So why have I named him the ultimate Marmite Movie Maker? A Marmite Movie is, after all, a film that is polarised in its opinions: it is either loved or reviled, and many see these types of films as ‘so bad they’re good’. In Carpenter’s case, most of his films really are so cheesy and nostalgic that you just have to love them, mainly because he writes his own synthesiser soundtracks, which keeps them firmly set in the rockin’ 80s (even if they weren’t made in the 80s!). But regardless of his crappy (or not) scores, I can’t think of any other film director whose films I either completely love, because they are cleverly crafted and lovingly made, or wholly hate, because they are just plain dreadful. Along the way, as I ticked off Carpenter’s films I had seen from my checklist, I realised that you are either in for a treat, or a trick, and there really isn’t any middle ground between the two. I haven’t seen any movie of his that I thought was only ‘okay’, which sits in the hazy middle ground between excellent and dreadful: and that is why he is the ultimate Marmite Movie Maker.
What is also interesting is that critics and fans of Carpenter take the same view - they either love his movies wholeheartedly, or hate them passionately, and audiences tend to agree. I term his films as either being ‘Shockingly Spectacular’ or Shockingly Sh*t’, given the he is, of course, the Master of Shock. Being the Movie Marmite Man, I of course have differing views on what his ‘hits’ and ‘misses’ are, but sometimes, I agree with the majority. Sometimes.
So here is my run down of Carpenter’s classics, as well as his crap, to prove my point that he is in fact the one, the only, Mr Marmite Movie Maker.
And yes, I know I've still got more of his films to watch!
Shockingly Spectacular
Escape From New York (1981)/ Escape From L.A. (1996)
 |
| He has a big gun, and an eye patch. Can you get any more badass than that? |
Kurt Russell is a huge part of the success of these two action packed spectacles, playing the central anti-hero Snake Plissken to perfection. Snake has to be one of the greatest ever badass movie characters of all time, and Mr Carpenter created him from his own noggin, and then cast Russell in the role, which is pure brilliance.
The reason why I have to lump these two classics together is because 1) they are both brilliant, 2) they are both incredibly cheesy (and campy!) and 3) they are essentially the exact same movie, as they share a very similar plot, just with a different characters. I can’t think of a sequel to any movie that shares the same protagonist and an identical story, but for some weird reason, Carpenter gets away with it, probably just because New York was so great and we don’t mind seeing it, and Snake, all again in L.A. Both of these movies are a case of being ‘so bad they’re good’ mainly because they mix campiness with brutality in a way that only Carpenter seems to pull off effectively, while keeping the movie fun and exciting.
Critics loved New York and hated L.A., probably because New York is silly but not too over the top, whereas L.A. takes the cheesiness into maximum overdrive, climaxing in a high speed chase in which Snake chases a car down a highway on a surfboard, riding a huge tidal wave. Now if you think that sounds stupid, then don’t bother watching, but if you think that sounds as badass as it is, then it is imperative you watch them both.
The reason why I have to lump these two classics together is because 1) they are both brilliant, 2) they are both incredibly cheesy (and campy!) and 3) they are essentially the exact same movie, as they share a very similar plot, just with a different characters. I can’t think of a sequel to any movie that shares the same protagonist and an identical story, but for some weird reason, Carpenter gets away with it, probably just because New York was so great and we don’t mind seeing it, and Snake, all again in L.A. Both of these movies are a case of being ‘so bad they’re good’ mainly because they mix campiness with brutality in a way that only Carpenter seems to pull off effectively, while keeping the movie fun and exciting.
Critics loved New York and hated L.A., probably because New York is silly but not too over the top, whereas L.A. takes the cheesiness into maximum overdrive, climaxing in a high speed chase in which Snake chases a car down a highway on a surfboard, riding a huge tidal wave. Now if you think that sounds stupid, then don’t bother watching, but if you think that sounds as badass as it is, then it is imperative you watch them both.
Shockingly Sh*t
Big Trouble In Little China (1986)
 |
| Oh yeah, we're just as shocked as you about how terrible this movie is... |
This is where my opinion splits from the critics, who have recently hailed this movie as the 430th greatest movie of all time, mainly because it is apparently a loving pastiche of martial arts movies. If that is true, then I didn’t really ‘get’ it, because to me, the movie in its entirety fails to make any kind of logical sense, and I don’t really understand how anyone could like it, unless they think it is so bad it is good. Which it isn’t: it’s just terrible. It’s disjointed, weird, and wholly stupid, mixing an unintelligible plot with martial arts and a literal interpretation of Oriental mysticism. Throw in some weird monster in a sewer, some crazy action scenes that combine Kung Fu and magic, and the most moronic characters in the history of cinema, and you have a piece of crap that is awfully forgettable: I think I intentionally wiped most of it from my mind, and to this day fail to remember anything about it, except that is was rubbish. Kurt Russell stars as a brain-dead non-entity, almost destroying our memories of his dynamic performance in Escape From New York.
