The Anti-Blockbusters: Jerome Bixby's The Man From Earth

Rating: 5 out of 5 Stars (Highest Rating)

Would you believe me if I told you there is an excellent science fiction, nay speculative Fiction, movie out there with absolutely no special effects and which involves nothing more than people sitting around and talking? Well I’m telling you it’s true, and The Man from Earth is that movie.

The script for this film came from the late Jerome Bixby who dictated its final pages from his deathbed to his son Emerson Bixby. Some may recognize Jerome Bixby as a science fiction writer who penned many short stories in the genre and who also wrote several Star Trek: TOS episodes ("Requiem for Methuselah", "Day of the Dove", "By Any Other Name", "Mirror, Mirror"), had one of his short stories adapted into the infamous "It's a Good Life" Twilight Zone episode, and who co-wrote the story for The Fantastic Voyage. Thus, this movie has some pedigree from a veteran of the genre who knew how to write Science Fiction in the days when writers could not always rely on special effects to carry the story.

The premise for The Man from Earth is simple: a university professor, John Oldman, is departing from his job and he gathers several of his most trusted colleagues to tell them that he has lived since the days of Cro-Magnon man, 14,000 years past. Some are intrigued by his claim while others find it ludicrous, and the movie documents their conversations—and knock-down, drag-out arguments—over one night’s time. That’s it. No monsters, aliens, space travel, time machines, explosions, or any of the other standards that you would expect from a Science Fiction movie. Just talking and the back-and-forth exchange of ideas, theories, and speculations.

Sound like a snooze fest? That’s exactly what it’s not. The movie grabs you almost right away with its intriguing premise which you may be skeptical about at first, but that still draws you in. And that’s exactly the way the other characters in the movie feel, and they help propel the action forward as they mirror the viewer’s inner conflicts over John Oldman’s claims that he has lived over fourteen millennia. The top-notch cast aids in keeping the movie lively as well. There are several faces among the actors that should be familiar to science fiction and fantasy fans including William Katt (Ralph Hinkley from The Greatest American Hero), John Billingsley (Dr. Phlox from Star Trek: Enterprise), Tony Todd (a slew of supporting and guest appearances in movies and television, particularly in the Star Trek revivals), and Richard Riehle (also a frequent guest star, especially across several of the Star Trek shows, as well as Tom Smykowski from Office Space). The other characters at first go along with John’s “what-if” scenario because they believe they are indulging him as he works out the concept of a potential novel. As the night progresses, some start to become more invested in his assertion while others get impatient with his line of reasoning. Then, the movie throw’s us a curve (WARNING!!! Spoilers to follow).

After some questioning, John reveals that he was an important person from history, and his revelation and its implications turn this into a completely different movie. The Man from Earth starts out as a “what-if” discourse on the implications of a person who had lived through all of human history. The revelation, however, makes us rethink the past and perhaps even our very core beliefs. This curve ball is a bit jarring and may turn some viewers off from the movie. I have to admit that I had some difficulty digesting it at first. But the more I thought about it, this turn of events really raised the movie to the next level and caused it to resonate with me for several days and ponder its implications. And you can’t ask much more than that from a movie in the science fiction genre, or any genre for that matter.

This movie succeeds primarily with the ideas it puts forth which cause the viewer to think long and hard about their perception of history. And it does this by way of an excellent script and a superb cast, and without a special effects crew in site. Sure, there are plenty of blockbusters that will be assaulting the theaters in the coming months and especially this Summer season, and we will all go and enjoy the escapist entertainment they provide, exploding on the screens with the latest special effects technology. But if you want an excellent science fiction movie that lives and dies by its story, script, and actors then be sure to plop The Man from Earth into your DVD player after you return from the theater.

Buy The Man From Earth on Blu-ray and DVD from Amazon.com:

Blockbuster Overload from Summer? Here Are 5 Sci Fi Movies that Offer a Respite from the Mega-Dollar Franchises

So the Summer 2016 Blockbuster season has come and gone and perhaps you find yourself somewhat unsatisfied after gorging on the franchise-serving, mind-numbing, CGI-overload that many of the mega-dollar sci fi & fantasy entries delivered over the last few months. Well the fact is that a mountain of cash and the best sfx teams in the world do not assure a great film. And perhaps now is a good time for a respite from the blockbuster overload and a chance to look at a few offerings from the past ten years or so that might have been overlooked but that delivered good sci fi / fantasy without having to rely on the cash avalanche and high-pressure expectations of the Daddy Warbucks studios. Read the full article at this link.

The Anti-Blockbusters: Hunter Prey

Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars

Hunter Prey is a 2009 independent science fiction film written and directed by Sandy Collora on a very economical budget of $425 thousand. It follows a group of interstellar commandos tracking their alien prisoner on a desert planet. Somehow the prisoner managed to force the prison ship carrying him to crash on this planet and now it is the job of these commandos to take him back into their custody. And they must bring him in alive. This turns out to be a point of contention, seeing as the alien proves more formidable than first thought, but the commander explains that since they have wiped out all but one of this alien’s race, it plans to “return the favor”, and they must find out how.

That’s a very brief introduction to this film, but I want to keep it as spoiler free as possible because Hunter Prey has plenty of surprises. I stumbled across this one because of a recommendation and decided to give it a look. And despite a few flaws here and there, Collora manages to deliver a very good genre entry with this modest film. It definitely has an initial cheesiness about it which may cause some to tune out early on, but I recommend that you stick with the film and give it the chance it deserves. The armored uniforms that the commandos wear are definitely an early weak point, looking not unlike discarded Power Rangers gear dragged through the dirt several times. But remember that this is no big budget affair, and pretty quickly you don’t even notice those uniforms anyway. Also, the acting has lapses from time to time, but for the most part is decent at least.

What sets Hunter Prey apart from the Syfy Saturday night cheese-fests that it resembles at first blush is that it takes a familiar story and builds on it and develops it organically instead of through contrivance. We have seen this sort of tale before, done well in the Star Trek TOS episode “Arena” and not so well in the feature film Enemy Mine, but Hunter Prey quickly establishes itself as more than just a knockoff of genre formulas. The film could have easily descended into a predicament-oriented affair where the commandos and their prey find themselves in a never-ending succession of precarious situations, but it avoids that pitfall (pun unintended but accepted). It follows a rather straightforward plot of hunters pursuing a dangerous prey, though it throws in a nice helping of twists as well. And it advances the story through character development and mostly avoids the contrivances you expect from a low budget sci fi film. The ending is a bit confusing (more on that below in the SPOILERS section), and maybe somewhat unsatisfying, but it does not completely derail the film. And the movie is relatively brisk at about 90 minutes running time which works in its favor. It’s definitely worth checking out, even if it won’t quite overshadow too many of the bigger budget CGI-fests that have hit theaters the last couple of years.

