This has to be the question that the producers of "Shadowchaser" must have asked themselves because the movie is exactly the answer to that question.
I don't spend half the review telling you happens in the movie. You can read the description on Amazon or IMDB to get an idea and watch the movie to fill in the blanks. What I will tell you is what's great, good, mediocre and flawed about the movie so you can decide whether you want to watch it for yourself. "Shadowchaser" runs the whole list, but it was popular enough to spawn a few sequels and honestly I enjoyed every one of them back when movies like this were the filler between blockbusters on cable TV. I'm glad that Amazon Prime is making them accessible again.
Amazon has the movie as being released in 1989. IMDB lists it as 1992. Either of these years puts it far enough behind, but close enough to, the release dates of the movies it obviously "mockbusts". It's almost essential that you have a previous knowledge of "Die Hard" and "Terminator" before you watch this movie. You'll miss some of the in jokes if you don't and even some of the suspense will be lost. You see, they spend so much time mimicking scenes from those movie, that when something doesn't play out as it did in the movie it's lifted from, you're shocked!
It should be noted that movie also has a tiny bit of "Demolition Man" in it, even though either date has its release as BEFORE the popular Snipes/Stallone movie.
Things this movie has a lot of:
1. Automatic weapons fire. A lot of these guys, on both sides of the good-guy/bad-guy fence must have trained with old school Storm Troopers
2. Crawling around in ducts.
3. Nods to previous movies.
4. Uncomfortable, stalky 1980's moments of what used to pass for "flirting" and now would be considered criminal.
5. Explosions. (not "lots" by Michael Bay standards, but quite a few for a low budget affair)
Things it has less of than you might expect from a low budget action movie:
1. Quotable, clever, one-liners. If there were any, I missed them. There may have been attempts, but nothing quotable.
2. Unstoppable android action. It's present, but really, it seems like a separate movie when the fact that Romulus ( Frank Zagarino) is an android finally becomes noticeable and relevant.
3. Nudity. It was a staple to get the "R" rating these movies often wanted as a selling point, but I don't think there was any in this movie. It wasn't missed, but notable since "Die Hard" practically wedged it into the movie and Terminator made use of it as well, although it was more important plot-wise.
4. Good green screen F/X. There was some matte F/X, but it was what you'd expect in the late 80s on a budget.
So, I am calling this movie with Meg Foster and Martin Kove an "Indie". In the mid-late 80s and through the 90s, a slew of "bigger" independent movies went straight to video and cable. There was money to made there at the time and digital cinema was just on the horizon. Things hadn't become affordable for all yet, although at the time, we thought they had.
What worked in this movie? Well, Meg Foster and Martin Kove. Actually, the whole cast was amazingly solid as was the lighting, cinematography and F/X work ( dated chroma key not withstanding. ) The production values are all pretty solid and there's actually some pretty impressive miniature work. I miss the days before "affordable CGI" made substandard CG the go to effect instead of competent miniatures, which often look better. Over all, a solid production, as these mid-budget movies often were.
What didn't work? Some of the plot. It had more twists than M. Night's entire career and some of them seemed to be written in as they shot the movie.
Some of the directing and editing was also "off". There's a chase near the end that has no flow. It's like a music video, cutting drastically from one scene to the next and recycling footage to keep things moving. It was like a montage of a chase, but in the 80s that was sort of a thing. Also, the aforementioned gun fire. I think that too was a product of it's time, but when you see a movie like "Die Hard" handle it and then see a movie like this try to imitate it, you can sort of see how there's a finesse to it that not everyone gets. Budget plays into it for sure, but there's also a tempo that needs to be kept up that just wasn't here in most of the gun scenes.
So, will you watch "Shadowchaser"? Have you seen it?
Comment below. Let others know where you do and don't agree with me.
Also, does anyone know if "Shadowchaser" and "Project Shadowchaser" are two different movies or just different cuts of the same movie?
I don't spend half the review telling you happens in the movie. You can read the description on Amazon or IMDB to get an idea and watch the movie to fill in the blanks. What I will tell you is what's great, good, mediocre and flawed about the movie so you can decide whether you want to watch it for yourself. "Shadowchaser" runs the whole list, but it was popular enough to spawn a few sequels and honestly I enjoyed every one of them back when movies like this were the filler between blockbusters on cable TV. I'm glad that Amazon Prime is making them accessible again.
Amazon has the movie as being released in 1989. IMDB lists it as 1992. Either of these years puts it far enough behind, but close enough to, the release dates of the movies it obviously "mockbusts". It's almost essential that you have a previous knowledge of "Die Hard" and "Terminator" before you watch this movie. You'll miss some of the in jokes if you don't and even some of the suspense will be lost. You see, they spend so much time mimicking scenes from those movie, that when something doesn't play out as it did in the movie it's lifted from, you're shocked!
It should be noted that movie also has a tiny bit of "Demolition Man" in it, even though either date has its release as BEFORE the popular Snipes/Stallone movie.
Things this movie has a lot of:
1. Automatic weapons fire. A lot of these guys, on both sides of the good-guy/bad-guy fence must have trained with old school Storm Troopers
2. Crawling around in ducts.
3. Nods to previous movies.
4. Uncomfortable, stalky 1980's moments of what used to pass for "flirting" and now would be considered criminal.
5. Explosions. (not "lots" by Michael Bay standards, but quite a few for a low budget affair)
Things it has less of than you might expect from a low budget action movie:
1. Quotable, clever, one-liners. If there were any, I missed them. There may have been attempts, but nothing quotable.
2. Unstoppable android action. It's present, but really, it seems like a separate movie when the fact that Romulus ( Frank Zagarino) is an android finally becomes noticeable and relevant.
3. Nudity. It was a staple to get the "R" rating these movies often wanted as a selling point, but I don't think there was any in this movie. It wasn't missed, but notable since "Die Hard" practically wedged it into the movie and Terminator made use of it as well, although it was more important plot-wise.
4. Good green screen F/X. There was some matte F/X, but it was what you'd expect in the late 80s on a budget.
So, I am calling this movie with Meg Foster and Martin Kove an "Indie". In the mid-late 80s and through the 90s, a slew of "bigger" independent movies went straight to video and cable. There was money to made there at the time and digital cinema was just on the horizon. Things hadn't become affordable for all yet, although at the time, we thought they had.
What worked in this movie? Well, Meg Foster and Martin Kove. Actually, the whole cast was amazingly solid as was the lighting, cinematography and F/X work ( dated chroma key not withstanding. ) The production values are all pretty solid and there's actually some pretty impressive miniature work. I miss the days before "affordable CGI" made substandard CG the go to effect instead of competent miniatures, which often look better. Over all, a solid production, as these mid-budget movies often were.
What didn't work? Some of the plot. It had more twists than M. Night's entire career and some of them seemed to be written in as they shot the movie.
Some of the directing and editing was also "off". There's a chase near the end that has no flow. It's like a music video, cutting drastically from one scene to the next and recycling footage to keep things moving. It was like a montage of a chase, but in the 80s that was sort of a thing. Also, the aforementioned gun fire. I think that too was a product of it's time, but when you see a movie like "Die Hard" handle it and then see a movie like this try to imitate it, you can sort of see how there's a finesse to it that not everyone gets. Budget plays into it for sure, but there's also a tempo that needs to be kept up that just wasn't here in most of the gun scenes.
So, will you watch "Shadowchaser"? Have you seen it?
Comment below. Let others know where you do and don't agree with me.
Also, does anyone know if "Shadowchaser" and "Project Shadowchaser" are two different movies or just different cuts of the same movie?
No comments:
Post a Comment