Orc Wars (2013)
Having recently sat through Orcs! I decided to take a further chance and watch Orc Wars. It too is a very low budget film, although this time the finances were raised through crowdfunding. Sadly, it is not the fun, tongue in cheek, independent adventure movie the trailer and associated marketing implies. There is very little merit in this production. It's cheap, cheerful and although harmless, it clearly demonstrates that not all fan funded projects are good cinema. Some are just indulgences. The problem is in the title itself, which tries to sell an idea that the movie production is incapable of delivering. Instead of the spectacle of an army of a thousand Orcs pitted against the technological might of the US war machine, we get a few extras in ill-fitting costumes, running skirmishes against no-name actors on quad bikes and a few old Army Surplus vehicles. It's all rather lacklustre and underwhelming.
Having recently sat through Orcs! I decided to take a further chance and watch Orc Wars. It too is a very low budget film, although this time the finances were raised through crowdfunding. Sadly, it is not the fun, tongue in cheek, independent adventure movie the trailer and associated marketing implies. There is very little merit in this production. It's cheap, cheerful and although harmless, it clearly demonstrates that not all fan funded projects are good cinema. Some are just indulgences. The problem is in the title itself, which tries to sell an idea that the movie production is incapable of delivering. Instead of the spectacle of an army of a thousand Orcs pitted against the technological might of the US war machine, we get a few extras in ill-fitting costumes, running skirmishes against no-name actors on quad bikes and a few old Army Surplus vehicles. It's all rather lacklustre and underwhelming.
Ex-Marine John Norton (Rusty Joiner) buys a ranch in the remote American West hoping to escape from his troubled past. He subsequently encounters Elven Princess Aleya (Masiela Lusha) who has fled her home world via an interdimensional portal and is marooned on Earth. A convenient blind Native America Mystic called Whitefeather (Wesley John) informs Norton that he is the appointed guardian. He must defend the Princess from a marauding army of Orcs who wish to use her power to release their dragon god. After the simplistic narrative has been clumsily explained there then follows a series of low budget action scenes involving plastic replica guns with CGI muzzle flashes, along with some indifferently choreographed and poorly edited fight scenes.
The main saving grace of Orc Wars, is the fact that the Orcs themselves look pretty good. It’s clear that the producers spent most of the films meagre budget on the costumes and prosthetic effects. If you think that Orcs look and feel very similar to those seen in Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, there's a specific reason for that. Apparently, props and costumes can be rented from Weta studios when not in use. However, the Orcs themselves cannot save this movie. The dialogue is poor as is the acting but there is a degree of convictions from the cast and director Kohl Glass. However, enthusiasm will only carry afilm so far. The cheeky homage to Zulu at the end of the movie made me spit my drink across the room. If you buy in to the notion of "it's so bad, it's good" then Orc Wars is an amusing ninety-minute diversion. Otherwise, best avoid it.
Orcs! (2011)
As a fan of the horror genre I’ve sat through numerous low budget films in my time. This has usually been at festivals or conventions. Sometimes watching something as part of a group, with likeminded individuals, makes a difference. You find yourself groaning in unison and the shared experience helps compensate for potential deficiencies. Watching questionable material in the comfort of your own home, purely on your own can be a lot tougher. However, due to my abiding love of the genre, I am prepared to cut a lot of cheap ass indie flicks considerably more slack than I would others. So, I'll endeavour to review Orcs! with as much impartiality as possible. Oh, and before we start, let us clarify the term Orcs. Although Middle-earth is not referenced in any way, this film is definitely about Tolkien's creations. Or at least their depiction in another well-known series of films.
As a fan of the horror genre I’ve sat through numerous low budget films in my time. This has usually been at festivals or conventions. Sometimes watching something as part of a group, with likeminded individuals, makes a difference. You find yourself groaning in unison and the shared experience helps compensate for potential deficiencies. Watching questionable material in the comfort of your own home, purely on your own can be a lot tougher. However, due to my abiding love of the genre, I am prepared to cut a lot of cheap ass indie flicks considerably more slack than I would others. So, I'll endeavour to review Orcs! with as much impartiality as possible. Oh, and before we start, let us clarify the term Orcs. Although Middle-earth is not referenced in any way, this film is definitely about Tolkien's creations. Or at least their depiction in another well-known series of films.
Orcs! is a modestly budgeted, independent comedy horror film, set in the fictitious Balancing Rock National Park. Ranger Cal (Adam Johnson) along with Cadet Ranger Hobart (the well-cast Maclain Nelson), discover that the parks visitors and staff are being brutally slain by an unseen force. Aided by Cal's ex-girlfriend and militant environmentalist, Katie (Renny Grames), the trio incompetently investigate the situation. It soon becomes apparent that the spate of deaths is not the work of rogue bears or bigfoot but a band marauding of Orcs (who have arrived and started killing folk for “some particular reason”). Cut off and enable to escape the park, our heroes make a last stand, vowing to make the Orcs sorry they messed with the US Parks Service. Low budget mayhem ensues.
Orcs! is very much a mixed bag. It starts with some fairly broad humour, setting up the central characters. I did find myself warming to the two leads. The action scenes and violence is not to strong and is often mitigated with a wry joke or quip. The Orcs themselves are fairly well realised. Considering the budget, the costumes and armour are well designed. The films greatest assets are several rather clever homages to Peter Jackson's trilogy. Hobart lampoon's Aragorn's tracking skills in a clever pastiche. There are also parallels with the battle of Helm's Deep. The use of drums to denote the massing of the orcs is another clever cinematic homage. Director James MacPherson, even manages to include nods to John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 and James Cameron's Aliens. As is so common in indie flicks of this nature, the film makers do like to heap praise upon their cinematic idols.
But despite these endearing qualities, there are major plot holes and a lack of quality material to adequately fill the eighty-minute running time. Now, with this genre of film, it is not wise to de-construct the plot too much. Genre movies often run on their own unique internal logic. Yet a glaring mistake is made and perpetuated throughout the film. Towards the end, as the Orcs lay siege to the Rangers Headquarters, our heroes discover that the enemy hates the light. Yet for the previous thirty-five minutes, the Orcs have happily been running about in broad daylight. The final battle is also far too long and insufficiently action packed to merit its ponderous running time. I appreciate that financial constraints may well have been an impediment to the director’s vision, yet a more adept production would have been a little more innovative with the resources they had.
By and large I did enjoy Orcs! as I’ve always had a supportive streak towards this sort of production. Irrespective of the film deficiencies, I applaud all involved for at least attempting to do something different. It could be argued that with a larger budget and more involved script, the film would have been superior. Ten minutes of the running time could have been taken from the ending and used earlier on in the film to the productions overall advantage. It certainly would have helped to have explored the Orcs back story some more. As it stands, Orcs! is a flawed but creative low budget genre movie. If you have a broad liking for such movies and enquiring nature, then give it a go. If you like mainstream material and have a low threshold of tolerance for anything that isn’t slick, polished and “Hollywood” then you’d best give it a miss.
10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
10 Cloverfield Lane blends several cinematic genres producing an interesting premise. Once it has established its narrative arc, it then dives head long into an exciting and tense one hundred and four minutes. The movie is not a direct sequel to Cloverfield (2008) but does touch upon some of the same themes and ideas. Made on a modest budget of $15 million, the claustrophobic setting of a nuclear bunker accommodates strong performances from the lead actors. It is not until the third act when the story movies back to the outside world, do we see any major visual effects. Overall, this is a very compelling film due to the strong screenplay and well defined central characters.
10 Cloverfield Lane blends several cinematic genres producing an interesting premise. Once it has established its narrative arc, it then dives head long into an exciting and tense one hundred and four minutes. The movie is not a direct sequel to Cloverfield (2008) but does touch upon some of the same themes and ideas. Made on a modest budget of $15 million, the claustrophobic setting of a nuclear bunker accommodates strong performances from the lead actors. It is not until the third act when the story movies back to the outside world, do we see any major visual effects. Overall, this is a very compelling film due to the strong screenplay and well defined central characters.
After a car accident, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) awakens to find herself in a mysterious bunker owned by Howard (John Goodman). Initially fearful that she’s been abducted, Howard tells her he rescued her and brought her to his bunker just prior to a pre-emptive attack on the US. Michelle discovers that a young man called Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) has also made it to the bunker. The two are sceptical of Howard’s explanation until they witness a poisoned and burnt woman outside the bunker entrance. Yet, inconsistencies in Howard’s story lead them to question what they’ve been told and fear for their own safety, so the pair decided to escape.
10 Cloverfield Lane hinges upon the three central performances and the quality of the screenplay. If the dialogue, character development and performances had been anything less than what they are, then the movie would fail dramatically. However, the screenplay by Josh Campbell, Matt Stuecken and Damien Chazelle is lean, nuanced and to the point. Michelle is a strong and believable lead character, marred by an abusive upbringing. Mary Elizabeth Winstead interprets this back story well. Emmett is also very plausible with his penchant for verbal diarrhoea and slacker attitude. But it is John Goodman’s who steals the show. He is worryingly unhinged as the survivalist and conspiracy theorist Howard, effortlessly switching from menace to pathos; being both pitiful and threatening.
10 Cloverfield Lane works very well within the confines of its PG-13 Rating. The emphasis is upon tension rather than horror. What acts of violence there are a relatively discrete without compromising the atmosphere by being too coy. The real test for the movie comes in the final act, when Michelle escapes the confines of the bunker. What happens next may test the audience and whether they can maintain their suspension of disbelief. Yet due to the focused direction by Dan Trachtenberg and the goodwill earned in the previous hour, the step from one genre to another works well. The effects driven finale is not excessive and provides and interesting codicil to the narrative.
10 Cloverfield Lane did well at the box office considering its low budget. Bad Robot Productions have already announced that another sequel, God Particle is in production that will tie this film directly into its tangential predecessor Cloverfield. The term “Cloververse” has already been bandied about, indicating yet another example of how studio wish to have long term franchises these days. Certainly, there are a lot of questions raised by the two existing movies that remain unanswered. Whether these can be successfully explored via a third movie remains to be seen. In the meantime, 10 Cloverfield Lane remains an entertaining movie whether you are familiar with the prior film or not. It offers a strong story driven by compelling performances. Unlike Cloverfield, this time we are offered likeable characters we can invest in and identify with. It’s one of the movies strongest assets.
Cloverfield (2008)
I did my best to avoid the hype surrounding the initial release of Cloverfield. Such media saturation and public interest can often cloud the issue of whether the actual film is any good. Five years later and having watched the movie twice, once in the theatre and once at home, I am still somewhat conflicted about this movie. The use of hand held video cameras is both a boon and a bane. The constant movement of the image has proven to cause motion sickness for some viewers, although this is not so overwhelming when viewed on a smaller screen at home. Yet the medium of news footage mixed with handheld cameras does create a palpable sense of immediacy. This helps immensely when trying to sell a fantastic concept, such as the one that Cloverfield features.
I did my best to avoid the hype surrounding the initial release of Cloverfield. Such media saturation and public interest can often cloud the issue of whether the actual film is any good. Five years later and having watched the movie twice, once in the theatre and once at home, I am still somewhat conflicted about this movie. The use of hand held video cameras is both a boon and a bane. The constant movement of the image has proven to cause motion sickness for some viewers, although this is not so overwhelming when viewed on a smaller screen at home. Yet the medium of news footage mixed with handheld cameras does create a palpable sense of immediacy. This helps immensely when trying to sell a fantastic concept, such as the one that Cloverfield features.
Well let's get the obvious out of the way first. Yes, this film is potentially an act of national catharses over the events of 9/11. In the same way that the 1954 Godzilla (Gojira) was the Japanese way of dealing with the Atomic Bombing at the end of the war. The hand-held mockumentary style does lend and element of contemporary credibility to the proceeding. However more discerning film fans will be familiar with this technique in several other productions, such as The Blair Witch Project, The Last Broadcast, Ghostwatch, Cannibal Holocaust, REC and Diary Of The Dead. The film also utilises the classic plot device of only hinting at the monster. The fleeting glimpses caught between the skyscrapers of the Manhattan skyline are extremely well done and certainly contribute to the sense of horror and unease.
The story moves at a fast pace and the movie has a near perfect plot to running time ratio. It does not out stay its welcome and concludes in a fashion one would expect from such a genre production. There is little or no information given out in relation to the nature of the creature that has appeared or where it has hailed from. This works well, as the central theme is not the monster per se, but how people and governments deal with cataclysmic events. It is both scary and shocking but the violence is never overstated. But where Cloverfield fails is with its central characters. They are not as under developed as you would expect. They are simply unlikeable. In an effort to appeal to the target audience demographics, the producers focus on quartet of young "yuppies". Sadly, they are shallow and crass people. The women scream and the men just bellow, unable to deal with the unfolding events. This is not implausible, just depressingly credible. It's a shame that the makers of this film did not show as much flare and imagination for their central protagonists as they did with the visual effects and production design.
Now the actual creature itself, as mentioned above, remains cunningly hidden for the bulk of the film. It is quite ironic that a creature of such size can remain so well hidden in the densely built urban environment of New York. There is a particularly good aerial shot that shows the creature striding between buildings and subject to an air strike from a Stealth bomber. It is hinted that it is eating people that cross its path, a fact that is later more overtly established when the beats is revealed to our gaze in Central park. I personally think that this was a mistake and that the once clearly observed, the well-designed creature loses some of its mystique. I'm sure that the production team were also influenced to the work of H.P. Lovecraft and the Cthulhu Mythos. Similar giant alien beasts are briefly seen in Frank Darabont's The Mist. There is also a secondary threat brought about by the creature in the shape of parasites that are shaken loose from its body. These arthropods are the size of a dog and their bite presents another set of problems.
