Harbinger Down
Tags: suspenseful

Plot synopsis:
In 1982, a Soviet moon lander crashes into the Bering Sea. In 2015, two biology graduate students, Ronelle and Sadie join their professor, Stephen, on an experimental tour to study the effects of global warming on whales. Sadie's grandfather, Graff, takes them to sea in his commercial fishing trawler, Harbinger, which is crewed by Bowman, Big G, Dock, Svetlana, and Atka. Sadie declines when Graff encourages her to helm the boat, as she has lost her nerve since losing her father at sea. After meeting the crew, Sadie, Ronelle, and Stephen go to sleep.
That night, Sadie wakes as the crew catch a load of fish. Detecting that there is whale activity in the area, Sadie unsuccessfully attempts to wake the others, then investigates on her own. She is intrigued when she finds something large under the ice, and the crew help her to recover what proves to be the crashed Soviet lander, now frozen in ice. Ronelle and Stephen are woken by the commotion, and Stephen excitedly claims ownership of the lander. Graff disputes his claim, and says the Russians will want their ship back. Sadie points out that the object was the property of the now-nonexistent Soviet Union, and therefore maritime salvage law would give them the rights to it. Graff infuriates Stephen further by declaring that it belongs to Sadie. Ronelle tries to contact her sister Tamara to tell her about what they found to no avail.
Bowman encourages Sadie to investigate the moon lander before Stephen can find a way to claim it for himself. Bowman recruits Big G to distract Stephen while Sadie sneaks off. She discovers that the Soviet cosmonaut died of an unknown infection and takes a skin sample to analyze. Stephen becomes further frustrated when he learns she has examined the shuttle before him. He threatens to destroy her career unless she signs over the discovery to him. Though Graff threatens to take the issue to the courts, Sadie gives in. Meanwhile, Sadie learns that the moon lander was carrying tardigrades, a hardy terrestial life-form that can survive in extreme conditions. However, cosmic radiation has caused them to mutate and become capable of shapeshifting.
When the cosmonaut's body goes missing, Stephen accuses Sadie of moving or hiding it. She denies this, and Bowman defends her. When Stephen becomes belligerent, Graff threatens him. While examining the lander, Stephen becomes contaminated with the mutated tardigrades. Sadie finds Stephen standing on the deck complaining that he can't breathe and sees him stripping his clothes off despite the sub-zero temperatures. The others drag him back in, after which several stalks sprout from his back and sprays the area with a strange, dark liquid. Dock is sprayed in his mouth, but Sadie confirms that they are all potentially contaminated. They make the liquid nitrogen portable by putting it into a scuba tank and proceed to freeze Stephen's body and the lander.
Dock soon shows signs of infection, and Svetlana locks him in a cage above deck in order to incinerate him using a flare gun. The others object to the plan until Dock also sprouts tentacle-like growths. The tardigrades cut the ship's power, demonstrating high intelligence, but the backup battery kicks in. As they work to restore it, the organism kills Atka, during which Svetlana is revealed to be a Russian spy. Holding Sadie, Bowman, Big G, Ronelle, and Graff hostage, she explains that the tardigrades were part of a Soviet experiment to create radiation-resistant cosmonauts. She does not want to reclaim the Soviet moon lander but instead intends to sink the boat after being picked up by a nearby Russian submarine. Before she can kill her hostages, however, the organism attacks, causing Svetlana to lose her gun. Ronelle picks up the gun, but she is grabbed by the creature, which pulls her through the narrow pipe and presumably kills her. When Svetlana tries to reason with the others, she too is grabbed by the creature.
The survivors, Graff, Sadie, Bowman, and Big G, search for several explosive charges that Svetlana hid throughout the ship. The last four are hidden in the bilge, a tight area which only Sadie has access to. As she collects the explosives, the others discover that the tardigrades have consumed and absorbed their latest catch, two tons of crab. As they call down to warn Sadie, she realizes she is standing amid the tardigrades. Although she escapes, Graff is infected. He instructs Big G to restart the ship and Sadie to pilot it before asking Bowman to kill him.
Big G restarts the ship but dies after battling Svetlana's shape-shifted and mutated body. Before Bowman can freeze Graff with the liquid nitrogen, he is abducted by the creature, and Graff instructs Sadie to scuttle the ship and save herself. She steers it toward an iceberg and escapes just as the creature bursts through the deck. Via the portable radio, the US Coast Guard alerts her that a rescue helicopter is in her vicinity. The helicopter can be heard approaching as Sadie lies motionless on the ice.

