Inanimate

This is a very uneven movie.

On the one hand, it's not bad for an independent movie with a tiny budget. The settings is pretty nice and the actors are OK.

The movie is an obvious reference to "The Thing" and it uses practical effects and no CGI. And here lies the first problem: The effects aren't impressive. From a company that deals with practical effects, which has some veteran effects guys and lots of experience, I expected more. A lot more. The effects here only show how amazing Rob Bottin's work was over 30 years ago. I also expected the effects to be a lot more explicit, yet I always got the feeling they try to hide them by shaking the camera, cutting, putting something in front, etc.

The last problem has to do with direction: It's pretty obvious that this is the work of a first time director/writer - The movie is very uneven, there are good scenes and bad scenes, there are continuity problems, coverage problems, editing problems, things that simply don't connect and hard to understand what the director meant to do and also many scenes that seem to be missing a dialog.

All in all, this is a so-so movie for something independent without a budget. I expected more and I'm a bit disappointed, but I'd still think it's worth a watch, at least for the effort.

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.

Then you completely missed the point. You took this far too seriously. Appreciate the funny parts, appreciate Lance Henriksen, appreciate the practical effects, know that it's a cheesy B movie and have fun.

It's mind-boggling that people would actually take this that seriously. It's practically a comedy horror. Guys, relax.

With admittedly sharp visual and commitment to practical effect, Harbinger Down has heavy resemblance to The Thing. It will also be appreciated more for fans of old school sci-fi mystery, but unfortunately the effects are not effective. Often done in shaky motion or poorly lit sequences, the organism is a concept better hidden than shown in plain sight and the script is clearly not capable of delivering "feat what you cannot see" horror theme.

The crew of Harbinger finds a peculiar object near the Bering Sea. After hefty debate they decide to poke what seems to be Soviet satellite, a poorly made decision. Most of the screenplay is marred with needless arguments. The characters argue almost in every turn, from feeble matter and even down to crucial life preservation decision.

These are not the people one would want to be with in high stake situation. Cue the combative professor, finicky brunette protagonist and loud ship crews, then you'll have a story too similar to 2011 The Thing. Just like the creature it grows even more muddled the more it progresses.

Visual keeps a good direction for first half. It's clear, very vibrant and camera angle fits the claustrophobic location. However, it mindlessly turns into the dreaded shaky cam, even with found footage touch. There are a couple of good scenes in the making, but these lose thrill when exposed too many times, hence the shaky cam. The latter half uses blur cinematography and ends up contradicting its crisp build-up.

Despite the effect used, CGI or practical, the movie has to be engaging. Harbinger Down has a few glimpses of terror, but neither its effect nor story has adequate quality to keep the movie afloat.

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.