I've seen Screamers many times over the years, but right now it's been a while since I last saw it. So imagine my surprise when I started it for the umpteenth time and found it to be a lot cheesier than I could remember. I mean, I own two DVDs of it since before and saw it on VHS at the time it was released - but the cheap look, the silly soul-esque song over one of the scenes and the sometimes very uneven acting was something I didn't expect.
This of course doesn't mean it's bad, I'm just shocked I haven't noticed it before. Me, who have a tendecency to hail way too many movies as cheeserpieces. Anyway. Based on story written by Philip K. Dick, the paranoid sci-fi writer who died in 1982. Pity he never got a chance to see what became of his writing and how popular his works is nowadays. Instead of poverty and constant economical problems he might have enjoyed his life a little bit more - if his mental problems didn't get worse of course. What makes Screamers even more interesting is that it's written by maestro Dan O'Bannon, one of the finest screenwriters who ever lived. Even if it probably got rewritten a number of times (the legend says the first draft was ready in 1981), it's still a quality work from O'Bannon, with the same form av subtle satire and raw realistic violence.
The year is 2078 and we're at Sirius 6B, a mining planet somewhere in the outer regions of the galaxy. Peter Weller is Joe Hendricksson, the man in charge of defending what's theirs - because there's a civil war going on and it's not a pleasant thing to see. His side once invented small, underground war robots - Screamers - and now they've managed to reproduce and is everywhere on the planet. Suddenly a man from the enemy side appears - and is killed by the Screamers. In his hand he has a request for peace, and Joe and his closest man, a slightly naive newbie-soldier, takes it on their shoulders to get over to the enemy side and start the negotiations... but there's something totally fucked up out there... something very dangerous.
Screamers is a well-made movie, but it has an adorable cheapness over it. Shot in a sand pit somewhere, with shaky sets and some visual effects that might had been wise to work a little bit more on, but it have a lot of atmosphere. It's dirty, rough and Weller is an excellent actor carrying the leading part like no one else would do it. There's some gore - not very much - and very cool robot-effects. I like Screamers, it's a decent action film, parts horror and sci-fi - and never boring.
The weird thing is that 14 years later, from nowhere, a sequel came: Screamers: The Hunting. Why? I have no idea, but someone must have checked what rights they've owned and decided they needed something quick and commercial to get away with some obscure tax affairs. So what does this movie offer? It's far from a masterpiece and it looks at least 20 times cheaper than the original. gone are the big sets and view over planets and cities, instead there's a sand pit with hardly any snow and later on some underground locations (some kind of mine/cave and of course the traditional basement corridors, the saviour of many cheay sci-fi movies over the years).
It's basically Aliens, but with Screamers instead. A mission is sent out years later because of mysterious SOS signal, but we all know what will happen. The signal is of course fake, just to lure our heroes there - and what awaits them is - except some survivors and Lance Henriksen with a camera lens over his eye - is even more Screamers, now even more violent!
The best thing with Screamers: The Hunting is how damn gory it is. Lots of head-destruction, blood and random nastiness. It's one of the bloodier mainstream DTV-sequels I've seen, which of course is a very admirable thing. Those effects are well-made and makes you forget the bargain basement sets and the not so good dialogue. Can't complain about the acting though. Not bad, they do what they can. Lance is okay-ish - even if he just there for the paycheck and a quick trip to Canada. Ignore the bad reviews on IMDB, this is a fun and silly sequel. Unpretentious is the word that's coming up in my mind. It doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't rape the legacy of an important classic...because the original is hardly important or a masterpiece. It's just fun entertainment for the moment.
If you, like me, like to buy shit, the sequel is out on DVD in the UK and you're getting a bonus disc with the original with it. All to the price of 3.57 euro. Not bad, not a bad deal at all...
"I've seen Screamers many times over the years, but right now it's been a while since I last saw it."
Me too....it has become a guilty pleasure.
"So imagine my surprise when I started it for the umpteenth time and found it to be a lot cheesier than I could remember. I mean, I own two DVDs of it since before and saw it on VHS at the time it was released - but the cheap look, the silly soul-esque song over one of the scenes and the sometimes very uneven acting was something I didn't expect."
Yeah, but I choose to ignore the flaws and focus on the cool scenes instead.
Robots qouting shakespear is always a win in my book.
"Anyway. Based on story written by Philip K. Dick, the paranoid sci-fi writer who died in 1982. Pity he never got a chance to see what became of his writing and how popular his works is nowadays."
In some ways he did, he got to see a rough cut of Blade Runner(1982) according to some behind the scenes doc with Ridley Scott.
"Instead of poverty and constant economical problems he might have enjoyed his life a little bit more - if his mental problems didn't get worse of course."
Dick had problems with drugs as well, he probably would have blown everything on amphetamines.
MAD genius, or just MAD...?
I don´t know but I like his writing.
"What makes Screamers even more interesting is that it's written by maestro Dan O'Bannon, one of the finest screenwriters who ever lived."
Yeah, I like some of his stuff.
"Screamers is a well-made movie, but it has an adorable cheapness over it. Shot in a sand pit somewhere, with shaky sets and some visual effects that might had been wise to work a little bit more on, but it have a lot of atmosphere."
Yes, a lot of atmosphere and style, and cool dialogue.
"It's dirty, rough and Weller is an excellent actor carrying the leading part like no one else would do it. There's some gore - not very much - and very cool robot-effects. I like Screamers, it's a decent action film, parts horror and sci-fi - and never boring."
It delivers when it comes to entertaining value.
"The weird thing is that 14 years later, from nowhere, a sequel came: Screamers: The Hunting. Why? I have no idea, but someone must have checked what rights they've owned and decided they needed something quick and commercial to get away with some obscure tax affairs."
It´s weird isn´t it...?
Could be because of high profiled films like A Scanner Darkly(2006), Next(2007), came out earlier and are based on stories by Dick.
Maybe the copyright holders/producers thought, "what the hell.....let´s jump on the bandwagon, there could be money to be made."
"It's far from a masterpiece and it looks at least 20 times cheaper than the original. gone are the big sets and view over planets and cities,"
I thought it had a very glossy style to it.......somewhat, classier then I had expected.....been a while since I saw it.
"The best thing with Screamers: The Hunting is how damn gory it is. Lots of head-destruction, blood and random nastiness."
Some really violent scenes, as I remember it.
"Ignore the bad reviews on IMDB, this is a fun and silly sequel."
It´s just Megatroll fucking around, he probably hasn´t seen it anyway.
"Unpretentious is the word that's coming up in my mind. It doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't rape the legacy of an important classic...because the original is hardly important or a masterpiece. It's just fun entertainment for the moment."
Spot on reflection by you Fred.....nobody cared about the original, or at least payed that much attention.
Both of these films are fun, sci fi horror entertainment.
"If you, like me, like to buy shit, the sequel is out on DVD in the UK and you're getting a bonus disc with the original with it."
Yeah...actually I planning to do that.....great review and thanks for the advice.
Do a review of some more reviews of Dick adaptations, please?
Come on.....how about Paycheck(2003), Impostor (2001)?
Posted by: Megatron | August 10, 2013 at 22:46