Skip to main content

These people live in parking lots!

Nomads
(1986)

(SPOILERS) I suppose an inauspicious beginning to a directorial career is better than never again challenging one’s first-time-out-of-the-gate success. After all, nobody was on tenterhooks for Cameron’s next movie after Piranha II: The Spawning (then again, neither is anyone now). In his autobiography, Arnie tells how he caught John McTiernan’s Nomads and, impressed by his ability to ratchet up tension, suggested him for Predator. If this is true, the Austrian Oak has (had, judging by his last 20 years of movie roles) a rare eye, as it would be all too easy to come away unimpressed with the picture’s sub-MTV rock video, sub-Mad Max stylings.


Which isn’t to say there’s isn’t something here. The basic concept is distinctive, and McTiernan’s way into it is intriguing enough; when Jean-Charles Pommier (Pierce Brosnan, who would reteam with the director thirteen years later for the altogether more successful Thomas Crown Affair remake; sporting a Die Another Day beard, Pierce’s French accent would have been rejected by the ‘Allo ‘Allo cast as ludicrous) dies in an LA hospital emergency room, he mysteriously passes on his experiences to Dr Eileen Flax (former "Britain's Most Beautiful Teenager" Lesley-Anne Down), who understandably can’t cope.


We learn, through Flax’s eyes, that UCLA anthropologist Pommier had been doing what anthropologists do and studying primitive groups and their beliefs. This appears to have led to the arrival of a tribe of novelty nomads in his near vicinity. On taking pictures in which they fail to appear, Pommier concludes they are Einwetok, Inuit trickster spirits looking to silence him (“The problem now is not what you know. It’s what they know. You looked too closely”). They are “supposed harmful spirits”, who “brought down disaster and menace” on their victims, and Pommier’s death doesn’t seem to have abated them, as they start menacing Flax and Pommier’s wife Niki (Anna-Maria Monticelli).


Credit to McTiernan, he adopts an oblique dream-like approach that makes it a challenge to piece together precisely what is going on. But it isn’t always merit-worthy to make your audience do the hard work; one has to be rewarded by in some way by all that nebulousness. The parallel narratives, in which Flax finds herself suddenly dropping into Pommier’s prior experiences, are nicely achieved. McTiernan even includes a frisson of lesbian subtext in Flax’s newfound relationship with Niki, which put me in mind of another debut feature, Tony Scott’s atypical (for him) The Hunger, a more studious and rewarding blend of style and story.



There are also some strange and arresting interludes; Pommier’s encounter with a (ghostly) nun achieves a sense of the uncanny much of the movie (sadly) lacks, and the final reveal that he has now joined the ranks of the Einwetok is a solid, if inevitable, twist (it appears to signal the spirits are confining their activities to California, for whatever reason, as he turns back when Flax and Niki cross its boundary).


Unfortunately, Nomads often looks more like an extended pilot for The Equalizer than a prepossessing debut feature. There is much in the way of dry ice and deserted back alleys, suggestive not so much of an eerie atmosphere as zero budget for extras and locations. The style-conscious Einwetok include Adam Ant (who, we learn, was a killer in human form) and Warhol/Corman cult actress Mary Woronov among their ranks, and are consequently pitifully unmenacing. Visualising them as a leather-clad biker gang, driving around in an old van, McTiernan succeeds in robbing his concept of any mystique (“These people live in parking lots!”). Since much of the picture is based on the act of observing them, or their observing/threatening others, it’s rather a fundamental problem.


So too, McTiernan’s attempts to render an unnerving, twilight urban landscape are continually undermined by the Bill Conti/Ted Nugent rawwwk soundtrack, further adding to the sensation that this is more like a feature length music video than a coherent movie (the use of a heartbeat effect at various points is much more effective and unsettling).


There’s curiosity value here (where else will you get a chance to see 007 beating Prince Charming with a crowbar?) but McTiernan mistakes ceaselessly cryptic pseudo-mysticism for layered and challenging storytelling. Consequently, he elicits mere indifference, and it isn’t too great a surprise Nomads bombed. I’d been intrigued to see the movie, which is currently on YouTube, for a good long while, buoyed by its director’s subsequent credentials and the premise, which sounds so much better on paper – and likewise looks on the poster –  than it turns out on celluloid. The most impressive thing about Nomads is that you never would have expected its director to deliver something so accomplished – if from a far less imaginative premise – only a year later.



Popular posts from this blog

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

I work for the guys that pay me to watch the guys that pay you. And then there are, I imagine, some guys that are paid to watch me.

The Day of the Dolphin (1973) (SPOILERS) Perhaps the most bizarre thing out of all the bizarre things about The Day of the Dolphin is that one of its posters scrupulously sets out its entire dastardly plot, something the movie itself doesn’t outline until fifteen minutes before the end. Mike Nichols reputedly made this – formerly earmarked for Roman Polanski, Jack Nicholson and Sharon Tate, although I’m dubious a specific link can be construed between its conspiracy content and the Manson murders - to fulfil a contract with The Graduate producer Joseph Levine. It would explain the, for him, atypical science-fiction element, something he seems as comfortable with as having a hairy Jack leaping about the place in Wolf .

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un