Big Troubleproves that although Carpenter’s tongue in cheek campiness can work, without having the basic building blocks of a movie, e.g. an actual storyline, solid characters, or anything at all comprehensible, his unique style can fall completely flat.
Shockingly Spectacular
They Live (1988)
 |
| Let's hope aliens that look like this aren't really ruling the world... |
Who, other than John Carpenter, can take a short science fiction story about aliens controlling humanity, and make it one of the most kickass darkly funny sci-fi action movies of all time, which also critiques consumerism? No one has, and that is why The Live is brilliant. Sure, casting a wrestler as the main character doesn’t make much sense, but in the context of the film, it doesn’t really matter, because the script and idea behind the movie are so solid that we are enthralled from the get go. Nada, the main character, finds a pair of sunglasses that help him to ‘wake up’ and realise that the world is being controlled by elitist, wealthy aliens who plant subliminal messages into the mass media, telling humans to ‘Obey’ and ‘Consume’. Throw in some amazing action sequences, an overtly brutal and extended fight sequence between the two main characters, and a resistance against the aliens, and you have an action packed damnation of capitalism. It’s clear to see why people love this movie because it is both clever and involving, and allows Carpenter to retain his former glory.
Shockingly Sh*t
Halloween (1978)
 |
| He's behind you! Not that we particularly care... |
I know that I am going to be berated for this choice, but I don’t really care. Sure, I understand that Halloween was ground breaking, and it started Carpenters career, and it influenced a whole generation of directors and it began the 80s horror craze. I know all of this. And I am sure that at the time, it was good to watch. But let’s put this into perspective: it isn’t a good movie anymore. It has not withstood the test of time. Compare Halloween to the original Friday the 13th, another pinnacle of slasher movies. Friday the 13th is gory, scary, disturbing, clever, tense, and still holds up to this day. It hasn’t aged terribly, since it is still effective at being brutal, visceral, and frightening. Halloween, in comparison, is dated, boring, slow, and not at all scary. Sure, the beginning is an interesting idea (seeing the first murder through the killers eyes, who is a child), but this was not a unique concept (see the original Black Christmas, and Peeping Tom), and even this moment isn’t scary, it’s just creepy. The killer isn’t particularly frightening, since he is stupidly ‘invincible’, and most of the movie is too dark to see what is even going on, which ruins any suspense that could have been built. I’m sure that if you watched Halloween when it came out, it was exciting and scary, but with so many better horror films made after it, Halloween fails to stand up against the movies that it inspired.
Shockingly Spectacular
Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992)
 |
| Romance is something John Carpenter rarely does... |
Say what you will about Chevy Chase’s attempt to be taken seriously, but Memories of an Invisible Man is a compellingly dark drama that few people have even heard of. Including state of the art graphics, which have dated, but don’t detract at all from the film’s strengths, the movie is centred on a man who, surprise surprise, becomes invisible when a scientific laboratory goes into meltdown. Unlike other films about invisible men, which focus on the horror element of it, Memoirs is a slow burning character study of what it would be like to actually become invisible, as well as a thriller, since the government want to catch him, and use him as an assassin. Unusually for Carpenter, Memoirsis grounded, believable, and compelling, and has a very dark undercurrent about what it means to exist. There are somefunny moments, but they are few and far between, since the dramatic ‘gum shoe’ style of narrative takes precedence. The action and thrilling moments are exciting, and the romantic subplot is involving. We definitely root for a happy ending, but will we get it?
Shockingly Sh*t
The Fog (1980)
 |
| Neon fog and decomposing pirates... It's as awful as it looks! |
I’ve spoken about this movie before, and I think my summary was pretty accurate. Decomposing pirates who travel through a small town hiding within a neon fog? Is that idea really meant to be scary? Before I even watched this, I had heard about how ‘chilling’ it was, and maybe back in the early 80s, it was, but when you watch it now, it is very hard to take seriously. Neon fog? Pirates? The worst thing about it is that the pirates knock at people’s doors: they don’t come up behind them silently and kill them, they knock. So when characters actually open the doors to invite glowing fog and zombified corpses into their home, it is hard not to feel that they could have avoided being skewered by a rusty sword. Sure, there’s tension, and the whole narration from the lighthouse is a clever idea, but this film is incredibly slow, to the point of boredom, and by the time people start dying, our interest has sailed.