WARNING: SPOILERS TO FOLLOW (Skip this paragraph to avoid). As mentioned above, the ending to Hunter Prey is a rather vague and may turn off more than a few viewers to this film. I have actually watched it a couple of times and have picked up a few more clues each time, but still can’t claim that I fully understand it or feel like it delivers a satisfying resolution. I think a lot of the understanding revolves around the comment that Centauri makes to Jericho, “Is that what you want the legacy of your kind to be?”, referring to that latter’s plan to destroy the Sedonian homeworld. I believe that Centauri infects himself with a degree of self-doubt at that point, and we had already seen that he had his own previous disagreements with Sedonian authorities. But would that be enough for him to allow Jericho to escape and potentially carry out his plan of retribution. And what did Centauri mean when he said that he and Jericho would meet again? Was that setting up a sequel? If so, it seemed to be at the expense of a more satisfying resolution. But again, as I said above, that doesn’t completely kill the movie, which is mostly excellent up to the end, just docks it a bit in my final rating.

A note for sci fi trivia buffs, this film seems to have all sorts of obscure references to other science fiction properties. The names of Karza and Croyer seem like a reference to the Micronauts comic book series (Baron Karza and Acroyear). Centauri could be a reference to the like-named race from Babylon 5 or any of umpteen other sci fi uses of the term. Orin Jericho comes straight from Starchaser: The Legend of Orin and perhaps the Jericho TV series as well. And it seems like there were a few others that I noticed that have since slipped my mind. Also, Erin Gray, ex-spandex wearing hottie from TV’s Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, provides the voice for the computer Clea.

Director Sandy Collora had previously worked with effects and makeup expert Stan Winston (Aliens, Predator, The Terminator) and has spent most of his career behind the scenes. But in 2004, he directed the well-received fan film Batman: Dead End which Kevin Smith has referred to as “possibly the truest, best Batman movie ever made” (you can download the eight minute film at this link). Hunter Prey is Collora’s first feature-length film and he definitely shows promise with this one. Science fiction fans should check it out and keep an eye on future developments from this director.

Buy Hunter Prey and Other Anti-Blockbusters from Amazon.com:

The Anti-Blockbusters: Moon

Rating: 4 ½ out of 5 Stars

2009's Moon is a rarity in modern-day cinema. It is a Science Fiction movie, yet it has little action, no explosions, no space battles, no guns, no nail-biting down-to-the-wire endings, and a cast that you can count on one hand. What it does have, though, is a strong story bolstered by magnificent performances from its sparse set of performers. In that respect, it harkens back to classic examples of hard science fiction in the cinema like 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Andromeda Strain, and Silent Running. And that is exactly what director and co-writer Duncan Jones wanted.

The entire movie takes place on the Moon as we follow Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) who is the sole human in charge of running a mining operation that extracts helium-3 from the lunar surface and sends it back to Earth where it provides the primary fuel source for the planet. His only companion is the robotic GERTY 3000 (voiced by Kevin Spacey) which has a voice similar to HAL 9000 and displays emoticons on its monitor to reflect its expressions. Sam is coming to the end of his three year contract on the Moon and eagerly awaits his return home. However, he starts to hallucinate and see people and transmissions that he knows cannot be real and this eventually causes him to have a life-threatening accident on the surface of the Moon.

Early on, you may start to question several aspects of the movie’s basic set-up. Why would the company send only one person at a time to spend a rather daunting three years in isolation? Why would they not fix the malfunctioning satellite that provides Sam’s only chance to have real time transmissions from home? After the accident, how did Sam get back to the base? But everything falls into place as the tight, focused script unfolds before us.

I’ll give no more information about the movie than that, because “that would be telling”, and it’s best to go into this one without any pre-conceived notions. What I will do is complement the cast and crew on pulling off what could have turned into a very dreary, plodding film in the wrong hands. Mind you, Moon does have a very slow pace, but it never drags or meanders because of its excellent script, spot-on performances by Rockwell and Spacey, and steady direction from Jones (who, by the way, is the son of the late David Bowie).

Visually, Moon succeeds as well, as it gives us a respite from the CGI-overload that Hollywood so often throws at us. Jones relies on old-school model-work to depict the Moonbase and the vehicles that interact with it. And despite the limited budget of the film (around $5 million) his special effects team delivers a realistic, almost flawless, depiction of Moon colonization that makes viewers like myself long for the lost art of model-derived special effects. This practice of course would not work as well in a more action-oriented film, but in this setting it provides the perfect visual realization to complement the story.

Moon compares quiet well to some of the classics of Science Fiction cinema that it invokes and deserves to stand right next to them when listing accomplished movies from the genre. While it lacks the grander statements of movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Silent Running, it does give us a more modest, personal statement about what it means to be human and to be in control of your own destiny. Also, it avoids some of the inconsistencies and leaps of logic of the two previously mentioned movies (i.e, you have to read the book to understand exactly why HAL goes berserk, and just why exactly did they put the forest domes out in deep space instead of orbiting the Sun?). Most importantly, the movie places story above spectacle and also manages to maneuver past the conceits that often afflict films of this ilk.

Moon did not do big Box Office business in its theatrical run, in part because of its limited distribution and in part because of its lack of promotion. But it did gain immediate attention from critics and fans of the genre and quickly got pegged as an “instant classic”. Those who missed it in its truncated theatrical run should definitely check it out on DVD, and those that did catch it should watch it again because like most classics it stands up to multiple viewings.

The Anti-Blockbusters: Battle for Terra

Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars

As blockbusters like Star Trek, Transformers, and Harry Potter were preparing to assault the theaters at the beginning of the 2009 Summer season, a rather unassuming little animated movie appeared and disappeared within about two weeks time. This movie, Battle for Terra, had been made back in 2007 at a very economical price for a CGI film (around $4 million originally though increased to $8 million with 3-D effects added), and had received some acclaim as it toured the film festival circuit and won the Grand Prize for Best Animated Feature at the 2008 Ottawa International Animation Festival.

The movie opens on a distant planet where a race of peaceful beings, who have the ability to fly, live an idyllic existence mostly at harmony with their world. However, an enormous space ship arrives carrying the last inhabitants of a destroyed Earth who plan to settle on this planet. The humans must terraform the planet to make the atmosphere breathable which in turn will make it poisonous to the natives. An initial confrontation with the humans and natives leads to one of the humans crashing on the planet and coming face to face with the people he would help destroy. This plants the seeds which eventually lead to the beginning of a mutual understanding between the two races.

Battle for Terra is a beautifully illustrated CGI-animated movie that mixes science fiction with fantasy (though still sufficiently rooted in science) and even throws in a bit of steam-punk tech. And while the substance does not always match up to the style, Battle for Terra still delivers a more satisfying tale than the similarly themed Avatar from James Cameron which would follow this one at the Box Office with much more fanfare (and BoT had a much lower price tag than Avatar’s $240 million budget) . But while Terra’s story verges into the derivative at times with a hodgepodge of genre elements and some copy-and-paste dialogue, it presents a more genuine take on its subject matter than the much more calculated Avatar. And while it may not fully develop its characters and ideas, in part because of its rather brief 85 minute run-time, in the end the movie manages to overcome most of its deficiencies and stand out as a notable genre entry.

And sparse though the plot may be, the writers resist the temptation to give us a simple tale of idealistic, pacifist aliens vs. imperialist, invading humans. Sure, it ventures in that direction with the central villain General Hemmer, but we see that the humans are primarily driven more by their desperation than anything else and we also see that the natives of Terra have the ability to defend themselves if necessary. This is where the movie diverges from the Disney-style kids-fare as it chooses not to present a conflict followed by a tidy wrap-up and happy ending. And this is probably what doomed the movie in the theaters.

Battle for Terra has the look of a fantasy movie aimed at the younger crowd, much like the Star Wars: The Clone Wars film and subsequent TV series. In fact, it seems quite merchandise friendly, with its cute aliens, adorable robots, sleek space ships and steam-punk alien airships. But the movie does not give us the simple tale of good vs. evil that you would expect from a film of this type. In fact, the apparent youthful target audience may have difficulty figuring out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. The movie delivers more mature themes wrapped up in moral dilemmas, and in the final battle children may struggle with who exactly to route for and the film ends with the heart-rending sacrifice of one of the lead characters. For me, that makes for great story-telling. But since they decided to market the movie mostly toward children (surely as an afterthought, though), that may have severely hampered its Box Office viability. Ultimately, it’s hard to really pin down this movie as it presents an exercise in contrast with its cute aliens and invading humans facing some very difficult moral decisions. But science fiction and fantasy fans should appreciate it as a well done movie that rises above the expected family-friendly animated flick and delivers a superior genre tale.  If you missed this one in the theaters, do yourself a favor and seek it out on DVD.  You should be pleasantly surprised by what you find there.

The Anti-Blockbusters: Primer

Rating: 4 ½ out of 5 Stars

Time Travel presents many problems when used as a story device in science fiction and fantasy tales. The implications of the impact that a time traveler could have on past, present, and future events are potentially earth-shattering, yet this is often poorly handling by television shows, movies, and sometimes even books dealing with the subject. Too often, writers use time travel simply as a contrivance to carry the story forward and rarely care about establishing rules or logic involving temporal activities, or if they do, rarely follow them. Primer, an independent film that came out in 2004, bucked this trend, though, and presented a well thought out story addressing the possibility and moral implications of time travel.

It starts with two inventors tinkering around in the evenings in their garage with various ideas they hope to patent and sell. They accidentally stumble upon a process that appears to bend time and they start to investigate it further which leads to their successful attempts to travel back in time. At first, their time travel excursions are mostly harmless, traveling back a few hours and buying stocks that they know will rise in price later in the day. But then they start using their time travel apparatus to try and go back and change events that have already occurred. When things do not turn out the way they planned, they try again and eventually find themselves caught in a seemingly endless cycle of struggling to correct their own mishaps. Eventually the two friends find themselves at odds with one another with one wanting to bow out of the endeavor while the other wants to take it to even greater levels.

This movie was written by first-time filmmaker Shane Carruth who is a mathematician and an engineer. He gives us a plausible, scientific explanation for time travel which the two inventors (one played by himself) discovered by accident as a by-product of a completely separate experiment. He also presents some of the moral quandaries associated with time travel, but he does it in a very subtle way. At first the two inventors just want to use it make money in the stock market which they will then put back into their after-hours business ventures. A morally questionable action, but one with limited impact. However, when they start trying to change the past, they find themselves unable to deal with the grander consequences of their actions and also find themselves dragged into a seemingly endless downward spiral.

Unfortunately, the movie does become a bit muddled toward the end, but at least it does not completely derail or descend into Heroes-style silliness with its time travel antics. Carruth made this film on a microscopic budget of $7,000, but it does not show. It has almost no special effects, but neither does it need them. It draws in the viewer with its sense of invention and discovery at first and then with the time travel quandaries that start to develop as the two inventors find their reality spinning out of control . The script is definitely dense and a times tedious, perhaps even obtuse. But rather than losing the viewer because of this, it produces a desire to re-watch the film to see what you went over your head the previous time. And this one definitely stands up to multiple viewings (though I would advise not committing too much brain matter because I am not quite certain Carruth fully resolved all of the threads). Still, for an intelligent, well made science fiction movie dealing with time travel (and there are very few of those) this one definitely stands the test of time (sorry couldn’t resist). It may have been made by a first-time filmmaker on a micro budget, but the film holds its own when placed next to many of the better science fiction movies from the major studios

Read more about the intricacies of Primer at its Wikipedia page

Read John Kenneth Muir’s indepth analysis of Primer at his blog

---

The Anti-Blockbusters: Carriers

Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars

I stumbled upon this movie a few years back by accident and found it to be a welcome surprise of a film giving a sci fi spin on some of post-apocalyptic themes typically reserved to the zombie-pocalypse genre. Carriers was made back in 2007 but then sat on the shelf for a couple of years before it finally got a limited release in the theaters in 2009. A pre-Star Trek Chris Pine heads up the cast as one of four plague survivors on a trek through the back roads of a ravaged America. Their goal is to try and avoid those affected with the virus that has wiped out most of humanity while heading to a location that they believe will act as a safe spot where they can ride out the holocaust. They do however encounter other survivors along the way and find themselves faced with dubious moral choices, weighing their own survival against helping those in need.

