MAN-THING

TYPICAL REVIEW

"This is easily the worst comic book movie ever made, and no, I haven't forgotten about the original Punisher adaptation." - David Nusair, REEL FILM REVIEWS

THE PLOT

There's a new sheriff in town. No, really. And when we meet him on his first day at the job, he's confronting a group of eco-radicals chained to some construction equipment. It appears the local oil baron, Mr. Schist, is dredging up the sacred Indian swampland and tensions are rising. By the time Sheriff Kyle reports for duty people are already starting to go missing, including the previous sheriff he's come to replace. Who's behind these mysterious disappearances? Is it oil tycoon F. A. Schist, a man so evil he actually MWAH-HA-HAs after explaining his plans to his son? Or is it eco-terrorist Rene, a man who thinks an ankle-length black leather duster makes a logical choice for wading in swamps? Could it be those wacky Thibadeaux brothers, because everybody knows where there's a swamp, there's crazy in-bred homicidal cajuns. Or maybe it's just the monster we see kill a man in the very first scene of the film.

THE POINT

At the time I'm writing this, movies based on comic books are big business. Both Ghost Rider and 300 have just spent weeks at #1, TMNT is opening there, and the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man sequels will likely follow suit. In terms of box office draw, comics (or "graphic novels" if it makes you feel smarter) are currently the top dog. But don't despair, B-fans, there's still plenty of room for them at the bottom too.

Case in point; 2005's direct to DVD Man-Thing. Pity the poor makers of Man-Thing. They had to know they were in trouble when, in a year which saw the near universally panned comic adaptation Elektra receive a wide theatrical release, Man-Thing barely managed a premier on the Sci-Fi Channel. If you're familiar with the Sci-Fi Channel, you know it takes a lot of heat from genre fans for churning out low budget quickies like Octopus and Swarmed. But are these films really that much different from the fodder which used to fill out the second half of drive-in double bills; films like Tentacles and The Deadly Bees? Lord knows I've watched both of those, so why not give Man-Thing a try.

If you approach this movie as a Saturday matinée time killer, there is stuff to like about Man-Thing. The direction is competent and workmanlike, the acting ranges from "really trying" to "hamming it up nicely", and the swamp set looks pretty good. But if you're looking for that elusive buried treasure of a film, it's probably best to go somewhere else. The characters never rise above stereotypes, the plot holes are cave sized, and the CGI is marginal at best. The most crippling blow to Man-Thing, however, is a script so formulaic that the average viewer can predict every upcoming scene with 100% accuracy, up to and including the big climatic show down. As B-movie creature features go, Man-Thing is pretty much by the book.

And that's where this movie loses me, because whatever book the filmmakers were using, it sure as shootin' wasn't Man-Thing! You see, I was already a bonafide comic book nut by the time I entered elementary school, and along with the usual books featuring guys in spandex, I was trying out some of the odder titles on the rack. And boy was Man-Thing odd. As scripted by Steve Gerber, Man-Thing was part-horror, part-satire, and all-weird. Stories ranged from broad pop culture parodies of stuff like Star Wars to bizarre metaphysical ruminations on the nature of reality. Needless to say, none of the comic's intellectual subtext made it anywhere near this movie. Even more irritating is the characterization of the Man-Thing itself. The monster presented in the comics was fairly benign until provoked, but the creature in the movie is nothing short of a rampaging indiscriminate killer. He's Jason Voorhies covered in moss and twigs. In the end, nothing is left of the original source material other than a few names, an environmentalist storyline lifted from a single issue, and the idea of a monster in the swamp. Everything else is a complete misrepresentation of the book I enjoyed in my youth.

Poor Man-Thing. All I can say is... welcome to the club. Us religious types are used to being misrepresented; sometimes by non-believers, sometimes by other religions, and almost always by the nation's media outlets. As frustrating as it is when others get things wrong, though, it's even more so when the misinformation comes from inside our own church walls. Sadly, some people just don't know much about their own religion. And lest anyone think I'm just talking about Christianity, just take a look at the following story.

In 2002, Russell John Smith, ordained Satanist and founder of the Order of Perdition, was tracked down and arrested for molesting his own daughter. In his defense, he claimed the abuse was a legitimate part of his religious observance, no different than the black candles and goat’s head he kept in his basement. Since molestation was a part of his "theology", he shouldn't be prosecuted for simply exercising his lawful freedom of religious expression. (Oh, did I mention Smith was also a corrections officer in Virginia?) Now, despite what every marginally talented stand-up on Comedy Central would have you believe, no organized religion likes for these kinds of things to happen. It even upsets the Satanists. After the capture of Russell John Smith, the activist group Darkness Against Child Abuse (I did not make that up. Google them.) quickly denounced Smith and issued statements declaring that his actions had nothing to do with the true teachings or practices of the Church of Satan. If Smith had bothered to read his own group's charter, he would have known that "Do not harm little children." is number 9 on their list of the 11 satanic rules of the Earth. (Seriously, I’m not making this up.) Intentionally or not, he was misrepresenting his own church's "theology", and it was making the rest of the Satanists look bad. Or worse. Or bad "bad" instead of good "bad". I don't know, whatever, but you get the point.

Whenever I'm asked why the Catholic Church pushes religious education so much, these kinds of things are one of the reasons I give. Obviously, religious education alone isn't going to stop all of the misrepresentation out there, especially if it's being done on purpose, but it has to help. Cripes, even the Satanists figured that out. The Catechism states that "the movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future." No classes required. But the Catechism does go on to say that religious education "aims at bringing their conversion and faith to maturity, in response to the divine initiative and in union with an ecclesial community." In short, if you're a member of an organized religion, you have a responsibility to educate yourself on the teachings, both for your own spiritual growth and the good image of your fellow members.

And if you're a screenwriter working on an adaptation of another one of my childhood memories, would it kill you to do more with the source material than just flip through the pictures?

THE STINGER

According to figures in the 2006 Official Catholic Directory there were approximately 154,000 adult converts, 729,000 high school students, and nearly 3.5 million elementary students enrolled in parish religious education programs. To some, that number may seem excessive, but I like to think of it as nothing more than a good start.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: MAN-THING

If you don't mind sitting through the advertisement, you can view the trailer here.

THX-1138

TYPICAL REVIEW

"A pretentious regurgitation of worn-out sci-fi clichés by a novice filmmaker who had yet to find his way." -- William Arnold, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

THE PLOT

THX-1138, LUH-3417, and SEN-5241 live in a futuristic society located beneath the surface of the Earth which has outlawed all interpersonal human relationships, The machines that run everything use drugs to keep the population’s emotions under control. THX stops taking his medication, develops true feelings for his lover, and makes a run for the surface.

THE POINT

Most of the present day interest generated by THX-1138 is the fact that it was the directorial debut of George Lucas. Yes, that’s the same George Lucas who gave us both Jar Jar Binks and 1978’s Star Wars Holiday Special (And, if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re either too young to know about it or you’ve been blessed by God to never have seen it.) THX-1138 is his freshman effort and it shows a little.

To be fair though, a lot of people, myself included, like this movie. The acting is decent, the writing is acceptable, and, if nothing else, it's got Donald Pleasence in it. Not to mention, for a glorified student film, it makes pretty good use of its budget. Which from the looks of things must have been about $5. This is most evident in the set design. Like so many other low budget movies, THX-1138 portrays a future that looks an awful lot like the basement of a factory or power plant. If sci-fi B-movies are any real indication, mankind has a lot of long white corridors and overhead pipes to look forward to.

Fortunately, the low budget actually adds to the impersonal feel of the society the film wants to portray. All of the rooms have very little furniture with no decorations or photos, nothing at all with a personal touch. All of the citizens are forced to shave their heads and wear the same white uniform, in effect becoming the same person. Emotional extremes, including sexual desire, are suppressed by enforced medication. And, in tried and true sci-fi fashion, the main occupation of the humans seems to be in assembling the very robotic police who keep them under control. The future world we're given in THX-1138 is one in which everything is “fair” and “equal” from a materialistic standpoint; but apparently at the cost of individual identity.

