Skip to main content

Actually, I look like a can of smashed assholes.

The Arrival
(1996)

(SPOILERS) I’m mostly an advocate of David Twohy’s oeuvre, from his screenplay for Warlock (Richard E Grant as an action hero!) onwards. In particular, like a number of writers turned aspiring directors (David Koepp, Scott Frank, the Gilroys) he has also shown himself to be proficient behind the camera. His Riddick movies (albeit only the first half of the third) are enjoyably B-ridden, while A Perfect Getaway is giddily delirious confection. I’d managed to mostly forget The Arrival, however, so with another similarly titled science fiction picture incoming, it seemed like a good time for a 20th anniversary revisit. The most surprising aspect is that, while Twohy’s direction is competent and script serviceable, this is Charlie Sheen’s movie through-and-through. In a good way.


That’s Charlie Sheen pre-tiger’s blood (here his character, the ludicrously named Zane Zaminsky even states “I don’t like blood”), also a few years shy of finding a more profitable home on television, at which point he mostly shed his rocky movie career. A couple of years earlier, he’d played a “maverick skydiver” in Personal Velocity, which Twohy also wrote, but his biggest mark was as Topper Harley in deux Hot Shots! movies. In The Arrival, Sheen appears to be channelling something of that absurdist Zucker streak, albeit flip-flopped; there he was the straight man, while here it’s the surrounding movie. The imdb storyline refers to Zane as a “mild-mannered astronomer” which is entirely far from the case. Sheen’s mad-factor is off the scale, and he’s about as likely an astronomer as Chris Hemsworth is a computer hacker. As the daffy inverse to the following year’s CERN-adulating, oh-so-reverent Contact, The Arrival has a certain something going for it.


Phil Gordian: Right now, you’re just one little guy with a big conspiracy theory, and the world is full of them.

The picture isn’t, however, a piece on a par with that other low budget movie concerning an alien invasion featuring a pig-headed hero out to convince an ignorant world of the threat under their very noses (They Live!) There’s no great subtext here on consumerism and how we have willingly enslaved ourselves. There isn’t even an attractively labyrinthine alien conspiracy à la The X-Files, in which the government has colluded with the ETs. These guys are operating on their own. About as close as the picture gets to anything topical is that the invaders are taking advantage of mankind’s aptitude for environmental destruction by accelerating global warming (“If you can’t tend to your own planet, none of you deserve to live here”).


Indeed, the opening shot, a pullback as climatologist Ilana Green (Lindsay Crouse, lending the proceedings a bit of class, until she tries to seduce Charlie, anyway) comes across a poppy field in the Arctic, suggests a more intricate, involved and uncanny scenario than the one we get. It turns out to be rather more mundane, in terms of conveniently positioned (in roles of authority) aliens putting the kibosh on investigations into their activities (as such, the always welcome Ron Silver shows up in two different roles). The aliens themselves are a variant on the familiar Grey, disappointingly CGI-heavy, but appealingly offbeat in at least one design element; their legs that bend backwards at the knee, like an alarming combination of Pan and a grasshopper.


Twohy uses some cliché elements to the movie’s advantage, such that the juvenile sidekick (Tony J Johnston) turns out to be one of the bad guys, and the suspicious-acting girlfriend (Teri Polo) is discovered not to be bad at all. And, with a budget still many times that of They Live!’s (albeit relatively middling), the picture ends on a relatively low-key note, with a quest to broadcast the truth of the aliens presence across news networks (not that that would probably convince anyone of anything; see also Joe Dante’s Network-spoofing ending to The Howling). Coming out the same summer as Independence Day, it’s probably little surprise that blockbuster’s OTT fireworks went down many times better.


Mostly, though, The Arrival’s appeal is all about the absurdity that is Charlie Sheen strung out and living on the edge. Be it sporting a variety of sunglasses (not alien-seeing ones, alas), running incongruously shirtless through crowded streets during Day of the Dead celebrations in pursuit of an alien, having just escaped flattening by stray bathtub (the Mexico scenes add notable production value), hacking through the unconvincingly sparse bush with a machete, disguising himself as a Mexican (and looking bizarrely like Robert Picardo in the process), or reeling off one-liners (“Do you want to see the ruins, my friend?” he asks an alien before pushing it to its death; “Here’s a tip… If you ever get the chance to travel with a Mexican rodeo… pass”), Charlie is in on invincible form. As such, he fares much, much better than Crouse, who struggles to convince us she needs an explanation for what terraforming is, and that “I get so damned apocalyptic when I’m drunk”.


Any movie with a line as insane as “Actually, I look like a can of smashed assholes” deserves a free pass on that basis alone. The Arrival is no great shakes, all in all, but reliably revels in its sheer B-ness. If it had made more of Charlie going the full Bruce Campbell, and reflected that in the plotting, it might have attained the status of minor cult classic.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

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.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.