Carriers delivers a very straightforward, linear film that does not rely on twists and turns nor placing the leads in one predicament after the next to build its story and conflicts. Instead, it essays the breakdown of society as it follows these four travelers on their journey to a coastal hotel that the two brothers know from their childhood and that they believe will provide safe ground. Along the way, they must make decisions based primarily on their need to survive in this post-apocalyptic setting and in so doing they must distance themselves from the dictates of a more civilized world. And we see a definite contrast between the older brother Brian (Pine) and the younger brother Danny (Lou Taylor Pucci) as Brian has more quickly dispensed with the mores of polite society in his bid to survive in the world that remains. He makes some very harsh--and at times amoral--decisions that Danny and their two female companions don’t always agree upon, but he is driven by necessity. This ultimately pushes him over the edge, though, putting his brother in the position of dealing with an equally harsh decision. And you can argue about the morality of their actions all you want, but you also have to place yourself in the same circumstance and answer honestly how you would act.

And ultimately, this is what a good science (nay speculative) fiction tale does. It takes us just far enough away from our own world while at the same time using this possible reality to allow us to look at ourselves in the mirror and consider the implications and morality of our actions. Carriers may be slight on plot, but it still manages to make us think and it succeeds in getting us to identify with the characters and put ourselves in their shoes. That leads to some uncomfortable moments at times throughout the film, but that appears to be what the movie wants and first-time director Alex Pastor (who also co-wrote the script) pulls it off masterfully without descending into melodrama or relying on excessive gore or violence. The actors playing the four central characters also deliver excellent performances that help keep the film moving along at its brisk pace. Some of the ancillary actors are not always up to the task, though, and the middle section where they encounter a group of makeshift containment-suit-clad survivors nearly bogs the film down. But Pastor ushers the movie past that and it resumes its pace for a poignant yet bleak ending.

For some reason, this movie was pushed as a horror film which seems like a poor fit for its more sci fi oriented subject matter. It may be that the studio did not quite know how to market this somewhat sparse film made on what must have been a small purse (though it never really looks low-budget). Because of its horror label, it does throw in a few cheesy jump-out-and-scare-you moments, though that never really detracts from the film. It also has very much the feel of a zombie-pocalypse tale even though it lacks the walking dead (the plague apparently does zombify its victims to some extent, though that is never really explored). Chris Pine has since hit the big time, and you would have thought that would draw more attention to this film, but I rarely hear it mentioned.  It is definitely worth checking out, though, and I would call this the best zombie-pocalypse movie without zombies that I have ever seen!

The Anti-Blockbusters: Beowulf and Grendel

Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars

Anybody who has had a class or two in Western Literature will know Beowulf as the aged (some might say musty) epic poem about the titular hero who defeats the wicked monster Grendel and his mother as well as a menacing dragon. This work has made it to the big screen several times including the 1999 film starring ex-Highlander Christopher Lambert as well as the big-budget motion-capture adaptation from Robert Zemeckis in 2007. In 2005, another spin on the classic tale came out from Canadian director Sturla Gunnarsson which, unlike the more Hollywood-ized versions, presented an introspective, somber approach to the story.

In this movie, King of the Danes Hrothgar lives in despair as the monstrous Grendel wages war against his people and has slain many of his warriors. He sends for the aid of the legendary Beowulf who arrives at Daneland accompanied by his troop of warriors. They face off with Grendel, but the monster will not fight them and instead flees which prompts Beowulf to wonder about the claims Hrothgar has made against the creature. Beowulf eventually finds that, when Grendel was a child, the Danish king killed his father for stealing a fish, though he spared the youth out of pity. However, after Grendel matured, he waged a war of vengeance against Hrothgar and his men. The beast would not attack Beowulf and his men, though, because they had done him no wrong. In searching for the creature, they come across his cave and one of Beowulf’s warriors desecrates it. Grendel seeks revenge for this act and Beowulf eventually captures him leading to the beast’s death after he escapes by hacking off his own arm (okay, delayed spoiler warning for those who failed English Lit). This leads to Grendel’s mother arriving to avenge the death of her son and Beowulf then has do battle with her as well.

Beowulf and Grendel was produced on a much more modest budget than the Robert Zemeckis version that hit the theaters two years later and it also steered clear of the typical Hollywood style pumped-up action-hero story. Instead, the creative team for the movie used the tale as a parable of sorts for modern times. Beowulf is far from the blood-thirsty stereotype typically associated with the character — though he is surrounded by plenty of others that fit this mold. Instead, we see him as a warrior with an introspective side that questions whether force is always the correct first option in dealing with a potential threat. Now you could quite rightly argue that this gives as a very historically inaccurate view of people living during the Anglo-Saxon age, but then let’s spend a few hours reviewing the historical gaffs in a film like, say, Braveheart. Beowulf and Grendel does not pretend to offer a history lesson or a faithful adaptation of the original poem. Instead, it uses that familiar tale as a common reference point which acts as a mirror on our own world.

The movie can easily be seen as a reactionary response to the interventionist policies of the United States during the 00’s, but not to the point that it delivers little more than a Liberal diatribe. Instead, it questions the blind reliance on force through the irony of historical figures heavily associated with the warrior culture. And the Beowulf of this film gives us less of the dashing, violent hero type and more of a thinker and strategist with a conscience who understands, maybe even fears, the consequences of violence of the world he lives in.

Along with the less action-oriented, more contemplative story, the movie gives us strong performances by its very capable cast led by Gerard Butler (who would later do a very different turn with a historical character in 300). Also, the austere landscapes of the on-location shooting in Iceland lend an air of stark beauty and authenticity to the film, enhanced by the striking cinematography that brings the movie to life.

This one may disappoint those looking for the action film that its source material might suggest and it also will not help anybody with their upcoming English Lit test. But for those looking for a well-crafted story that will engage the mind and just might cause you to ponder the consequence of violence, be sure to give this film a look.

The Anti-Blockbusters: Defendor

Rating: 5 out of 5 Stars (Highest Rating)

Superhero movies have been all the rage of late with the Avengers franchise dominating the big screen and the Batman vs. Superman and Justice League films not far off on the horizon.  But while the big budget capers have given us plenty of senses-dazzling, popcorn-munching moments, it’s worth taking the time to recognize a superhero film of sorts from a few of years ago made on a much smaller scale but that delivered a grand, moving story. Defendor (misspelling intentional and explained in the film) comes to us from writer/director Peter Stebbings and stars Woody Harrelson and it flew very much under the radar getting a limited release in theaters in February 2010 and a quiet debut on DVD a few months later. But this is a must-see for genre fans even if it does take a major detour from what you would expect for a superhero film.

The movie focuses on Arthur Poppington (Harrelson), a person with no superpowers who dons a costume and gear to take on the criminals who seem to run unchecked in his city, and he has a particular vendetta against a super villain known as Captain Industry. And that’s about as much as you should know going in. I could provide a bit more detail (and I will to a small extent below), but this movie is best viewed spoiler-free to experience its full impact.

Now many reading that brief synopsis will immediately think of 2009’s Kick-Ass (or 2008’s Special or this 2011’s Super). And it's worth comparing Defendor to Kick-Ass because they definitely have their similarities but the former film takes a very different approach and delivers a far superior film. Both have normal people putting on a superhero disguise and trying to act like the comic book characters that inspired them. But Kick-Ass takes this idea to the extreme if not the absurd whereas Defendor remains grounded in reality. In fact, Defendor really counts more as a drama than a superhero film. Very little that happens in the movie is not plausible, and it has almost nothing in the way of science fiction and/or fantasy elements, whereas Kick-Ass definitely embraces its genre much more heavily. But Defendor still gives plenty of nods to the superhero tropes (though in an angular sense) and should be embraced warmly by genre fans. Kick-Ass also verged on torture-porn at times, though intentionally as it winked to its audience and brought to life elements only implied in the comics that inspired it. Defendor steers in a different direction (though it has plenty of violence), as it delivers more in the way of a dramatic character study. It also has a gut wrenching quality about it, something present in Kick-Ass as well, but the latter film actually makes you feel creepy at times, almost like you need to go take a shower. Defendor has moments that make you cringe and/or feel uncomfortable, but ultimately these help bring out the true pathos in the film’s hero.

And you can’t accuse writer/director Peter Stebbings of stealing the basic premise from the Mark Millar comic book series. Stebbings wrote the screenplay in 2005, three years before the comic hit the stands, and he filmed the movie in 2009 (though it did not get its release until February 19, 2010, one month before Kick-Ass hit the big screen). And if the name Peter Stebbings rings a bell, he is an actor/writer/director who has had frequent guest appearances on genre shows like The X-Files, The Outer Limits (the 90’s remake), and Stargate SG-1. He also played Markus Alexander across the two seasons of J. Michael Straczynski’s excellent but underrated post-apocalyptic series Jeremiah (more on that one at this link).  But with Defendor he has demonstrated that he can do much more than act. He has shown himself to be a highly talented filmmaker, handling a grand story on an intimate scale while expertly working in such nuances as the misspelling of the title character’s moniker and the Captain Industry reference (no explanations, watch the movie).

It’s not like we haven’t seen the idea of normal people dressing up as superheroes played out before in comics, on television, and in the cinema. But Stebbings manages to give the concept a fresh spin and ultimately taps into its full potential to deliver an engrossing and moving film. It’s not too much of a spoiler to tell you that he works in many of the expected standards from the darker, grittier comics that this film draws its influence from. Defendor gives us the troubled, driven central character with a motivation from his past to strike out against crime. And of course, the city is riddled with the criminal element and the people feel helpless and insecure. Then we have the corrupt cop on the take and the jaded hooker with a good side she tries to suppress. Stebbings even throws in the overly melodramatic--even a bit campy--theme music just for good measure.  And all of this could have led to a muddled, contrived affair that felt all too familiar and even descended into bad camp. But Stebbings meshes these elements together masterfully without reverting to cliché so that it feels new and vital instead of tired and stale. Reworking old ideas is not a bad thing in itself. It’s when you regurgitate what has come before that you deliver an ersatz product. Stebbings avoids the latter and instead takes a well-tread idea to new heights (and you can hear him talk more about this in the short film "Origin Stories - The Genesis of Defendor" available for free viewing at Amazon Instant Video). And with this relatively simple, grounded story that he put together on very little money (about $3.5 million) which relies on little in the way of special effects, he succeeds in delivering that grand tale that genre productions often strive for yet often come up lacking. That’s story-telling and that’s filmcraft and that’s what makes this a film fans should seek out.

And of course I would be remiss if I did not mention the outstanding performance delivered by Woody Harrelson. Woody is one of my all-time favorite actors and one of Hollywood’s best character performers. Unfortunately, he has rarely received the material equal to his talent, even though he manages to make almost any role given to him shine. But with Defendor, Harrelson finally gets his Magnus Opus, even if few have recognized it as such. He delivers a career performance and expertly interprets the nuances of the scripts. From the one-liners that aren’t quite as witty as you'd expect (there’s a reason for that, and don’t worry because he does get some zingers in there), to his less than heroic run-ins with bad guys, to the moments when he reveals the inner turmoils that haunt Arthur Poppington, Harrelson is at the top of his game from start to finish. And he gets a pretty impressive supporting cast that includes Sandra Oh (Grey’s Anatomy), Elias Koteas (The Prophecy, Fallen), Michael Kelly (The Sopranos, Fringe), and Kat Dennings (various supporting roles), each of whom fully immerse themselves into their roles and help elevate this movie to that next level.

Defendor unfortunately suffered from little to no marketing, and what did exist misrepresented the film. The movie is played up as a comedy in its promos, and while it does have its humorous elements (a few times it had me rolling on the floor laughing) it’s in truth a drama through and through. And that unfortunately seemed to hamper it in more ways than one. The movie industry, which prefers an easily labeled product, couldn’t quite peg down this drama with genre trappings which ultimately resulted in it falling through the cracks. It got little attention upon its release, and no recognition from the Academy. And while the Oscars often shy away from genre films in the non-technical categories anyway, this indy film definitely deserved at least nominations for Harrelson’s acting as well as Stebbings’ writing and directing. Unfortunately it received no attention from the organization that supposedly recognizes the best examples of filmmaking.

If you missed out on this film, which is quite likely, you need to check it out and soon. And spread the word. I consider this one of the best ever superhero movies even though you could make an argument that it’s not a superhero movie at all. In any case, it’s a must-see for all genre fans as well as anybody who appreciates true filmcraft.

Buy Defendor and Other Superhero Movies on Blu-ray and DVD from Amazon.com:

The Anti-Blockbusters: Ink

Rating: 4 ½ out of 5 Stars


This odd little indy film is a bit hard to peg down, but here’s how I describe it: imagine what would happen if Terry Gilliam did a Disney film while taking large quantities of hallucinogenic drugs.

Sound pretty trippy? It is, but it’s worth your time.

In the movie, we are introduced to a group of warriors called the Storytellers who live on a different plane of reality and who provide humans with good dreams. This group also protects humanity against the nefarious Incubi, vain spirits who deliver nightmares and who wear screens over their faces that display a perpetual facade of happiness. A deformed being named Ink, neither Storyteller nor Incubi, kidnaps a young girl’s mind from the real world, despite strong resistance from the Storytellers, and plans to take her to the Incubi as an offering so that he can join their ranks. However, his drum that would open the portal is broken so he must take a longer, less-direct route. A Storyteller named Allel--who had tried to protect the girl from Ink--summons up a blind pathfinder named Jacob to track the creature down and free the girl. In the real world, the girl is in a comatose state and her grandfather asks her father--a high-powered workaholic businessman--to come and see her hoping this would help draw her out of her coma.

This movie comes from indy writer/producer/director Jamin Winans, and despite its left-field description, it actually delivers at its core a fairly standard story that Disney and other kid-friendly studios have covered many times before. We have the child with a work-aholic parent who spends very little time with his daughter and cannot fully connect with her. Then, she falls into trouble and ultimately the parent does the right thing and comes to her aid just in time to deliver a happy, feel-good ending. So if that’s the case, why did I give the movie such a high rating? Because Winans manages to take this very familiar premise and rework it well enough that he succeeds in providing a fresh spin on an old tale and what he delivers in the end is also anything but a kids’ story (in fact younger viewers might find it quite terrifying at times). And reworking a familiar tale is not in itself a bad thing, heck, most of Shakespeare’s works were inspired by stories that came from previous scribes. The trick is to take the familiar and make something new from that, and Ink does just that.

It gives us a pure fantasy story, despite its Terry Gilliam-like sci fi trappings, that introduces a bizarre dreamworld that seems ludicrous yet believable at the same time. And Winans had very little money to work with (only $250k according to Wikipedia), but he gets the most from his limited budget and he excels in creating a surreal, stylized world that comes to life without CGI-overdose. If I could complain about only one thing production-wise it would be the character Ink’s very fake, rubbery looking snout, but try to look past that minor detail to the film's better qualities. And it has many including the excellent performances and the nearly seamless blending of the surreal dreamworld with our own reality. And even though the story treads familiar ground, Winans vision and delivery make it feel like a completely new experience. Unlike the many mega-dollar bloatfests that dominate the theaters and rely heavily on their CGI-gams visuals to compensate for their tired copy and paste plots, Ink takes what has come before and breathes new life into it.

Just a note, though, that this movie may not be everybody’s cup of tea because of its bizarre, trippy juxtaposition of the fantasy dreamworld with reality. In fact, I found it somewhat inaccessible early on, but I stuck with it and was glad I did.

Buy Ink and Other Anti-Blockbusters on DVD and Blu-ray from Amazon.com:

The Anti-Blockbusters: They Live

With the recent passing of Roddy Piper, I thought it was worth re-running this Anti-Blockbusters piece.

Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars

This movie from horror/sci fi cult icon John Carpenter has flown mostly under the radar since it first hit theaters in the late 80’s, but it delivered an excellent paranoia-drenched action-flick that still deserves attention today from genre fans. It takes place ostensibly in the 80’s, but definitely shows the underside of that decade and suggests a society at the point of severe deterioration, definitely a comment on the recession the country experienced at that time. The film focuses on a drifter who shows up in Los Angeles looking for working (we never learn his actual name, but he is referred to as Nada and is played by pro-wrestler Roddy Piper). He starts work at a construction site and hooks up with another worker (Frank Armitage played by Keith David who had previously worked with Carpenter on The Thing) who brings him to a local shantytown where he can stay for the time being. Nada notices some strange activities in the church across the street (secret meetings covered by choir singing played on a tape recorder) then watches aghast as the police raid the church then destroy the shantytown. He also comes into possession of a strange pair of sunglasses and when he puts them on he sees a different world than the one that others see. On billboards and on television screens he sees hidden messages issuing commands like “Obey”, “Consume”, “Marry and Reproduce”, “No Independent Thought”, etc. He also sees that quite a number of people on the streets are really skull-headed aliens in disguise. As he learns more, he finds out that these aliens are controlling our world by establishing a privileged class among the humans who will cooperate with them and by transmitting the subliminal signals that control the minds of the rest of the population to keep them docile. He finds out that a signal from the TV Station Cable 54 is the source of the deception (at least locally) and seeks out Frank, as well as a woman working at the station, to help him destroy the antenna and reveal the truth about the aliens.

They Live is John Carpenter’s take on The Invasion of the Body Snatchers without retreading on the territory that movie already covered. He found inspiration from the short story “Eight O’Clock in the Morning” by Ray Nelson (as well as the comic book story "Nada" from Alien Encounters), but made the final film very much his own. Whereas in the Body Snatchers people were replaced by emotionless automatons generated from alien seed pods, in this movie the aliens turn people into docile servants through manipulation and consumerism. From this angle, the movie delivers a commentary on the 80’s similar to what Body Snatchers did for the 50’s (even though the producers of that film insist it had no underlying messages). Whereas Body Snatchers keyed off the shallow conformity that the American ideal of suburban life offered in that decade, They Live takes aim (much more overtly) at the “me first” decade and the threat posed by the corporations that had come to dominate and control our way of life. And Carpenter makes no qualms about the fact that he is delivering a scathing satire on his contemporary world, even if it does not quite follow through to the end.

Because even though Carpenter overlays social commentary on They Live, he also points the film in the action-movie direction which at times make it seem a bit schizophrenic. Interspersed with Kafkaesque, Orwellian imagery of a world controlled by alien directed subliminal commands, we also get your standard action-movie scenes with the lead characters blowing away aliens and spouting off Schwarzenegger-like quips such as “I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I'm all out of bubblegum” (but still, you gotta love that line). Sometimes these work, sometimes they just fall flat, but at least the action-movie angle never derails the film, it just keeps it from fully exploring its more subversive themes. And it also gives you a feeling at the end of wanting more in the way of story development.

Still, They Live gives us an enjoyable sci fi/horror film that rises above its B-Movie roots (it was made on a relatively skimpy budget of $3 million) and asks you to use your brain at least a bit between the shoot-outs and explosions. It did not pull in a blockbuster tally at the Box Office when it was released (though not too shabby as it made back about four times its budget), and it has gone mostly unnoticed since then. I actually think this one would make a great premise for a television series and with the recent passing of Piper, maybe the film will get more attention and possibly go that direction. If you have never seen this one, then it’s time to give it a shot and if you have not seen it in a while then it’s time to revisit the fun.

Buy They Live and on DVD and Blu-ray from Amazon.com:

The Anti-Blockbusters: When the Wind Blows

Rating: 5 out of 5 Stars (Highest Rating)

This odd little animated movie came out at the height of the Reagan-era Cold War days prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain when the threat of nuclear destruction still loomed heavy over the world (and no folks, it hasn't gone away).  It was based on a graphic novel written and drawn by Raymond Briggs and from what I understand the movie follows the source material very closely.  It tells the tale of an elderly couple, Jim and Hilda Bloggs, living in rural England in the days just before and immediately after a nuclear attack on the country.  When they hear about the impending attack, they make all of the preparations according to the instructions in the Civil Defense “Protect and Survive” pamphlet.  Then after the bombs hits, they continue to rely on this resource to guide them as they also patiently wait for the government to contact the citizens and tell them that things have returned to normal.

The film adopts a rather unique animation style as the characters are brought to life with typical, line-drawn animation while their house and the other surroundings are depicted mostly with real-life objects (miniatures, I believe) and animated with stop-motion when they move.  The film also boasts a soundtrack led by Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters (accompanied by The Bleeding Heart Band) and with contributions from David Bowie (who sings the title song), Genesis, Squeeze, and Paul Hardcastle.  But the soundtrack is not the highlight of the film, as it stays mostly in the background.  Instead, this movie succeeds because of its story and the irony and tragedy that unfolds throughout its relatively short 80 minute running time.

The elderly couple have a very grandparenty demeanor to them in such a way that the viewer can easily relate to them as if these were two of their own beloved aged relatives.  And the Bloggs make a pleasant pair, even if they seem somewhat naïve while at the same time hard-headed and set in their ways.  And they also have a bit of that British stiff-upper-lip about them that leads them to stubbornly soldier on through the hard times that befall them.  Yet all of this leads to their undoing while at the same time the viewer feels a growing despair as if witnessing the last days of dying loved ones.

There have been many movies that have dealt with nuclear destruction, some brilliant (Dr. Strangelove, Fail-Safe), some not so much (Damnation Alley).  But few have achieved the same emotional impact of When the Wind Blows as it proceeds from such a simple premise yet delivers such a gut-wrenching blow by the time that the final credits role.  This movie is definitely a condemnation of Civil Defense procedures, but it also delivers a stark depiction of the true consequences of a nuclear attack.  And it does this not by resorting to shock tactics or gore, but by irony and directness as we watch the deterioration of the two main characters. 

Jim and Hilda Bloggs have the utmost faith in their government, and they survived World War II so they blindly assume that things will get back to normal eventually just like in the 1940’s.  And they go about their business as best they can after the attack occurs and believe that the Civil Defense instructions give them all the guidance they need to weather out this storm.  We can see their misguided faith almost from the beginning, yet only watch in despair as the inevitable approaches.  And the final scene of the movie delivers probably one of the most heart-breaking moments in the history of film, even if it has unfairly never been recognized for this.  If you can sit through that without shedding a tear, you need to check for a pulse or see if there is an empty alien seedpod in your back yard.  This quote from a review of the movie on Amazon.com says it all:  “I'm a horror film fan entertained by the likes of Fulci, Argento, D'Amato, Lenzi, et al, but the ending to this movie is shocking beyond anything those guys could produce.”

The film only runs 84 minutes and it is rather slowly paced.  But that is broken by occasional moments of ironic humor, and we also find ourselves drawn into the story by the charming appeal of the Bloggs (at least at first) as well as the tension, urgency, and despair surrounding their fate.  When the Wind Blows undeservingly received very little attention in the United States upon its release in 1987, a time when its message should have resonated deeply with audiences.  And it has failed to garner much attention in the years since, possibly in part because of the end of the Cold War.  But this is definitely an important film with a sad yet lyrical quality to it plus a message that transcends its era, and it still should strike a nerve in a world rife with global tension and not yet completely safe from the threat of a nuclear devastation.

The movie made it to VHS shortly after its initial release, and has since been re-released on DVD (it’s actually an on-demand DVD-R available from Amazon.com).  The entire film is also currently available for viewing on YouTube (at this link), though it may not stay there long so I recommend checking it out sooner rather than later.

Buy the DVD and the Graphic novel from Amazon.com:

The Anti-Blockbusters: Grendel Grendel Grendel

Rating: 4 ½ out of 5 Stars



Depiction of Grendel from the film

This little-known Australian animated musical comedy based on John Gardner’s book Grendel came out in 1981 and was written, directed, and designed by Alexander Stitt.  The book and the movie give us a different perspective on the events of the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf, this time from the point of view of the monster that the warrior slays (a similar revisionist take on the poem can be found in the excellent 2005 film Beowulf & Grendel).  The book came out in 1971 and, as the introduction to the movie suggests, offered a counterculture look at a classic piece of literature.  Grendel is portrayed not as a mindless, homicidal monster, but as a creature who follows a very different path than the humans who have marked him as their enemy.  Grendel is seen as a loner, who even the beasts of the forest shun, with no one to talk to except his deranged mother and a dragon (ostensibly the one that Beowulf encounters later in his own tale), who offers some philosophical quandaries to Grendel, but not much in the way of useful advice.