THX-1138 never really gets too specific about what brought humanity to this sad situation. There are some vague references to some above-ground disaster, but for the most part, the movie is obscure enough so that the viewer can insert whatever socio-political boogie man they feel inclined to. It does, however, take some time to point out some of the "tools" society uses to keep mankind in a controlled state. There's the government controlled commerce, of course, and the government sponsored entertainment. And of particular interest to us, there is a scene in the movie where THX steps into a phone booth to call the main control center in order to make a confession of his sins. Ah yes, organized religion is also a tool for control of the masses.

I think it's fair to say that plenty of people do view religion as nothing more than a means of social control. And, only a fool would make the claim that, over the centuries, there haven't been numerous examples of people using religion to do just that. But, that's not really the issue. Nobody intelligent makes the claim that the misuse of religion in and of itself proves religion is a bad thing. (Okay, some daytime talk show hosts do claim that, but nobody really takes them seriously but nighttime talk show hosts anyway.) No, the misuse of religion is just one more proof that some human beings will use any means whatsoever to get what they want.

The better question is whether or not there is something ingrained in organized religion itself that inherently demands the surrender of your individual identity; does organized religion demand absolute control over it's adherents. Sure, some of them like the ancient Egyptians did, but oddly enough, they're not around anymore. What about the ones that are still around, though; what about mine?

You know, if you just skim over things, it doesn't look too good. Look at the close of the 19th chapter of the gospel of Matthew, for example. The apostles are thinking about the “unfairness” of their current situation and it’s Peter who speaks up. (Who else?) "Look, Jesus" he says, "we left everything and followed you. What do we get, Lord? How about a little something for the effort?"

In his usual style, Jesus answers with a parable. It's the well known reading about the wealthy landowner who hires groups of workers at different intervals throughout the day, but still pays them all the same wages once the work is done. Which doesn't seem quite fair, either to the workers in the story who toiled since early morning, or to the apostles listening to Jesus tell the story. It really seems like Jesus is telling us that individual effort doesn't matter and we should just shut up, do as we're told, and accept what we get. Just what is it He wants us to get out of this story? It’s obvious we’re supposed to think the landowner is in the right, but how?

I think the key to the parable may actually be in the first few verses. Before the landowner ever pays anyone a single denarius, he first has to go to the marketplace and offer them work. And remember, none of these people had jobs before he showed up. He then keeps going back to collect more and more workers. In the end, the emphasis in the story is not whether everyone did the same job, but rather who responded to the call to come work at all.

And what does this have to do with control and the loss of individuality? Well, let's use an easy example. Christianity (and pretty much all of the other major religions) claims as a moral absolute that the poor be cared for. That's one of the non-negotiable things we're called to respond too. But HOW we're supposed to respond isn't given too much detail. How do we define who is poor? Do we help them through charity, enterprise, or the government? Do we give with no expectation or do we require some commitment in exchange for the aid? There's a lot of leeway given to our individual response, and that's really smart, because it ensures that somebody somewhere is covering all the bases for the task required.

I would have to say the call to respond in a unique and individual manner is one of the great strengths of Christianity and it's why people with completely opposing social philosophies can still join hands in church and call each other brother. The extinguishing of the individual would actually be one of the most crippling things the Church could ever do. It couldn't sustain the society of THX-1138 and it can't sustain ours.

THE STINGER

You know, Mr. Lucas can keep saying things in interviews like he’s a Buddhist-Methodist (whatever that is), but we can see where these ideas are coming from George. In his book, Mythmaker: The Life and Work of George Lucas, John Baxter writes “Without the… upper-middle-class Methodist values he absorbed during his upbringing…, the Star Wars films, the Indiana Jones series, even the more eccentric THX-1138, let alone American Graffiti, would have been very different. Indeed, they might not have existed at all.”

So don’t worry, George, when all is said and done, God still loves you. And He'll probably forgive you for that Holiday Special. As for Jar Jar, though, well, there's always Purgatory.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: THX-1138

THE DUNWICH HORROR

TYPICAL REVIEW

"This is a horror movie, right?" – Andrew Borntreger, BADMOVIES.ORG

THE PLOT

Creepy Wilbur Whateley shows up at Miskatonic University to check out a copy of the legendary Necronomicon, a book of rituals designed to bring horrific alien gods back to Earth. (Hey, doesn’t every library have one?) To perform the final rites, he requires the unwilling assistance of virginal Nancy Wagner. Only Dr. Henry Armitage stands in the way of his foul schemes. Did we mention Wilbur has a hideously deformed half-demon twin brother slinking around?

THE POINT

I think it's safe to say most people are letdown when their favorite author’s books are translated to movies, and horror fans are no exception. Alas, for the devoted fans of H. P. Lovecraft, the bitter taste of disappointment is probably stronger than most. If you want to see despair, just ask a Lovecraft fan to name all of the really good screen adaptations of a Lovecraft story. Most likely, he will be able to count them all on one hand... after he cuts a couple of fingers off in despondency. Having died in 1937, Lovecraft himself was spared the viewing of the wretched adaptations of his stories hit the big screen. We aren't so lucky. Take The Dunwich Horror, for example.

Where Lovecraft wrote stories about people slowly going mad over the realization that their perception of reality was utterly wrong, this movie presents us with a freaky white guy sporting an afro trying to summon a fake rubber monster to destroy the world. (Of course, to be honest, that kind of description really is irresistible bait to bad-movie fans like myself.) And the hairstyles in this movie are just the start of the weirdness. You also get the requisite psychedelic effects accompanied by crazed cultish hippies. You get bizarre editing where a character who was terrified in one scene is quietly undisturbed in the next. And, inexplicably, you get Sandra Dee as the main protagonist Nancy in what I can only guess was supposed to be her big departure roll from her days as Gidget. It's all good old fashioned early 70s rubbish.

But what really, really gets to you in The Dunwich Horror is just how dimwitted the character of Nancy is. She’s one of those movie characters who is so blind to the bad decisions she is making that even the audience starts yelling at her to quit being such a numbskull. Okay, you could almost forgive her for immediately falling for the creepiest guy on campus. Lots of women make poor choices in men. You can maybe even forgive her overlooking Wilbur's preoccupation with Armageddon. My own wife ignores my movie collection for the most part. But about the third time Nancy passes out after drinking Wilbur’s tea, you would think she might start to catch on that something sinister is in the works. Hey, Nancy baby, you think there might be something in that cup other than lemon, huh? By the end of the movie, you just don't feel that much sympathy when Nancy ends up on the old sacrificial altar.

That kind of irrational behavior isn’t completely unrealistic, I suppose. There will always be people who refuse to recognize or admit that they are making bad choices. They’re so individualistic, so focused only on themselves and what they desire, that they simply just won’t listen to anyone else. And as for listening to God? Puhlease!!!

Listening to God. That's kind of a loaded phrase, isn't it? Throughout the history of religion the idea of hearing the voice of God has meant everything from the prayerful understanding of an event to reading the signs in a steaming pile of entrails. For the majority of Christians, however, the primary way in which God’s Holy Spirit speaks to us is through our conscience. The Catechism refers to Conscience as a “voice ever calling [man] to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil” and adds that “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience”.

This would suggest that failure to see conscience as the voice of God can lead to serious problems. But, we have to accept the fact that as human beings, we will try to find ways not to hear that voice. And that's twice as likely if that voice happens to be saying something we don’t want to hear. (Some medicine does taste bad no matter how good it is for us.) But God, being God and all, saw that coming and provided us with plenty of backups. And one of the most important of those backups is Community. If we won’t listen to God directly, He’ll use the people around us to get us the message. If we find ourselves in a situation where a lot of people are coming to us with concerns over some of our actions, maybe it’s time to step back and make sure we’re not ignoring the calls of our own conscience before we’re too far gone. Or at least before we're strapped to an altar as a sacrifice to some bad special effects.

THE STINGER

You have to pay attention when you read theological treaties like the Catechism. Take a second glance at that earlier quote about conscience and you'll see the term "certain judgment". In 2001, The Reverend Arthur Allen Jr, the head pastor of a self-founded non-denominational church, was arrested for child abuse. Quoting the Old Testament as justification, Allen and members of his congregation routinely held down children and beat them with sticks and belts. "If you're going to give (children) a meaningful lesson," Allen said, "give them a meaningful lesson.” Now, there were probably a lot of people in Robert Allen’s congregation who felt a twitch in their conscience as he beat these children in front of an altar, but only a paltry few eventually came forward to the authorities. The others had apparently become so dependent on Allen’s overbearing personality that they were willing to suppress their own individual judgment. To avoid heading down that path, it’s a good idea to put a little effort into making sure our conscience is well informed. Yes, as Christians we listen out for the voice of God, but a little bit of study can only help us understand the words when they come.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: THE DUNWICH HORROR

And if you just have to see the trailer, you can watch it right here.

