@mdhughes It's not about the tech, it's about the art direction.
There was practically no suspense and no increase in the sense of danger. We never SAW what the creature was capable of until it started attacking the protagonists. That's a terrible way of directing a horror film.
@rick_777 You get some of that during the midget's killing. But the machine is not the monster. Seriously. It didn't have a nuclear war, it didn't pollute everything, it doesn't out-reproduce its environment. Jill's dialogue about stupid, suicidal, and sadistic is what the film's about.
And yeah, there's no budget to have a street chase, so it has to all be in the apartment set.
> And yeah, there's no budget to have a street chase, so it has to all be in the apartment set.
Well that sucks.
@rick_777 The sad/awesome part is his cheap-ass street and poisoned river sets are better than 90% of big-budget SF movies. There just isn't anything further than what was shown. And Richard Stanley's career was shivved by the studios, so we don't get the modern big-budget version.
@ella_kane @mdhughes Nah, I don't buy it. They could have split that five minute scene into two (or maybe three) two-minute horror scenes, each more brutal than the previous. A shot of the robot getting more powerful as it began collecting more and more parts would have been way better.
Wait - there WAS a similar movie in this vein: Moontrap (1989). A war robot found in a moon colony started rebuilding itself from scrap. The movie was a flop, but they got the suspense right.
@rick_777 @ella_kane And my post when I watched it for the first time in decades: https://mdhughes.tech/2017/12/21/mark-13-thursday-music/
ｃｙｂｒｅｓｐａｃｅ: the social hub of the information superhighway
jack in to the mastodon fediverse today and surf the dataflow through our cybrepunk, slightly glitchy web portal