Connect with us

Editorials

‘Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning’ – The Unexpected Psychological Horror of a Bold Franchise Sequel

Published

on

These days, most audiences are aware that the law of diminishing returns also applies to movie franchises. That’s why numbered sequels are usually frowned upon when it comes to new releases in established IPs, with producers preferring it when moviegoers forget exactly how many of these rehashed films they’ve seen before. And as a series goes on, it becomes increasingly more difficult for franchises to experiment with their source material, leading to stale experiences and disappointed fans.

Thankfully, there are a handful of exceptions to this rule, and I’d argue that the most surprising of all would be the Universal Soldier franchise. In all honesty, I don’t even think the original 1992 film is all that great, benefiting from the natural charisma of Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren while riding on the coat-tails of an intriguing premise (where deceased soldiers are revived as cybernetic zombies with enhanced combat abilities). Its immediate successors didn’t fair all that well either, with both an ill-advised duo of straight-to-video bombs and a theatrical sequel completely missing the point about what makes undead super-soldiers such an interesting concept. However, this would miraculously change with the advent of the final two sequels in the franchise.

John Hyams’ Universal Soldier: Regeneration would be a masterclass in low-budget action filmmaking, but its 2012 follow-up ended up taking an unexpected detour in regards to genre. While Hyams returned to the director’s chair and the film still acknowledged the events of the previous entry, Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning ended up feeling more like a brooding psychological thriller along the lines of The Jacket and even Jacob’s Ladder rather than a low-brow action flick.

In the finished film, we follow Scott Adkins as John, an amnesiac survivor of a home invasion that resulted in the death of his wife and daughter. The strange part is that this seemingly random act of violence appears to have been carried out by none other than Van Damme’s Luc Deveraux, the undead protagonist of the previous films. Motivated by his need for revenge, John dives down a mind-bending rabbit hole of false memories and government conspiracies in order to track down the revolutionary monster that Luc has become.

Despite this novel setup, the film was only released theatrically in a handful of international territories, raking in a pitiful $1.4 million on an $8 million budget and ending up lost in the early days of VOD. That being said, Day of Reckoning actually boasts the best critical reception in the entire series, garnering a 57% score on Rotten Tomatoes and earning praise for its originality.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

If a genre-bending reinvention of the Universal Soldier films isn’t enough to hook you, Day of Reckoning also works on its own as a surprisingly solid mystery movie. The multi-layered conspiracy behind both John’s revenge and Deveraux’s transformation into a messianic figure for his fellow UniSol survivors is darkly compelling, with the film only offering you brief glimpses of the overarching narrative in between violent confrontations with near-immortal super-soldiers and government agents.

And like the previous entry, the 2012 film once again benefits from Van Damme and Lundgren’s inimitable onscreen presence – even if it’s at a disappointingly reduced capacity. While I don’t think either actor even accidentally bumped into each other during filming, these action veterans still add plenty of flavor to this underrated thriller even if most of the runtime is dedicated to Adkins’ new protagonist (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as the actor/martial artist brings plenty of much-needed gravitas to his role as a confused and broken man searching for answers).

Of course, Van Damme’s Brando-inspired take on a morally questionable incarnation of Deveraux really steals the show here, with this once-beloved hero becoming a brooding leader who aims to overthrow the United States government due to its misuse of the UniSol program. Sure, he doesn’t get a lot of screen time, but what other action franchise has the guts to allow its most recognizable character to suddenly become the main antagonist in the final entry?


WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

From undead cyborgs to brainwashed clones and existential mind-games – it can be argued that Day of Reckoning is only a handful of jump-scares away from being an actual scary movie. In fact, Hyams’ film finally makes an effort to dive into the existential terror that was only hinted at in previous entries, with John unraveling an MK-ultra-inspired web of human experimentation that retroactively makes the original film much darker and makes you feel sorry for the new antagonists.

And despite a handful of admittedly impressive action scenes (at least when you consider the low budget when compared to the film’s predecessors), the violence is almost never fun here. Bones splinter and blood sprays out of every gnarly wound in what many critics described as an unnecessarily brutal bloodbath, something that I think only helps to hammer home the point about how horrific the UniSol program really is.

Hell, the movie even begins with a legitimately creepy POV home invasion sequence that places you in John’s shoes as his life is utterly destroyed, with the entire scene playing out like a particularly violent exploitation flick from the ’70s crossed with a disturbing Found Footage flick along the lines of James Cullen Bressack’s Hate Crime. And don’t even get me started on that gruesome finale that recontextualizes everything we’ve seen up until that point.

While I’m still partial to Regeneration’s janky set-pieces and Metal-Gear-Solid-esque take on political intrigue, Day of Reckoning is a refreshingly unique take on a premise that has been begging for a more horror-slanted approach since 1992. The film may have its issues, mostly due to a woefully inadequate budget (not to mention a slightly bloated runtime), but I honestly wish more action franchises were willing to take the same creative risks as this underrated thriller.


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