سقوط هاربينجر

Harbinger Down-720P

Harbinger Down-360P

Harbinger Down-720P

Harbinger Down-360P

Harbinger Down-480P

Harbinger Down-480P

source: Harbinger Down

I'm rating this so low because it's a total rip off and further more it don't develops something of a plot or at least something to care about. The acting was sufficient enough but you can't expect much cause the writing on this is some what ridiculous. There are no surprises in this film,you know whats gonna happen and how this will end and that kills all the excitement and so it's boring. Another one for the pile of"too many movies that copycats another"or just mix a few of them up. This is one of those strange mix ups better to be left alone cause it really don't succeed in any of the genres it mixes. This is a bad T.V.film or a real B-movie. The biggest name in this acts really poorly. There a better movies out there. There are better movies, with him in it, out there. This 1,forgettable.

The Harbinger is a crab fishing ship sailing in the Bering sea. The captain is Bill Graff (ever reliable Lance Henriksen), and on board are students looking to study the effects of climate change on the lives of beluga whales. One of the students is Bills' own granddaughter, Sadie (Camille Balsamo). Soon they discover something interesting inside an ice floe: the long missing remains of a Soviet space capsule, a perfectly preserved cosmonaut...and something else, a malevolent life form that can change forms and liquify at will. Trapped on this ship with nowhere to go, Bill, Sadie, and others realize that they all could have been infected by this thing. "Harbinger Down" was made by veteran makeup and creature effects creators Alec Gillis (making his writing / directing debut) and Tom Woodruff Jr. as a response to seeing all their hard work for the prequel to John Carpenters' "The Thing" replaced with CGI. That frustration is understandable, but the result is a pretty routine genre entry. Gillis's script is under developed and populated with lame characters, especially the idiotic, jealous professor played by Matt Winston (son of the late, great effects maestro Stan Winston). The character stuff in this movie, in general, is of the eye rolling variety, and Gillis fares a little better with the technical aspects of filmmaking. He's able to generate some decent suspense, and the atmosphere is pretty impressive for the budget. Obviously, this was made as a direct tribute to "The Thing" (it even begins on June 25, 1982, the date that Carpenters' classic debuted in theatres), and it can't quite exploit the element of paranoia that the earlier film did so well. Some fans may appreciate that it's a quickly paced story that runs a mere 82 minutes, but others will likely wish that it had been fleshed out more. As a showcase for creature effects that were *supposedly* 100% practical, it does a passable job, but the effects are often under lit, and none of them are really going to blow the audience away. Chalk this one up as a well intentioned miss. Five out of 10.

So this is a relatively modest budget production with an interesting history behind the reason why it got made. Essentially, the makers are practical effects guys, and their work on the 2011 reboot/prequel of John Carpenter's The Thing was replaced post-production with CGI effects. See my review of that movie for my thoughts on how that replacement worked out! Anyhow, the effects guys were, understandably a bit miffed at the perception that everything has to be CGI these days and so decided to crowd-fund a project to show how they can still hold up in our current era of "show all and leave nothing to the imagination" film-making. Hence the existence of Harbinger Down. So how did they do? Is it a hit, or a miss? In truth, it is a bit of both, though the misses are mostly to do with the script and the editing. The effects do hold up surprisingly well. These folks clearly know their stuff with prosthetics and animatronic effects, along with all the other tools of their trade. If you did a "Thing" here and replaced the practical effects with CGI ones, I don't think it would improve things. The practical effects work just fine. Where the effects are weak, low-lighting and quick cuts do an admirable job of hiding the fact. Nicely done, for the most part! Less laudable is the script. I know, it is an homage to the Thing, so the same basic premise is not what I'm talking about here. More it's just some of the dialogue and characterisations really. That said, like most horror movies that were from the 80's, you have no real doubt who is good, who is bad and who is going to die, right from the first few scenes. There are few surprises here. On the plus side, the film wastes no time in getting to the plot. They have the chunk of ice in which something is frozen within the first ten minutes of the movie! Likewise, the film is not overlong. They didn't pad it out unnecessarily with pointless scenes - except the starting credits - but I appreciate the need for something to get those out of the way and give the viewer something to watch. Better than a black background and wall of scrolling names, for sure. On the negative side, the lack of padding also means there are some awkward editing moments. Nothing hugely jarring, but just cuts from one scene to the next that leave you, the viewer, having to fill in a few minor moments and gaps. Nothing awful, but slightly distracting. Beyond the pro's and con's I've mentioned, the film does indeed remind me of the good old 80's monster movies I watched with friends and a crate of beer, when we couldn't afford to go out, and hit the video stores instead. So a definite nostalgia feeling there. Is it a movie that demands theatrical release? Well, no, not really. This is the modern equivalent of those VHS only films I saw with my mates. I can't help but think it would do better sticking to such a release format (DVD/Bluray/download etc.) rather than a cinema release. I think the latter would hurt, rather than help the film. It is, however, worth a watch whilst keeping in mind there are lots of practical, rather than CGI, effects. Story and editing aside, it is entertaining, if predictable, and is, unlike many movies these days, mercifully short. SUMMARY: Worth giving a shot, but don't expect something like Carpenter's Thing as far as quality goes. Script and Editing let it down a notch, but you could do far worse on a rainy afternoon.