Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

Title: Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

Director: John Carpenter

Cast: Kurt Russell, Kim Cattrall, Dennis Dun, James Wong, Victor Wong

Review:

You guys ever seen The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai (1984)? That’s the one in which Peter Weller discovers a way to go to other dimensions by traveling through solid matter? Well, anyways, at the ending of that film, a sequel entitled: Buckaroo Banzai vs. The World Crime League was promised. Unfortunately, The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai didn’t make much money at the box office, so that sequel never came to be. But there’s this myth amongst hard core Buckaroo fans that says that Big Trouble in Little China is actually the unofficial sequel to The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai. How did this rumor come about? Well, I didn’t know this until the other day when I reviewed The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai and one of my readers pointed this fact out to me, but W.D. Richter, the guy who wrote The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai also wrote Big Trouble in Little China. That’s right my friends, these two nutty, misunderstood films come from the same brilliant mind. Kind of makes sense don’t it?

 For those not in the know, Big Trouble in Little China is a ghost story about Lo Pan, an ancient Chinese emperor who died centuries ago but is now looking for a way to become flesh again. Problem is he has to marry a girl with green eyes in order to do so. Enter Wang Chi and Jack Burton, two buddies who are on their way to the airport to pick up Wang’s girlfriend ‘Miao Yin’, a Chinese girl who’s coming from China to reunite with Wang, her fiancé. Unfortunately, before Wang and Miao Yin can reunite she is kidnapped by a group of thugs who work for Lo Pan, the ghost who wants to be a man. Apparently Miao Yin is the girl who can fit his bill. She does have green eyes after all! Will Wang and Jack have what it takes to infiltrate Lo Pan’s temple and rescue Miao Yin before she marries Lo Pan? Will Jack ever get his truck back?  

All he wants is his truck back

I started my review for Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai by comparing both of these films, and I didn’t even know they were related in this way! My brain somehow connected both of these films in the same review, which I think is really weird. So anyhow, in my review for Buckaroo I compared the two because both of these films are so offbeat and bizarre that the studios that produced them just didn’t know how to market them to the masses. These movies are what are known in the film industry as a “tough sell” something that Hollywood doesn’t like at all, they like their films to be easily marketable, with an easily identifiable target audience. Who do you sell a movie like Big Trouble in Little China to? If you ask me I would’ve just sold it as a modern day Kung Fu flick, which it essentially is, but apparently the marketing department at 20^th Century Fox didn’t know what the hell to do with this movie, so they invested very little into promoting it. Another film lost millions because studios couldn’t make heads or tails of the film. Strange how easily a studio can get cold feet with a production because they think it’s too weird and it won’t make any money. But time always proves all these silly producers wrong, and so Big Trouble in Little China has become a solid cult favorite. The people who love this movie, really love this movie. This proves once again that studio heads know jack, they’ll market the hell out of Transformers 2, a terrible film in my opinion, but won’t market Big Trouble in Little China, which was very obviously a good movie.

Truth is, Big Trouble in Little China is an easy movie to love. I’m a huge fan so excuse me if I gush about it for the next few paragraphs.  It has so many fun characters, they can’t seem to ever stop yapping, and the stuff they talk about is just hilarious. I mean, seriously, how many of you folks out there agree that Big Trouble in Little China is one of the most quotable films ever? I know right? In the dvd commentary for this film Carpenter and Russell call Jack Burton’s dialog ‘Burtonisms’ which are basically little golden nuggets of wisdom that the character of Jack Burton spews throughout the whole movie. I’m talking about thought provoking stuff like:  “It’s all in the reflexes” and “You’d have to be some kind of a fool to think we’re all alone in this universe!” Trust me, there’s more where those came from, and if I’m not back in ten minutes “call the president!”  So yeah folks, what we have here is one of those extremely quotable films. I haven’t been quoting this movie all my life for nothing!

Going back to the whole thing about Big Trouble in Little China being an unofficial sequel to Buckaroo Banzai, the real dirt on the story is this:  the film had originally been written as a western by two guys: Gary Goldman (this is one of the guys who wrote the script for Total Recall (1989)) and David Z. Weinstein.  Apparently this version of the film was going to prove to be too expensive! In that script they didn’t steal Jacks truck, they stole his horse! So anyhow, thing is the studio thought it was going to be a tough movie to produce so they brought in W. D. Richter to rewrite the thing, they wanted him to set the story in a contemporary setting, so that audiences could identify better with it; funny how they still managed to produce a film that didn’t connect with audiences! But anyways, W. D. Richter took the opportunity to inject elements into the Big Trouble in Little China script that were meant for the unproduced Buckaroo Banzai sequel! Knowing  this takes my enjoyment of the film to a whole different level! Now I’m always going to see Burton as the truck driving version of Buckaroo Banzai! 

Aside from all these Buckaroo Banzai connections, Big Trouble in Little China is an extremely entertaining movie on its own. What I personally enjoy about it is how crazy it gets. We’re talking about a Chinese ghost that wants to be flesh again so he can rule the universe from beyond the grave, or check into a psycho ward, whichever comes first! We’re talking about a movie where characters can have sword battles in mid air and ancient sorcerers have huge magic battles! This is a film in which we can see flying eye monsters that have telepathic abilities! A film with characters that can manipulate lightning and air! I mean, here’s a film with a ten foot tall ghost who shoots light out his eyes for crying out loud! This my friends, was John Carpenter’s version of a Shaw Bros. Fantasy/ Kung Fu movie and I loved every second of it. There’s no denying it’s an offbeat film, but that’s what I love about it. Even Russell himself was afraid of making it because he was afraid it’d be too weird. You see, Kurt Russell had done a series of box office bombs before Big Trouble in Little China (for example Carpenter’s own The Thing (1982)) and he didn’t want to make another one. Yet, he committed to the film anyways because Carpenter and Russell are not just co-workers, these guys are friends, they’ve been making films since Escape from New York (1981)! Russell and Carpenter understand each other, it’s something that’s quite obvious when you hear the dvd commentary for Big Trouble In Little China. According to both Russell and Carpenter’s commentary, the film was getting great results with tests audiences, so much so that they both thought it was going to be a hit! Unfortunately, thanks to 20^th Century Fox’s botched marketing techniques, no one knew about the film when it was released and so kaput, it died.

But a movie flopping in theaters does not equal a bad film, in rare occasions it’s quite the opposite, the film simply slipped by the public’s consciousness. It’s not our fault that the studio didn’t sell it to us properly, something that’s supposed to be their forte. So anyways, even though Big Trouble in Little China was a huge money looser for the studio, I The Film Connoisseur, guarantee you’ll have a good time with it. Think about this: in what other film are you going to see a underground Chinese temple with glowing neon nights? Or people who become Kung Fu Masters by drinking out of a seven demon bag? Nowhere but in Big Trouble in Little China that’s where! This is a film that openly embraces its fantasy roots and asks no questions about it. We have monsters, magic, and Kung Fu in this movie, what’s not to like? James Wong is great as Lo Pan; a brilliant performance in what in my opinion is the best role of his life. Russell, Cattrall, both of the Wongs and Dunn, they all make for a Motley Crue of crazy, funny, people who all act like they are high on coke, they reminded me of Buckaroo’s group of sidekicks, “ The Hong Kong Cavaliers”, aha! If you ask me, this is one of Carpenter’s best films; production values, visual effects and script wise, this movie is top notch every step of the way. At the very least it’s on my list of top five John Carpenter films.  It shouldn’t have bombed the way it did. But it’s all cool; we now have it on dvd and Blue Ray and it’s legions of fans grow every day. Oh and there’s a possible remake on the horizon! If it doesn’t work, just remember what Jack Burton always says at a time like this. Old Jack always says: “What the hell!”  

Rating:  5 out of 5  

Escape from L.A. (1996)

Title: Escape from L.A. (1996)

Director: John Carpenter

Cast: Kurt Russell, Steve Buscemi, Peter Fonda, Valeria Golino, Pamela Grier, Bruce Campbell, A.J. Langer

Review:

Escape from L.A. is a strange kind of film. When I first heard the news that a sequel to John Carpenter's  Escape from New York (1981) was being made I was excited to see the resulting film because not only was John Carpenter back behind the directors chair, but Kurt Russell was still going to play Snake Plissken! That’s really all I needed to know. Sadly, when I went to the theater to see it, I came out being disappointed. Where was all the darkness? Where was that terrifying post- apocalyptic world that I loved from the first film? Why were characters trying to be funny? Why was everything so silly? Why? Why? Why? Well, many years have passed since my initial disappointment with Escape from L.A. I’ve grown some, matured some. I had a chance to recently re-watch Escape from L.A. How do I see this film now?

Carpenter and Russell on the set of Escape from L.A.

Well, I honestly can’t bring myself to hate it. I see why I didn’t like it when it was first released, but I’ve grown to accept this film for what it is. It’s pure unadulterated campy fun. Funny thing is that a script was written for this film way back in 1985, by a guy called Coleman Luck, but Carpenter thought the script was too light and campy. What? X-squeeze me? Baking Powder? That’s exactly what Escape from L.A. turned out to be anyways! Ultra campy and ultra light; at least when compared to the first film which was so dark and brooding. Escape from New York was a film that took itself very seriously. Yeah it’s a science fiction film, but it was a decidedly serious one. Not many laughs or  jokes in sight. In contrast Escape from L.A. is colorful, filled with one joke after the another, and very, very campy. This movie is obviously making fun of itself. And to tell you the truth, I like that about it because it’s obviously what Carpenter and Russell were going for. So you’ll be better of just erasing your expectations for this film. If you haven’t seen this one yet, you have to go in expecting a different film than Escape from New York.

What makes Escape from L.A. so different? It’s all about the tone of the film, the look of it. While Escape from New York felt like a horror movie at times with it’s darkness and freaky looking characters, Escape from L.A. is actually well lit and colorful,  filled with comic book heroes, villains and one liners galore. Take for example the character called ‘The Surgeon General of Beverly Hills’ the one played by Bruce Campbell. This character feels like a comic book villain, like something out of an episode of the old Batman television show. He’s a surgeon general who has performed so much surgery on himself and on his patients, that they have disfigured their faces! He likes chopping up good looking people to use for his surgeries. This is a prime example of the kind of totally over the top characters you will find on this film. They aren’t particularly scary or intimidating like the villains on the first film, but they are entertaining none the less. And the comic book characters don't stop there my friends! Pamela Grier plays a transvestite who used to be Snake Plissken’s partner in crime! Steve Buscemi plays a double crossing tourist guide! Peter Fonda plays a surfer who likes to ride Tsunami tidal waves! And so on. But even though this film is filled with funny, entertaining characters such as the ones I’ve mentioned, this doesn’t make Escape from L.A. a bad film in book, just a different kind of film than its predecessor. 

Bruce Campbell's 'Surgeon General of Beverly Hills'

Both Escape from New York and Escape from L.A. are decidedly anti-establishment films. They both have this cynical view of the government; in these films, the government is not to be trusted. There are terrorist attacks aimed at the government on both films. On the first one they hijack and crash Air Force One; forcing The President of the United States to fall into the hands of the freaks inside Manhattan. On this second one, the president’s own daughter is the one that rebels against the government and decides to live with the leader of the criminals; a guy called ‘Cuervo Jones’. And here’s what I liked about this movie. While it does criticize fascist forms of government, it also criticizes rebellious leaders who instigate their followers towards committing violent acts. So it doesn’t side with anyone. On this film, both sides are wrong. The film pleads for a new beginning, it’s asking governments to forget their old grudges and start from scratch. Snake himself says it in one scene: “I shut down the third world, you win, they loose. I shut down America, they win, you loose. The more things change, the more they stay the same” This is one of the ideas presented in the film that I truly liked. The idea that both sides should just call it quits and bring on the peace, bring on the freedom. Again, this last bit demonstrates how much of Kurt Russell’s Libertarian views are on this film. After all, he wrote a lot of it himself along with John Carpenter and Debra Hill. These are three life long buddies writing a movie they would find amusing, which makes this film a labor of love. This is probably why the film has a more laid back, ‘were having fun here’ vibe to it.

That being said, the film does have some faults going for it. The visual effects for example are freaking horrendous, I mean this was a 50 million dollar movie, one would think that better effects could have been afforded. There’s this painfully bad effects sequence in which Snake drives this mini-submarine through the underwater ruins of L.A….wow, there’s some bad CGI for you. I mean, granted this was early CGI, but even for 1996, these effects where half assed in my book. The scene where Snake Plissken rides a tsunami wave on a surfboard with Peter Fonda, while campy and kind of cool in a way (it’s all about that Hippy attitude!) the scene just comes off as one bad special effect. The scenes with Snake and crew flying these gliders, wow, you could just tell those things weren’t really flying; the list just goes on and on. So expect lots of cheesy effects on this show.

But don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate this movie. I quite enjoyed it actually. I mean yeah, I loved the first one a whole lot more. It’s just darker and scarier; it’s got more of an edge to it. This second one is tongue in cheek every step of the way. Watching Escape from L.A. feels like watching a cheap Italian Rip Off like 2019: After the Fall of New York (1983), but with a bigger budget. Actually, Escape from L.A. has a lot of similarities with 2019: After the Fall of New York, so in a way, this is Carpenter's pay back for all those cheap Escape from New York rip offs that the Italians made. Ultimately, I love both Escape from New York and Escape from L.A. for different reasons. And for all the tonal differences between both films, they still have many similarities. No matter where, Snake Plissken will always be Snake Plissken, you can tell Russell has lots of love for this character. Plissken is what kept me watching. The opening and closing segments of the films are extremely similar as well. And here’s where we get to the best part of the film, the ending. Not gonna spoil it don’t worry, but I will tell you that it is the best thing about the movie. Russell himself came up with it and I applaud him for it, it encapsulates everything Snake Plissken is in terms of attitude. That idea that maybe the world would be better off if we simply started again,  from scratch, screw the way things are, let’s try something new! Welcome to the human race my friends, welcome to the human race.

Rating 3 ½ out of 5  

Escape from New York (1981)

Title: Escape from New York (1981)

Director: John Carpenter

Cast: Kurt Russell, Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Pleasence, Isaac Hayes, Harry Dean Stanton, Adrienne Barbeau

Review:

The first thing you notice about Escape from New York is how very dark it is. Everything is black on this one, the characters are dressed in black, the cars are black, the helicopters are black, the entire landscape of this movie is black! The whole film takes place during the course of one night in which famous criminal/ex-soldier Snake Plissken is forced to go to Manhattan Island (which has been turned into a prison island) to rescue the President of the United States. You see, Air Force One was hijacked by a group of terrorists called ‘The National Liberation Front of America’. The terrorist say they’ve struck a fatal blow in the name of all of the oppressed by sending the President of the United States to the inhuman prison he created himself. They mean to let him rot and die down there, in the hands of some of the worst criminals on the planet. and teach him a lesson or two about humility. But of course, the United States government isn’t just gonna sit back and let this happen. They have brought in Snake Plissken, the only man capable of getting the job done. Like Hauk tells Snake while trying to convince him to do the job: “You flew the ‘Gulfire’ over Leningrad; you know how to go in quiet; you’re all I’ve got!”