Overall, Cloverfield is a very enjoyable film. It is scary enough to appeal to a range of audiences and maintains a steady pace that carries the narrative beyond the obvious flaws and plot holes. Slightly older viewers and Europeans may find the American youth a little grating but after the opening plot exposition, we are fully immersed in the ongoing disaster. We then have an exhilarating ride for the remaining hour. Hence the movie is recommended as an example of well-produced populist entertainment and as a better example of the found footage genre. It should be noted that the 2016 film 10 Cloverfield Lane is not a direct sequel per se but more of a tangential follow up. Allegedly a third film is being made that will bring the various plot threads of all movies together.
Alien: Covenant (2017)
The enigma of the Xenomorph in the Alien franchise is diminished once you start to rationalise its heritage. Sadly, that’s exactly what Alien: Covenant has chosen to do. It jettisons the mystery of the original 1979 movie and pulls back the curtain, so wisely put in place thirty-eight years ago, to reveal a rather lacklustre explanation to the Xenomorph’s origin. Having spent nearly $100 million and employed a production team of some of the finest talent that money can buy, the resulting movie is not bad per se, just crushingly superfluous. After watching Alien: Covenant this week, my overall reaction can be distilled down to a deep sigh of indifference and a shrug of the shoulders.
The enigma of the Xenomorph in the Alien franchise is diminished once you start to rationalise its heritage. Sadly, that’s exactly what Alien: Covenant has chosen to do. It jettisons the mystery of the original 1979 movie and pulls back the curtain, so wisely put in place thirty-eight years ago, to reveal a rather lacklustre explanation to the Xenomorph’s origin. Having spent nearly $100 million and employed a production team of some of the finest talent that money can buy, the resulting movie is not bad per se, just crushingly superfluous. After watching Alien: Covenant this week, my overall reaction can be distilled down to a deep sigh of indifference and a shrug of the shoulders.
Ridley Scott, now in his autumn years, strikes me as a film maker who is more enamoured with the technical, logistical and business aspects of film making. He appears to have a good handle on navigating the choppy waters of studio politics and certainly thrives within the complex process of crafting a big budget, effects driven movies. Yet his body of work has become very hit and miss in recent years and for me it is only The Martian that stands outs as being of note. Frankly, the will to make further Alien movies seems to be driven primarily by the potential box office and Scott’s presence has done precious little to move the franchise forward. He has now delivered two movies that frankly undermine the existing canon, rather than expand upon it.
Much of Alien: Covenant is a pastiche of what has gone before. At times Ridley Scott is plagiarising himself and not in an especially knowing way. He squanders a good cast by giving them precious little to do. Again, most characters serve little purpose other than to die. Katherine Waterston as Janet "Danny" Daniels has scope to be a credible protagonist but is sadly relegated to running, pointing and explaining the plot. Comparing her to Ellen Ripley is unfair because the actor is never given the opportunity to explore the role. Michael Fassbender appears twice this time round playing both a new android named Walter as well as David, who we last saw decapitated by an Engineer in Prometheus. Sadly, despite Fassbenders acting talent, the character remains a contrived and uninspiring foil. Remove the mirth and satire from Marvin, the Paranoid Android from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and you are left with the scope of Fassbender’s role.
Alien was a stripped down, minimalist, science fiction horror movie. It had a tangible air of claustrophobia and bucked some of the usual trends of the genre. The crew of the Nostromo were mainly blue-collar workers, not academics or soldiers. Their concerns were primarily those of their social economic group. Pay, job security and just getting the task done. Their practical story contrasted the esoteric nature of what they encountered. The crashed ship, the space jockey and the alien eggs were all deliberately unexplained and all the more enthralling because of that. Was the Xenomorph a simple predator or a highly evolved creature that natural selection had chosen to rationalise? Where was it from? Was it intelligent? These unanswered questions gave the beast gravitas. The answers that Alien: Covenant has chosen to provide undo this.
There are joyless action scenes, routine jump scares and some arbitrary sex and violence to be had in Alien: Covenant. The production design, cinematography and overall aesthetic screams A list production but the story that plays out is so utterly uncompelling and lacklustre. Ultimately the movie fails because it over thinks the source material. Rob Zombie made a similar mistake when he remade John Carpenter’s Halloween. He tried to explain a force of nature and by giving Michael Myers a detailed backstory of abuse and sadness, he turned the embodiment of the supernatural in to just another sociopath created by society. Alien: Covenant has effectively done the same. The Xenomorph has gone from being an abstract vessel for our subconscious fears to just a laboratory experiment by a disgruntled individual. From high concept to arbitrary in less than four decades. Sad.
Prometheus (2012)
I have written many times in recent years about how big titles get announced by the gaming industry, of the ensuing hype up that leads up to launch day and then the subsequent disappointment on purchase. It is a malady that has afflicted the movie industry for decades and has become increasingly more common in the last decade. Hype has a curious link with reputation. There are a handful of directors in contemporary Hollywood who when they add their name to a production, people take notice. Ridley Scott is one of these. His body of work pretty much guarantees he can make whatever he wants, be it a commercial undertaking or a ludicrous vanity project. However, the downside to being a film maker of this stature is that you are not so easily exposed to proper scrutiny by your peers. No one stops you from making a mistake because you are supposed to know what you are doing. They let you do what you want. Which is bad.
I have written many times in recent years about how big titles get announced by the gaming industry, of the ensuing hype up that leads up to launch day and then the subsequent disappointment on purchase. It is a malady that has afflicted the movie industry for decades and has become increasingly more common in the last decade. Hype has a curious link with reputation. There are a handful of directors in contemporary Hollywood who when they add their name to a production, people take notice. Ridley Scott is one of these. His body of work pretty much guarantees he can make whatever he wants, be it a commercial undertaking or a ludicrous vanity project. However, the downside to being a film maker of this stature is that you are not so easily exposed to proper scrutiny by your peers. No one stops you from making a mistake because you are supposed to know what you are doing. They let you do what you want. Which is bad.
So, am I saying that Prometheus is a mistake per se? No. However, I am saying that mistakes have been made with regard to narrative and the plot direction of the movie. Scott himself has been open about how during the initial pre-production he and screenwriters Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof wished to take the story off on a tangent, rather than make a specific prequel to Alien. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing to do as long as it is done robustly and intelligently. Prometheus is very much a film of two halves as it strives to embrace a weighty theme, namely the origins of life on earth. It sets the scene for a philosophical and theological exploration of the subject in the first act. However, it fails to sustain this momentum and in the second hour lapses into a far less ambitious, somewhat formulaic, creature feature. The narrative become confused, vague and is eventually sidelined.
