In the very early 80s a young me saw the movie "Prophecy" on late night television and it shaped my idea of monster movies forever. That big mutant monster, which had a real motivation and a terrifying backstory left an impression on me that may explain why lately I've been making (albeit goofier) monster movies that are environmentally driven, like "Jack vs Lanterns".
So, when "Strange Nature" showed up in my suggested movie list I figured an environmental thriller monster movie was worth the watch. And it was, eventually.
The film opens by introducing us to the lead characters, Kim Sweet (Lisa Sheridan) and her son, Brody (Jonah Beres) who are on their way to her old home town to spend time with Kim's father, Chuck (Bruce Bohne) to help him while he fights cancer. The acting for this set-up was top notch and most of the cinematography made good use of the location to set the town up as a "character", but the chroma-key work in the car was 1990s sitcom quality and a bit distracting. The opening music also annoyed me to the point of taking me out of the film. (A song with lyrics during a conversation has never seemed like a good idea to me.)
Once we're in town and the characters establish their backstories a bit, we find the deformed frogs. News stories mention disappearances and we do get to sort of witness a monster attack when hiker and photographer Tina Stevens (Tiffany Shepis-Tretta) wanders into the woods alone. I won't describe what happens in detail, but I will say that I wish Tina Stevens had a bit more set-up. If she had not been played by a recognizable actress I wouldn't have had any reason to connect with the character before the action started.
Instead of becoming a full blown monster fest, the movie tries to work at some scientific exploration, with the local biology teacher explaining mutations in frogs and snails as things progress and with Kim trying to find out why this all going on near her sick Dad's property. Is it the water, the local pesticide company (it's always those dang corporations like "Genbetter")and does the Mayor know or is he really concerned and trying to help solve the puzzle? These mysteries seem to unfold, but not much comes of them. The sad thing is, that's a pretty realistic reflection of how things like this pan out. We don't get answers to questions like this in a few months.
At this point, not a lot of monster action happening. Instead our conflict comes from roadblocks to Kim's investigation and a deformed father and daughter who live on the lake being accused of somehow poisoning the town's water supply. I felt like I was watching "Erin Brockovich". But, it kept my interest. Also, the most awkward of romances tries to develop between Kim and the Biology teacher.
Then the disturbing scenes start happening. SPOILER: Highlight to read. Dog Lovers beware. Things do not go well for the family pooch. I had to fast forward a bit here.
Mutations move past forest life and start showing up in people and pets. At this point we're still dealing with a psychological and environmental thriller, but by the end of the third act a full blown monster movie runs out of the woods and grabs you by the throat. (Well, it grabs someone.) More blood, guts, screams and carnage happen in the following ten minutes than you can fire an untold number of bullets at. If you're a practical F/X monster fan, this sequence makes the preceding movie worth watching. It's a slow, methodical build to a lightning fast finale (before a 1970s style epilogue). Would I have preferred more of this sort of monster action spread throughout? Of course! I love monsters. But the slow, building pace makes the final confrontation all the more gripping (pun intended).
If you pay attention to the quiet times in the movie, you'll find that when the action comes, very little was wasted. It's all leading to something and the payoff, in my eyes, is worth it. "Strange Nature" does walk a lot of the same ground as movies that came before it, like "Prophecy", but it's different enough that fans of that movie can enjoy it as an addition to the environmental monster genre instead of just a remake. And the "Erin Brockovick" moments aren't all that bad.
So, when "Strange Nature" showed up in my suggested movie list I figured an environmental thriller monster movie was worth the watch. And it was, eventually.
The film opens by introducing us to the lead characters, Kim Sweet (Lisa Sheridan) and her son, Brody (Jonah Beres) who are on their way to her old home town to spend time with Kim's father, Chuck (Bruce Bohne) to help him while he fights cancer. The acting for this set-up was top notch and most of the cinematography made good use of the location to set the town up as a "character", but the chroma-key work in the car was 1990s sitcom quality and a bit distracting. The opening music also annoyed me to the point of taking me out of the film. (A song with lyrics during a conversation has never seemed like a good idea to me.)
Once we're in town and the characters establish their backstories a bit, we find the deformed frogs. News stories mention disappearances and we do get to sort of witness a monster attack when hiker and photographer Tina Stevens (Tiffany Shepis-Tretta) wanders into the woods alone. I won't describe what happens in detail, but I will say that I wish Tina Stevens had a bit more set-up. If she had not been played by a recognizable actress I wouldn't have had any reason to connect with the character before the action started.
Instead of becoming a full blown monster fest, the movie tries to work at some scientific exploration, with the local biology teacher explaining mutations in frogs and snails as things progress and with Kim trying to find out why this all going on near her sick Dad's property. Is it the water, the local pesticide company (it's always those dang corporations like "Genbetter")and does the Mayor know or is he really concerned and trying to help solve the puzzle? These mysteries seem to unfold, but not much comes of them. The sad thing is, that's a pretty realistic reflection of how things like this pan out. We don't get answers to questions like this in a few months.
At this point, not a lot of monster action happening. Instead our conflict comes from roadblocks to Kim's investigation and a deformed father and daughter who live on the lake being accused of somehow poisoning the town's water supply. I felt like I was watching "Erin Brockovich". But, it kept my interest. Also, the most awkward of romances tries to develop between Kim and the Biology teacher.
Then the disturbing scenes start happening. SPOILER: Highlight to read. Dog Lovers beware. Things do not go well for the family pooch. I had to fast forward a bit here.
Mutations move past forest life and start showing up in people and pets. At this point we're still dealing with a psychological and environmental thriller, but by the end of the third act a full blown monster movie runs out of the woods and grabs you by the throat. (Well, it grabs someone.) More blood, guts, screams and carnage happen in the following ten minutes than you can fire an untold number of bullets at. If you're a practical F/X monster fan, this sequence makes the preceding movie worth watching. It's a slow, methodical build to a lightning fast finale (before a 1970s style epilogue). Would I have preferred more of this sort of monster action spread throughout? Of course! I love monsters. But the slow, building pace makes the final confrontation all the more gripping (pun intended).
If you pay attention to the quiet times in the movie, you'll find that when the action comes, very little was wasted. It's all leading to something and the payoff, in my eyes, is worth it. "Strange Nature" does walk a lot of the same ground as movies that came before it, like "Prophecy", but it's different enough that fans of that movie can enjoy it as an addition to the environmental monster genre instead of just a remake. And the "Erin Brockovick" moments aren't all that bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment