Tag Archives: The Thing

Uncategorized

A review of “Special Bulletin” (1983), with link

Leave a comment

There’s a pretty damn interesting chestnut from from 80’s-era nuclear nightmare films available on Youtube — 1983’s “Special Bulletin.”  (The link is below.)  I was surprised I hadn’t heard of it.  I think most 80’s kids remember ABC’s “The Day After.”  That infamous television movie was a cultural touchstone that scared a generation of kids.  “Special Bulletin” was produced by NBC the same year, actually preceding “The Day After” by nine months.  Instead of a world-ending war with Russia, the feature-length special imagined a single incident of nuclear terrorism in Charleston, South Carolina.  (I myself had no idea that Charleston was the strategic military nexus that the movie explains it to be.)

“Special Bulletin” was filmed as a “War of the Worlds”-type narrative, consisting exclusively of faux news coverage, and it’s pretty damned good.  (It won a handful of Emmys.)  It’s just as frightening today — or maybe more so, given the increased threat of precisely this kind of terrorism from stateless groups.

The acting is mostly good, the directing successfully captures the feel of live news coverage, and the absence of a musical score further lends the movie a sense of realism.  The story has a few surprises for us, too — the plot setup is creative and interesting, and much more thought went in the the teleplay than I would have expected.  The film asks some difficult questions about the role of the media in affecting the outcome of high-profile crimes like the one depicted.  (Would such questions be more or less relevant in the age of camera-phones, uploaded ISIS executions and Facebook Live?  I’m not sure.)

I was also quite impressed with some of “Special Bulletin’s” thriller elements.  (I’d say more, but I will avoid spoilers for anyone who wants to watch it below.)

One thing that detracts from the format’s realism is the fact that some of this movie’s actors are easily recognizable from other roles in the 80’s (although it’s fun spotting them as an 80’s movie fan).

Most viewers my age, for example, will recognize Ed Flanders and Lane Smith.  The utterly sexy female reporter who arrives on location at Charleston Harbor is Roxanne Hart, who later played Brenda in “Highlander” (1986).  (She’s still quite beautiful, guys, and she’s still making movies.)  Most jarring of all, however, is a prominent role played by David Clennon, who any fan of horror-science fiction will recognize as Palmer from John Carpenter’s 1982 masterpiece, “The Thing.”  This is still fun, though — he has that same disarrayed hair.  Was it his trademark back in the day?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKY-2zkWJuo

Uncategorized

A very short review of “10 Cloverfield Lane” (2016)

2 Comments

“10 Cloverfield Lane” (2016) is a capably written and well performed thriller; it might not be quite worth the high praise it seems to be receiving elsewhere, but I’d still give it an 8 out of 10.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead actually is terrific actress.  She has far more to do here than her one-note heroine in 2011’s underrated “The  Thing” prequel, and she performs beautifully.  John Goodman is perfect as a mentally ill, dubious savior.  John Gallagher, Jr. does just fine as a good-natured everyman in over his head.

I did think that “10 Cloverfield Lane” ran a little long for its content.  This could have easily been an especially well executed episode of a one-hour show like “The Outer Limits” or “The Twilight Zone.”  It’s feature-length format felt a little padded.  We don’t need the prologue explaining why Winstead’s character is traveling.  Nor do we need the movie’s slowly building character arc for Goodman’s “Howard.”  (We know to suspect his stability from the trailer.)

This appears to have very little to do with “Cloverfield” (2008).

 

10cl_poster (1)22

Uncategorized

An annual April 2nd disclaimer

3 Comments

No, guys, I have not been hired by any United States Antarctic Research Program to assist John Blair and his fellow scientists at Outpost 31.  Neither will I be relocating to any research base in Antarctica.  Nor do I have a college alumnus named R.J. MacReady.

Those were lies.  My post yesterday was an April Fool’s Day prank.  The setting and people I described yesterday are derived from the classic 1982 sci-fi/horror film, John Carpenter’s “The Thing.”

 

IYEWg

 

Uncategorized

My review of “Blood Glacier” (2013), with general spoilers

Leave a comment

[The following review contains general spoilers.]

I want to love “Blutgletscher” (“Blood Glacier”), an earnestly made independent German science fiction-horror film from 2013.  I just can’t ignore its flaws, however, and I’ve got to settle on a giving it a 6 out of 10.

It has so much going for it.  There’s a freezing, arctic-like location.  (This time out, we’re in the mountains of Austria.)  There’s a nifty, nasty sci-fi plot device.  There’s a variety of gooey monsters.  It’s creepy and atmospheric — a group of protagonists huddle in an isolated location while the wind howls outside on a cold night.  There’s a cunning everyman antihero.  All of these are rendered by a reasonably intelligent script that lets “Blood Glacier” rise above the level of a horror-comedy.

But its flaws make me hesitate to recommend it.  It’s poorly paced, for example, and it’s sometimes confusingly plotted.  One person assailed by the creepy-crawlies emerges as kind of villain, but the character’s motivations are never clear.  Also, why is another character consistently a idiot?  Is he just a really dumb scientist?  And the ending shows otherwise intelligent people doing something incredibly ill advised.

And I was puzzled by the special effects.  At times, they were actually damn good!  But at many points in the movie (as so many other reviews will point out) they were downright poor.  I kept thinking that they looked like papier mache props in a high school play.

Additionally, (and this can’t be the fault of the filmmakers) the version of “Blood Glacier” that I watched had incredibly poor English-language dubbing.  The actors on screen (especially Gerhard Liebmann and Briggite Kren) did a fine job, but their corresponding voice actors had … no talent or enthusiasm at all.

Look, I don’t think it’s much of a spoiler if I tell you that this movie strongly parallels John Carpenter’s “The Thing” (1982).  Any horror fan worth his or her salt should suspect as much if they read the preceding paragraphs.  Our MacReady-like antihero drinks heavily and … he even looks like MacReady!  And a dog and a helicopter are actually minor plot devices.

But I liked this movie’s thoughtful story device too much to call this film “a rip-off;” I rather think of it as a fairly skilled homage.

Honestly?  If you’re fan of “The Thing,” you might enjoy this as an interesting companion film.  As another online reviewer bluntly forgave it, “It isn’t TOTAL crap.”

If you hunt it down, its alternate title is “The Station.”

MCDBLGL EC003

Uncategorized

My take on the ambiguous ending for John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” (Major spoilers.)

Leave a comment

John Carpenter’s 1982 tour-de-force, “The Thing,” is arguably the best horror movie of the decade.  It paid little attention to the movie it ostensibly remakes, the standard, boilerplate, flying-saucer Saturday-matinee of “The Thing From Another World” (1951). It presumably paid greater attention to its real and far darker source material, “Who Goes There?,” John W. Campbell Jr.’s 1938 horror-sci-fi novella.

One of the things the movie’s fans still debate heatedly is its bleak ending — I think it goes beyond ambiguous to downright mysterious.  Viewers actually are given no certainty whatsoever about who or what are actually pictured onscreen in the film’s Antarctic setting, after a fiery climax for this gory, special-effects-heavy actioner.  (Only people who have seen the film know what I am talking about.)

My own interpretation is a little less popular than the others you hear about.  To conceal spoilers, I’m sharing it after the poster image below.  [IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE, STOP READING NOW!]

movie-poster-the-thing

Continue reading My take on the ambiguous ending for John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” (Major spoilers.) →

Uncategorized

Oh! Just one more Thing tonight!!

Leave a comment

1245878_orig

You’re glad I reminded you, aren’t you?

I told Pete Harrison the other night that I watched the 2011 prequel to John Carpenter’s 1982 masterpiece, “The Thing.”

He simply responded, “Why?”

To me and undoubtedly many others, the 80’s classic will always be the paradigmatic horror – science fiction movie.  Because I admire a well made house as much as anyone, but AIN’T NO CARPENTER LIKE JOHN CARPENTER.  (Nobody repeat that, I want to copyright it and sell bumper stickers at horror conventions.)

Yes, the recent prequel inexplicably has the exact same title as the 1982 movie, and I have no frikkin’ idea why.  That just seems … deliberately stupid.  Nor is that the 2011 film’s only flaw … it’s universally maligned.

Does the 2011 outing really deserve all its bad press?  I say no.  Among other things, it delivered some fine goopity-gloppity monster goodness, delivered by an archetypal flying saucer, no less.  That’s something that I find refreshing in a horror movie marketplace that just seems inundated with demons and ghosts.  (I loved “Insidious,” but enough already.)

C’mon, Hollywood.  There are plenty of horror fans out there who grew up loving giant ants, Marine-baiting “Aliens,” werewolves, swarms of spiders troubling William Shatner, and the adversaries of Godzilla.  It’s why I gave a positive review to this year’s “Jurassic World,” despite a script of the same quality as that of “Gilligan’s Island.”  I want to see velociraptors chase a speeding truck.  I will ALWAYS want to see velociraptors chase a speeding truck.

And … I liked the 2011 movie’s protagonist!  Trying to mimic MacReady’s cunning anti-hero would have redundant!  This story featured a smart, young lady scientist who turned out to be tough under pressure.  That kinda worked for me.

I actually have seen 1951’s “The Thing From Another World,” but that was 30 years ago on VHS, with my “Movie Uncle,” John Muth.  I have NOT read “Who Goes There?,” John W. Campbell, Jr.’s 1938 novella upon which all of these films were based.  But I’m planning to.  (Last time I checked, it was floating around online somewhere.)

I’m just waiting for the first big blizzard to hit next winter.  Because ATMOSPHERE.

Uncategorized

My slightly disappointed review of “The X Files” Season 1.

Leave a comment

I am blogging my past TV reviews from Facebook; this was my surprisingly unenthusiastic reaction to “The X Files” Season 1.  Yes, this review is dated, as it makes no mention of the show’s impending return.  (Hooray.)

**********

I love ‘The X Files.” And I mean I REALLY love “The X Files.” It’s possibly my favorite television show of all time, running neck and neck with shows like “24,” Battlestar Galactica” and “Mystery Science Theater 3000.” So I was very surprised at my own disappointment when, via Netflix, I was able to watch Season 1 in its entirety for the first time. Taken together, I think its 24 episodes deserve a 5 out 0f 10. And bear in mind – that’s coming from a diehard fan.

I first fell in love with this show as its fourth or fifth season was currently airing. This was long before Netflix streaming, and I’m pretty sure it was before DVD’s were even a thing. (I’m old.) What few episodes I’d seen of Season 1 were from syndication and purchased VHS tapes. So I’ve been proclaiming my love for the show (which had a nine-year run) for years without ever having seen much of the early seasons.

Some great TV shows can get off to a rough start. “The Simpsons,” “MST3K” and even “Family Guy” were less than stellar when they first began. Shows like “24” and “Star Trek: The Next Generation” were good, but got much better. “The X Files” was surprisingly average.

The first nine episodes were, frankly, poor. There was little of the suspense, mystery and characterization that would eventually make the show great, with Mulder and Scully being flat, and even annoying characters that were thinly scripted and awkwardly played by David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson. Duchovny, early on, was just bad. His wooden line delivery made him seem like a Fox Network intern who was standing in for a sick professional actor. Anderson was better, but could only do so much with the clunky and simplistic dialogue.

Episodes like “Ghost in the Machine” and “Ice” seem clearly like ripoffs of sci-fi classics (“2001: A Space Odyssey” and John Carpenter’s “The Thing,” respectively), though “Ice” still manages to be fun. One episode, “Space,” was so boring that it was painful to watch. “Squeeze,” which is a favorite for many longtime fans, was good, but even it hasn’t aged all that well. I’m surprised the show lasted.

As mysteries or police thrillers, these early episodes also failed. Eager witnesses cheerfully and conveniently present themselves early on to volunteer clues and exposition. The underlying reveals seemed like elements thrown together with little exposition. And Duchovny looks like he’d never held a gun in his life. (I’m pretty sure you’re not supposed to wave it around like that.) I can’t remember the episode but, at one point, Mulder (a supposedly brilliant Oxford-trained criminal psychologist) actually confuses schizophrenia with MPD (multiple personality disorder). Sigh.

Then there was a shift in tone and quality. “Eve” is one of the all-time greats. (And it was here where the dark themes and complex overarching plotlines were truly established that would later define the show.) “Beyond The Sea” saw Anderson shine, along with the writers and directors. It was simply fantastic … even unforgettable (thanks in no small part to amazing guest actor Brad Dourif).

“Darkness Falls” and “Born Again” established their creators’ abilities to make great standalone, scary mysteries. Duchovny just seemed to … get better. He settled into the role, became more natural, and the writers seemed to begin giving Mulder the endearing quirks and idiosyncrasies that eventually grew him into an attractive, three-dimensional character that so many people would grow to love.

And the final episode, “The Erlenmeyer Flask,” clinched it. Here the show seemed to reach the greatness that I remember, with a great story with humor, pathos, creepiness, tension and seemingly plausible twists and mysteries. It was wonderful, and a great precursor of the greatness we would see in later seasons.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the show. And Season 1 was really more average than flat out bad. I’m just saying that the first season compares poorly with what longtime fans remember from the next eight years.

The-X-Files-Season-1