There is still much to commend in Prometheus. There are good performances from the cast, despite the fact that they are not given half as much to go on as they should have. Michael Fassbender's portrayal of the Android David is outstanding and is by far the best character in the movie. The production design is handsome and Scott has not in any way lost his visual flair. There are some quite clever parallels to his original movie and he re-imagines certain iconic scenes in an inventive fashion, rather than becoming self plagiarising. There are also some solid action sequences and a liberal dose of gore. One scene involving a quasi-caesarian is not for the squeamish. Yet despite positive aspects one is left feeling that Prometheus is not as good as a film as it could be.
What is on offer is adequate and entertaining but no more than that. Although it is unreasonable to expect this movie to be equal of the 1979 original, it is not unreasonable to expect better material from Ridley Scott. Prometheus should have had a weightier story and stuck to either to its philosophical theme or remained a pure horror in space. As it is it fails to tread the path between the two. Since the release of the film on home media, the deleted scenes available on DVD and Blu-ray clearly show where the problem lies. Too much expositionary material was cut from the film. The producers wanted an action driven movie. They got one but sadly at the expense of narrative and character development. If all the deleted material was re-instated back in to Prometheus it would be a far more thoughtful, coherent movie. Sadly, Scott has now stated that the theatrical cut of the film is his definitive edition.
On a final note, Prometheus suffers from a common problem found in contemporary fill making; that of an excessively loud soundtrack. Dialogue is difficult to hear one moment and the score and ambient sound effects are deafening the next. I had to watch the film with subtitles enabled to fully pick up on all the nuances of the dialogue. This issue contributed to making a frustrating movie, somewhat more annoying. However, if you are simply looking for a high budget, science fiction thriller, then Prometheus, despite its flaws, may well satisfy. Those who are more invested in the Alien franchise may not be so forgiving and best prepare themselves for disappointment. Because Prometheus feels like a failed opportunity, it beggars the question, do we really need any further movies in this series? If they cannot offer anything new that takes the overall concept forward, perhaps the answer is no?
Jurassic World (2015)
Hollywood is a cyclical place and often repeats decisions it's successfully made in the past. During the early seventies, the mainstream film industry head hunted a lot of up and coming talent from the independent film making community, or took a chance on directors who were fresh out of film school. It was a means to an end and a way to tap into the new talent that was proving popular and lucrative. Similarly, Warner Bros. followed suit in 2014 when Gareth Edwards was hired to direct the multi-million-dollar Godzilla reboot. His previous movie was the self-financed indie Sci-Fi picture Monsters. Godzilla went on to be both a box office and critical hit.
Hollywood is a cyclical place and often repeats decisions it's successfully made in the past. During the early seventies, the mainstream film industry head hunted a lot of up and coming talent from the independent film making community, or took a chance on directors who were fresh out of film school. It was a means to an end and a way to tap into the new talent that was proving popular and lucrative. Similarly, Warner Bros. followed suit in 2014 when Gareth Edwards was hired to direct the multi-million-dollar Godzilla reboot. His previous movie was the self-financed indie Sci-Fi picture Monsters. Godzilla went on to be both a box office and critical hit.
So, after years of languishing in development hell, the job of making Jurassic World was finally given to director Colin Trevorrow, who like Edwards only had at that time, a single small feature film credit to his resume. But "talent will out" as the expression goes and Jurassic World has proven to be a very respectable entry to the franchise. It develops the existing themes established in the previous three movies and manages to add several contemporary angles. It is tonally astute and finds the right balance between action, suspense and wry humour. The cast is spot on and the narrative is well paced. It doesn't skimp on the "wow" factor either and the digital and animatronic dinosaurs on display still genuinely impress.
What I liked most about Jurassic World is its keen sense of social observation and the fact that despite the Velociraptors, Pterosaurs and Indominus Rex it still nails what humans are like. So many of the ideas that are developed, ring true. Jurassic World is depicted as a declining financial undertaking for its owners because Joe public has grown accustomed and bored with dinosaurs. For many of the tourists the parks denizens have become as common place as elephants. The movie also does an excellent job of cataloguing the monetisation of the holiday resort. There are known brands everywhere, the same way there are in real world theme parks. Kids seem more interested by their smartphones than by the dinosaurs.
Another interesting theme that runs through the movie is that of animal psychology. Chris Pratt has not “tamed” the group of Velociraptors he works with but through behavioural science has managed to condition them and learn how to interact with them on their own terms. Now as this movie was designed to be a summer blockbuster, naturally such ideas are taken to extremes but it does raise some good questions about exactly how intelligent were dinosaurs, especially those that hunted in packs and therefore required a working form of social interaction.
Once again composer Michael Giacchinno rises to the challenge of writing a soundtrack for a franchise that already has an established set of iconic themes. He uses John William's cues sparingly and effectively. His own original material is as ever, intelligent, appropriate and of the highest quality. Overall the score helps maintain a sense of continuity to the proceedings. The same can be said about the visual effects work by Industrial Light and Magic and Legacy Effects (formerly Stan Winston Studios). Despite the fourteen-year long hiatus Jurassic World still has the same ambience as its predecessors.
The box office success of Jurassic World yet again demonstrates the public's ongoing fascination with dinosaurs. When I first saw this movie upon its release, you could hear a pin drop for most of the two-hour running time, only for it to be replaced by screaming at the appropriate junctures. I wholeheartedly believe that pretty much everyone left the cinema thoroughly entertained. The tension and thrills remained upon a second viewing two years on. Jurassic World works because the production team fundamentally understands the material that they're making. No postmodern irony or cynicism, just dinosaurs with big pointed teeth and a movie that doesn't try to fix something that isn't broken.
Godzilla (2014)
Gareth Edwards directing debut Monsters, was a clever, subtle and genuinely moving human drama that just happened to be set against the background of alien lifeforms in a quarantine zone. He also managed to imbue the monsters of the title with a sense of depth. They were intriguing with their bio-luminescent communication and curious vocalisations. They were not simply an arbitrary MacGuffin and hinted at something far more complex. I was therefore very surprised and pleased that he has managed to maintain these qualities in his second feature film Godzilla. Despite being a massive studio undertaking his reboot of the classic franchise has a depth of soul that you seldom find in such mainstream material.
