Connect with us

Editorials

A B-Movie Beowulf on Steroids: Revisiting the Sci-fi Monster Movie ‘Outlander’

Published

on

Outlander movie

Monster stories are about as old as storytelling itself, with every primitive society coming up with their own unique spin on man-eating creatures. That’s why it makes sense that writers and filmmakers are still providing us with fresh twists on these ancient tales well into the 21st century, though some of these updates are more successful than others. One monstrous re-imagining that I believe deserves a little more love from genre fans is Howard McCain’s Outlander, a 2008 thriller that loosely re-imagines the classic Beowulf story as a sci-fi monster movie.

Curiously enough, the movie that would become Outlander began life way back in 1992, with McCain coming up with an early iteration of the story which was later rewritten by screenwriter Dirk Blackman. This initial version of the film was intended to be produced independently in southern New Zealand, though it was ultimately never made. It was only in 2005 that a studio showed interest in reviving the project on a smaller budget, with the production team relocating shooting to eastern Canada.

In the finished film, Jim Caviezel plays Kainan, the lone survivor of a space-ship crash who lands in ancient Norway and attempts to hunt down the alien creature responsible for killing his crewmates. Along the way, he comes into contact with the local Vikings and must try to convince them that they’re being stalked by an otherworldly predator with an insatiable appetite for human flesh.

Unfortunately for McCain, audiences weren’t exactly craving a modern take on Beowulf, with Outlander ultimately losing over $40 million at the box office and garnering an unfair reputation as yet another cliché-ridden action flick. While only a handful of reviewers actively called the flick out as a legitimately bad movie (with most of them simply stating that it was disposable entertainment), this middle-of-the-road production simply couldn’t compete with other 2008 releases like The Dark Knight and even Rambo.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Outlander movie monster

While you’ve undoubtedly seen many of these story-beats before, I’d argue that Outlander is somehow greater than the sum of its familiar parts, offering up a legitimately entertaining heroic yarn that’s content in telling a simple and unpretentious story while basking in some memorable visuals.

It probably won’t satisfy those looking for properly researched historical fiction (or even a faithful Beowulf adaptation), but I still respect the production’s ambitions of authenticity. From the filmmakers opting to build a lifelike Viking village replica in Nova Scotia instead of shooting on a sound stage to Caviezel managing to speak a few lines in genuine ancient Norse, it’s quite clear that McCain and his team had their hearts in the right place when making this strange little movie.

And speaking of the team, Outlander’s admittedly two-dimensional characters are miraculously enhanced by a talented cast, with Caviezel performing alongside genre veterans like John Hurt and Ron Perlman (in their first collaboration since Del Toro’s Hellboy adaptation).

I also appreciate the collection of smaller details that enhance an otherwise stock script, like how characters realistically let go of old grudges when faced with interplanetary horror and how Kainan describes his people as Viking-like conquerors responsible for interplanetary genocide. In fact, the entire film basically condemns the never-ending cycle of death and revenge that often permeates heroic fantasy narratives, with even the monstrous Moorwen becoming something of a sympathetic figure by the end of the film. It’s not exactly Shakespeare, but these little literary flourishes prove that at least some effort was put into making this story feel sincere.

It’s not the best take on Beowulf out there, but it’s certainly one of the more entertaining ones. I mean, Kainan even gets to forge a badass sword out of high-tech rocket-ship metal – what’s not to love?


WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Outlander movie 2008

Featuring a plethora of memorable kills (like a man getting violently pulled through a small opening in a wall and a handful of unexpected decapitations) and quite a bit of disturbing imagery (such as the Moorwen’s corpse-filled lair), I think it’s pretty safe to assume that this hard-R monster movie will appeal to horror fans.

And if that wasn’t enough, the film benefits from a creepy monster design courtesy of French production designer Patrick Tatopoulos, with the artist drawing inspiration from bioluminescent sea-creatures when coming up with this extraterrestrial apex predator. While the Moorwen itself is completely computer generated, I admire McCain’s restraint in his decision to only reveal small glimpses of the beast at time.

Strangely enough, James Cameron’s Avatar would later feature predatory creatures quite similar to the Moorwen, though I’d argue that this is simply a case of isolated artists drawing from the same well of real-world inspirations when designing alien lifeforms.

In general, Outlander feels a lot like a b-movie on steroids, benefiting from a refreshingly small-scale story combined with a budget large enough to allow for entertaining set-pieces. That’s why I believe the film would have been a massive hit had it been released back during the 80s when these hybrid productions were more common.

Despite a slightly bloated runtime, I get the feeling that a lot of material was left on the cutting room floor here, as the film fails to explain important details like how exactly Kainan’s race is related to Earth and why he adapts so easily to ancient Scandinavia. However, even with its messy presentation, Outlander is still a lot more fun than most folks give it credit for, and that’s why I’d recommend it to any fan of monster movies that might enjoy historical sci-fi twist.


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Born Brazilian, raised Canadian, Luiz is a writer and Film student that spends most of his time watching movies and subsequently complaining about them.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading