MovieChat Forums > Harbinger Down (2015) Discussion > I really, REALLY wanted to love this fil...

I really, REALLY wanted to love this film...

posted 9 years ago by savcam500
5 replies | jump to latest

(There be spoilers below)

I love practical effects, I love John Carpenter's The Thing, I hated The Thing prequel (and not just because of the CGI), and I really wanted this film to be something to stick in the craw of Hollywood... but it was just... bad.

The acting was painfully bad, the plot was weak and redundant, the dialog was unnatural and forced, and the creature effects... I hate to say it, weren't really that great or original.

I'd watched ADI's YouTube videos, watched several interviews with Alex Gillis and Lance Henricksen (especially loved the ones with comicbookgirl19, plus she's hot); I've followed this film from its inception and was very excited to finally get to see it. And then I was so damn disappointed. The acting may be the weakest link in the film; it felt like everyone had never acted before and they were genuinely surprised to find themselves on a set, in front of cameras, reading a script. Even Henricksen was rather weak (and he is the *beeping* man).

I just really, really wanted this film to harken back to Carpenter's The Thing, for the effects to be show stopping, and some were. The creature merged with the Russian woman toward the end of the film was the strongest of the lot. Very well done, quite realistic. But the bad acting (it's just so bad, y'all, with our protagonist, our heroine being the worst of the lot) just dragged the whole thing down. Weak script, weak actors.

The camerawork was good, solid. The set was well done. Costuming was okay, save for our three "researchers" who looked better attired for a hike in the mountains in fall than being on a crabbing boat in the Bering Sea. Music... honestly I can't remember anything about the film's score, so at least it wasn't intrusive. Just... damn. Damn, damn, damn I wanted to love this film....

something terribly clever.

[–] Barney_Ross_Homecoming 9 years ago

I agree, the highlight of the film are the practical effects. The movie did only cost about half a Million, so i understand.

Henriksen was good though, the only good actor in this.

[–] savcam500 9 years ago

Henriksen was good though, the only good actor in this.

That's really not saying much, but I do agree.

I don't understand bad actors and actresses in films; thousands of people make their way out to Hollywood each year with dreams of making it big, and many of these people--I have to believe--are talented enough that this is a realistic and feasible move for them. There are great actors and actresses just waiting to be discovered, so it amazes me that people unable to act their way out of a wet paper bag... with scissors in their hand, make it into films at all. Without hyperbole, I've seen better acting in High School plays and by local theatre groups. So how did this cast of characters ever make it onto set?

I know that these undiscovered talented young players would be willing to work for the lowest pay allowable under SAG rules, just for the opportunity to star opposite someone like Lance (we're on a first name basis, he and I). The lead actress was just horrid, she really did seem surprised each and every time it came time for her to deliver her lines. And her "professor" was just as one dimensional and obnoxious as possible; I've never seen anyone in my entire life behave as he did, nor anyone (who was sober) speak as she did, with that detached and disinterested, slightly bewildered delivery of each and every one of her lines. I'm not the kind who just "hates" on films or actors for the sake of being a prick, it really destroyed the atmosphere and immersion of the film experience. She was just jarring; every one of her scenes hit me over the head and made me realise, "Hey, I'm watching a poorly performed role in a film." She is a very pretty young lady, but she needs a bit more coaching and acting classes before she's featured in another film. Everyone has to start somewhere, but that somewhere needs to be on a bit surer footing.

It's a real shame. I fear that Alex Gillis may have killed any chance he has to showcase his work. He just didn't seem to be a very good Director. As an effects guy, he's just a few rungs below the late, great Stan Winston, but when it came to setting up shots, staging scenes, and casting (much less coaxing decent performances from) his actors, his really missed the mark.

Again, I really wanted this film to be something amazing, something to prove that practical effects and CGI could be used together to highlight each other's strengths and to cover each other's weaknesses....

something terribly clever.

[–] coccosoids 9 years ago

Let me ask you this: is the acting in this worse than INSIDIOUS 3? Especially mirroring the 'leads'?

[–] Soodinum 9 years ago

I loved both Carpenter's remake and the Prequel, was looking forward to this, but it doesn't look good from the reactions so far ...

[–] FourthYear 9 years ago

I'm on the same page. I love practical effects, and a few minutes into this film, I was saying "I feel like it's trying to combine The Thing with something like Deep Rising." Well... yeah, it just fell flat.

Storyline was okay, the ship made for a good set, but the acting... oh boy. That professor guy, Steven? At what point did the actor not stop and say "Wow, he is just the worst person to ever exist"? And Sadie... yeah. Bad acting knocked this down to like a 4.

Lance, on the other hand, did a fine job, and it was nice seeing him in a movie where his character remains throughout the film and we can enjoy him more on screen.