Gareth Edwards directing debut Monsters, was a clever, subtle and genuinely moving human drama that just happened to be set against the background of alien lifeforms in a quarantine zone. He also managed to imbue the monsters of the title with a sense of depth. They were intriguing with their bio-luminescent communication and curious vocalisations. They were not simply an arbitrary MacGuffin and hinted at something far more complex. I was therefore very surprised and pleased that he has managed to maintain these qualities in his second feature film Godzilla. Despite being a massive studio undertaking his reboot of the classic franchise has a depth of soul that you seldom find in such mainstream material.
Ishirō Honda's original Godzilla movie in its uncut Japanese format is a tragic and melancholic tale, as well as a clever metaphor for the nuclear age. Garth Edwards maintain this theme but also adds an environmental element, as well as a philosophical concept with Godzilla being a "force of nature". This is more than an exercise in spectacle and the movie has a genuine sense of awe as it shows us an apocalypse brought about by the natural world, that we are powerless to deal with. The monsters in this movie are more than just caricatures. They are living, breathing entities with complex lifecycles. They are also very much part of the world, a theme that the author Clive Barker was always keen to explore.
The human elements of Godzilla are also handled in a different fashion to the standard formula. We are not saddled with heroes that have all the answers and who can miraculously save the world. As with Monsters there is a domestic drama being played out between Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) a scientist grieving for his dead wife and his son Lieutenant Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) of the USN. Ford has to constantly bail out his Father from his conspiracy theory driven misadventures. This in turn places a strain on his own domestic relations with his Wife Elle Brody (Elizabeth Olsen) and their son. These simple narrative themes, work well against the catastrophic big picture.
Steven Spielberg has always been good at finding the right balance between the everyday and the incredible, both visually and thematically. There are traces of that approach here in Gareth Edwards directorial style. He elects to be extremely measured in what he shows, very much like Jaws, until the third act. This is a decision that I thoroughly approve of, although it will not be to everyone's liking. Some people have already complained that there is not enough Godzilla in the movie. However, I suspect they are more fans of spectacle and not necessarily interested in the director’s wider vision. I would also argue that the English dialogue version of many of the original Godzilla movies often robbed them of the finer plot points and simply focused on man-in-suit action, thus changing expectations of the US market.
Visually Godzilla is an outstanding experience. Seldom has such destruction been depicted with such gravitas. The movie takes a bleak tone so don't go looking for any witty quips or banter. It’s all played very straight faced. The visual effects give Godzilla an immense sense of scale as well as the M.U.T.O.S. This is one occasion when 3D does help the proceedings. There is also a tangible sense of the human cost to all the mayhem, without resorting to cliché. Furthermore, composer Alexandre Desplat has managed to craft the right sort of soundtrack for the proceedings. It has clear thematic influences from the original Japanese movies and is suitable sombre. Pretty much every aspect of this production seems to have been thought about in an intelligent manner.
Godzilla is a rare beast these days, in so far as it’s a blockbuster with a far greater amount of thought behind it. Not everything works. Sometimes the script follows the less interesting characters about and a few of them drop out of the proceedings without logical real reason. But the movie maintains a sense of integrity about its subject matter. Furthermore, considering that director Gareth Edwards has managed to produce a movie of this type, via the studio system and still managed to stamp his personal style upon it, is a major achievement. This is one of those rare times where I eagerly await a sequel, as long as it maintains the high standard that has been established by the first instalment.
Pacific Rim (2013)
At first glance Pacific Rim may appear to be yet another exercise in Hollywood excess. Another bloated, vacuous spectacle made by cynics who have no other motive than to part the unwary cinemagoer from their hard-earned cash. Fortunately, it is not one of those movies. It is big and certainly visually impressive but it also has a plot, likeable characters, a global overview and a sense of integrity regarding the genre it lovingly references. In every respect, this is a superior example of the summer blockbuster genre and it can all be attributed to the unique talents of Guillermo del Toro.
At first glance Pacific Rim may appear to be yet another exercise in Hollywood excess. Another bloated, vacuous spectacle made by cynics who have no other motive than to part the unwary cinemagoer from their hard-earned cash. Fortunately, it is not one of those movies. It is big and certainly visually impressive but it also has a plot, likeable characters, a global overview and a sense of integrity regarding the genre it lovingly references. In every respect, this is a superior example of the summer blockbuster genre and it can all be attributed to the unique talents of Guillermo del Toro.
Del Toro is a man of passion, intelligence and an inherent understanding of the subtleties of cinema. His diverse portfolio of work shows how he is equally at home with the cerebral and the spectacular. Pacific Rim is very much an example of the latter but it has far more substance than many movies of this kind. The director's clever nuances and flair for creativity are present throughout the movie. Although this a homage to the great Toho productions of the sixties and seventies, Pacific Rim is far from a conceit or an indulgence. It is a very public and accessible ode to a genre that shaped the director's childhood.
So, what makes Pacific Rim head and shoulders above the competition? The fresh perspective that Guillermo del Toro brings to the proceedings. It is not the US that saves the world but people from all nations. The focus of events has a very far eastern flavour and an international cast, all of whom have well developed characters and backstories (by genre standards). There is humour provided by two bickering scientists which not only entertains but is a clear reference to Japanese monster movie tropes. The visuals are both original and creative providing a genuine sense of scale and threat. Yet the Kaiju's still have Godzilla-esque quirks and mannerisms. Ramin Djawadi score also echoes iconic themes from the Toho glory days.
Pacific Rim also eschews the usual broad strokes of Hollywood. The female lead Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) is a far more interesting protagonist than we usually see. The cultural differences between East and West are touched upon but not in any clichéd fashion. As ever the director has a scene in which a small child is terrified and it is a very potent sequence. Yet it has significance to the plot and is far more sophisticated means of explaining motivation. Films so often these days simply think they can define a character’s actions in the most arbitrary manner.
Pacific Rim is not without some shortcomings and the biggest is possibly the length of some of the action scenes. Where younger viewers may delight in an unleavened diet of CGI, the more mature viewer may grow a little tired during the third act. However, there it can be argued that when you get a major studio to bankroll a project such as this for $190 Million, then there is a requirement to indulge them. The 3D process also impacts upon the elegance of Guillermo Navarro cinematography and at times darkens the image too much.
Simply put Pacific Rim puts the Transformers franchise to shame and shows them up for the disposable and hollow products that they are. The movie also showcases the powerful presence of Idris Elba and once again has an American lead character, played by a Brit (Charlie Hunnam). Del Toro regular, Ron Perlman, has an extended cameo and a lot of fun with a rather quirky role. Production designer Andrew Neskoromny gives a very convincing wartime feel to the movie, especially the Jaegers themselves. Under Guillermo del Toro's guidance all these strands come together to make a movie that is far more than the sum of its parts. I'm left pondering how different and potentially better The Hobbit may have been under his creative auspices.
Tape 407 (2012)
I really won't be sad to see the back of the found footage sub-genre because it really is becoming an over saturated market at present. For example, at the last count there were six Paranormal Activity movies, with their respective quality inversely proportional to their number in the franchise. Yes, there are the occasional good ones, such as the recent Operation Avalanche, which tackled conspiracy theories and the Moon Landing. But broadly speaking, this genre has become a dumping ground for cheap and uninspired movies, by mediocre film makers, out to make a fast buck. Take for example Tape 407 (AKA Area 407). It’s chosen twist on the genre is the inclusion of included dinosaurs. I was hoping that this would make the film sufficiently different to others and offers something new. Predictably it did not.
I really won't be sad to see the back of the found footage sub-genre because it really is becoming an over saturated market at present. For example, at the last count there were six Paranormal Activity movies, with their respective quality inversely proportional to their number in the franchise. Yes, there are the occasional good ones, such as the recent Operation Avalanche, which tackled conspiracy theories and the Moon Landing. But broadly speaking, this genre has become a dumping ground for cheap and uninspired movies, by mediocre film makers, out to make a fast buck. Take for example Tape 407 (AKA Area 407). It’s chosen twist on the genre is the inclusion of included dinosaurs. I was hoping that this would make the film sufficiently different to others and offers something new. Predictably it did not.
Tape 407 starts aboard a plane with a motley collection of passengers travelling from New York back to Los Angeles. We meet film student Jessie (Samantha Lester) and her annoying younger sister Trish (Abigail Schrader), Journalist Jimmy (James Lyons) and irritable passenger from hell Charlie (Brendan Patrick Connor). After some rather pedestrian back story and character exposition the plane crashes in a somewhat remote desert region along its route. The survivors bicker and squabble and continuously talk across each other as they try to thrash out a survival strategy. One passenger goes looking for the other half of the plane. Screams and animal noises are later heard in the night. It quickly becomes clear that there are multiple predators on the loose.
There are brief flashes of inspiration in Tape 407, as well as a great deal of shouting and strident arguments conducted in a very American manner. It’s annoying and grating on the ear but certainly has a note of realism about it. The survivors slowly put aside their differences as they finally realise the magnitude of their predicament and attempt to work collaboratively. However, this aspect of the storyline is under developed and further hampered by a cast of characters I didn't really care for. Futhermore, the shocks are somewhat obvious, surprisingly understated and tame. As for the dinosaurs, which appear to be the result of a government experiment, precious little is seen. You simply can't skimp on plot device like this if it’s the movies selling point.
There's a fine line between being ambiguous and letting the audience fill in the blanks as opposed to allowing gaping plot holes. By the time I reached the end of Tape 407, I was annoyed by the lack of information, disappointed by the absence of carnivorous reptiles and thoroughly pissed off with the protagonists. The only worthy character, Air Marshall Laura (Melanie Lyons), was dispatched in a very mean spirited way. Mercifully the director opted for an appropriately downbeat dénouement so the remaining cast where subsequently killed off, offering an unexpected highpoint to a formulaic and unremarkable ninety-minute pot boiler.
I don't know whether budgetary restraints or simply the notion that less is more, where the reason the production was so shy of showing the dinosaur antagonists. If it was, then directors (Dale Fabrigar and Everette Wallin) intention to sideline them so they could focus on the human dynamics, was a very poor decision. Overall the slow pacing, noisy performances and frustrating characters as well as lack of action, torpedoes Tape 407. Viewers are left with a rather dull, predictable and lacklustre movie. I'd like to say that this will be the last found footage I'll be watching for a while but I have a suspicion that due to the cost effective nature of the format, they’ll be churning them out for a while yet.
Warlords of Atlantis (1978)
Being a child of the seventies I was raised on films. I saw a good many classic during my most formative years, usually on a Sunday afternoon, which I'd watch with my family. I also use to enjoy the adverts in the Evening Standard for the latest cinema releases. The poster art was lurid and exotic and would often promise so much. As video was not yet available to the domestic market, trips to the cinema were much more of an event than they are now. By 1978 I was already a firm fan of the fantasy genre (mainly thanks to the work of Ray Harryhausen) so when Warlords of Atlantis was released I was duly excited. I had seen all the previous films that John Dark had produced in this series. The Land That Time Forgot, At the Earth’s Core and The People That Time Forgot. Although cheap and cheerful, they were very entertaining, especially to younger audiences.
Being a child of the seventies I was raised on films. I saw a good many classic during my most formative years, usually on a Sunday afternoon, which I'd watch with my family. I also use to enjoy the adverts in the Evening Standard for the latest cinema releases. The poster art was lurid and exotic and would often promise so much. As video was not yet available to the domestic market, trips to the cinema were much more of an event than they are now. By 1978 I was already a firm fan of the fantasy genre (mainly thanks to the work of Ray Harryhausen) so when Warlords of Atlantis was released I was duly excited. I had seen all the previous films that John Dark had produced in this series. The Land That Time Forgot, At the Earth’s Core and The People That Time Forgot. Although cheap and cheerful, they were very entertaining, especially to younger audiences.
Now it is important to judge Warlords of Atlantis both within the historical context of the times and in accord with its budget. These movies were modest productions by the standards of the seventies and were certainly not in the same league as Harryhausen's fantasy films at the time. But Roger Dickens rod puppet monsters have a peculiar charm about them. They strive to beat the technical restrictions of their budgets. The miniature work is also good, but then again John Richardson was (and still is) an expert in his field, with a very distinguished pedigree. I would also draw attention to Mike Vickers score which is rather enjoyable. It adds an extra dimension of bogus quality to the proceedings.
The cast is packed with stalwarts of the industry and indeed this genre. Doug McClure was a man who could play himself with great intensity. Then there’s also Shane Rimmer, in-between his work for Gerry Anderson, as well as Michael Gothard and Peter Gilmore. All provide performances that are totally suitable for the material in question. Malta and Gozo once again provide the exotic location required for the mysterious undersea kingdom. Not being hindered by any progressive politics, there is also the ubiquitous ample breasted female. For an unreconstructed ten year old, raised during the pre-Thatcher era, this film just kept ticking the right boxes at the time. There is no laconic humour, or postmodern irony. The story is played straight and the better for it.
Unlike previous John Dark productions, Warlords of Atlantis was not based on the work of Edgar Rice Burroughs. The screenplay was the work of Brian Hayles, one of the bastions of British television. He wrote prolifically for early Doctor Who (The Celestial Toymaker, The Smugglers, The Ice Warriors, The Seeds of Death, The Curse of Peladon and The Monster of Peladon) and often explored socio-political themes. These are present in Warlords of Atlantis, with an elite class of oppressive Martians using a slave class to stave off the constant attack of mutations. I believe the film was originally entitled “Seven Cities of Atlantis” before being altered, to one that did not invoke such high budget imagery.