Escape from New York is an interesting film because whenever you talk about post apocalyptic movies, you really can’t leave this one out even though technically speaking; it isn’t a post apocalyptic film. There has been no nuclear holocaust, no deadly virus; the apocalypse in this future exists solely behind the walls of the island of Manhattan, which has been transformed into a penitentiary. So the apocalypse in Escape from New York is actually a social one. Within the walls of this huge jail cell, there’s no rules, no regulations, no cops, only “the prisoners and the worlds they’ve created”. So it’s not really a post apocalyptic film, but at the same time, its the best post apocalyptic film. Carpenter’s Manhattan is one evil looking place. I think this is what makes this film so fascinating; this prison world populated by the lowest of the low. It’s the most evil scum bags that walk through this prison worlds pitch black alleys and streets. When I was a kid and first saw this movie I was frightened by it, the characters that lived with in Manhattan seemed truly evil to me, especially this guy:

Snake Plissken’s the ultimate rebel; he hates “the man” or doing anything for him, in fact if there’s anything that he can take from “the man”, he will. Case in point: when the film opens up, Plissken is handcuffed and being taken to the Manhattan penitentiary. What we don’t know is that he is being taken their because he was holding up the Federal Reserve Depository, a scene that was later cut out of the film because Carpenter didn’t consider it necessary; I agree, it’s more intense just to meet Snake, not knowing where he is coming from. Kurt Russell describes Plissken as a mercenary, a mix between Bruce Lee, The Executioner, Darth Vader and Clint Eastwood. He’s a guy who only cares about the next 60 seconds of his life. This rebellious character goes in accordance with some of Carpenter’s films, which have always had a rebellious streak to them. For example, They Live (1988) which is about how the powers that be control our minds through marketing and subliminal messages; Escape from New York is about an imperialistic fascist America. Escape from L.A. (1996) is also anti-establishment, but in a whole other way that I will get into when I review it soon. So what we got here is a film made by two rebellious, freedom loving  individuals, Carpenter and Russell.

Kurt Russell and John Carpenter have worked together on various films, here they are together on the set of Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

Plissken is Kurt Russell’s favorite character. To Russell, the character represents America, the idealistic free America all true Americans want; that idealistic version of America where people can be truly free to do as they choose. Through it’s science fiction story, Escape from New York commented on the status quo of the country during the late 70’s, a time when liberty and freedom of expression were constantly under attack. Some might label Escape from New York as an anti-government film, and I would have to say that it is. Escape from New York is the kind of film that warns us of what could come should governments get more oppressive or fascist. Rule, after rule after rule until you can’t barely move. This film and it’s sequel is ruled by a government that tells its citizens that they can’t smoke, can’t  drink, can’t have premarital sex, can’t try drugs, can’t speak foul language, can’t, can’t, can’t. Now I ain’t saying doing all these things equals liberty, but a person should be able to choose what they want to do, no matter what it is. It’s all about true freedom of the self. There is a distinct amount of cynicism towards the figure of the President of the United States  on this film. He is portrayed as a selfish, self absorbed individual. A cold man who doesn’t give a damn about the people who die for him, he has this fakeness to him. He says one thing to your face but means another. But we have to understand that Carpenter wrote this film coming out of the whole Nixon era, a time when no American trusted their president, where human rights were constantly being violated in the country. Escape from New York is a reflection of that time when most Americans agreed they had a madman in power.

But Plissken’s all about freeing ourselves from all of that; about living the ideal American dream of freedom and doing whatever the hell you want with your life, which is probably why this film is such a cult favorite; people just love Plisskens ‘take no shit from nobody’ attitude. This freedom theme goes in accordance to Russell’s own personal Libertarian point of view. Yes my friends, Kurt Russell’s neither Democrat nor Republican, he’s a Libertarian, and Libertarians are all about maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state in our lives. They believe in free will and freedom of expression and thought. Just like Plissken, Russell’s an outcast because of his beliefs, not everyone agrees with the Libertarians point of view, especially not Hollywood. Still, this hasn’t stopped Russell and Carpenter from making a distinctively rebellious film. It’s obvious that Russell’s put a lot of his own rebellious persona into Snake Plissken. But I felt that he put more of himself into the way the character was portrayed in the sequel, but more on that in my future review for Escape from L.A. Final words on Escape from New York is that it’s a real cult classic, an extremely influential film and simply put, it's a film that just won’t die. New generations keep discovering it and liking it. I believe that the publics long lasting affection with the film stems from Snake Plissken and what he represents; our perennial search for personal freedom in this world; in the end that’s what we all want and need; and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Italian Poster 

John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) vs. The Thing (2011)

Okay, so how many people out there still haven’t seen John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982)? Well, if you are one of those unlucky few, trust me when I say that you’re missing out on one of the finest examples of a good horror/science fiction film in cinematic history and arguably, John Carpenter’s best film ever. Period. Carpenter’s film is great for many reasons, all of which I will get into in the coming paragraphs. My question is: why mess around with perfection? Was this new film necessary? Was an effort made to make a film worthy of its legendary predecessor?

Poster for John Carpenter's The Thing (1982)

 When Universal announced that they’d be making a new film that would connect with Carpenter’s The Thing, I was screaming “sacrilege!” Yup, I'm one of those guys. You see, to me the first film is so damn perfect that I just couldn’t even fathom the idea of a remake or a prequel or anything. I mean unless these guys were really serious about making a worthy film, more likely than not we would end up with another bad remake on our hands. But the question remained: would this new film be good enough to stand proudly next to John Carpenter’s film and say “I am just as good!”? My doubts were always there. In my mind, nothing could come close to what Carpenter and crew achieved with their film.

Rob Bottin (left) One of the many creatures in The Thing (middle) John Carpenter (Right)

 It is my opinion (and this is something that all sci-fi/horror fans and film buffs agree with) that Rob Bottin’s and Stan Winston’s make up effect work on Carpenter’s film remains undefeated to this very day. I mean, have you ever seen anything as remotely outlandish and monstrous as the creatures on Carpenter’s film? Nothing! The make up effects work on that film is indisputable! So my first fear with this new film popped up: would they put as much of an effort in making the make up effects work on this new film truly special? I mean, it’s been almost 30 years since Carpenter’s film, surely make up effects have improved by leaps and bounds? Surely they were aiming at making something that would surpass Carpenters film? I mean knowing how much everyone reveres the work done on that film?

Make up effects master: Rob Bottin!

 Here’s where we reach this new films first stumbling block. The make up effects work was nowhere to be seen. I don’t believe one single creature was practical. Nothing was tangible or real, everything, and I mean everything was done on a computer. It didn’t have that tangibility that Rob Bottin’s creations had. That glimmer, that sweat, the shine, that squishy looking yellow stuff pouring out of the creatures pulsating veins. I mean, there was nothing remotely like that on this new film. And that was my first real disappointment with this new film. But I will say this: the computer generated images where not bad, not bad at all. What the filmmakers attempted to do (and curiously enough it fits the theme of the film) was imitate Winston and Bottin’s make effects work and creations, but with computer effects. Damn knuckleheads!

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is this films 'Ripley' in The Thing (2011)

 I mean seriously, how hard could it have been to get a make up effects genius to come up with the creatures for this film? I mean what about the KNB guys? Surely they are still around? My point is they could have gotten someone to do something real, tangible and ultimately more convincing. It’s not that the computer effects were bad (they weren’t) it’s just that while watching the film we know they are computer images; we know that this image wasn’t even on the set with the actors, therefore, a lot of credibility simply goes out the window.

 But, to this new films credit I will say that they did manage to pull off a lot of gory looking images. And the stuff they did with the computers was fun to watch. There is one scene in which this guy rips open, we see his face and whole body splitting in half, I thought that was a pretty cool sequence. I mean, for things like that, sure, computer effects work wonders. But they didn’t have to go and do everything with CGI. They could have done what Guillermo del Toro does in his films, mix practical with CGI. Use CGI to enhance or fix certain things, but not do every single creature in the computer. But enough bitchin’ about the effects, when it all comes down to it, I didn’t think the computer effects were bad at all. It’s just that when compared to the work put into the original, and the legendary results, well, this new Thing pales in comparison.

 So what else? Was the suspense as nail biting as in Carpenter’s?  That’s one of the things that distinguished the original; you can cut the suspense with a knife. Carpenter set his film in such a dreadful place; you could literally feel the isolation and paranoia taking over these guys. The characters in Carpenter’s film felt like they were angry, on the edge. The actors conveyed that angst ridden feeling you get when you’ve been locked up in a place for so long.  You could tell that the harsh environment they were living in, the loneliness and xenophobia was really starting to get to them. Did this new film achieve that same level of intensity? Hell no it didn’t! And why not? I think it had something to do with the pacing of the movie which was pretty fast, and the choice to fill the film with an orchestral score. In Carpenter’s film, you never got the feeling that the music is telling you how to feel. The score on Carpenter’s film was very subtle and used sparingly. Some of the most dramatic moments in Carpenter’s film had no music whatsoever. What we did hear was the storm blowing outside making all sorts of spooky sounds. What we heard was the alarm blaring away; we heard these men screaming and fighting. We heard  the creatures alien screams. These were the sounds that inhabited Carpenter’s film. There was no place in it for a musical score because the setting and situations were spooky enough. And I think that this absence of music in Carpenter’s original was a key element that enhanced the isolation/fear factor. On this new film we have this music all the time reminding us we are watching a movie. It took away from the dread.

Kurt Russell wannabe

 Question remains: did this new film get anything right? At all? To tell you the truth, I didn’t think this new film was a bad one, I found myself walking out a satisfied fan. This new film isn’t a remake, but at the same time it is? Let me make myself clear here: this new film takes place before the events on Carpenter’s film, so we get to see what happened to those crazy Norwegians who first found the alien space craft. And to be honest, I enjoyed that whole aspect of the film, seeing what happened before. If you are a huge fan of the original and know it by heart, then you will get all the connections to Carpenter’s film. It feels as if these characters are once again walking in the world that Carpenter and crew created, so kudos to these new filmmakers for achieving that. It also goes places that Carpenter’s film never went, and that was awesome as well, trust me, there are a few surprises in store for fans of Carpenter’s film. Also, the creatures are pretty cool looking. Even though they were all computer generated images, I think they still managed to be quite impressive. It’s like, okay this isn’t a film that will impress you with it’s top of the line make up effects work (because there was practically no practical effects work) but it might impress you with its computer generated creatures none the less. So rest easy: you will be seeing some wonderfully grotesque creatures on this new film. And at least conceptually, they do go into the grotesque and monstrous territories that Bottin’s and Winston’s creations went to.

 You can see this new film and see Carpenter’s film right afterwards in a double feature and you will feel like you are watching characters inhabiting the same universe. I thought that was this new films major achievement; that cohesiveness. The only problem is that the film says it isn’t a remake, yet it feels like the same film. It goes through the same motions and situations, only slightly altered. There are a couple of entirely new situations, but for the most part this new film feels a heck of a lot like Carpenter’s film. Bottom line is that this new film wasn’t the disaster we all thought it was going to be. It’s a film that could stand proudly next to Carpenter’s film; only its not a better film. Carpenter’s classic is so awesome; such a perfect horror film, that there was no way it was going to be beat. The bar had been set to high by Carpenters film. But still, this new The Thing was an enjoyable monster movie, and one that a fan of Carpenter’s film can enjoy. Just don’t expect a better film.

Rating for The Thing (1982): 5 out of 5

Rating for The Thing (2011): 3 1/2 out of 5 

Dark Star (1974)

Title: Dark Star (1974)

Director: John Carpenter

Writers: John Carpenter, Dan O’Bannon

Cast: Dan O’Bannon, Brian Narelle, Cal Kuniholm, Dre Pahich

Review:

Dark Star is fun to watch simply because it was John Carpenter’s training wheels as a director. Same as THX-1138 was for George Lucas and Sugarland Express was for Spielberg, Dark Star was John Carpenter’s student film. It evolved into a full length feature film thanks to producer Jack H. Harris, the guy who decided to put some money behind Carpenter and O’Bannon’s then unfinished student film. He decided to believe in this crazy bunch of filmmakers, he saw something there. So he financed a couple of extra scenes to expand the films running time so that it could be released theatrically. Watching films like these is a joy because it’s the equivalent of seeing baby pictures of an old friend whom you’ve known your whole life. I’ve been seeing John Carpenter films since I was a child, and watching Dark Star showed me a Carpenter who was a directorial infant, just getting started, fresh out of film school, but as future films would prove, with talent to spare.

Story concerns four guys who travel across the galaxy on their spaceship called Dark Star. Their job is to fly around the galaxy looking for unstable planets which are considered threats to future colonization. Once they find these unstable planets, their job is to blow them up with “exponential thermostellar bombs”. Unfortunately, when they are not blowing up unstable planets, they spend too much time completely bored out of their minds! So they play pranks on each other, catalog their journey on a ship’s log, stare at the universe for hours and hours and play dangerous games with the ships mascot, an alien that looks like a Killer Tomato/Beach ball. Seriously!

Essentially, this film came to be because a bunch of film school students wanted it to. You have to have a certain amount of balls in order to get this kind of film made. I mean, its no easy task to make something out of nothing and you could tell these guys had next to nothing when they were making this one! Still, these guys had the gravitas and they went ahead and made chicken salad out of chicken shit. Spacesuits were fashioned after toys, because said toys were used as miniatures for some scenes. The sets were extremely claustrophobic because some of them were made inside of closets….and the buttons on the spaceship were made out of overturned ice cube trays. Miniatures for the film were made out of re-fashioned model cars, and aliens were made out of repainted inflatable beach balls. So it’s that kind of a film where you can tell it was made on a shoestring budget. But what we can admire about this kind of film is that the guys behind it went out and did it none the less. I mean, anybody else would have said “no way, this can’t be done!” A sci-fi with no budget? But these guys had the ‘cojones’ to do it, so I salute them. Best part is that the film is actually watchable and entertaining.

The filmmakers behind this film came out of USC’s film department and at the time, the big story that came out of USC was how George Lucas had turned his student film THX-1138 into a full length feature film. This story excited the hell out of the rest of the student body in that film school, many of whom followed Lucas’s example and did the same thing. Amongst those that followed suit was John Carpenter, only difference being that Dark Star was a much smaller film than THX-1138 and it got very little exposure when it was first released on a limited amount of theaters. It was a bit misunderstood at the time, because it was marketed as a serious science fiction film, audiences werent expecting a comedy. I mean, one look at the films poster and you'd never get an idea that it was a comedy! But like all films of merit, Dark Star eventually found its audience and well, here we are still talking about it after all these years.

Can you spot the cup cake mold?

I’ll be honest, Dark Star is not the most exciting film ever made, but I guess that was the whole point. This movie is about as laid back as its main characters are laid back. This isn’t a movie about interstellar wars, with battalions of spaceships and big budget special effects. Nope, this film is the complete opposite, it’s so low key. It’s a movie about four bored guys flying through space. Four working class heroes, bored with their lives, bored with their jobs, with nothing better to do then talk amongst themselves, philosophizing, asking the big questions. You could say the film flies by without a heck of a lot happening except these four guys just passing the time. One look at these guys and you can tell that the actors (including Dan O’Bannon himself) were a bunch of hippies in real life; the kind that would rather just sit back and smoke a fat one, if you know what I mean. Carpenter himself would have fit in nicely in this crew of misfits characters had he decided to act on the film. Back then, he looked like a hippy himself. Actually he still looks like one if you ask me. Hurray for eternal hippies man! Hurray!

Excitement comes along when the ships alien mascot/killer tomato decides to take one of the crew members for a ride, hiding in the spaceship, playing games. It has been said that those scenes with the alien tomato mascot were the inspiration for Alien, which O’Bannon was responsible for writing, so that makes sense. The other exciting moment in Dark Star comes when one of the bombs that the guys use to blow up planets called ‘Bomb #20’ (wow these guys have blown up 19 planets before this one!!?) gets jammed and wont drop. Problem is that since the Bomb is essentially a thinking computer, it decides that it has to follow orders and blow up anyway, even though it’s still attached to the ship! How hippy is this movie? I’ll tell you how hippy: one of the crew members decides to philosophize his way out of this tight jam by convincing the computer about the existence of the universe. Ha! So this is a film made by true blue hippies, for true blue hippies. In fact, some have gone as far as calling this one “the last great hippy film”. Another trippy element that the film has is that it was inspired by 2001 (1969), obviously Carpenter and O'Bannon were huge Kubrick fans. There are a lot of elements here that come straight out of Kubricks film, like for example the use of classical music, trippy space traveling visuals and the use of an intelligent computer that turns on its crew members. The film also has elements from a couple of sci-fi novels, these guys obviosly loved Phillip K. Dick. So essentially, Carpenter and O'Bannon payed homage with this movie to everything they loved about science fiction, but in a funny, ireverrent way. This movie was fun times, and it goes to show just how much film is an illusion. If Carpenter and O’Bannon took a closet, a couple of ice trays, toys, car models and cup cake molds and made a science fiction film out of them and got said film released in theaters, what’s to stop you from achieving your dreams? Exactly!

Rating: 2 1/2 out of 5

Starman (1984)

Title: Starman (1984)

Director: John Carpenter

Cast: Jeff Bridges, Karen Allen

Review:

John Carpenter’s specialty is horror films, there is no denying that that’s what the man does best, it’s what he is good at. But often times he is seen only as a horror film director, when in reality, he has directed many types of films that have nothing to do with horror. Dark Star (1974) is essentially a sci-fi comedy, Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) is an action/suspense film, Big Trouble in Little China (1986) is an action/adventure/fantasy film. And believe it or not, Carpenter even dabbled in making a romantic film. As fate would have it, it’s a damn good one! Circa 1984 Carpenter directed Starman, which is not the kind of film you would expect John Carpenter to direct. Why? Because it’s a freaking love story that’s why and love films aren’t exactly what Carpenter is known for. But, there it is, and if you ask me, though a bit derivative of other films, this sci-fi love story stands as one of Carpenter’s best films. Go figure!

Box Office success is that way, follow me!

Story goes like this: one night, a lonely widow mourns the death of her husband by watching super-8 films they made together. In this home movies, they appear doing all sorts of happy things together. Essentially, she is torturing herself psychologically. She can’t seem to move on with her life. But one night everything changes when an alien being lands right smack in the middle of her living room as she sleeps! The alien looks through some of her picture albums, and finds a picture of her dead husband, the proceeds to morph into his image! So now, she has to deal with the fact that this alien being in her living room looks exactly like her dead husband! What does he want with her? Will she help the alien get back home? Or will she turn him in to the authorities that are after him?

They dont call him Starman for nothing!

As I saw this movie, something immediately came to mind. This is essentially the same story we saw a couple of years before in E.T. The Extraterrestrial (1982). The only difference being that this alien doesn’t look like a walking turd with hands and feet; the alien in this film looks like Jeff Bridges. But seriously folks, this is the same damn movie, only with a better looking alien. You know the drill; the alien is stranded on earth and needs to get back home before the men in black get to it. The alien sends a message to his race to come pick him up, and so he must wait for them to get here. And he must arrive at a predetermined destination to meet up with them, so he can go back home. If he stays on earth, he dies. See what I mean? It’s the exact same story! Hell, you know how E.T. resurrects a dead plant in Spielberg’s film? Jeff Bridges resurrects a whole deer! The similarities are too many to mention here, just watch it with these similarities in mind and you’ll see what I mean.

But there was a reason behind all these similarities. You see, the script for Starman was being written at the same time as the script for E.T. The Extraterrestrial. So suddenly there was this tug of war over which of the two scripts was going to get made. The head honcho at Columbia Pictures needed to chose between producing E.T. or producing Starman, and he chose Starman. So E.T. went to Spielberg and Universal, while Starman went to Carpenter and Columbia Pictures. It was one of those situations where two studios were involved in making extremely similar films, eventually one fed on the success of the other. Same situation happened when Fox was making The Abyss (1990). When other studios smelled success with underwater films, they all started producing their own underwater monster features. Suddenly Tri Star Pictures was making Deep Star Six (1989) and MGM was making Leviathan (1989). Or when Tom Hanks made the child turns into an adult film Big (1988) over at 20 Century Fox. Suddenly other studios produced similarly themed films like Columbia Pictures’ Vice Versa (1988) and Tri Star Pictures’ Like Father, Like Son (1987). The phenomenal success of Spielberg’s E.T. had a lot to do with Starman getting made a couple of years down the line.

Spielberg, I'll steal your formula for success yet!

Essentially, I see Starman as a more adult version of E.T. But what if instead of him befriending a little boy, he falls for a super hot chick? Basically, they made a few changes on the formula established by E.T., making the story more adult oriented and not so kid/family friendly. I have to say that it works like magic. It gives Starman a unique adult feel that you don’t get from Spielberg’s take on the same theme, which let’s face it, can get sappy at times. I mean, Starman ends up banging the human he befriends! So this film has more balls (pun intended!) then E.T. ever did. And I'll go even further still with this E.T./Starman thing: In 1982 John Carpenter made The Thing and we all know what an awesome movie that is. I mean, its great an all grounds, suspense, effects, gore, horror. I feel its Carpenter's best film, yet in spite of all its awesomeness, The Thing failed to connect with audiences in 1982. It was a HUGE failure for Carpenter and that failure can be attributed to the fact that The Thing went up against Spielberg's feel good alien flick at the box office. Any film going up against E.T. that summer was going to die a quick death, and that's exactly what happened to The Thing. Now, here comes Carpenter with Starman in what feels like vengeful venture and says: "Im gonna do the same damn thing! I'm gonna copy your formula for success! And its gonna be awesome! And its going to be for adults!" Carpenter wanted to prove he could also make a feel good movie, and at the same time he ripped off the film that had cost him his first big failure at the box office. So I completely understand where Carpenter was coming from by making this love story.

But don't get me wrong, I don’t mean to bash on Starman. Even though it has some similarities with E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1979) Starman still manages to conjure up some originality with its situations and images. For example, how awesome was that transformation sequence in the beginning of the film when the alien being suddenly starts to morph into a human? This was a truly outlandish sequence that freaked me the hell out. Kudos to Stan Winston and Rick Baker for pulling off that unique effect before CGI ever existed! And how original was that sequence where Jeff Bridges uses his alien spheres to float in the air while sending a message to his alien pals? I thought that was such a unique image. Plus, Jeff Bridges character is one of those characters that makes everything alright, he is sort of god like in that sense. The dude is so freaking powerful that his powers extend to resurrecting the dead and making an unfertile woman pregnant! God like in deed!

After we get past the sci-fi angle the films turns into a love story. Karen Allen (looking super-hot by the way!) falls for the alien, and really, can you blame her if the alien looks, talks and is 100% anatomically similar to her husband? I felt like I was watching Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore in Ghost (1989) because even though it’s a love story, it still has a freaky angle to it. It’s a film about an alien and a human girl falling in love, and that’s freaky anyway you look at it. Yet all the right notes are played out to make it a good love story. Kudos to Carpenter for pulling that off! Carpenter’s only purpose for making a film like this one was to make up for the huge box office flop that The Thing (1982) ended up being. He had to do something or else his career as a Hollywood director would have gone down the drains! So he went with Starman. Good thing for Carpenter that Starman ended up being a moderate box-office success, making a little more then its budget back. Another thing that helped Carpenter’s career was that Starman received a bunch of awards all around, including an Oscar nod for Jeff Bridges’ performance. After Starman, Carpenter continued trying to hit box office success by getting away from horror. He ended up making Big Trouble in Little China, which to Carpenters chagrin, also ended up being a dismal box office bomb. How did Carpenter manage to stay afloat as a director when his rate of success was so uneven? He played it safe by making two low budget movies back to back, that's what he did! These films ended up being They Live (1988) and Prince of Darkness (1987). He sure knew how to juggle his career between his box office lows and downs that's for sure. Gotta give Carpenter credit for that!

Rating: 4 out of 5

 

Jeff Bridges, enjoying success next to his father (Lloyd Bridges) on premire night