I recall encountering Grendel Grendel Grendel (the repitition of the beast's name comes from the film's theme song) during the early days of VHS (link to Wikipedia provided for those unfamiliar with the term) as one of the few genre entries on the shelves in the rental stores.  I watched it then and it stuck with me for years, but I could never find it again because it disappeared from video shelves and didn’t receive the DVD treatment (until just recently). 

It's a very strange animated movie, and not one that audiences nurtured on the high-tech CGI of films like Toy Story, Shrek, and The Incredibles (or even the line drawings of the Disney films) will easily warm up to.  The drawings are done in a very simplistic, child-like manner, and the animation itself is quite choppy.  The whole thing, with its musical numbers included, appears to be targeted at very young viewers.  But the subject matter is far above the head of a pre-schooler audience and it has some rather graphic scenes such as Grendel biting the head off a warrior and Beowulf ripping the arm off the beast (it even has some brief nudity). 

In truth, the movie is definitely intended for an older audience, and genre fans should give this one a chance.  The crude graphics actually become quite endearing once you get used to them, and the childlike simplicity of it all actually provides a good contrast to some of the moral dilemmas raised in the story.  And the voice actors all do an excellent job with their characters, especially Peter Ustinov who lends his vocals to Grendel.  And it seems to follow the book pretty well, though it’s been years sense I read that, so it could diverge more than I remember.  Consider it a diamond in the rough, but still an excellent piece of fantasy story-telling with some existential, philosophical undertones to it (the same is true for Gardner’s novel).

The film has finally received a DVD release, though what you get is a DVD-ROM that by all appearances looks to be a transfer from VHS.  And it doesn’t come over too well, with the color contrast way too heavy and the picture blurry at times.  It’ll do for those of us who have been waiting eagerly for a chance to revisit this film, but may further frustrate modern-day viewers who are already put off by the rudimentary graphics of the film.   

A note of interest:  Grendel Grendel Grendel was only the second full length animated feature to come out of Australia.  The first was 1972’s Marco Polo Junior Versus the Red Dragon.


Buy Grendel Grendel Grendel and Other Anti-Blockbusters from Amazon.com:

The Anti-Blockbusters: Pan's Labrynth

Rating: 5 out of 5 Stars (Highest Rating)

Pan’s Labyrinth is a Spanish-language film written and directed by genre powerhouse Guillermo del Toro which received exposures in the United States with a sub-titled release late in 2006. The movie merges a fairy tale with a more modern, quite bleak setting that juxtaposes fantasy with harsh reality and ultimately suggests a possible reason that we choose to retreat to imaginary realms. The film takes place in Spain in 1944 under the Fascist rule of the dictatorial Franco. It focuses on a young girl name Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) who travels to the Spanish countryside with her ill, pregnant mother (Ariadna Gil) to live with her step-father (Sergi López i Ayats) who is a captain in the Spanish army tasked with rooting out a group of Spanish Maquis insurrectionists. While there, she encounters several fantasy creatures including fairies and a faun (Doug Jones) who explain to her that she is actually Princess Moanna of the Underground Realm and that she must pass several tests in order to return their and live with her real mother and father. She must then maneuver through the real world in which her cruel step-father deals harshly with the rebels, including several who have infiltrated his staff, while also trying to carry out the tasks set upon her by the creatures from the fantasy world.

While sitting through this film the first time, I found myself engaged by the dark fantasy world that del Toro created and interposed with the harsh real world, yet it also initially felt a bit too linear and predictable. But ultimately, once they journey was complete I realized that this was likely del Toro’s actual intent. Many things that occur throughout the film suggest their own resolutions or what will follow next. You know from the prologue that Ofelia will find her way back to her true mother and father in the fantasy world. You know that the vicious Captain Vidal will receive his comeuppance. You know that Ofelia will defy the orders given by the faun to eat nothing in the Pale Man’s room. You know that there is some significance to Mercedes’ paring knife and by the second time you see her stash it in her apron you realize she will eventually use it on Vidal. The foreshadowing in the movie is practically telegraphed, but then that harkens back to the simplistic story structure of the fairy tale which follows the same pattern. Fairy tales often deliver parables with simple messages on the consequences of actions and del Toro just overlaid that template on top of his grander story.

And in doing so, he may have hinted to at least one of the origins of the fairy tale/fantasy story: a means of escape from the harsher reality of the world. Throughout the movie, the fantasy characters seem part of the reality even if they spend their time mostly out of sight and lurking in the shadows. Only Ofelia actually interacts with them and eventually we receive the suggestion that they may exist only in her own imagination. Toward the end, when Vidal chases her through the labyrinth and encounters her talking to the faun, he sees only her, not the mythical creature. Does this mean that his disciplined, harsh, logical mind lacks the imagination to see these fantastical creatures? Or does this suggest that they only exist in Ofelia’s mind and that the final ending where she appears to be re-united with her family is just the place where her mind went in her dying moments? These possibilities leave the ending ambiguous and suggest that the purported fairy tale ending was nothing more than Ofelia’s means of escaping from the unforgiving world she lived in. And ultimately this is probably in part where many fairy tales and fantasy stories originated from. When you think of the harsh conditions that many people endured through the centuries, especially during the times that many fairy tales became well known such as the Dark Ages and Medieval Times, you can easily see where these tales may have provided a simplistic panacea to the bleakness of reality. And that definitely presents itself as one possible interpretation of Pan’s Labyrinth, though this multi-faceted movie has many other layers to its story as well.

Apart from the intricacies of the story, the movie delivers striking visuals that that at times contrast the real from the fantasy world while at other times bring the two uncomfortably close together. Del Toro uses a combination of animatronic creatures and CGI effects to bring to life his fantasy world which seems very real and at times somewhat terrifying. And he did the entire movie on budget of less than $20 million creating a product that would have cost three times that amount or more if produced by Hollywood. And had he gone that route, the major studios would have almost certainly insisted on a more upbeat, less ambiguous ending. But since he did it apart from the Hollywood machine, del Toro succeeded in conveying his vision and delivering an amazing, visually stunning, multi-layered film that succeeds on all counts on the artistic and stylistic levels.

Buy Pan's Labrynth and Other Anti-Blockbusters on DVD and Blu-ray from Amazon.com: