DEFCON-4

Let's get it out of the way first thing: The critics of the 80s like Leonard Maltin and Siskel/Ebert who sadistically maligned DEF-CON 4 as a wretched exercise in scum & sleaze were WRONG. I agree with another comment stating that this movie was unfairly dismissed at the time of original release. Yes it's tacky, low budget and amoral -- perhaps one of the most amoral movies of the Reagan years of home video rental. For that reason alone it actually stood out from the pack by actually daring to present it's viewers with exactly that which it aspired to. Unlike the Mad Max films or even the Italian ripoffs of the genre Max created, DEF-CON 4 has no presumptions about being a parable, having any kind of a message or examining some sort of social phenomenon. It is about nuclear war and the resultant breakdown of our North American collective society, and like those prospects it isn't pretty, easy to stomach or even make sense of.

In actuality there are actually two B movies in one here: A pretty taught little SNEAKERS/WARGAMES ripoff about a nuclear war triggered by "accident" after Lybians hijack a shipment of cruise missiles and shoot one into Russia. It doesn't detonate but manages to push east/west tensions to the breaking point, the Russians nuke America and the Americans retaliate. Instant global apocalypse, and a demonstration of one of the prevailing nightmares of the Cold War. This sequence of events is ingeniously staged by having the three person crew of a secret orbiting weapons platform observe the exchange and agonize over how to react. Should they launch? Should they go back to earth? Eventually their satellite's computer is hijacked by an unseen entity who prompts an impromptu landing somewhere near the coast of Canada, sparking the second of the two B movie scenarios that becomes a post apocalyptic thriller centered around a makeshift totalitarian regime dominated by the prep school brat of an Army general who recruits other brats, arms them with machine guns, and herds the surviving populace into a ramshackle town comprised mostly of junk.

One of the astronauts encounters a survivalist hilariously played over the top by veteran character actor Maury Chaykin, who steals all of his scenes with a blase attitude ("Just get in your rocket ship and fly off to Central America."), his home made converted front end loader tank contraption, and a kilt. He also has a teenage schoolgirl boarded up in his basement, the less said about which the better. His character is the only one in the film who emerges as an actual person, and when the story shifts it's emphasis away from his fate it looses that central core of interest. In any event the astronaut strikes up a deal with the survivalist for the space capsule's food supply and the female astronaut still on board, leading to their capture by the renegades and a series of bizarre scenes of social chaos that seem to have been inspired by Spaghetti Westerns.

I will admit that the film is a bit of a mish-mash, and hard to keep track of because it changes gears so quickly. At one minute it's a high tech space thriller, the next a grim survivalist tale, then social satire and finally a big, stupid shootout. But in all fairness it's only the final twenty minutes or so that loose their footing in absurdity, with the main detraction being the role of the Army brat dictator kid, who's grip on the surviving populace is never fully explained. Why are the others following his lead? Since nobody bothers to tell the audience, the kid remains a caricature rather than a character, and the final conflict between the astronaut and him remains something of a contrivance rather than a believable series of events. The ending is also annoyingly empty of any kind of meaning at all, with the movie more or less simply being over at some point. You know, whatever.

But if anything the movie has actually gotten more poignant over the decades since it's creation: We now live in a world where middle eastern fanatics do indeed shape global events & have shown themselves capable of inflicting apocalyptic events. We've also seen events like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina where social order has completely broken down, resulting in the kind of mind boggling escapades depicted in the latter part of the film. It's no longer just an escapist nightmare/fantasy to suggest that what is being depicted in the film might actually happen, and the filmmakers should indeed be congratulated for pretty much getting the look of the apocalypse right ... though I do think that people would have found more opportunities to wash their faces & would think that ammunition for firearms would be a bit more of a rarity.

The long and short of it is that DEF-CON 4 is not the unwatchable disaster that many might have potential viewers believe. It's a grim, grimy, somewhat distasteful endeavor for sure, but then again so was the prospect nuclear combat toe to toe with the Ruskies. Don't knock the film for having more or less gotten the aspect of what that might mean correctly.

7/10

It was the best of films, it was the worst of films... two words: "Engrossingly Mind-numbing". Def-Con 4 is truly an oddball. The script is incomprehensibly senseless. There is no story arc at all, it is simply a collection of characters improvising scenes. It is a great example of what I like to call "plotless development" or "one damn thing after another". The acting is uniformly bad with the exception of Maury Chaykin who is hilarious as a Canadian survivalist. I particularly love one scene in this film in which we see the detail of a mechanism of a booby trap. The booby trap has as its trigger a Canadian social insurance card. What kind of symbolism are we supposed to find in this? Either this is the deepest film I've ever seen or the it is the shallowest. Either it deserves a 10 or it deserves a 1, I'll split the difference and give it 5.

This is definitely a B movie, the acting all needing a little coaching, and of course, now very dated. However, the actors are all young (save one or two), there is a pretty large cast and its easily possible to look past that. The script and the story are pretty solid. The sets/props are much better and at times this strange little concoction throes up a truly Mad Max quality Dystopia. The guns/gun blasts are tinny and a mistake. More attention here would have been an easy way to instantly improve this piece. But having said that I must confess it was an enjoyable experience. The cgi (or achieve footage?) of nuclear explosions seemed very real, was done well and gelled well with the flow. For a B movie I only counted two glaring plot holes, neither of which distracted from my enjoyment, and with a dash of tangental thinking may have just been explainable. The cinematography and editing have a modicum of flare. And lets not distract from how important and brave the ambition here. It's not as good as The Day After or Threads, but its plausible and not that far removed in comparison. For me it was good enough to have imagined it from that same universe as those two seminal works. And like I said, for me at least, it was never boring and I definitely enjoyed it.

I will note that the dvd cover art is misleading. At first I thought the movie must be about a cute robot!

All right, the plot is thin and at times unbelievable, but the acting and effects are competent. The film's target audience were the teen-aged denizens of the last of the American drive-ins, and it's typical Cold War nuclear-midnight material. While in outer space, three astronauts witness the obliteration of the cities of earth in a full-scale nuclear war. When their spacecraft's automatic return mechanisms are commandeered, they land in a remote and highly radioactive section of Canadian coastline, where totalitarianism and cannibalism rule the day.

I saw this one at a drive-in when I was 19, and watching it now reminds me of the feel of my beat-up car's leatherette seats, the smells of popcorn and hot dogs from the poastapocalyptically unclean snack bar, and several other less seemly teen pleasures that ultimately overran and sealed the demise of the drive-in venue as the rest of the world abandoned it for home video.

Most of the movies I saw in what is now a forgotten, overgrown lot behind a commuter parking area (a summer storm tumbled what was left of the big screen years ago) were similarly produced with nuclear hysteria in mind, usually with unknown talent and enormous plot holes (what, exactly, were the sources of gasoline in the desert wastelands of "Mad Max" and "Cherry 2000"?).

These "B" films represent a period in American cinematic history that, while rarely critically laudable, nevertheless reflects the morality issues of generations. Our fear of the atom had metamorphosed from the accidental gigantism of everything including common insects, rodents and the occasional slowly-driven-mad citizen to much more tempered, though not always realistic, pondering of civilization after a full-out attack...and most of these films played out on the other side of our windshields.

So, spray on some bug repellent, haul the TV out to the garage, and enjoy some Mom's-car make-out sessions with your spouse. This film makes it 1985 all over again.

I have to say that I am very surprised at the very low 3.5 rating! This film is very underrated and I must say that it is genuinely one of the best movies I've seen. Okay this movie is very low budget and at times cliché but the subliminal message of the whole storyline is intriguing. Not many people will see this but there are many references to past dictatorships and sociological theories. If you can try and watch the movie without acknowledging its low budgetness then perhaps you can witness some fine acting, particularly from Alan MacGillivray, who plays the eventual hero of the film, Boomer. I am surprised from his sheer excellence in his performance as Boomer, that his career did not extend to bigger and better things. This film is a hidden gem. Highly recommended.