Harbinger Down

I started hearing about this movie a while ago and was really keen to check it out because of its' interesting Kickstarter origins and because of its' rather refreshing commitment (at least in this day and age) to avoid using any CGI in favor of employing entirely practical on-screen monster effects. It seemed to be, at least philosophically, an attempt to do a throwback to movies like ALIENS and John Carpenter's THE THING (two of my favorite movies), so I was very eager to support the project and primed and ready to go along for the ride.

Unfortunately, this movie only ended up reminding me of the very first and most important rule about visual effects in movies--they only ever matter when they are being used as a tool to serve something that is far more important--a great story and interesting characters. ALIENS and THE THING had great effects that definitely served important roles in those movies, but they're not what made those movies great. It was the incredibly tight writing and story-telling, the engaging characters and actors who brought them to life, and some masterful direction.

As much as I was routing for it, HARBINGER DOWN fails miserably because it uses its story and characters to prop up and serve the visual effects instead of the other way around. The story borrowed so much from THE THING and ALIENS that it brought absolutely nothing new or interesting to the table. The characters were completely forgettable and you didn't really care what happened to any of them.

And the effects? Well, they're definitely solid and it was nice to see a return to the use of practical monsters--but they honestly weren't good enough to live up to the hype that this movie promised. Given how much the filmmakers were trumpeting this movie as a triumphant return to all practical effects, they needed to raise the bar and bring out some mind-blowing, next-level practical on-screen visual magic and it falls well short of that.

Bottom line (and important lesson of the day)--no amount of visual effects wizardry, whether CGI or practical, can save a movie that is lacking good storytelling and characters.

Here's the thing--at the end of the day, real movie magic doesn't come from creating creatures and effects that seem real. Movie magic comes from creating characters that seem real and putting them in a story/situation that we genuinely care about. Here endeth the lesson.

The Harbinger is a crab fishing ship sailing in the Bering sea. The captain is Bill Graff (ever reliable Lance Henriksen), and on board are students looking to study the effects of climate change on the lives of beluga whales. One of the students is Bills' own granddaughter, Sadie (Camille Balsamo). Soon they discover something interesting inside an ice floe: the long missing remains of a Soviet space capsule, a perfectly preserved cosmonaut...and something else, a malevolent life form that can change forms and liquify at will. Trapped on this ship with nowhere to go, Bill, Sadie, and others realize that they all could have been infected by this thing.

"Harbinger Down" was made by veteran makeup and creature effects creators Alec Gillis (making his writing / directing debut) and Tom Woodruff Jr. as a response to seeing all their hard work for the prequel to John Carpenters' "The Thing" replaced with CGI. That frustration is understandable, but the result is a pretty routine genre entry. Gillis's script is under developed and populated with lame characters, especially the idiotic, jealous professor played by Matt Winston (son of the late, great effects maestro Stan Winston). The character stuff in this movie, in general, is of the eye rolling variety, and Gillis fares a little better with the technical aspects of filmmaking.

He's able to generate some decent suspense, and the atmosphere is pretty impressive for the budget. Obviously, this was made as a direct tribute to "The Thing" (it even begins on June 25, 1982, the date that Carpenters' classic debuted in theatres), and it can't quite exploit the element of paranoia that the earlier film did so well. Some fans may appreciate that it's a quickly paced story that runs a mere 82 minutes, but others will likely wish that it had been fleshed out more.

As a showcase for creature effects that were *supposedly* 100% practical, it does a passable job, but the effects are often under lit, and none of them are really going to blow the audience away.

Chalk this one up as a well intentioned miss.

Five out of 10.

It's hard to bash bad indie movies generally and Harbinger Down is no exception. So I'll try to keep this short and more critically factual.

This movie was kick-started by The Thing (2011) prequel's SFX leftovers that didn't pan out in the final cut of the movie so this thing got birthed on the actual Kickstarter. Inspired by the above mentioned - The Thing, and a bit of Alien, Harbinger Down storyline follows a group of people that for various reasons end up aboard the Harbinger - crab boat. After a short while, they stumble onto something frozen in ice, shenanigans ensue.

It's almost a classic-legacy horror/scifi setup these days, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Here it doesn't and the reasons why that is are numerous. I'll mention just a few of those reasons.

Right of the bat, the movie logo itself contains suspiciously similar fonts to ALIEN (HARBINGER part) and PREDATOR (DOWN part). Not a good sign.

Then there are POV found footage moments that are just random and makes you wonder why's this here? And the rest of the photography is similarly bad. Weird, too close and generally bad camera angles don't make this a pleasant viewing at all.

Characters are blank and the acting is bad most of the time. Lance Henriksen being the exception, everyone else was just not good. Leading lady was boring with some forgettable flat performances. The token white guy with beard and the token black guy were also bad as was the Russian lady.

Ah, the Russian lady. She had some truly brilliant script pieces in this. Moments like "Do you make-up, sis?", or something like that, were the moments where you question yourself why are you watching this in the first place? Also the thing that she looks kinda botoxed and nip-tucked with some super-fake contact lenses and you can see that she is actually wearing some makeup, makes this particular question even more stupid.

So, the story is bleh, script is dumb, acting is the same, are the effects any good? No. I mean, they sold this movie most on that part - the practical special effects, but they are wildly uneven and mostly cheap. Which is kinda the most disappointing, because there are some SFX veteran names in this movie.

If this movie was shot (way) better with better SFX, bad acting and dumb story would be forgiven. But it wasn't and it lacks in almost all the major parts that make a movie. Script is dumb, acting is not that good, story is recycled billion times by now, effects are not that good and as a bonus there are some just cringe, face-palm inducing moments.

It's watchable, but I see no reason why you should do that. Maybe for Lance, but he just sorta breezed through this and didn't make this movie that much better by appearing in it.

OK Not the worst movies i've ever seen, but it's by no means going to be remembered for anything special. Lance is about the only thing that holds it together, good actor, underused in my opinion, but even he struggles in the last third to hold the film together. The acting from some, is, shall we say, tired and formulaic, there are flashes from a few, but that's the thing, it's just flashes of what could have been.

So far as the story went, it was very much a "the thing" meets "Alien" meets fishermen..... A promising idea and a good story could have been told, but alas, they fall into the traps they so desperately needed to avoid for comparisons to other more polished bigger budget franchises. A bit more attention to the less is more camp, for achieving a scare where you don't have a big enough budget, would have done more for the poor poor effects and this coupled with poor acting in parts, leaves the film sagging in places where it could have been sailing high.

As i said, not the worst, but by no means the movie it could have been. i gave it a middle of the road meh! rating

I've been following the progress of Harbinger Down for over a year now, eagerly awaiting each update. Films like John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly are some of my favourite films ever, and Harbinger Down looked to bring this classic 80s practical monster effects goodness to the present day.

The reality? For a movie that's whole purpose is to showcase practical effects (PFX), it doesn't do this nearly enough, nor does it feature Studio ADI's expected level of quality for these effects.

Almost all the scenes that feature the monster are poorly lit (often only by a flashlight). This is to be expected to a certain extent, being a horror film, however if you watch The Thing/The Fly, you'll notice the creature is always at the forefront, in all it's grisly detail. In Harbinger Down you never truly get a good look at the creature, which I'm sure will be disappointing to many, as the whole point of the movie was to show off an awesome looking creature. What's more, there is a distinct lack of quality for some of the monster effects, something that is unheard of in Studio ADI's other work. Presumably this is why the effects are often obscured by shadow and low light. The few scenes that are well lit are either far too brief or garishly poor quality (the first appearance of the monster comes to mind). There is also a distinct lack of blood/gore in the film, which is a major shortfall. John Carpenter's The Thing is a hideously gruesome film, and that plays a big part in why the film is so loved. This film features barely any blood and gore, and the few scenes that do are often brief and very conservative on the bloodiness. I don't believe I'm wrong in assuming most people interested in these kind of films want to see gruesome practical creature effects and all the bloody mess that goes with that. Harbinger Down completely fails on this.

It feels below Studio ADI, as I know what incredible work they can do. I appreciate the budget was low for this movie, but the movie's whole purpose was to show off PFX and prove to the industry that CGI isn't always the best option. It feels like they have shot themselves in the foot, as this film is a poor effort at showcasing the power of PFX. A little more time and money could have refined the effects and really made a statement about PFX (which, ultimately, could lead to much more work for Studio ADI).

Unfortunately there's nothing outside the creature effects that is even remotely noteworthy. There's a lot of inexperience here, with directing, writing, movie pacing and acting, and it shows. But this is something that is hardly surprising, or overly important. All I was expecting was some gorgeously gruesome creature effects. I was happy to settle down for a hammy, poorly acted film - but in a "so bad it's good" way - where the monster would take centre stage and wreck up the place. The monster instead cowers in a dark corner, ashamed to show it's ugly face, while unlikeable characters and a largely un-engaging plot take the centre stage.

I'm a huge fan of Studio ADI's work and I adore practical creature effects. But this doesn't cut it. This is a poor movie. A poor movie that could have redeemed all it's shortcomings in acting, filmwork, writing, etc by just having regular, explicit monster appearances showcasing ADI work at it's best. This is, sadly, not what Harbinger Down is.