No. 44: Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone
by Matt Scalici on May.13, 2010, under Back to the Movies
Note: Back to the Movies is a special feature on the FilmNerds blog in which Matt Scalici will be watching the Top 50 highest-grossing movies of 1983 in order from 50 to 1.
Do you like Star Wars? What about Mad Max? What if you took those two movies, combined them, traded out the actors for a bunch of nobodies, made the screenplay laughably bad and cut the special effects budget in half? You still want to see it? Then have I got a movie for you…
I knew it some point in this process, I’d run into my first camp classic and Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone is it. Loaded from end to end with bad acting, cheap special effects and one of the laziest, most brazen attempts at cinematic plagiarism I’ve ever seen, Spacehunter is the kind of movie that can really only be enjoyed by the cynical and sarcastic hipsters raised on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Believe me when I say, though, that I am not the kind of person who enjoys the camp factor of a bad movie. I might be amused by how bad it is but make no mistake, friends, this is 90 minutes of my life I will never get back. A sacrifice for the integrity of the blog.
The film opens with a confusingly shot effects sequence involving some cardboard spaceships hitting a meteor and exploding. An escape pod holding three women in spandex and New Wave hairdos ejects and crash lands on a strange planet where we will spend the rest of the movie. The premise here, though it is never fully explained in the film, is that this planet has been overrun by a horrible disease that has turned everyone on it into melty-faced mutants who apparently spend their entire lives making Molotov cocktails in preparation for the events of this movie.
Anyway, the three women, who are never named and never speak a word of dialog in the entire film, are captured by the mutants and taken to an evil warlord named Overdog (we’ll get to him later) for unspecified purposes. That’s when we meet our hero, Wolff.
Here’s where the plagiarism kicks in. Wolff is Han Solo, plain and simple. He dresses like him, he has the same haircut, he’s sarcastic, he’s a loner, on and on. The only difference is that while Harrison Ford oozed charisma in the role, Wolff is played by a TV actor (Peter Strauss) who looks like he was on morphine for the length of the production.
Even the name evokes Han Solo. Here’s how I’m pretty sure they named the character. Han Solo. Solo. Alone. Lone. Lone Wolf. Wolf. Add another f so people don’t suspect what we’ve done.
Anyway, Wolff receives a message about the three women with an offer of a reward if he can rescue them. Wolff and his sexy female assistant Chalmers (I love that name) zoom down to the planet, bury their spacecraft so the aliens can’t find it (Wolff’s best line: “Make it eat dirt, Chalmers!”) and embark on their adventure.
The first bind-blowingly stupid action set piece we encounter (don’t worry I won’t take you through all of them) a group of “land pirates” who ride a train in the shape of a pirate ship. I’m not even going to attempt to apply logic to that idea because I know the writers who came up with it didn’t. Anyway, the pirate scene ends with what has to be the most campy sequence in the entire film, an early death scene for the ill-fated Chalmers that contains a hilarious reveal that I admit I should have seen coming. Think Ian Holm in Alien.
With Chalmers dispatched, we meet the real female lead of the film, the much less sexy Niki, played by a pre-Sixteen Candles Molly Ringwald. I kid you not. At this point in her career, Ringwald was a newcomer, known only for her role on The Facts of Life. In her defense, she’s clearly giving this role her all. The character is meant to be obnoxious and dopey and Ringwald’s delivery is probably the best anybody could hope for with this screenplay, which I should mention is loaded with distractingly idiotic future-slang. Words like ‘brainworking’ (which means thinking) and ‘scavvy’ (which means disgusting). Marlon Brando would sound like an idiot with this dialogue. Ringwald had no chance.
As Wolff and Niki search the desert planet for signs of the three captured women, they encounter lame monsters, futuristic biker gangs and on a couple of occasions an old frenemy of Wolff’s named Washington, played by Ernie Hudson. Hudson must have gotten roped into the movie by his Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman, who executive produced Spacehunter (weird) and it’s a fortunate turn of events for us as he’s far and away the most entertaining part of the movie. He too is given ridiculous dialogue, mostly focused on his love for his specialized bulldozer vehicle, but Hudson is such a likable actor that he seems to get away with it far more than the rest of the cast.
The film climaxes with a big spark-filled battle with Overdog, who looks strikingly like Darth Vader without a helmet. He’s sufficiently gross looking for an intergalactic villain but it doesn’t appear that anything was done to effect his voice, which basically sounds like a normal dude’s voice coming through a hideously disfigured half-man, half-machine.
So how did this piece of junk get a green-light from a major Hollywood studio (Columbia Pictures)? And better yet, how did this film end up in the Top 50 at the box office for the year? A quick glance at the film’s history answers both questions. Spacehunter was released on May 20, 1983, one week before the opening of what many correctly assumed would be the biggest hit of the year, Return of the Jedi. The first nerdlings were already setting up camp in front of their local theater when Spacehunter opened and Columbia must have figured that a low-budget, thrown together knock-off might be able to capitalize on the excitement preceding Jedi. It wasn’t a bad bet; Spacehunter finished with $16.5 million at the box office with a production budget of $14.4 million. Nothing to sneeze at in 1983 dollars.
Still, it’s films like this, low quality garbage with a clear intent to capitalize on the success of another well-made film from another studio, that give the ’80s a bad name when it comes to movies. I’ve flipped across so much campy trash like Spacehunter that it’s tainted my view of all films from the ’80s. I’m willing to excuse camp when it comes from a filmmaker who was legitimately trying to make a good film but failed. I’m less forgiving with films like this, churned out quickly and cheaply by a major studio with the resources to do better work. This is the first truly bad film I’ve encountered on the list so far. Looking ahead though, this might be a taste of things to come for 1983.
Next Up: Krull starring Liam Neeson.
May 23rd, 2010 on 5:13 am
I have been to your blog before. The more I visit, the more I keep coming back!
June 14th, 2010 on 10:50 am
Peter Strauss and Michael Ironside are nobodies?
Incredibly bad review. This movie is actually pretty good and if it’s quite cheesy. There are a lot of elements to love for SCI-FI fans.
I think Molly Ringwald acting was quite good actually. And the 80′s are full of what are now considered “cliches”.
Regarding the FX’s, you’re rating a movie from the early 80′s. Most movies had cheesy effects compared to today’s standards, hell even Alien 1 was laughable if you were to watch it for the first time today.
Anyway, what’s not to love?
- bad boy Freelancer: Check
- A.I Companion: Check
- Remote Quarantine Dystopian Planet: Check
- Plague: Check
- space zombies: Check
- Big Bad Final Boss (Bonus points: Michael Ironside: Check
June 14th, 2010 on 1:11 pm
Steve: Not sure of your country of origin but in America, yes, Peter Strauss is nobody.
Look, I’m betting you’re the kind of guy who likes to watch Syfy Channel original movies and indeed enjoys all manner of cheesy sci-fi films as do many other sci-fi fans. I don’t and neither do the vast majority of average Americans. I’m not going to give something high marks because I’m amused by how bad it is. Molly Ringwald has done some really good work in her career but this performance is remarkably difficult to sit through. I doubt she’d make it through auditions for a SyFy Channel movie with that performance today.
As for the SFX, I’m not comparing them to films of today, I’m comparing them to other films of 1983. Return of the Jedi and even Krull (which I’ve also already reviewed here on the blog) had FAR superior effects. And you’re wrong, ALIEN’s effects aren’t laughable even by today’s standards. They stand up extremely well, like a good, well-made sci-fi film should.
June 22nd, 2010 on 8:52 am
OK, not the worst Spacehunter review I have ever read…
But it’s neither the kindest, nor the most well-informed either.
Firstly, Peter Strauss is definitely a somebody. I’m from the UK and even here, he’s a household name.
I am not the kind of person who enjoys the camp factor of a bad movie either, but I do see the merits in this film.
Cardborad spaceships? Have you no depth perception? That is clearly a large model. And how could you miss the whole dialogue about how the planet was hit by disease that infected their domestic food supplies? How much more of an explanation is needed, there?
The ‘land pirates’ are using a concept vehicle which was actually a serious real-life consideration at one point late in the 1970s. The Sail Train was an early idea to make use of alternative energy sources. The film makers took that concept and tried it out as a fictional representation. No more insane than the idea of a hoverboard or an engine powered by garbage (which is also featured in Spacehunter, BTW).
The dialogue – Every reviewer hammers this. Brainworking, trust-words, spewered, Scavs (short for Scavengers, in case you didn’t realise)… Sounds silly, right? But look at how language has changed. How many cultures and subcultures use silly terms and idiotic talk? Noting the fact that Wolff actually criticises Niki several times for her stupid ‘Space Hillbilly’ vernacular, I’d say that’s pretty realistic when you look at how people really are.
How did this film get a green-light?
Because the original screenplay had a lot of promise.
How did this film end up in the Top 50 at the box office for the year?
Because despite the elements that are indeed cheesy and the disastrous interference from studio execs, it is still a bloody good film. Some things you actually have to pay attention to see – This, then, is not a film for the mindless idiots who watch the Dukes Of Hazzard… and then have to have it explained to them.
Some background:
Spacehunter was released on May 20, 1983.
This was one of the bad choices made by the Studio Execs (SEs). In fact, the release date had been set before production had even gotten started. The substandard 3D was a late decision by the SEs and accounted for a large percentage of the budget. Further dooming the film, the SEs had a large amount of the character development scenes cut and replaced with hastily shot action test sequences. The director had already been replaced once and after seeing the final cut most of the principal cast stormed out in outrage, along with some of the crew.
Both directors were indeed doing their damnest to make a very good film here, yet because of money-hungry studio men who (like critics) think they know more about making movies than the people who actually make them, films like this will always be doomed and we shall instead be stuck with exceedingly high budget trite garbage like Avatar.
Credit where due, there is plenty of evidence to suggest this film is quite a gem compared to it’s contemporaries. Not every film will be a massive Gone With The Wind blockbuster but neither will every film deserve to be so slated. The fact that Spacehunter is still being reviewed and is still being sold tells me that it was far better than people realise.
June 22nd, 2010 on 11:24 am
Dylan,
Firstly thank you for reading the blog. Second, thank you in particular for the last three paragraphs of your comment in which you detail some of the production history of the project. It does seem to explain a lot of what’s wrong with the film, and I think even you will agree there is an awful lot wrong here. A lack of a clear, definitive creative direction always results in a messy film that is littered with some good ideas that ultimately find themselves buried.
My point about Peter Strauss in my earlier posts was that while he may be a big name in other countries (as you say he is in the UK), he certainly is not in the United States. Not today anyway.
Thank you for your thoughts and please continue to read the blog. Really surprising to see so much reaction to my review of a film that I didn’t know existed before I started this project.
June 28th, 2010 on 11:43 am
I do agree, there is a definite ‘lacking’ feel to the film, but far less than people often imagine. Part of this is because people expect a film to spell everything out and, indeed, a lot of the big budget ‘Hollywood’ style films are guilty of this.
Classic example:
“Are you trying to tell me a seven year old kid has cracked the government supercode??!!”.
Anyone watching the film already knows this, so why does the character have to ask it again? Similarly, things are made so obvious that people are not encouraged to pay proper attention any more.
This was one of those films that did the opposite – The details were there. You just had to pay attention. It went against the norms again with it’s use of 3D – Rather than be a gimmick where everything jumps off the screen, Spacehunter was one of teh first to use it properly as an atmospheric background effect, like Surround Sound. It failed, because people thought it should be gimmicky and even now, with things like Avatar, people are still expecting gimmicks.
Certainly there are some ‘lame’ aspects to Spacehunter. That’s part of it’s appeal. But when you look at the cast and crew involved and see the calibre of people who created this, see what else they’ve all done… It’s kinda hard to blame the lameness on them.
I don’t really see this as much more than a film intended for kids up to about 18. Certainly it seems to appeal most to those who saw it between the ages of 10 and about 16 and it’s a darn sight better than Ice Pirates!!
Pete Strauss – Here, he’s known for the Peter Strauss Ranch, for Rich Man Poor Man, Masada and The Jericho Mile, numerous roles as a hunky guy in a suit, or for his endorsement of Miracle Gro products. I think most people over 25 know who he is. He’s on the same level as Ed Harris and Michael Clarke Duncan.
Certainly not a major star like Tom Cruise, I agree, but I’m surprised that he’s not a household name in his native US.
June 29th, 2010 on 8:02 pm
Thanks for giving your take on the 3D aspect of the film. That’s obviously something that we don’t have access to today and the reviews of the time all seemed to either ignore the 3D or dismiss it as unimpressive or unimportant. Good to hear a take from someone who saw it in person.