explosion caused by the mining operation has breached the thermocline barrier and provided a means for three megalodons and other creatures to reach the surface.
Like its predecessor Meg 2: The Trench has solid production values. A lot of money has been spent on the production design and sets. Meg 2: The Trench is far from cheap and cheerful. The film also handles dialogue in two languages well, as several characters frequently switch between conversing in English and Mandarin. Sadly the screenplay is perfunctory and the dialogue predictable. Most of the characters are two dimensional and hence disposable. When the big reveal happens involving a team member who has betrayed their colleagues, it has no impact. There is also a conveyor belt of “red shirt” mercenaries who are regularly introduced, just to provide the various beasties something to chow down on. There is also a somewhat anachronistic comedic African American character, played by Page Kennedy, that feels it’s been cribbed from an eighties action movie.
The action scenes are competently constructed but like most “creature features”with a PG-13 rating, they are mostly bloodless and free from any real threat or dramatic weight. There is an attempt to try and make some of the deaths a little more creative to try and compensate for this. One character’s exosuit implodes and the visual effects handle this quite well. But the same problem from the first movie persists into the second. The Megalodons are so large they swallow people and things whole, which effectively mitigates any shock factor. The giant Octopus is handled more discreetly and as a result is a more interesting antagonist. However, this is the sort of movie where you know well in advance who will live and who will die. Not even Jason Statham’s pugnacious character can up the ante. Overall Meg 2: The Trench is a classic example of “the same but more” and a squandered opportunity. I was left sadly feeling “so what?” at the end.
The Deadly Mantis (1957)
Not to be confused with the Shaw Brothers martial arts film of the same name from 1978, The Deadly Mantis (1957) is a creature feature in the idiom of Them! (1954). Unlike that film’s mutant ants, the monster on this occasion is not the product of the atomic age but a giant prehistoric praying mantis that has been released from the polar ice caps. Exactly how a creature associated with more tropical regions came to be at the North Pole is never explained. In fact precious little is in The Deadly Mantis. The film’s overall scope is somewhat limited with a basic story, limited action scenes and a rather dull cast of generic characters. There is an over reliance upon stock footage from period military documentaries and previous Universal Studio feature films. The film’s biggest failing is the giant praying mantis which does most of its rampaging conveniently off camera. It’s all rather disappointing.
Not to be confused with the Shaw Brothers martial arts film of the same name from 1978, The Deadly Mantis (1957) is a creature feature in the idiom of Them! (1954). Unlike that film’s mutant ants, the monster on this occasion is not the product of the atomic age but a giant prehistoric praying mantis that has been released from the polar ice caps. Exactly how a creature associated with more tropical regions came to be at the North Pole is never explained. In fact precious little is in The Deadly Mantis. The film’s overall scope is somewhat limited with a basic story, limited action scenes and a rather dull cast of generic characters. There is an over reliance upon stock footage from period military documentaries and previous Universal Studio feature films. The film’s biggest failing is the giant praying mantis which does most of its rampaging conveniently off camera. It’s all rather disappointing.
In the South Seas, a volcano erupts and the subsequent seismic disturbance disturbs North Pole polar ice sheets, releasing a 200 foot praying mantis that has been trapped there since prehistoric times. The monster attacks a remote outpost of Red Eagle One, a military early warning station. Despite personally leading the search, Commanding officer Col. Joe Parkman (Craig Stevens) cannot account for the incident or find an elusive blip that appears on radar. After a transport plane is attacked, a curious claw-like object is found in the wreckage. When Doctor of palaeontology, Nedrick Jackson (William Hopper), is asked to identify it he deduces that it is a spur from an insect's leg. Possibly from some unknown species of praying mantis. Dr. Jackson and photographer Marge Blaine (Alix Talton) travel to Red Eagle One to conduct further research. Shortly afterwards, the monster attacks again before migrating south to warmer climates, endangering the USA.
Director Nathan Juran, who was a competent genre film maker, has very little to work with in The Deadly Mantis. The budget is low and the script is arbitrary. The monster appears and the protagonists are confused. Then an academic identifies the threat and expedites the plot. A plucky female character is thrown into the mix for “love interest”. The praying mantis itself attacks a few miniature buildings, a fishing vessel and some vehicles. Minor cast members are killed off camera. The acting is adequate but the dialogue is perfunctory. The film paints with broad brush strokes and its primary saving grace is that it doesn’t outstay its welcome. Perhaps its best achievement is highlighting how superior Them! (1954) and The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953) are. Both of those films do more than the bare minimum and boast enjoyable screenplays and quirky characters.
Crawl (2019)
It is no secret that the film industry relies on a handful of common tropes as the mainstay of their cinematic output. It uses timeless themes, storylines and archetypes that have featured in folk tales, plays and literature throughout history. Hence their familiarity with audiences around the world. Where the skill in filmmaking lies is to take a common, well known idea and interpret it in a new and innovative fashion. Akira Kurosawa took Shakespeare’s MacBeth and retold the tale through the prism of Japanese feudalistic culture. The result, Throne of Blood, is considered a masterpiece. Similarly, The Lion King retells the same story through the medium of animation and anthropomorphic wildlife. All of which proves that the key to successfully retelling a familiar tale is to be creative with regard to setting, presentation and perspective.
It is no secret that the film industry relies on a handful of common tropes as the mainstay of their cinematic output. It uses timeless themes, storylines and archetypes that have featured in folk tales, plays and literature throughout history. Hence their familiarity with audiences around the world. Where the skill in filmmaking lies is to take a common, well known idea and interpret it in a new and innovative fashion. Akira Kurosawa took Shakespeare’s MacBeth and retold the tale through the prism of Japanese feudalistic culture. The result, Throne of Blood, is considered a masterpiece. Similarly, The Lion King retells the same story through the medium of animation and anthropomorphic wildlife. All of which proves that the key to successfully retelling a familiar tale is to be creative with regard to setting, presentation and perspective.
Which neatly brings me to Crawl. A creature feature where the central “McGuffin” is a group of people trapped by wayward wildlife. Hollywood has explored this plot device many times before. Consider The Naked Jungle (1954) in which Charlton Heston faces a swarm of South American ants. Then there is Hitchcock’s The Birds (1963). More recently Bait (2012) features a group of people trapped in a flooded supermarket along with a Great White Shark after a tsunami. Crawl (2019) has a father and daughter trapped in a house during a hurricane. Due to the Florida setting the dangerous beasties are Alligators on this occasion. What makes the film a cut above the average genre outing is a solid script with plausible characters and a decent cast that give life to the proceedings. Director Alexandre Aja builds a genuine sense of tension and punctuates the 87 minute running time with some robust set pieces.
Filmed in Belgrade, the production seamlessly recreates Florida. The digital effects convincingly depict a hurricane and the Alligators are a mixture of animatronics and CGI. But the film’s greatest assets are the main performances by Kaya Scodelario as Haley Keller and Barry Pepper as Dave Keller. Daughter Haley is an aspiring swimmer and her estranged father Dave is her former coach. The screenplay by Michael Rasmussen and Shawn Rasmussen keeps the scope of the narrative simple and immediate, resulting in a plausible family dynamic. The wider cast is minimal and although some characters are merely “red shirts” intended to expedite the threat of the Alligators with their timely deaths, the screenplay doesn’t treat them in a totally arbitrary fashion. The scenes of violence, are well realised, suspenseful and surprisingly unpleasant.
Crawl is content to stick within the parameters it has set itself and concentrates on telling its story to the best of its ability. There is an assumption from some critics that genre movies are by their nature, no more than the sum of their parts. Those with a more enlightened perspective believe that all types of film can craft well told stories and explore deep themes. Crawl is a prime example of an old story told from a fresh and different perspective. Yes, it does include horror elements but that is not all that it has to offer. At its heart this is a film about the perennial theme of fathers and daughters, which Crawl explores this well. It also has a point to make about climate change. However, if you’re just looking for a quality creature feature, complete with jump scares and grisly shocks, then the film also delivers this in spades.
Jurassic World Dominion (2022)
Jurassic World Dominion is a textbook example of a franchise that has run out of steam. Despite the enormous budget, the top notch production values and the presence of three members of the original cast, this is a long, tedious and curiously uneventful film. It has nothing new to say about environmental matters or unfettered science; themes that were front and centre in previous instalments. Nor does it do anything interesting with the main plot device of dinosaurs trying to integrate into our current ecosystems. But perhaps its biggest failing is the conspicuous lack of tension. The denizens of Jurassic World are simply not a threat and fail to have any emotional impact. The film doesn’t even placate viewers with superfluous cast members being eaten. The onscreen deaths by dinosaurs are rather tame.
Jurassic World Dominion is a textbook example of a franchise that has run out of steam. Despite the enormous budget, the top notch production values and the presence of three members of the original cast, this is a long, tedious and curiously uneventful film. It has nothing new to say about environmental matters or unfettered science; themes that were front and centre in previous instalments. Nor does it do anything interesting with the main plot device of dinosaurs trying to integrate into our current ecosystems. But perhaps its biggest failing is the conspicuous lack of tension. The denizens of Jurassic World are simply not a threat and fail to have any emotional impact. The film doesn’t even placate viewers with superfluous cast members being eaten. The onscreen deaths by dinosaurs are rather tame.
Four years after dinosaurs escaped into the wider world, humans struggle to adapt to their presence. The US government has contracted BioSyn Genetics, to control the dinosaurs in a reserve based in Italy's Dolomite Mountains and to further research them for pharmaceutical purposes. Meanwhile in Nevada, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) do their best to protect the local dinosaur population and advocate for their humane treatment. They also care for 14-year-old Maisie Lockwood (Isabella Sermon), Benjamin Lockwood's biogenetic granddaughter. Maisie has become curious about her heritage and the fact that she was cloned from the scientist Charlotte Lockwood. Neither Claire or Owen are aware that the CEO of BioSyn, Lewis Dodgson (Campbell Scott), has designs on both Maisie and the velociraptor Blue, so he can further his genetic research. He hires mercenary Rainn Delacourt (Scott Haze) to kidnap both.
Jurassic World Dominion is not without a few good points. I was initially amused by the conceit of bringing back the character of Lewis Dodgson from the original movie, who is now the CEO of BioSyn, the main competitor to InGen. Sadly, the character doesn’t develop beyond being a two dimensional corporate bad guy. Which raises the question, are real life corporate bad guys “interesting”? The more I consider this the more I think not. The return of Sam Neil and Laura Dern sees a resumption of their “will they, won’t they” relationship. Dr. Ellie Sattler’s cosy family dynamic that we last saw in Jurassic Park III has now ended. There’s certainly still a spark between her and Dr. Alan Grant and it is fun to watch it rekindle. The return of Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm is not so endearing and the character is trivialised to the status of a comic foil. As ever Michael Giacchino proves why he’s one of the best film composers around at present.
Director Colin Trevorrow does attempt to do several different things with the franchise formula. There’s a subplot about a thriving dinosaur blackmarket based in Malta. Owen and Claire attempt to infiltrate a sale only to be targeted by weaponized Atrociraptors that have been trained to kill. This culminates in a high speed chase through the narrow Maltese streets resulting in sub Bond/Jason Bourne shenanigans. It’s a curious change in style that doesn’t quite work. Then there is another storyline in which BioSyn creates genetically modified prehistoric locusts that eat everything apart from the company’s own copyrighted crops. It’s a superficially bold idea, again playing into existing evil corporation tropes but it simply doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. Such a plan couldn’t be concealed and would quickly reveal that BioSyn was publicly holding the world to ransom.
Despite some potential promise, Jurassic World Dominion succumbs to the endemic failings of modern, mainstream, franchise filmmaking. The action scenes are loud, frenetic and rapidly edited yet devoid of any suspense. The visual effects are produced by a variety of companies and vary greatly in quality. The script is perfunctory, devoid of any charm and has nothing new to say. There are numerous nods and homages to Spielberg’s first instalment but all these do is highlight how well made the original film was and how superfluous the latest iteration is. Therein lies the flaw with popular franchise movies. Success begets ubiquity and ubiquity ultimately diminishes interest. However, the box office returns for Jurassic World: Dominion remain curiously high, indicating that the public still has an appetite for dinosaur based spectacle, irrespective of its narrative quality. I have no interest in a further instalment.
Update. Jurassic World Dominion has just been released on home media and includes the theatrical release of the film and an extended director’s edition which runs 14 minutes longer. As my review is based upon the cinema release I thought it fair to watch the longer version to see if it offers any significant improvement. The extended edition does provide a more coherent narrative and expands the role of Dr. Ellie Sattler. There’s a five minute prologue set in the Jurassic era, as well as an extra scene showing that there’s a history between Owen Grady and Rainn Delacourt. Naturally there are additional scenes of dinosaur based mayhem including something akin to a cockfight that takes place in the Maltese dinosaur black market. However, although the story is more coherent in the extended edition, it does not really impact upon the overall superfluous nature of Jurassic World Dominion. If you do decide to watch the film then choose the extended edition as it does iron out some of the flaws and is the better of the two versions.
