This week we watched John Carpenter's TheThing. A movie about an alien that mimics life forms from earth at the peril of a very beardy Kurt Russell. I've seen this movie several times and its prequel and I like them both. This film more than its prequel though.
Anyway the first thing I want to talk about is the special effects. Yes they are a little 80's and some of the creature effects are a little plastic looking. But for the time it was awesome. I just have one thing to say in defense of that. Bloodcicles. That's right icicles of blood. Frozen so fast that they are still connected to the veins that they sprang from. And it was f'ing glorious. Sure at times the blood looked like strawberry syrup...but there was just so much of it that it didn't put me off...it kind of made me want some ice cream though.
I would also like to put forth two alternate titles for this film. The first 'A Series of Bad Decisions.' Because seriously this movie would not have happened if they hadn't made so many bad choice. Bad decision number one: Let's take Ina stray dog (it's not like it could be sick or anything) . Bad decision number two: let's bring the half burnt mutated body back from the Norwegian camp (what could possibly go wrong?). Bad decision number three: Let's just let this stray dog wander about (because letting it do whatever it wants is a great plan). And last but not least bad decision number four: Let's keep the bodies around and hope they are dead. See nothing but bad choices.
My second offering for a title is 'Kill It! Kill It With Fire!' Because seriously...they got to flame throwers pretty fast. Why would they even have a flame thrower up there? I'm not sure why, and I'm not complaining (because flame throwers are awesome) but they she got to kill it with fire pretty quick.
The last thing I want to talk about is the legacy this movie has left. Show of hands, who like the ResidentEvilfranchise (movies or games)? *Hops up and down waiving hands* I know I do. Now look at how the aliens open up to eat. Then look at how the symbiotes in ResidentEvil open up (specifically the dogs). Is see a clear lineage there. One clearly inspired the other. Which is awesome. It also shows how influential this movie really is. Aliens to symbiotes. Monsters all. What a beautiful horrifying connection.
Over all I really like this film. That said it is not my favorite Carpenter film. That would be Vampires. And if you haven't seen it you should. It's awesome. Anyway this movie was awesome, and dated or not this movie is assume too.
Works Cited TheThing. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. Kurt Russell. 1982. DVD ResidentEvil. Dir. Paul W. S. Anderson. Perf. Milla Jovovich. 2002. Blu-Ray Vampires. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. James Woods. 1998. DVD
"Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright," - Maleva (Johnston).
This week we got to read The Wolfman by Jonathan Maberry. Which is a novelization of the 2010 film The Wolfman. In the spirit of honesty, I should state that I saw the movie first. Because I love werewolves. A new werewolf movie comes out of course I went to go see it. Plus have you seen the cast of the film? They are brilliant actors and they nailed it. So I went into this book knowing exactly what was going to happen and how it would end.
So for me I didn't really care for this book. But I think it's important to say what it did right as well as what I didn't like. The first thing I loved in this book was (and I know you may all die of not shock after reading this) the gore. There is so much beautiful, lovely, dripping, severed, ripping, tearing, arterial spraying gore in this book. Which is not shocker for anyone reading this. I love gore, I love dismembered appendages, blood spray, entrails that have become extrails, and heads rolling across the ground...and this book has all of the lovely bits of gore and blood that my black little heart could desire. I'm not sure however if it's because the movie has just as much (sometimes more) gore or if it's a style choice though. But since the source material has a ton of gore I am going to favor the source material as the influence here. Usually in the book assigned for class we don't get a lot of gore...but not in this book. I loved the gore. I always say it's not a werewolf book (or movie) unless a head rolls across the ground. And this book didn't disappoint. That said the film gives us a couple rolling heads so again it come out on top.
And let's get on with what I didn't like about the book. There were a lot of scenes that were added to the book that were not in the film and didn't add anything other than sex and boobs. It was very obviously something the writer had stuck in his craw when he was writing the book. I have the unrated version (as well as the rated) and never is anyone in the film naked. The scene where he gets the letter in the beginning? Nope everyone is fully clothed..drunk and a few kisses but no sex acts. Then again with Gwen in home above her father's shop...nope no boob popping out, she never even gets undressed, they have one kiss then get buzz killed by the cops at the door. So it really left me wondering why the writer felt to fabricate these scenes? They serve no purpose, They don't move the plot forward, they are just there to add sex to a book (and a film) that was perfectly fine without it. Totally unnecessary addition IMO.
On top of the fabricated added sexy stuff, they cut one of my favorite scenes in the film to pieces for no known reason. And cut my favorite line from the film. Which for me was unforgivable. What is my favorite line you ask? Here it is "Never look back, Lawrence. Never look back. The past is a wilderness of horrors," (Johnston). I just love that line for so many reasons. Because for one, it's delivered beautifully by Sir Anthony Hopkins (Whom I adore). Two the scene itself is beautifully done and very meaningful to the subplot. And three because that line rings true in my life and I firmly believe that when you experience a horror you should not waste time looking back. Ever. And to have it cut from the book...makes me completely insane. For me omitting that line was like writing a novelization of The Crow and leaving out the line "Buildings burn, People die, but real love is forever," (Proyas). Also a cardinal unforgivable sin. The author added useless scenes and cut good ones. Which makes me a crabby Patty. Not cool, man, Not cool.
Another thing I wanted to note about the book and how it strayed from the film was the obsession with the moon and the goddess of the hunt. It got to the point that for me I started rolling my eyes every time it showed up. I seriously got sick of it. I get it. It's a werewolf that is controlled by the moon...now stop beating me over the head with it. In the film, we get a couple long shots of the moon (for obvious reasons) but we don't get this obsession with the book that the books felt the need to mention it every fifteen minutes. It got real old, real fast.
There are also some weird style choices made for this book. take page 8, the second to last paragraph:
"Ben heardthe sound of his own death. He saw the flash of claws as they tore at him. He heard his clothing rip, heard the separate sounds of parting flesh and tendon, heard the scrape of claw on bone. He heard all of this from a great distance, detached from the pain that must be coursing through his nerves. He heard, but did not feel. The tethers that held him to the broken flesh were stretching, stretching," (Maberry, 8).
Holy word echos Batman! Also, If I were to write a paragraph where all but one line (in the paragraph) started with personal pronouns or a character name I'd get a good firm talking to in my writing program. It's also heavily filtered. Those "saw" and "heard" words making it very filtered away from the action in a moment where he could have really gone for the gut. Opportunity missed.
The POV of the werewolf and the wolfman were both very weird for me as well. I'm not sure why that was done, and while it was brief it just didn't work for me. If your werewolf is a killing machine then I don't want the writer to try and think it through for the reader. It ruins the fear element. I don't want to know what the werewolf/wolfman is feeling. I just want it to eat someone head...or arm...or leg. Dealers choice. Just don't try to put me in the werewolf/wolfman's head, it sounds contrived and unnatural.
I also thought that the use of what appeared to be raccoon footprints as section breaks was a little odd as a style choice as well. that however I will not blame of the writer. That was probably the choice of someone much higher up and in publishing. I'm not sure why it was done...but generally a raccoon does not inspire fear...and it doesn't really fit with the book either.
This is the front paw of a raccoon. Look familiar? It should it was the standard section break in the entirety of this book.
...And this is a raccoon. It's not scary and doesn't belong in this book.
In case you haven't seen it here's a trailer for the film.
Overall I didn't hate this book. I just didn't like it. I much prefer the film version...in fact I'm not really sure why we needed a novelization of the film. I've read a few novelizations of film and they are always bad, and always worse than the film. I really wish they would stop making them. There is so much that can be done in film that can't be done in a novel. The scenery in The Wolfman film is gorgeous and looks vintage, and Gothic as crap just by existing. If you try to capture even a fraction of that in a book it drags. Not that this book even attempted to capture it. It supplanted old words and names for things in place of any real scenery or setting. And so lost one of the key features of the film (IMO). So if you are curious about The Wolfman (or you have only read the book) I heavily encourage you to watch the film. It's a thousand times better.
Works Cited
Maberry, Jonathan. The Wolfman. New York: Tor, 2010. Book.
The Wolfman. Dir. Joe Johnston. Perf. Benicio Del Toro & Anthony Hopkins. 2010. Blu-Ray.
The Crow. Dir. Alex Proyas. Perf. Brandon Lee. 1994. Blu-Ray
This week we got to watch the movie Alien starring Sigourney Weaver. I'm not going to summarize it for you though... Because if you lived through the 80's or 90's you already know what is about. If you missed those decades stop reading this and go watch the movie. I'm not kidding. Go. Everyone should see this film. Everyone. No, exceptions.
The first thing I want to talk about is the beginning of this film. There are approximately 6 minutes we don't see characters. All we get is scenery. Which in fiction we are good not to do. Ever. But here in this film it's shameless about is wanting you to notice and appreciate the scenery. I love that. It's so very wrong in fiction that it seems decadent and lovely in film. It's one of those things that film can pull off, but fiction cannot. Which is kind of a bummer.
Another convention that works in film but not fiction is the repeating scene. Specifically the 'we just woke up from hypersleep and we're starving scene.' This scene occurs in every film in this franchise. Go check. I'll wait. Even the prequel Prometheus has almost the exact scene. Which is great for a film franchise...but a big giant no-no in fiction. If we use the same scene in every book in a series we get called unoriginal and the scene gets cut. Which I guess is maybe a filmmakers privilege. Even more so if your name is Ridley Scott. I guess being awesome lets you make that call.
One of my favorite parts of this movie is Ripley. For one very specific reason. Ripley was not intended to be a female character. She was written gender androgynous but intended to be male. But when they were doing casting they decided Ripley would be a female. And here's why that's awesome: she doesn't feel gender swapped. A lot of times in sci-fi/action/horror, the female characters that started as male characters don't seem authentically female. This is not one of those stories. Ripley may have started male, but she feels female. A strong, smart, capable female. And for that I love this film.
Can we all take a minute and appreciate that all the bad choice in this movie are made by the men. Usually in horror we get the "dumb blond running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door " type. I mean seriously it's a problem. We get girls who accidentally open boxes and release demons, girls who tell others about their dream demon allowing him to jump to others dreams, and girls who decide that smoking pot while having underage sex at camp and let a child drown and turn into a monster. But not in this film. In Alien, we get the guys making epically bad choices like: I'll just touch what's clearly an alien egg then stand here like a dumbass while it hops out and attacks me, or let's open the hatch and let the guy whose face is getting raped by an alien inside the ship, or let's cut off the leg of this unknown alien, and we can't forget the worse choice of all, we'll just let the guy who was face raped sit and eat with us, no need for quarantine. And who is the voice of reason? Ripley. Always Ripley. Because she's the shit.
Can we all just agree that if an android appears in a horror or sci-fi movie that they are going to be evil. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point. That said I would still like someone to explain to me how they went from David (in the Alien prequel Prometheus) to the Ash model (in this film) of android? Seems like a downgrade to me. While he's just as culpable to Ash I much prefer the Michael Fassbender (David) android. Still evil but pretty. I'd sign up for a David android. No problem.
The last thing I want to talk about is the cat. It's no surprise I'm a cat person. I have a cat asleep behind me and one in my lap as I type this. But to be fair I love all animals I just find cats to be allies as I'm allergic to rodents. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But I digress. The point I was trying to make (ineffectually) was that they didn't go for the shameless emotional appeal with the cat in this film. They could have, but they didn't. They took the high road. In my opinion too often horror writers go for the lowbrow emotional appeal of killing a pet instead of going for a real scare. I think it's a crutch and it's never effective for me when they make the scare mostly about killing house pets. I hate that. To me, it's pandering and I'm glad they didn't go that way in this film. The cat is there it's in peril, just like the humans, but it's not the scare. Instead, its peril adds to the overall scare without the last ditch effort of emotional appeal over its death. And for that I say, "Thank you," to Ridley Scott.
The alien/xenomorph on Family Guy...because this post was way too serious and I can't let that stand.
Overall I love this movie. I think it's awesome on so many levels. If you haven't seen it go watch it. You won't regret it.
Works Cited
Alien. Dir. Ridley Scott. Perf. Sigourney Weaver. 1979. Blu-Ray.