Shockingly Spectacular
Vampires (1998)
 |
| This is one religious man you definitely don't want to mess with... |
It’s the 90s. Vampires aren’t yet effeminate and harmless, since Twilight hasn’t been written. John Carpenter makes a badass vampire movie, starring James Woods as a kickass mercenary preacher who goes around the New Mexico desert harpooning vampires from their lair and dragging them out into the sunlight, to watch them explode into a ball of flames, and die. Can you get a film any more awesome than that? In true Carpenter style, it’s over the top, it’s gory, it’s explicit, it’s tense and as an added bonus it’s filmed in that typical 90s style, which makes everything look slick and expansive. The action is fun and fluid, the vampires are horrific and disgusting, and the characters are cold and fierce, stopping at nothing to get what they want. There is also a whole religious tone, since the Vatican have trained mercenaries to murder the vampires which they accidentally created, so you just know that something terrible will happen to our hero. If you love brutally cheesy 90s action films, then you will love Vampires. It’s wickedly funny too.
Shockingly Sh*t
Village of the Damned (1995)
 |
| White haired, neon eyed children are more stupid than scary... |
A remake of the 1960s film of the same name, this is a Carpenter movie that both the critics and I agree is bad, even being nominated for a Razzie! If I thought that neon glowing fog was an awful concept, neon glowing eyes emanating from white haired children is probably worse. Set in a small town in California, an unseen force impregnates the women who live there, and years later these children develop malevolent psychic powers, which they use to kill all of the local residents. We’re led to believe that they are aliens or demons or something, which is never really explained. It’s gruesome and unpleasant, but mainly is just silly and boring. Village of the Damned is more notable for being the last film that Christopher Reeves starred in before his riding accident that paralysed him, than anything else. Carpenter uses his unique visual style to give it life, by unfortunately for him, he is working with a poor script, a stupid concept, and loses the uphill battle from the opening credits.
Shockingly Spectacular
Prince of Darkness (1987)
 |
| Donald Pleasence as one of the most ineffective priests in movie history... |
Now I don’t personally like this movie, because it probably the scariest and most disturbing film that I have ever seen. I hated watching it, because it terrified me, but that doesn’t mean that I should count it as one of Carpenter’s ‘mistakes’ because he manages to succeed in making a horror film that is truly horrific in every way. Critics hated it, and I guess so do I: I’ll never watch it again, but that’s because it’s quite possibly the only film that has ever truly frightened me, as an adult of course (we can’t rule out childhood Disney movies here!).
The main plot sounds stupid, but when watching it, it is effectively realistic. A group of scientists discover a cylinder containing green slime, which turns out to be the anti-Christ. Yes, you read that correctly. Slime=Satan. How can that possibly be scary? Well despite the fact that the story goes to great lengths to explain the scientific reason behind it, the scientists (and a priest) are trapped in a building with the devil, who unleashes himself and begins to possess people. These people then mutilate themselves in upsettingly disturbing ways and then massacre the rest. There are also a group of homeless people waiting outside, in case anyone tries to escape, to butcher them. And then there’s the ending… oh dear, one of the most horrifically downbeat endings in cinema history. The expression ‘a fate worse than death’ literally and graphically happens, and I don’t think I’ll ever forget it!!
This movie might not be scary to other people, but I don’t like bodily mutilation (something Carpenter seems to be obsessed with), or stories based around demonic possession, and pair those two thing together with an effectively tense and (somewhat) believable idea, you have horror at its best (or worst, depending on how you look at it).
Shockingly Sh*t
The Ward (2010)
 | ||
| This picture does not in anyway represent the content of the movie!! I don't even remember this happening! |
I’ve already reviewed this in a previous blog, so there isn’t much more I can add to my damning criticism, except suggest that it should be re-titled ‘The Bored’, since that is how the audience must have felt watching it. I know I did. Any film that takes an overused idea from early 00s cinema and then executes it poorly and lifelessly, is never going to be any good. This was meant to be Carpenter’s triumphant return to the big screen, after his career ending flop, Ghosts of Mars (more about that later!). I wanted it to be good, I willed it to be. I wanted John to prove that he could be elevated back to the top, but I was sadly let down. I wouldn’t even call this a slasher film, since the characters who die have no reason to, and technically, don’t. The final jump scare, which involves the false ‘final girl’ attacking the somewhat real ‘final girl’, has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve seen in any horror movie, and I’ve watched an awful lot of trash. And by the way, if that sentence makes little sense to you, then just take my word for it that the film makes little sense to anybody, and the thing that makes the worst sense, is why it was made.
Shockingly Spectacular
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)
 |
| There's an awful lot of gun fighting in this movie... |
A film that certified his ‘stamp’ on Hollywood, Assault on Precinct 13 is definitely a low budget indie movie, one that was very well received for being unique and original (in England, anyway!). And it definitely is. Most of it revolves around a group of policemen and criminals who, by no fault of their own, have the worst night of their lives. And that is what makes it so interesting: the entire plot is randomly sewn together, binding several unrelated stories into one spectacular collision, in the titular Precinct 13.
Ethan Bishop, the film’s hero, is another great Carpenter creation, and we root for him and the people trapped within the police station, as they are set upon by waves of gang members, who will stop at nothing to break inside. The tension builds quickly, and the violence is primitive and disturbingly realistic. The worst and most profound moment in the movie is the event that sets it all off: the unnecessary murder of a little girl, which is still jarringly shocking to watch today as it was then. Carpenter was being bold, speaking out against gang violence, and showing us that there are no taboos in real life about who can and can’t be killed. Although the gang act like a supernatural ‘force’ we want them to fail in entering the precinct, since the characters within are generally likeable and engaging. It’s a shame that such a good movie has now been tarnished by the terrible remake, which shares basically no similarities with the original, such as being exciting and strangely compelling.
Shockingly Sh*t
Ghosts of Mars (2001)
 |
| You have nothing to be smug about, Ice Cube, because this movie sucks, and you do too. |
By far and away, this is Carpenter’s worst movie, ever. Not only did it destroy his entire career, preventing him from making a film for almost 10 years, and, so far, a decent movie since, it also incorporates all of his signature styles in the worst way possible, creating a conglomeration of awful dialogue, turgid characters, unnecessary gore, cheese and camp ramped up to its most extreme, lifeless action sequences, and a terrible 80s synthesiser soundtrack. Natasha Henstridge (the naked alien lady in Species) and Ice Cube, no less, fight demonically possessed, self-mutilating zombies, in a mining community on Mars, accompanied by a merry band of commandos. And yes, it is just as awful as it sounds, with Henstridge barely able to perform the dialogue and Ice Cube grinning awfully as he jive talks and fails to act like a credible human being. Everything about it is substandard, from the script to the violence, the final straw being the tacky soundtrack, which acts as if Carpenter opens up his bowls and releases every worst thing that he can onto the movie. The film fails to make any sense at all, and just asks questions that could never be sensibly answered, e.g. Why is Ice Cube in this movie, let alone any movie? Who said that Henstridge could act? Why are there demons on Mars? Why is John Carpenter obsessed with self-mutilation? Why did John Carpenter agree to make this film? Why did anyone think that making this film was a good idea? And so on. You get the point.
I don’t mean to hammer it home, but I hated this movie, detested it, because it was so stupid and so terrible. It’s not even so bad it’s good, it’s just awful. Ghosts of Mars is so bad that in comparison, it makes The Fog look like a credible, and believable, movie.
Shockingly Spectacular
The Thing (1982)
 |
| You should be afraid, MacReady... |
The Thing is John Carpenter at his best. It’s why fans like me have stuck with him, and are enamoured by
his technical craftsmanship. Who else could make a body snatching alien in the Antarctic so terrifying?
Once again, Kurt Russell teams up with Carpenter, as the brilliantly likeable central character MacReady, and gives a compelling performance that helps make the film even better.
I’ve reviewed this before, and have high praise for it, as everyone else does too. The Thing, more than any other Carpenter movie, is universally agreed upon: it is brilliant. I don’t know anyone who dislikes it, except for the critics who originally reviewed it, and, in context, I could see why this film would be so shocking and disturbing to them, because it is. The fact that it is so horrific and frightening is enough to put anyone off, but when you start to look at why it is, and how Carpenter creates the suffocating tension that chokes every scene of the film, it makes you realise why he was nicknamed ‘the Master of Shock’ to begin with. There aren’t many other films that are as visceral, tense and disturbing as The Thing, and it proves that, even though Carpenter has made some terrible mistakes, he can be given some leeway for them, when he makes masterpieces like this.
.jpeg)
0 Yorumlar