The Naked Jungle (1954)
Set in Brazil in 1901, plantation owner Christopher Leiningen (Charlton Heston) makes arrangements to get married. He has spent his entire life building his estate and reclaiming land from the jungle. He is fiercely independent but he is also alone and isolated. Joanna Selby (Eleanor Parker) from New Orleans agrees to marry him but their first meeting does not go well. Leiningen is unhappy to discover that Joanna is a widow and hence has a past, so he tells her to return to America on the next available boat. However, local commissioner (William Conrad) informs Leiningen that swarming soldier ants, or Marabunta, are moving towards his plantation destroying everything in their path. Leiningen refuses to abandon his life’s work and is surprised when Joanna decides to stay with him. Can they convince their native workers to stay too and can they defend the estate from the Marabunta, described as “forty square miles of agonising death”.
Set in Brazil in 1901, plantation owner Christopher Leiningen (Charlton Heston) makes arrangements to get married. He has spent his entire life building his estate and reclaiming land from the jungle. He is fiercely independent but he is also alone and isolated. Joanna Selby (Eleanor Parker) from New Orleans agrees to marry him but their first meeting does not go well. Leiningen is unhappy to discover that Joanna is a widow and hence has a past, so he tells her to return to America on the next available boat. However, local commissioner (William Conrad) informs Leiningen that swarming soldier ants, or Marabunta, are moving towards his plantation destroying everything in their path. Leiningen refuses to abandon his life’s work and is surprised when Joanna decides to stay with him. Can they convince their native workers to stay too and can they defend the estate from the Marabunta, described as “forty square miles of agonising death”.
The Naked Jungle is essentially a romantic drama with some action scenes added to the final act. If it were made today it would more than likely be an action movie with a romantic subplot added as an afterthought. However, this was the fifties and “romance” sold and by “romance” I of course mean sex. Obviously such a subject couldn’t be addressed directly, due to the prevailing social attitudes and film making codes of the time. So the screenplay by Ranald MacDougall, Ben Maddow and Philip Yordan, dances around the issue dropping numerous unsubtle hints. Christopher Leiningen is a clean cut, no nonsense hero and man’s man. He is the master of all he surveys and has built his own world by the strength of his own will. But he balks of the idea of marrying a widow; a women who is more sexually experienced than him. Especially as it is more than likely he is a virgin himself. The sexual politics of this film are quite advanced for the times.
The first hour of the The Naked Jungle is a fraught love story, filled with sexual tension. Contemporary viewers who lack the ability to detach themselves from the outdated imperialist themes, dubious depiction of the Brazilian natives and other obsolete elements of the story may find The Naked Jungle hard to watch. Those who can contextualise the narrative will be rewarded with strong performances from both Heston and Parker. The latter has some very good lines. When rebuffed for being a widow and hence not being a virgin she calmly states that a piano plays better if it has already been played. The production values are also sound with Florida standing in for tropical Brazil. The studio scenes and interior sets are sumptuous and reflect the grandiose style of big studios of the time.
The last thirty minutes of The Naked Jungle feature the arrival of the Marabunta and the nature and habits of soldier ants are grossly misrepresented. But why let natural history stand in the way of good action scenes. Hence we get a lot of matte painting showing jungle stripped of foliage and composite shots of ants swarming around the cast. There’s also some good miniature work at the film’s climax. A few cast members are eaten by the marauding Marabunta but it’s all rather tame. A corpse that has been eaten to the bone is briefly shown and one actor briefly staggers around with ants covering his hands and face but it’s hardly terrifying. Overall, The Naked Jungle is an entertaining example of the sort of romantic drama with a soupçon of action which were a cinematic mainstay of the times. It reflects the tastes, politics and popular culture of the fifties and should be judged within such a context.
Grizzly (1976)
After the critical and commercial success of Jaws in 1975, a veritable tsunami of “creature feature” movies followed in its wake. A few titles, such as Alligator (1980) and Piranha (1978) managed to do something different with the rogue animal trope, both providing a quirky and satirical look at the genre along with plenty of exploitation mayhem. However, most of the rest were low budget productions of negligible quality. However, such qualities are not always an impediment at the box office. Grizzly (1976) was hastily made on a budget of $750,000 yet earned an impressive $39,000,000 at the box office. The critics hated it but the public loved it and it went on to be the second most financially successful independent feature film in the US that year (the first being Monty Python and the Holy Grail). Grizzly is in many ways a microcosm of the exploitation genre from the seventies and needs to be viewed through that prism if it is to be enjoyed.
After the critical and commercial success of Jaws in 1975, a veritable tsunami of “creature feature” movies followed in its wake. A few titles, such as Alligator (1980) and Piranha (1978) managed to do something different with the rogue animal trope, both providing a quirky and satirical look at the genre along with plenty of exploitation mayhem. However, most of the rest were low budget productions of negligible quality. However, such qualities are not always an impediment at the box office. Grizzly (1976) was hastily made on a budget of $750,000 yet earned an impressive $39,000,000 at the box office. The critics hated it but the public loved it and it went on to be the second most financially successful independent feature film in the US that year (the first being Monty Python and the Holy Grail). Grizzly is in many ways a microcosm of the exploitation genre from the seventies and needs to be viewed through that prism if it is to be enjoyed.
In an unspecified National Park in South Eastern America, Chief Ranger Michael Kelly (Christopher George) and his team search for two female hikers who are overdue after breaking camp. Kelly is joined by photographer Allison Corwin (Joan McCall) who subsequently stumbles upon human remains that have been partially buried. Tracks in the area and a subsequent autopsy confirm that there is a large predator loose in the park. Charley Kittridge (Joe Dorsey) the park supervisor, blames Kelly and naturalist Arthur Scott (Richard Jaeckel) as all bears were supposed to be tagged and removed from the tourist areas before the vacation season began. After further attacks Kittridge invites local hunters to kill the bear. Kelly and Scott decide to track the Grizzly down themselves. With the help of local helicopter pilot and Vietnam veteran Don Stober (Andrew Prine), they journey into the wilderness and attempt to set a trap. But the 15 ft, 2000 lbs bear proves more cunning than they anticipate.
One of the most often cited criticisms of Grizzly is it’s slavish adherence to the plot of Jaws. Director William Girdler attempts to duplicate many of the plot details from Spielberg’s iconic film. Hence we have a senior public official who refuses to take action when necessary, the near death of a child being a major catalyst of events and a trio of heroes who take on the task of hunting down the predator themselves. Sadly, Grizzly lacks the production polish and the quality dialogue that Jaws has in spades. The screenplay by Harvey Flaxman and David Sheldon is perfunctory to say the best and weak even by the standards of the exploitation genre. All major characters are woefully undeveloped and Christopher George, Andrew Prine and Richard Jaekel struggle to do much with their roles, often having to rely on their own personalities to get by. The location photography is good but the dense forest and striking mountains are not used to their full advantage.
Due to several plotlines and characters vanishing from the proceedings, shortly after being introduced, it seems likely that Grizzly was edited down from a longer film into the tight 89 minutes that makes up the theatrical release. Native American culture is alluded to but then plays no further part of the plot. Kelly’s romance with Allison Corwin simply ceases to be relevant halfway in and is dispensed with after a time. The levels of violence are also inconsistent. The first two onscreen deaths feature a severed arm flying across the screen. After this the kills are somewhat tamer. However, Grizzly ups the ante when a child is attacked in his garden. His Mother beats the bear with a broom, who drops the young child revealing his left leg bitten off below the knee. She herself is then mauled to death. This disparity in content again suggests last minute editing to secure a lower rating. Allegedly the first cut was R rated and featured more nudity and gore. It was then reduced for a PG rating.
Perhaps the weakest aspect of Grizzly is the bear itself. In a few of the attack sequences, the bear is a stunt performer in a suit but for the vast majority of the film, a real Kodiak bear (called Teddy) was used. Sadly, this particular bear never appears particularly menacing or threatening. Apparently the bear wrangler used marshmallows on a stick to make the animal stand and reach. Its subsequent slavering looks more comical than enraged. The bear certainly is imposing, due to its height but it never truly instills fear. Yet perhaps I am looking at this film with the perspective of a genre aficionado in his middle fifties, who has seen a lot of movies over the years. In the late seventies, this sort of fodder would have appealed greatly to the youth market (as the box office returns show). Director William Girdler went on to direct The Manitou, which I am very fond of. As for Grizzly, it remains an interesting example of how being in the right place at the right time is often essential to successful exploitation cinema.
Nightwing (1979)
The seventies saw a minor boom in creature feature films after the box office success of Jaws. Hence, we had movies such as Orca (1977), Tentacles (1977), The Pack (1977) and Piranha (1978). If an animal could eat you or potentially pose any threat to people, someone somewhere would make a movie about it. Usually a bad one. A few of these even dared to stray into other hot topics of the time such as pollution and protecting the environment. Some would even invoke mysticism and folk lore to facilitate their protagonists. Nightwing is one such curious genre hybrid which combines vampire bats, shale oil mining and Native American culture in its clumsy and unsubtle plot. It’s a somewhat odd undertaking, directed by Arthur Hiller. His previous work included Love Story (1970) and Silver Streak (1976), so he was not the first person you’d expect to see associated with such material. The film doesn’t work well as either a horror movie or an exploration of social issues, but like so many movies from this era, it is of interest mainly due to its sheer incongruity.
The seventies saw a minor boom in creature feature films after the box office success of Jaws. Hence, we had movies such as Orca (1977), Tentacles (1977), The Pack (1977) and Piranha (1978). If an animal could eat you or potentially pose any threat to people, someone somewhere would make a movie about it. Usually a bad one. A few of these even dared to stray into other hot topics of the time such as pollution and protecting the environment. Some would even invoke mysticism and folk lore to facilitate their protagonists. Nightwing is one such curious genre hybrid which combines vampire bats, shale oil mining and Native American culture in its clumsy and unsubtle plot. It’s a somewhat odd undertaking, directed by Arthur Hiller. His previous work included Love Story (1970) and Silver Streak (1976), so he was not the first person you’d expect to see associated with such material. The film doesn’t work well as either a horror movie or an exploration of social issues, but like so many movies from this era, it is of interest mainly due to its sheer incongruity.
Youngman Duran (Nick Mancuso), a deputy on an Indian reservation in New Mexico, investigates the death of several horses on a local ranch. The bodies are covered in small bites, drained of blood and there is a strong smell of ammonia. Tribal Council chairman Walker Chee (Stephen Macht) is keen to keep the matter quiet, as he is trying to negotiate the mining rites to oil shale deposits that have recently been discovered in nearby canyons. Canyons that also happen to be sacred to the local population. Abner Tasupi (George Clutesi), an ageing medicine man and Duran’s uncle, tells him he’s unleashed forces that will remove the White Man from the land and restore things to how they use to be. Duran dismisses such ideas, but as further death occurs including his uncle, begins to think otherwise. However, the arrival of British scientist Philip Payne (David Warner) points to a more tangible answer. The caves in Maskai Canyon are home to a swarm of deadly vampire bats he’s been tracking.
Nightwing efficiently sets out its stall within the first fifteen minutes. The audience is presented with a beleaguered law enforcment official, a corrupt business man and an obsessed scientist. This is quickly followed by a heavy dose ersatz Indian mysticism and the ubiquitous love interest, via local nurse Anne Dillon (Kathryn Harrold), who runs the town clinic. It’s all formulaic content that’s common to genre movies. There is also an attempt to address some deeper issues regarding the treatment of indigenous peoples by the Federal Government, as well as some nods towards institutional racism. But it’s far from convincing and or subtle. Especially in light of the fact that so few of the main cast are of the correct ethnicity. The film then proceeds to offset the subsequent vampire bat attacks with wider supernatural explanations, but never fully commits to them. The use of datura root as a hallucinogenic offers a “get out of jail card” to the film’s mystic elements.
As for the vampire bat attacks, they’re initially kept off screen until the first major set piece of the movie. This involves a group of Christian missionaries who are visiting the reservation and considering making a substantial charitable investment. It is one of the better plot elements. The attack takes place at night around the camp fire and features animatronic bats created by Carlo Rambaldi (E.T and the 1976 version of King Kong). There is also an optical overlay of a swarm of bats that further adds to the scene. It doesn’t quite work and certainly the rather static close ups of Rambaldi’s bats are far from convincing. However, the effects work is of interest due to the technical limitations of the time. Certainly, the blood flows in this sequence with the victims panicking. One falls into the camp fire while another hides under the camper van, only for it to run over her. Later in the movie Duran, Payne and Dillon construct an anti-bat cage from steel scaffolding and wire mesh. The technical shortcomings of the animatronics are more apparent here.
There are some genre stalwarts in the cast. David warner is suitable driven and even has a Jaws-eque monologue about the inherent “evil” of vampire bats. Sadly, his character has little back story. Strother Martin also appears as the local store owner as does Charles Hallahan as one of the Christian missionaries. But overall the screenplay by Martin Cruz Smith, Steve Shagan and Bud Shrake does the bear minimum and lacks any depth, or standout features. Although the desert locations are strikingly shot at times by Charles Rosher Jr. there is no overt sense of danger from the environment. Nightwing may well have benefitted from a more experienced genre director at the helm, who could have focused more upon the horror elements, rather than trying to expand the scope of the story into wider socio-political themes. However, I still find movies of this kind that hail from the pre-digital age to be of interest. The seventies were a far more experimental time for cinema and studios were prepared to try different things and straddle multiple genres. Nightwing should therefore be filed under such.
The Meg (2018)
If you have seen any of the marketing material or trailers for The Meg, then you know exactly what you’re getting right from the get-go. All movies inherently require the viewer to suspend their sense of disbelief to various degrees. Naturally, the “creature feature” genre asks audience to go the extra mile with this concept. The Meg takes a major gamble by insisting that everyone goes further still, not by believing in a giant prehistoric shark (Megalodon) but that Jason Statham is a ex-navy, deep sea rescue diver. However, it pays off and the resulting movie is staggeringly stupid, but mercifully entertaining in an undemanding way. Recent movies such as Into the Storm and Geostorm are crass and made worse by their implicit assumption that their viewers are stupid. The Meg is far from cerebral but has an upbeat tone and a sense of playfulness that knowingly invites the audience to come aboard with the silliness. It’s a big distinction and the reason why I smiled a lot and frequently rolled my eyes while watching The Meg, but never with derision.
If you have seen any of the marketing material or trailers for The Meg, then you know exactly what you’re getting right from the get-go. All movies inherently require the viewer to suspend their sense of disbelief to various degrees. Naturally, the “creature feature” genre asks audience to go the extra mile with this concept. The Meg takes a major gamble by insisting that everyone goes further still, not by believing in a giant prehistoric shark (Megalodon) but that Jason Statham is a ex-navy, deep sea rescue diver. However, it pays off and the resulting movie is staggeringly stupid, but mercifully entertaining in an undemanding way. Recent movies such as Into the Storm and Geostorm are crass and made worse by their implicit assumption that their viewers are stupid. The Meg is far from cerebral but has an upbeat tone and a sense of playfulness that knowingly invites the audience to come aboard with the silliness. It’s a big distinction and the reason why I smiled a lot and frequently rolled my eyes while watching The Meg, but never with derision.
Plot wise, no cliché, genre trope or established cinematic convention is left unturned. Jonas Taylor (Jason Statham) retires with a cloud over his head after leaving several fellow divers behind during a deep-sea rescue. His claim there was an imminent danger from some unknown sea creature, is not believed by fellow team mate Dr Heller (Robert Taylor), who suspects he may have suffered pressure-induced psychosis. Five years later an incident involving a submersible, trapped in the Marianas Trench, forces Jonas out of retirement and into a confrontation with his aquatic nemesis, a prehistoric Megalodon. The creature subsequently escapes the depth of the ocean trench and threatens the safety of an underwater research station, Mana One, owned by billionaire Jack Morris (Rainn Wilson) and run by oceanographer Dr. Minway Zhang (Winston Chao) and his daughter and fellow scientist Suyin Zhang (Li Bingbing). After a failed attempt to destroy the shark, the creature heads off towards the major tourist resort of Sanya Bay in Hainan Province, China. Digital effects abound, scenery is chewed by the cast, Statham is gruff and does everything one expects of him.
The Meg is effectively a big budget copy of the sort of movies The Asylum make, which is ironic on multiple levels when you think about it. It is one of the few recent US-Chinese co-productions that actually manages to maintain a sense of identity. Often when trying to please multiple markets, cultural and social differences are stripped back from the narrative resulting in a very bland and homogeneous product. The Meg manages to maintain a foot in both nations’ respective zeitgeist and the brief scenes showing the Chinese middle-classes indulging in identical leisure activities to their western counterparts is an interesting reflection of the nature of globalism. However, this brief moment of depth is more than likely purely accidental. As for the shark itself, it suffers from being purely a CGI creation and oddly enough, it’s size actually makes it less threatening. This isn’t Jaws where victims are slowly dismembered as the shark feeds. This is a Megalodon that can swallow multiple people in one mouthful. As a result, the climatic action scene at Sanya Bay is fun but oddly not that shocking. The Meg certainly doesn’t push the boundaries of its rating.
Some viewers will still find The Meg too “stupid” for their tastes. It is the sort of movie that is best viewed in the company of likeminded friends, late on a Friday night, after an evening in the pub. It is fair to say that if it wasn’t for the presence of Jason Statham, Cliff Curtis and Shuya Sophia Cai then this would have simply been a DTV release with an unusually big budget. It’s difficult to put an exact finger upon it, but Jason Statham has created his own unique niche within the action movie genre and he carries this movie by his own curious form of star appeal. Plus, the “creature feature” genre still seems to have an inherent attraction with audiences, as the box office returns of the Jurassic Park franchise prove. I’ll be honest and state that my interest in The Meg doesn’t go so far as a sequel. This sort of movie is the equivalent of a greasy burger you buy at the funfair. It’s fine once in a while as an indulgence, despite the fact that you know it’s bad, but you would soon tire of them being a regular part of my diet.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Critical opinion was very much split this summer when Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was released. However, the viewers were somewhat indifferent to the opinions of the professional critics and the movie made a healthy $1,303,476,615 globally, proving once again that the public’s’ continuing love affair with “all things dinosaur” shows no sign of abating. When you factor in the home media market into overall profits, the entire Jurassic Park franchise will have made $5 billion worldwide. So, bearing in mind the old adage that “money talks and bullshit walks”, I think it’s safe to say there’ll be more instalments in the years to come. When faced with such overwhelming box office popularity it seems somewhat pointless to dissect the latest movie, because the film seems to be bullet proof regardless of narrative flaws or ill-conceived plot devices. However, film criticism isn’t about box office popularity but about analysing the relative quality of a movie’s construction and its subsequent standing.
Critical opinion was very much split this summer when Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was released. However, the viewers were somewhat indifferent to the opinions of the professional critics and the movie made a healthy $1,303,476,615 globally, proving once again that the public’s’ continuing love affair with “all things dinosaur” shows no sign of abating. When you factor in the home media market into overall profits, the entire Jurassic Park franchise will have made $5 billion worldwide. So, bearing in mind the old adage that “money talks and bullshit walks”, I think it’s safe to say there’ll be more instalments in the years to come. When faced with such overwhelming box office popularity it seems somewhat pointless to dissect the latest movie, because the film seems to be bullet proof regardless of narrative flaws or ill-conceived plot devices. However, film criticism isn’t about box office popularity but about analysing the relative quality of a movie’s construction and its subsequent standing.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a film of two distinct halves. The first follows a tried and tested formula and although technically accomplished, doesn’t really offer anything new. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it retreads a lot of ground previously covered in The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997). As a U.S. Senate hearing in Washington, D.C. debates whether Isla Nublar's dinosaurs should be saved from an impending volcanic eruption, Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) return to the island on behalf of business man Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell) who has offered the animals safe haven in a nature reserve. However, his aide, Eli Mills (Rafe Spall) has different plans, looking to sell off the dinosaurs to private investors. Which brings us neatly and conveniently to the second half of the film in which the dinosaurs are returned to Lockwood’s big country estate and the subsequently escape. There is also a further variation on a theme, where the bones of the deceased Indominus rex have been used to create a further hybrid using Velociraptor DNA harvested from “Blue”. Naturally this new beast, the Indoraptor, becomes the antagonist of the last hour of the film.
It is the second half of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom that is the most enjoyable, as it affords director J. A. Bayona the opportunity to be creative and take the franchise in a different direction to previous instalments. As an experienced director of supernatural dramas, the movie takes an interesting step into the Gothic horror genre. The Indoraptor escapes and stalks Lockwood’s granddaughter Maisie (Isabella Sermon) around the mansion, invoking a great deal of traditional horror imagery, tropes and homages. There is skilful use of silhouettes and flickering lights whilst prowling around a distinctly Gothic mansion, that looks like it came straight out of The Haunting of Hill House. The dinosaur is treated more as a traditional horror movie antagonist such as a vampire or ghost, rather than a beast in a classic “creature feature”. The climax set on a fragile glass atrium could have come straight out of a Hammer horror movie, during the studio’s heyday.
Once again, I wish to return to the subject of the PG-13 rating that seems to dominate the box office at present. A film that is predicated on big dinosaurs eating people is by its very nature going to have to show some degree of violence at some point. However, the parameters of the rating mean that such depictions are going to have to be less than graphic. Therefore, as ever the devil lies in the detail. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom works round this issue creatively. Firstly, sound is often used to bolster the onscreen violence, or relative lack of it. A dinosaur will stoop to devour someone in a relatively close shot, with the victim predominantly outside of the frame. Bone crunching noises, screams and tearing sounds are then used to embellish the scene. Furthermore, the death of second tier villain, Ted Levine, is a text book example of how to frame a rather unpleasant act of physical mutilation, without showing too much. It is incredibly clear what has happened, but it is not shown in explicit detail. These innovative workarounds of restraints of the rating are becoming increasingly common. For further details, go watch Kong: Skull Island and the latest Tomb Raider.
Now not all of these visual affectations discussed in the second half of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom work. There’s a noticeable tonal shift from the movies first hour and for some its a little too obvious, but I would argue that it’s all a welcome change to a franchise that up until now has been very set in its way. The ending of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom clearly indicates where the producers want to take things next. If the studio follows through, then the next instalment will be a far cry from the initial concept of dinosaurs in an amusement park. There is scope for an interesting and extensive exploration of the idea of the human race having to co-exist with another species. The ramifications both on land and at sea are ripe for dramatisation. In the meantime, if you simply want some big budget, glossy dinosaur fun then Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom can provide that. If you dig deeper, you’ll discover an interesting franchise experiment brought about by the involvement of atypical director, which is a rare thing these days.
The Land That Time Forgot (1975)
I first saw The Land That Time Forgot way back in 1975 at the Odeon Isle of Wight, when it was first released. We were on holiday at the time, which was cause for celebration in itself, as these were few and far between during my youth, due to the state of the UK economy at the time. But to then go to the cinema and see a fantasy film, filled with action, adventure and monsters, was the icing on the cake for an over excited eight-year-old. Adapted by Michael Moorcock and James Cawthorn from the 1924 the novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Land That Time Forgot is a classic example of high adventure on a low budget. Its technical shortcomings were even apparent to me as a child, yet there was a charm and honesty to this curious British production, that had the audacity to try and compete with the likes of more expensive US productions such as The Golden Voyage of Sinbad and Island at the Top of the World.
I first saw The Land That Time Forgot way back in 1975 at the Odeon Isle of Wight, when it was first released. We were on holiday at the time, which was cause for celebration in itself, as these were few and far between during my youth, due to the state of the UK economy at the time. But to then go to the cinema and see a fantasy film, filled with action, adventure and monsters, was the icing on the cake for an over excited eight-year-old. Adapted by Michael Moorcock and James Cawthorn from the 1924 the novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Land That Time Forgot is a classic example of high adventure on a low budget. Its technical shortcomings were even apparent to me as a child, yet there was a charm and honesty to this curious British production, that had the audacity to try and compete with the likes of more expensive US productions such as The Golden Voyage of Sinbad and Island at the Top of the World.
The Land That Time Forgot has a rather unusual production pedigree as it was financed by Amicus Productions who were best known during the seventies for their series of portmanteau horror films such as Tales from the Crypt (1972), Asylum (1972). It boasts a robust cast of British characters such as the late Keith Barron (Captain Bradley), Susan Penhaligon and Anthony Ainley. Barron got the role because he bought a house from the producer John Dark, who was casting at the time. Seeking a “known quantity” for the US market, actor Doug McClure secured the lead role as Bowen Tyler. McClure was popular due to his regular appearance in the successful TV western series, The Virginian. British actor John McEnery who played U-Boat Captain Von Schoenvorts, was not deemed to be “sufficiently German” when the movie entered post-production and subsequently had all his dialogue re-dubbed by Anton Diffring.
The Land That Time Forgot is a fairly faithful big screen version of the source novel. Set during World War I, the survivors of a torpedoed British merchant ship manage to capture the German U-Boat that sunk them. However, the German second officer Dietz, sabotages the compass resulting in the U-Boat straying into uncharted waters. Low on fuel and supplies, the combined crew find a strange volcanic sub-continent amid the frozen sea. Captain Von Schoenvorts surmises that this may be the “lost” island of Caprona, which was referenced by Italian explorer Caproni in 1721. Finding an underwater channel, the U-Boats manages to penetrate the outer cliff wall only to find a lush tropical zone, populated by both Dinosaurs and prehistoric people. While Captain Von Schoenvorts and Biologist Lisa Clayton contemplate the mystery of Caprona’s curious ecosystem, Engineer Bowen Tyler searches for a viable source of oil that they can refine and so escape back to civilisation.
The Land That Time Forgot is very much a product of its time, being made on a very modest budget. Yet despite its technical shortcomings the movie holds up very well. Roger Dickens dinosaur effects, which are mainly rod puppets, have a certain charm about them. They are not as sophisticated as Ray Harryhausen’s stop frame animated marvels, but they get the job done. Praise was heaped upon Derek Meddings’ superb miniature effects at the time and they are still impressive today. But what The Land That Time Forgot manages to achieve that many modern equivalent movies fail to do, is being honest and respectful towards its source material. Just because the movie is based upon a pulp fiction novel, it isn’t trivialised or presented in an ironic and self-deprecating way. The cast obviously took their roles seriously and delivered a very sincere film, irrespective of its humble origins and restricted production values.
The Land That Time Forgot is an excellent example of low budget, but creative independent film making that was common place in the seventies. It has a simple plot, with clearly defined characters. The action scenes and dramatic scope of the film are ambitious considering the financial constraints and although casually violent, as so many family films ironically were at the time, it is never gratuitous. Susan Penhaligon’s role sadly reflects gender-based attitudes of the time. The movie doesn’t make any attempt to accurately reflect the state of geopolitics of the period. The hero is robust, masculine and decisive. The Germans are “bad” because the film requires an arbitrary set of antagonists. Naturally they also reflect the prevailing stereotypes and prejudices common to the UK society at the time. The film poster certainly overstates the scope of the production, promising action of a far more spectacular nature and a lot more dinosaurs. Yet it all works very well and is still very entertaining, if you accept it for what it is and when it was made.
Black Sheep (2006)
Black Sheep is a high concept horror comedy from New Zealand. Featuring creative physical effects by Weta Workshop, this tale of genetically modified killer sheep, animal husbandry and environmentalism requires a very broad sense of humour and an abiding love for the “creature feature” sub-genre. It should be noted that the copy I watched was the unrated R1 DVD. This version is stronger in content than the R rated US theatrical release and yet was released at the UK cinemas with only a 15 rating from the BBFC. I suspect that the similarities in humour between the UK and New Zealand contributed to this somewhat low rating. That and the fact that horror comedy often gets a free pass because the humour always tends to mitigate the violence.
Black Sheep is a high concept horror comedy from New Zealand. Featuring creative physical effects by Weta Workshop, this tale of genetically modified killer sheep, animal husbandry and environmentalism requires a very broad sense of humour and an abiding love for the “creature feature” sub-genre. It should be noted that the copy I watched was the unrated R1 DVD. This version is stronger in content than the R rated US theatrical release and yet was released at the UK cinemas with only a 15 rating from the BBFC. I suspect that the similarities in humour between the UK and New Zealand contributed to this somewhat low rating. That and the fact that horror comedy often gets a free pass because the humour always tends to mitigate the violence.
The plot is somewhat rudimentary but appropriate to the genre. Two brothers grow up on a sheep farm. One, Henry Oldfield (Nathan Meister), becomes a sheepophobic (is that a proper word?) after his brother Angus (Peter Feeney) kills his pet and terrorises him with the carcass. Years later Henry discovers that his successful brother is conducting illegal genetic experiments with sheep. An experimental foetus is then accidentally unleashed after environmentalists (Oliver Driver and Danielle Mason) break into the farm. It's not long before those bitten by the monster sheep transform into sheep-human hybrids. Matters get worse as killer flocks rampage through the countryside, seeking human flesh.
Writer and director Jonathan King's debut feature is very matter of fact. You'll either love or hate this film and there is no middle ground. It's gory, crass and obvious. Yet there's some subtle digs at environmentalism, farming and political activism. There are some affectionate homages to the horror genre (one scene is straight out of An American Werewolf in London) and the whole enterprise is refreshingly unpretentious. There is also great cinematography by Richard Bluck and a wonderfully traditional soundtrack by Victoria Kelly which compliments the film greatly. Despite its subject matter and the occasional lapse into that theme we'd hope they wouldn't touch (i.e. sheep loving), Black Sheep is an amusing night's entertainment for those that approach it with the right state of mind. If you are easily offended and gore averse, best give it a miss.
The Mists (2007)
Frank Darabont achieved both critical acclaim and mass appeal with his adaptations of The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. In 2007 he returned once again to the work of Stephen King with his film version of The Mist. It’s a sideways step away from human drama into a more genre piece, yet it still retains a very traditional story at its heart. Once you look beyond the superficial elements of "creature feature" plot, you get yet another well written character study by an ensemble cast, again focusing on how the human condition deals with extreme situations. The particular route it takes and some of the themes it explores may not be to everyone's taste. However, it still focuses on characters and performances. It is also a movie that ends with a somewhat unexpected plot development, that some viewers may find a little extreme. It is one of those film related twists that if known in advance, greatly diminishes once enjoyment of the film.
Frank Darabont achieved both critical acclaim and mass appeal with his adaptations of The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. In 2007 he returned once again to the work of Stephen King with his film version of The Mist. It’s a sideways step away from human drama into a more genre piece, yet it still retains a very traditional story at its heart. Once you look beyond the superficial elements of "creature feature" plot, you get yet another well written character study by an ensemble cast, again focusing on how the human condition deals with extreme situations. The particular route it takes and some of the themes it explores may not be to everyone's taste. However, it still focuses on characters and performances. It is also a movie that ends with a somewhat unexpected plot development, that some viewers may find a little extreme. It is one of those film related twists that if known in advance, greatly diminishes once enjoyment of the film.
Set in yet another small and unobtrusive town (the kind Stephen King exalts), The Mist starts with an unexpected and extreme storm. This inclement weather forces David Drayton (Thomas Jane) and his family retreat to their basement. When they emerge in the morning a tree has crashed through the front window of his house and the power is out. David and his young son go into town for supplies, leaving his wife behind. It’s at the general store where David first realises something is horribly wrong. A man, covered in blood, races into the store screaming “there’s something in the mist!”. Shortly after an unnatural mist rolls across the town and leaves the store cut off and isolated. From this point on the The Mist focuses on how fragile the social bonds of a community and how thin the veneer of a civilised society really is. It’s not long before friends and neighbours turn against each other, with logic and reason being replaced with blame and fear.
The Mist is more than just some monster movie. It’s a careful and inciteful examination of human nature. Darabont’s screenplay develops each character carefully and the film’s real thrills comes from following his group of terrified survivors, rather than the curious beats that accompany the mist. Their individual emotional journeys and the way they fall apart in different ways as they lose hope, makes for compelling viewing. Some turn to God and fatalism, others strive to be logical, where a few remain in denial and pay dearly for their refusal to face facts. David Drayton however, simply refuses to give up, although this is shown not be without ramifications. As ever this is where director Frank Darabont excels. He has a keen eye for social dynamics and credible characters, constructing a worryingly realistic microcosm of American society. Ten years on this film feels worryingly prescient.
Thomas Jane carries the film with his central performance as an artist turned temporary leader. But it’s not just Jane that turns in a solid performance here. The ensemble cast of quality actors not only embody their respective characters but specific facets of contemporary US society. Toby Jones, the quiet and unassuming junior manager of the store, proves to be a robust and stoic character. Marcia Gay Harden excels as the towns religious zealot, happy to use events to fuel her own prejudices. It's been a while since I wanted to see the "bad guy" in a film get what they deserved, quite so much. Such is the strength of her performance. The Mist again shows Darabont's ability to emotionally connected with the central characters. It is what makes the film so effective. You want them to be safe and you're genuinely upset when some meet a brutal end. The mindless hypocrisy of some characters as they clutch at straws and change their allegiance, to simply survive is also plausible and gripping. Perhaps it makes us feel uncomfortable because it rings so true.
If there’s any flaw in the film, it’s in the mechanics of Darabont’s script, which at times leans towards the predictable. All those the cast and characters are compelling, there are few surprises about who will turn out bad and who will be a unsung hero. But like everything Darabont does The Mist connects so well with its audience on an emotional level, that you can forgive these weaknesses. The film’s monsters are there mainly to serve as a catalyst for a much deeper, emotive and thought-provoking story. Although it should be noted that the film does contains a degree of strong violence and language. The creatures themselves are also creative and baroque. The Mist is a clever, character-driven horror film and a human drama. It could also be considered as a metaphor for genocide and ethnic cleansing. You decide. The Mist is recommended to fans of human drama, strong performances and is not the exclusive province of the horror buff.
Super 8 (2011)
When you see the names of such cinematic luminaries as Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams together on the same movie poster, naturally your expectations are going to be high. Yet when watching the various trailers for Super 8, just prior to its release in 2011, I was somewhat cautious. I have discussed in the past at some length the ambiguous nature of trailers and that they can misrepresent a film. Yet even bearing this in mind at the time, I couldn’t help but feel that Super 8 seemed like a somewhat self-indulgent homage to Spielberg's earlier work. I subsequently saw the movie at the cinema in August that year and my suspicions were validated. However, over time I have spoken to several friends who are advocates of the movie, so I thought I’d watch it a second time. Sadly, I still find myself unable to label Super 8 as anything else other than adequate. Now I would hasten to add, that I use adequate within the context of both director’s body of work. An adequate film from either Mr Spielberg or Abrams is still superior to many of their competitors. But that's not the point. I simply expected better from such a project.
When you see the names of such cinematic luminaries as Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams together on the same movie poster, naturally your expectations are going to be high. Yet when watching the various trailers for Super 8, just prior to its release in 2011, I was somewhat cautious. I have discussed in the past at some length the ambiguous nature of trailers and that they can misrepresent a film. Yet even bearing this in mind at the time, I couldn’t help but feel that Super 8 seemed like a somewhat self-indulgent homage to Spielberg's earlier work. I subsequently saw the movie at the cinema in August that year and my suspicions were validated. However, over time I have spoken to several friends who are advocates of the movie, so I thought I’d watch it a second time. Sadly, I still find myself unable to label Super 8 as anything else other than adequate. Now I would hasten to add, that I use adequate within the context of both director’s body of work. An adequate film from either Mr Spielberg or Abrams is still superior to many of their competitors. But that's not the point. I simply expected better from such a project.
Super 8 is not a pure monster movie or creature feature. The alien aspect to the film is nothing more than a secondary plot device. This film is mainly about growing up in the seventies, adolescence and bereavement. A lot is done to try and recapture the look and feel of the decade, yet despite the production design and the cultural references, such as period music, CB radio and the use of period slang, the film doesn't quite work. Why? Because the central characters, although steeped in the superficial trappings of the time are a little bit too worldly, articulate, sensitive and thoughtful. They display to many modern sensibilities and concerns. Rather than producing an accurate portrayal of life at the times, Super 8 is very much Abrams homage to the era. And like most odes to a bygone era it paints a sentimental picture, rather than a credible one. That’s not to say that it is bad. It is simply unauthentic.
Don't get me wrong, the central characters played by Joel Courtney, Riley Griffiths and Elle Fanning, are very likeable. Too many movies churn out stereotypical depictions of children or go the opposite way and place them on pedestals. Super 8 features some amusing banter of the sort that kids of this era would have. All the actors involved give good performances. But they all seem a little too perfect, coming across more as archetypes rather than fully rounded characters. I am of a comparable age to J.J Abrams and my childhood was nowhere near as socially complex as that depicted in the movie. Nor were my friends overburdened with such talent or driven by such focused aspiration. What we have in Super 8 is very much an adult’s intellectual deconstruction of childhood, rather than a reflection of it. The boisterous shouting of The Goonies or the smart alec antics of The Monster Squad ring far truer to me.
However, looking beyond this tonal stumbling block, there are some very enjoyable cinematic references in Super 8, many of which seem to be from Mr Spielberg’s back catalogue. For example, a cars electrical system fails at a critical moment, only to come back on with a jolt. Then there's the iconic imagery of kids cycling round idyllic suburban neighbourhoods, free from parental control or interference. There are also subtle nods to films such as John Carpenter’s The Thing with electrical items vanishing, possibly to be utilised by the alien for some makeshift vehicle. There's also a nice theme that's developed in which all the local dogs flee the area. For me, it's these little creative anecdotes that if expanded upon would have given the movie more character and depth.
Yet director Abrams is content to leave these aspects unexplored, in favour of his child centric narrative. As this is the central theme of the film, I can understand why the adult characters are a lot less developed and given less screen time. As a plot device it actually strengthens the under lying theme of the lack of connection between father and son. However, Super 8 falls down quite considerably with regard to its lead villain, Airforce Colonel Nelec played by Noah Emmerich. He is purely arbitrary and denoted as evil purely by his military association and his penchant for killing people by lethal injection. Bad guys are often far more interesting than the virtuous heroes and it's a shame that we do not find out more about him in this instance.
J.J. Abrams has a strong visual sense, very much like Spielberg. There are some very clever images woven into Super 8 over its two-hour running time. The tanks driving through the children's playground for instance and the use of silhouettes. Michael Giacchino's score is very strong and underpins rather than overwhelms the proceedings. There is much to like about the film and if you are not disposed to be as analytical as I am, you will be entertained. But if it had broadened its remit and shied away from the perennial Hollywood trope of canonising beautiful, yet deceased mothers, it could have been a far more rewarding film. A more honest and less emotional depiction of the times, as well as a little more focus on characters and motive would have improved things greatly.