IMPULSE

TYPICAL REVIEW

"The film wastes its predictable but promising premise and quickly degenerates into virtual absurdity." – THE TIME OUT FILM GUIDE

THE PLOT

Somewhere out in Cowtown, USA the government is storing hazardous waste material which manages to leak its way into the local milk supply. After a few weeks of guzzling this goo, the local citizenry begin to lose their ability to control their impulses, acting on the first thought that comes into their minds. This is bad news, both for the locals and the visiting married couple who just happen to be in town that week.

THE POINT

IMPULSE is another one of those movies where you end up thinking, “What a great idea. How could they have messed it up so badly?”

Think about the premise for a minute. An entire community exposed to a strange chemical suddenly and totally begins to disregard all the established social rules of our culture and starts to act on those first impulses we normally suppress. How do you take an idea like that and turn it into an hour and a half bore-fest?

Well first you hire Graham Baker to direct it. He was the man who gave us great cinematic treats like OMEN III: THE FINAL CONFLICT and the unbelievable BORN TO RIDE, a WWII motorcycle movie starring John Stamos from TV’s Full House. Then you throw in a script that is slow, slow, slooooooow. I’m not kidding; there is a breathtaking scene in this movie that lasts nearly seven minutes in which a character… walks through town. If you ever wanted to know exactly how long seven minutes can feel, then by all means, watch IMPULSE. In fairness, the script does give some half-hearted attempts at bringing the idea to life (a man decides to relieve himself on a car, a doctor performs some impromptu euthanasia, etc.), but it all comes off as a just a little bit too... tame. I'm not advocating that the film should have been 90 minutes of unadulterated debauchery, but just imagine handing this premise and a decent budget to the likes of Ken Russell or John Waters and you can see why the film is frustrating.

Another thing that is equally frustrating about this movie, especially to someone with a religious bent, is that not one single character exhibits a "good" action as their first impulse. Did none of these people pay attention in Sunday School? Based on the setting in the movie, there had to at least be a small Methodist or Lutheran church somewhere in town, and the last time I checked neither of those denominations were preaching "Hate Thy Neighbor". I mean, come on, if you've got seven minutes of screen time to devote to a walking scene, you can spare a few seconds to show someone acting on an altruistic impulse.

In his Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon defines Love simply as the act of willing good to someone else. If that’s true, then a God-like love is not about feeling okay about someone else, or even liking them for that matter. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, Christian love “is at times intensely emotional, and frequently reacts on our sensory faculties, still it properly resides in the rational will.” In short, love in the Christian sense is a conscious choice. And when Jesus bluntly states in Matthew 22, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.", it's probably a pretty good indication that we need to try and make it our first choice. Even if we're stuck in a bad movie.

THE STINGER

Viewing love as a choice rather than a feeling can be difficult to swallow because most people act in such a way that makes it pretty hard to “will good” for them. And, let's face it, it's likely that we even act "unlovable" ourselves sometimes. Hard to believe, I know, but true. This is probably why we've been given the responsibility to "choose" love rather than "feel" love, because even at our worst, God loves us and wants "good" for us for our own sake. Can we really call ourselves Christians and do any less for the sake of others?

COMING ATTRACTIONS: IMPULSE

You can view the trailer here but, be warned, you'll probably have to sit through an ad first.

ROBOT MONSTER

TYPICAL REVIEW

"OK, it's cheesy, it's stupid, it's cheap, it’s nearly inept, but, by golly, it's a hoot to watch." - Bob Bloom, JOURNAL AND COURIER (LAFAYETTE, IN)

THE PLOT

It’s the end of the world as we know it. Ro-Man XJ2, invader from space, has eliminated almost everyone on Earth with his Calcinator Death Rays. A small band of people have managed to survive but Ro-Man is still on the prowl and there's dangerous stock footage of giant man-eating lizards to contend with. Will humanity survive or will Ro-Men rule the Earth?

THE POINT

Anybody out there with a good friend who is also a film-major knows they will eventually get the call to appear in one or more school projects. And because it is still school, the productions can sometimes veer towards the noncommercial and bizarre. I have fond memories of the time I was asked to wear a gigantic squirrel costume lovingly hand sewn by the director's mother. They did their best to make the rig comfortable, but the mystery fur it was made from was blazing hot inside; the four foot long, two foot wide tail that hung precariously from my wire shoulder harness was unwieldy and heavy; and the fur covered paper-mache head had zero visibility and refused to turn when I did. In short, I looked ridiculous.

I only mention that experience because, even with the $5 budget my friend had for costuming, I still looked more believable than Ro-Man. Even if you’ve never seen Robot Monster, you’ve probably seen an image of Ro-Man. He’s become the poster child of cheapo 1950’s sci-fi. That’s him in the picture up above. Yes, that is indeed a gorilla costume topped by a diving helmet with TV antennas glued to it; pure B-Movie goodness.

Ro-Men, giant grasshoppers, astro-zombies, nuclear mutants; you name it; back in the 50’s they were going to kill us, all of us. Just because they lack the budget of Titanic or Armageddon, these types of “end of the world” films can still be considered part of the larger genre known as “disaster movies” and they’ve been around since the beginning of cinema. Thanks in large part to the Cold War, they really began to be produced in large numbers in the years following World War II. After fading a little in the 60’s, they came back strong after the Vietnam War and have stuck around ever since. These days you can count on at least two or three good old fashioned “end of the world” movies every year.

It's important to note the timing of these apocalypse flicks. Although you would expect the exact opposite, Hollywood tends to churn out a higher number of disaster movies during times of national stress or emergency. And Hollywood wouldn’t do it if people weren’t willing to shell out some money to see it. The best guess I’ve heard as to why this is so is that these movies are not just about facing disaster, but surviving it. As one critic points out, “Old people and pregnant women are rescued, children are lifted from the rubble, and love affairs blossom.” The aliens of Independence Day’ may blow up the White House and Ro-Man may blow soap bubbles (Watch the movie, I’m not kidding), but the movies themselves end up offering a positive message.

Take the United States Council of Catholic Bishop’s review of the “end of the world” spectacular “The Day After Tomorrow” for example. It states that “Sadly, in a film dealing with tragedy on a worldwide scale, references to God or spirituality are noticeably absent, apart from a few scattered verbal afterthoughts. However, buried beneath the blockbuster budget and apocalyptic visuals is a message about familial love, selfless heroism and the indomitable spirit of man.” In short, through perseverance, belief and the right moral choices, the human race has the ability to be saved.

Sadly, for the last remaining humans in Robot Monster, they're not up to the task. They're so crippled by their own bickering, indecisiveness, condescension, and selfish desires, that they never really stand a chance. By the end of the movie, only one small boy is left to watch as Ro-Man destroys the Earth with soap bubbles and sparklers. Bummer.

THE STINGER

Natural Evil is the term theologians apply to the suffering caused by things like natural disasters or disease; things not typically related to human choice. Which leads to the inevitable question of why would a loving God create a world in which there is Natural Evil in the first place? One train of theological thought is, if there were no possibility of natural disasters or diseases, if we existed in some kind of Wonderland in which everything we needed or wanted was taken care of without any risk or effort on our part, it might not really be the best thing for us. Realistically, if we lived in that kind of utopia, would we ever worry about anything other than our own immediate pleasure? With human beings being the self-serving creatures they are, maybe it’s just not possible to create a world in which no suffering exists and still have people choose the things that make them grow spiritually. It would appear that, by giving his creations free will, God has voluntarily limited His own omnipotence. Sure, He could easily step in and end all suffering on Earth, but the cost would be our freedom of choice. And without choice, how could we grow into the people God wants us to be?

COMING ATTRACTIONS: ROBOT MONSTER

Continuing to retcon in trailers for old posts.