Besides 'The Fly' this is the scariest movie I've ever seen. The similarities of this to Annihilation I'm sure have been done. But there's another movie from 2017 called 'Life' that made me feel similarly gross and empty if you're interested in like pervasive existential terror.
Have you ever read Peter Watts' story The Things, retelling it from the perspective of the alien? I normally roll my eyes at that sort of elevator pitch but I thought he pulled it off really, really well.
Watched this again last night and was aghast to find in my background reading that this movie was HATED at release. The explanation seemed to be that it was "boring" and "too cynical" which makes a little bit of sense in a year where ET was the biggest movie in the world, but it seems like the critical reevaluation has swung so far the other way since then. Any thoughts on what was wrong with these freaks in '82?
That's a great question. Probably this whole movie does run counter to Reagan Revolution cultural sentiment, where everyone was supposed to be optimistic in the most bellicose, callous, vainglorious way. It might have done better a few years earlier, around the time of Alien, a similarly bleak movie.
I am a HUGE fan of this film and after studying it and using it to teach in my film class, I'd never thought of the Reagan era aspect. It makes sense because you really see it in the make up of the crew, white vs blue collar, etc.
I think the ET comparison is valid, as well. I think the terrible reception might have something to do with an unconscious desire to move away from the pervading downer stories and endings of the 70s (which I love, e.g. Parallax View). Blade Runner came out at the same time, or at least within a couple of weeks and was similarly unloved. They just weren't in tune with the zeitgeist, I guess.
I know that the 1951 film's* director was aghast at the gory effects and I wonder if, for a lot of people, in a similar way to (IIRC) Rick Baker - of all people - and his reaction to the ear scene in Reservoir Dogs, audiences just weren't ready for an 'A' film to have such out there gore or even the hint of it. I tell my students that this is one film that is SO much deeper than what it seems. It's not about the gore. It's about the paranoia.
Haha this is a friendly space for rambling! I agree about the desire to move away from doomerism. That untimeliness is of course, ironically, one reason this film has lasted the way it has
If you are still accepting reader questions, here is an extremely important one:
One Connor to another, what is the best way to deal with being called Connor? Is it best to tough it out, or should one try to transition into a nickname like Connie to take the heat off?
Besides 'The Fly' this is the scariest movie I've ever seen. The similarities of this to Annihilation I'm sure have been done. But there's another movie from 2017 called 'Life' that made me feel similarly gross and empty if you're interested in like pervasive existential terror.
Awesome! I'll have to check it out
Have you ever read Peter Watts' story The Things, retelling it from the perspective of the alien? I normally roll my eyes at that sort of elevator pitch but I thought he pulled it off really, really well.
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/
Yeah! We actually did an episode on this for my pod: https://www.patreon.com/posts/36891436
Watched this again last night and was aghast to find in my background reading that this movie was HATED at release. The explanation seemed to be that it was "boring" and "too cynical" which makes a little bit of sense in a year where ET was the biggest movie in the world, but it seems like the critical reevaluation has swung so far the other way since then. Any thoughts on what was wrong with these freaks in '82?
That's a great question. Probably this whole movie does run counter to Reagan Revolution cultural sentiment, where everyone was supposed to be optimistic in the most bellicose, callous, vainglorious way. It might have done better a few years earlier, around the time of Alien, a similarly bleak movie.
I am a HUGE fan of this film and after studying it and using it to teach in my film class, I'd never thought of the Reagan era aspect. It makes sense because you really see it in the make up of the crew, white vs blue collar, etc.
I think the ET comparison is valid, as well. I think the terrible reception might have something to do with an unconscious desire to move away from the pervading downer stories and endings of the 70s (which I love, e.g. Parallax View). Blade Runner came out at the same time, or at least within a couple of weeks and was similarly unloved. They just weren't in tune with the zeitgeist, I guess.
I know that the 1951 film's* director was aghast at the gory effects and I wonder if, for a lot of people, in a similar way to (IIRC) Rick Baker - of all people - and his reaction to the ear scene in Reservoir Dogs, audiences just weren't ready for an 'A' film to have such out there gore or even the hint of it. I tell my students that this is one film that is SO much deeper than what it seems. It's not about the gore. It's about the paranoia.
Sorry, I could ramble on about it for hours.
Haha this is a friendly space for rambling! I agree about the desire to move away from doomerism. That untimeliness is of course, ironically, one reason this film has lasted the way it has
*I do not believe Carpenter's Thing to be a remake. Adaptation of the same source material? Absolutely.
Connor,
If you are still accepting reader questions, here is an extremely important one:
One Connor to another, what is the best way to deal with being called Connor? Is it best to tough it out, or should one try to transition into a nickname like Connie to take the heat off?
Yours,
Another Connor
Stay the course. The Path of the Connor is not for the faint of heart