The market of the time was soon to be saturated by Star Wars rip-offs and as a result, this was the last of the Amicus productions in this vein. Their traditional approach may seem dated to today’s modern sensibilities and I doubt if a contemporary audience would see any virtue in them. I shudder to think what sort or "re-imagining" these films would require to reach the screen today. However, if you can look beyond the superficial, there is entertainment to be had from Warlords of Atlantis. Enjoy it for what it is. It's one hundred times better than any low budget equivalent you’d find these days on Syfy.
Alligator (1980)
After the commercial success of Jaws in 1975, there followed a wealth of low budget creature features, hell bent on separating the viewing public from their hard earned cash. At one point every conceivable species of animal featured in a movie in which it went on the rampage and dined on B list actors and sundry extras. Many of these films left no lasting impression and vanished into obscurity (only to be resurrected a decade later during the eighties video boom). However even in this desert of cinematic mediocrity, a few examples stood out as an oasis of independent creativity. Alligator is one of these. It has stood the test of time because it’s smart and has a good pedigree.
After the commercial success of Jaws in 1975, there followed a wealth of low budget creature features, hell bent on separating the viewing public from their hard earned cash. At one point every conceivable species of animal featured in a movie in which it went on the rampage and dined on B list actors and sundry extras. Many of these films left no lasting impression and vanished into obscurity (only to be resurrected a decade later during the eighties video boom). However even in this desert of cinematic mediocrity, a few examples stood out as an oasis of independent creativity. Alligator is one of these. It has stood the test of time because it’s smart and has a good pedigree.
Firstly, the screenplay written by genre luminary and indie film-maker John Sayles is witty and satirical. The characters are likeable, with amusing foibles. The story makes sly digs at the very formula of the genre, itself. The dialogue is smart and extremely quotable. Secondly, director Lewis Teague knows exactly how to handle the material. The film has a stark and grimy eighties feel to it. The protagonists are not “beautiful people” (as they would be if the film were remade) and the production design is realistic, reflecting the Reagan era. For the bulk of the movie, the giant alligator preys on the poor in a rough neighbourhood. The authorities don’t really care until the creature moves uptown.
The film has a solid cast of quality character actors. Robert Forster delivers a sympathetic performance as a world weary detective, living in bachelor squalor, fighting male pattern baldness and City Hall politics. Victor Gazzo plays his harassed boss and Henry Silva excels as a flamboyant, misogynist, Great White hunter. There is also a nice cameo by Bart Braverman (anyone remember that TV series Vegas?) as a sleazy tabloid journalist (is there any other kind?) who gets the scoop of his life at a hefty price. All characters are well defined and credible due to John Sayles’ intelligent and smart screenplay.
The story is fairly straight forward and starts with an unwanted pet Alligator being flushed down the toilet. After eating illegally dumped medical waste loaded with growth hormones, the reptile grows to an exceptional size and soon goes looking for a suitable food supply. However it is the quirky characters and subplots that make the film so enjoyable. Henry Silva's urban safari is particularly amusing. Dean Jagger plays the corrupt CEO of a pharmaceutical company who "owns" the local Mayor. Their exchanges of dialogue, especially at a fateful wedding party, are very well observed.
Now for a modest budget film, the special effects are quite good. The beastie of the title is kept suitably hidden for the first third of the film. Later, the attack scenes are carefully crafted to maximise shock and hide the short comings of the animatronic reptile. In wider shots a full size Alligator is used on scaled down sets, to good effect. The death scenes are fairly brutal but not excessive. Alligator also breaks the Hollywood mainstream taboo, of killing a child on camera. It even has the cheek to do it in an amusing way. Alligator has a broad streak of gallows humour running through its ninety odd minute running time.
Alligator is very much a product of its time, reflecting the best aspects of independent film making that came from the US during the late seventies. Its intelligence and humour make it more than just your average creature feature. It not only entertains but provides an interesting socio-economic snapshot of the times. The screenplay and casting once again prove that when you have a solid script and the right actors, you’ve won half the battle already. The minimalist special effects work to the film’s advantage and allow the viewers to immerse themselves in the story and performances. When the shocks come they have far more impact as you actually care about the central characters.
Leviathan (1989)
There was a glut of undersea action film in 1989. The only one that really had any credibility was James Cameron’s The Abyss. Although it was not a box office success, the film gained a following over time and was substantially improved by the release of the special edition in 1993. Leviathan conversely, is one of the forgotten titles from that aquatic sub-genre. The plot follows a team of undersea miners that find a sunken Russian vessel. A case of recovered vodka turns out to be a genetic mutagen, resulting in crew members mutating into an aquatic human hybrid. It’s all conspicuously derivative and the embodiment of the term formulaic. Yet despite these flaws it does have a few virtues that merit a viewing, if you’re feeling undemanding.
There was a glut of undersea action film in 1989. The only one that really had any credibility was James Cameron’s The Abyss. Although it was not a box office success, the film gained a following over time and was substantially improved by the release of the special edition in 1993. Leviathan conversely, is one of the forgotten titles from that aquatic sub-genre. The plot follows a team of undersea miners that find a sunken Russian vessel. A case of recovered vodka turns out to be a genetic mutagen, resulting in crew members mutating into an aquatic human hybrid. It’s all conspicuously derivative and the embodiment of the term formulaic. Yet despite these flaws it does have a few virtues that merit a viewing, if you’re feeling undemanding.
Competently directed by George Pan Cosmatos, the movie features a solid cast of support actors. Peter Weller, Richard Crenna, Daniel Stern, Hector Elizondo, Ernie Hudson and Meg Foster all do the best they can. The creature effects are handled by the Stan Winston Studios, the production design is convincing and the film looks far from cheap. So what went wrong? Well the whole enterprise reeks of studio interference; story re-writes and post production editing. Fangoria reported heavily on the animatronics for this film at the time of filming, yet precious little is visible in the final cut. Also one character dies off screen and is explained away with a few lines of dialogue.
These clues point to a major shift of direction somewhere in the films production. Perhaps the studio thought that suspense was a better option than a gorefest. But Leviathan is no Alien and simply doesn’t have a compelling enough narrative to pursue that angle. So what we are left with is a failed entry in an obscure sub-genre, which is still mildly entertaining. However any film with a Jerry Goldmsith score can’t be all bad. So if you set your expectations low, or feel like playing film cliché bingo, you may find this aquatic escapade an adequate way to fill one hour and forty minutes.
Them! (1954)
Although the realities of the nuclear age where far from pleasant, for Hollywood it was a source of box office gold. Never mind radiation poisoning, cancer and birth defects; the atomic age was good for business. It meant super powers, mutations and giant big monsters. Such terrors offered a clumsy metaphor for the dangers of atomic energy and a source of terror, thrills and drama on the big screen. Them! was one of the first movies in this idiom and became a blueprint for the genre that followed in its wake. Featuring a colony of out sized ants, that initially terrorise New Mexico but eventually migrate to Los Angeles, Them! leaves a trail of destruction and dead B actors in its wake.
Although the realities of the nuclear age where far from pleasant, for Hollywood it was a source of box office gold. Never mind radiation poisoning, cancer and birth defects; the atomic age was good for business. It meant super powers, mutations and giant big monsters. Such terrors offered a clumsy metaphor for the dangers of atomic energy and a source of terror, thrills and drama on the big screen. Them! was one of the first movies in this idiom and became a blueprint for the genre that followed in its wake. Featuring a colony of out sized ants, that initially terrorise New Mexico but eventually migrate to Los Angeles, Them! leaves a trail of destruction and dead B actors in its wake.
Originally planned to be a 3D release, Them! was shot in 4:3 ratio and not Cinemascope to accommodate the process as well as the special effects. However due to technical and budgetary reasons the 3D process was dropped. The black and white film stock lends a faux documentary quality to the proceedings. The story is fast paced and not excessively complex. Lead performances by the great James Whitmore and James Arness are sincere and engaging. As you would expect the full size animatronic ants are somewhat dated by contemporary standards, yet they have their own unique charm and are shot in a way that gives them character. Their sound effects also add to the ambience.
On watching Them! It’s clear to see the influence the film had on James Cameron when he made Aliens. There are several thematic parallels, such as a traumatised child who has lost their parents and a secret lair where the Queen is laying her eggs. There are also Marines with flamethrowers clearing out the infestation. The more you watch old Hollywood B movies from the fifties, the more you'll find the source material that recent blockbusters have plundered. Sadly they usually only take the simplest of ideas and jettison any associated wit, style and drama.
Them! is still a very entertaining ninety four minutes, as long as you accept it for what it is and are aware of the context of the times. The entire genre of fifties monster movies is very interesting from a sociological point of view. They reflect the public concern over the atom bomb and the lack of understanding about the consequences of its use. They also provide a useful insight insight into how the major film studios where always willing to cater to emerging trends. Science Fiction and Horror where always considered to be second rate genres, yet over the next two decades where to prove two of the most lucrative forms of revenue. They also provided a springboard for a great deal of emerging talent.
Orca (1977)
Orca (Aka: Orca: The Killer Whale) is a damn odd 1977 creature feature directed by Michael Anderson and produced by Dino De Laurentiis, that was designed to cash-in on the success of Jaws. Where Steven Spielberg’s movie is a character driven, suspense movie, Orca is all over the shop; veering between such themes of environmentalism, horror and revenge. Furthermore the revenge in question is exacted by the titular whale against Richard Harris. It’s sort of a reverse Moby Dick situation. Ponder that for a moment. This is a movie about a whale getting even. Make no mistake, this is a cinematic mess, yet because of its European production credentials it is still morbidly fascination.
Orca (Aka: Orca: The Killer Whale) is a damn odd 1977 creature feature directed by Michael Anderson and produced by Dino De Laurentiis, that was designed to cash-in on the success of Jaws. Where Steven Spielberg’s movie is a character driven, suspense movie, Orca is all over the shop; veering between such themes of environmentalism, horror and revenge. Furthermore the revenge in question is exacted by the titular whale against Richard Harris. It’s sort of a reverse Moby Dick situation. Ponder that for a moment. This is a movie about a whale getting even. Make no mistake, this is a cinematic mess, yet because of its European production credentials it is still morbidly fascination.
Disgruntled fisherman Nolan (Richard Harris) dreams of leaving Nova Scotia and returning back to Ireland. After watching a presentation by marine biologist Dr. Rachel Bedford (Charlotte Rampling), he and his crew set off to bag an Orca in the hope that they can sell it to a theme park or aquarium. Unfortunately the plan to harpoon the whale in the dorsal fin and secure it, goes awry, resulting in a pregnant female being injured. In a very distressing scene, she is caught in the harpoon cable and mutilated by the ships propeller. As the crew winch her on-board she aborts her unborn calf, as her mate looks on.
This opening gambit is hard hitting, exploitative and as subtle as flatulence in a library. Within minutes the movie lurches from montages of capering whales set to a beautiful Ennio Morricone score, to blood and mayhem. Needless to say that the whale subsequently terrorises the fishing town until Nolan decides to fight like a man (or should that be whale) and face justice for his crime. For those curious as to how a whale, a conspicuously sea based mammal manages to achieve this, he sinks all the boats moored, blows up the fuel depot (he bloody does to, look at the damn picture!) and even manages to bite off the leg of one of Nolan’s crew (Bo Derek). All these acts of vengeance are punctuated by close up shots of the whale’s eye as he give the Cetacean equivalent of Paddington’s “hard stare”.
So in the final act, Nolan, Dr. Bedford, Miss One Leg’s boyfriend (Peter Hooten) and the ubiquitous wise Native American Jacob Umilak (Will Sampson) give chase to the vengeful whale as it leads them in to the frozen waters off the coast of Labrador. Cue some personal introspection by Harris and obligatory words of wisdom from Umilak. Let is suffice to say that as this is a movie from the seventies and film makers felt less disposed towards mandatory happy endings, so things do not go well in the human cast in the denouement. Viewers less familiar with movies from this genre and time period may well be left bewildered and confused by the abrupt but valedictory nature of the ending. I will stop short of declaring it a WTF moment because you could level that criticism about the films entire premise.
Like Jaws two years before, Orca was marketed at a similar audience. Both movies contain a level of violence and unpleasantness that would not be present in equivalent movies today, or at least not within the PG rating. Free Willy this is not. I saw this movie as a child, a few years after its release. It left a big impression upon me mainly due to the impact of the opening scenes. I certainly would not recommend the movie today as family viewing. However despite the insane premise, the stilted dialogue and hard boiled performances, there is still a thread of drama and pathos running through the proceedings. It’s heavy handed and unsophisticated but it’s there; along with the blood, the mayhem and the hateful gaze from the prosthetic whale eye.
The optical and prosthetic effects are quite good for the time. The distinct black and white colour of the Orca works in the favour of the full sized models that are used. The studio bound frozen finale, filmed in the water tanks of the Mediterranean Film Studios in Malta, is no better or worse than what you’d find in Ice Station Zebra or a comparable movie. As previously mentioned the soundtrack by Ennio Morricone covers a lot of ills. Richard Harris gives an honest performance and his commanding screen presence also helps viewers excuse the overall absurdity of the proceedings. Returning to my point about European productions of this nature, they always adopt a more bombastic and strident tone than their US counterparts. In some respects it is part of their schtick and overall appeal. Orca typifies this and if such things float your boat (crap pun intended) then this is a rather unique example of the natural horror sub-genre (and yes, that is a thing).