Skip to main content

Security! We’ve got trouble at the North Pole!

aka Future Cop

(SPOILERS) On the evidence of Trancers, one might easily conclude the original version of Da 5 Bloods, before Spike Lee doused it with effluent, was a much more engaging and humorous affair, since both share screenwriters Danny Bilson and Paul De Meo. And if it’s true that Jimbo Cameron was a fan of Trancers, I wouldn’t be overly surprised. Because, for all that Charles Band’s movie shamelessly rips off Blade Runner, The Terminator and – at least to some batty and highly tenuous degree – Scanners, it does so with wit and inventiveness, while being cheerfully unpretentious about its low-budget trappings and more than willing to have a liberal dollop of self-conscious fun with them.

Deth: If you think I’m bringing that scum up the line, you got the wrong trooper.

Trancers finds the magnificently named – so magnificently, it meets with repeated ridicule of the “What kind of name is that?” variety – Jack Deth (Tim Thomerson), a 23rd century cop who wrongly believes he has finished off criminal nemesis Martin Whistler (Michael Stefani), transported to 1985 in pursuit of the not-dead-after-all villain. Whistler turns people into Trancers, whereby they become “slave to Whistler’s psychic power”; quite how this power works (they “aren’t alive, but aren’t dead enough”), or why it results in physical deterioration in its victims – quite suddenly, and akin to zombies – is unclear, but as part of the movie’s overall melange, the brew simply cannot get too rich.

Deth: Dry hair’s for squids.

Thomerson walks exactly the right line in hard-boiled hammery as Deth, appropriately introducing us to this scenario via a weary introductory narration. He gets us up to speed immediately following his dispatch of the Whisperer (on Mekon VII – so it appears Deth’s future has planets one can travel to physically), such that “It’s July now. I’m tired. Real tired”. Band’s low-budget future is very much Sir Ridders-inspired, all dry ice and neon, and Deth wears a trench coat – with futuristic shoulder pads – and slicks back his hair. He also has a thing against squids: “Trancing only works on squids. People with weak minds”. One might surmise there are a lot suitable en-Tranced about right now, in that case.

Deth: How can you be sure Whistler’s gone down the line?

Bilson and De Meo have fashioned colourful language and allusions throughout, the best sign of imaginations at work; they know creating a tangible world is as much about the half-formed references as the stuff you can see. Squids, Trancers, “down the line” (the term for time travel to the past). This future has augmented autos, mattes of a flooded LA, a referenced sub fleet and warnings that, should Whistler succeed “We’ll be plunged into the same chaos that followed the Great Quake”. Lest you doubted this was a dystopia, essentials are scarce (“Coffee – the real stuff? That’s gonna cost you”; “Beef? You mean, from a cow?”) and archaeology comprises retrieving hubcaps and street signs from the submerged city.

The writers’ idea for time travel is also ingenious; one cannot travel physically but can be transferred consciously, via a “synthesised time drug” to an ancestor’s body. It appears that, in a reverse of The Terminator – and it may have been that simple an inspiration as that – organic matter cannot pass through time but inert objects can (along with consciousness). So Jack arrives in the body of Phil Dethton (!), while Whistler is occupying Detective Weisling (an idea The Hidden would later use for dramatic effect).

Whistler’s scheme is thus a little more ornate than the T-800’s (“One by one your ancestors shall be murdered and you, their progeny, shall cease to exist”), and there’s evidently no thought given to the Butterfly Effect in terms of the things Whistler does manage to do, but Bilson and De Meo have more than enough to be getting on with. It also bears noting that Deth travels from July 2247 to December 1985; yes, Trancers is a Christmas movie.

Leena: Did I give you my phone number?
Deth: No.
Leena: Oh, thank God.

Jack hooks up with punk department store elf Leena (Helen Hunt, who was a good enough sport to return for two of the sequels, the second after her career had taken off with Mad About You). She’s a one-night stand of Phil’s – in a running gag, Jack experiences coitus interruptus, missing out on the full meal whenever things are getting, or have gotten, intimate – and is initially reluctant to help Jack out. It’s easy to see why Hunt was loyal – at least, on the evidence of the first movie – as Leena’s far from an undiluted girlfriend in peril, apportioned some consistently great lines and merrily taking the piss out of Jack (“I’ll kill you, and your bitchin’ girlfriend” she recites from a fortune cookie, suggesting it’s a message from Whistler).

Department Store Kid: Hey mom, he shot Santa Claus.

Rightly revered is the Father Christmas (Peter Schrum) scene – Alex Cox called it “fantastic” – in which a mall Santa is revealed as a Trancer and Jack must summarily deal with him; Christmas as a backdrop to action movies starts here, not with Shane Black. Further festive-flavoured scenes include a wind-up toy Christmas present Leena gives Jack and a visit to a club where The Buttheads launch into a decidedly aggressive rendition of Jingle Bells (Jack also flattens an ex of Leena).

McNulty: The kid’s the only ancestor I could find. It’s been hell. I had to sneak past her parents and everything.

There’s obviously some culture clash for Jack (this is pre-Back to the Future too). There are some neat gimmicks (the “long second” wristwatch, enabling Jack to elude Whistler’s hit squad and later save Leena from a fall). And there’s also the arrival in 1985 of Jack’s boss McNulty (Art LaFleur, perhaps best known as the Tooth Fairy in The Santa Clauses), humorously forced to occupy the body of a young girl. Luckily for laughs – “Put me down. I’ll bust you to zero, trooper!” – rather than the ramifications of a middle-aged man occupying a young girl’s body. We’ve all seen Big and know how inappropriate that kind of thing can be.

Trancers admittedly falls into an extended chase in and around some derelict buildings towards the end, as Jack and Leena attempt to protect drunk ex-ball player Hap Ashby (Biff Manard) from Whistler. Nevertheless, Band makes sure the proceedings don’t hang about, delivering Trancers with unrefined but appealing zip (it’s only 76 minutes long). Jack finally chooses to stay in the twentieth century in order to dispose of Whistler permanently and save the criminal’s decent ancestor (Wiki suggests Whistler is condemned to “an eternity without a body to return to” but I must have missed that line).

Deth: If I see you in LA again, I don’t care if you’re a kid, an old lady or a kitty cat, I’m going to kick your ass.

I first caught Trancers on BBC2's Moviedrome in August 1989. Alex Cox was of the view that “its grasp is longer than its reach” (which could describe a number of his movies) and opined it was also “much too clean” (he’s not thinking of Hap, presumably). He was most impressed by the locations, specifically the industrial wasteland south of LA: “a cross between the 1920s and a post-apocalyptic landscape”. Trancers is decidedly unsentimental festive fare, but brimming with personality.

Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.