Review: Films like John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly are some of my favourite films ever, and Harbinger Down looked to bring this classic 80s practical monster effects goodness to the present day.The reality?
For a movie that's whole purpose is to showcase practical effects (PFX), it doesn't do this nearly enough, nor does it feature Studio ADI's expected level of quality for these effects.Almost all the scenes that feature the monster are poorly lit (often only by a flashlight).
This is to be expected to a certain extent, being a horror film, however if you watch The Thing/The Fly, you'll notice the creature is always at the forefront, in all it's grisly detail.
I don't believe I'm wrong in assuming most people interested in these kind of films want to see gruesome practical creature effects and all the bloody mess that goes with that.
I was happy to settle down for a hammy, poorly acted film - but in a "so bad it's good" way - where the monster would take centre stage and wreck up the place.
The monster instead cowers in a dark corner, ashamed to show it's ugly face, while unlikeable characters and a largely un-engaging plot take the centre stage.I'm a huge fan of Studio ADI's work and I adore practical creature effects.
Also the thing that she looks kinda botoxed and nip-tucked with some super-fake contact lenses and you can see that she is actually wearing some makeup, makes this particular question even more stupid.So, the story is bleh, script is dumb, acting is the same, are the effects any good?
The settings is pretty nice and the actors are OK.The movie is an obvious reference to "The Thing" and it uses practical effects and no CGI.
I also expected the effects to be a lot more explicit, yet I always got the feeling they try to hide them by shaking the camera, cutting, putting something in front, etc.The last problem has to do with direction: It's pretty obvious that this is the work of a first time director/writer - The movie is very uneven, there are good scenes and bad scenes, there are continuity problems, coverage problems, editing problems, things that simply don't connect and hard to understand what the director meant to do and also many scenes that seem to be missing a dialog.All in all, this is a so-so movie for something independent without a budget.
Both the pictures and Christopher Drake's score, and of course the creature effects, elevate the film way, way above the depths to which many low- budget sci-fi movies fall.So let's not be too harsh on Harbinger Down.
Before I go and tell you about the movie experience, you should know that this film is a Kickstarter movie, with more than 350 thousand dollars coming from that campaign, and made by people with vast experience with practical effects.
What I liked also is that the characters themselves were borderline interesting making the entire feel more engaging when adding a little depth to them.The special effects were just great for the budget they had and in conclusion I would go as far as say they accomplished their mission of creating a movie fans would enjoy and a nice homage to the great horror movies of the late 70s and early 80s.Was the science accurate?
It works as a homage to the great creature horror movies of previous decades like Alien/s and The Thing and has that magic ingredient of keeping me 'in' for the duration of what would otherwise be a schlocky genre.
It would hold up very nicely as part of a retro horror night of films alongside the likes of The Thing, but more in the arena of the home cinema; a movie to watch with a beer, and since this is where all movies end up maybe it is the true yardstick..
It's as if "Harbinger" was so in awe of John Carpenter's "The Thing" (or afraid of it, perhaps, as much of "Harbinger's" backing came from nerdy fans) that it's afraid of entering holy ground.What this film has got going for it (apart from aping "The Thing") is its practical monster effects.
And what's more, the creature effects (usually) look great.There were parts during Harbinger where the twelve-year-old in me who still loves monsters and giant robots (thanks, Pacific Rim!) smiled, watching the plot unfold.
I was recalling the dread and pleasure felt from the heavy atmosphere and creature effects from John Carpenter's "The Thing." Harbinger Down is vastly inferior, and just makes me feel like watching that film instead.So, what's so wrong with Harbinger Down?
The woman playing "Svet" is playing a stereotype as well, with her Hollywood movie Russian accent that falters from scene to scene (and here's a newsflash, filmmakers—no one from Russia actually talks like Ivan Drago from Rocky IV.) The only worthwhile actor Harbinger has is horror movie veteran Lance Henriksen, and the movie has him delivering lines like "we're gonna need a bigger bucket." Yeah.
An eerie soundtrack would've blessed this dumb, ugly, golem of a movie what it needed most: a soul.But when we aren't cringing at our actors or wincing at the music, the film's direction/cinematography robs the film's monster of much of its grandeur (even though it really is just a copy of "The Thing's" monster.) When Lance and the Asian bearded mystic (yet another of the film's stereotypes not worth mentioning) descend to the ship's bunker and first encounter the creature, the lighting and direction couldn't have made it look more like a puppet.Which it is.But Leatherback in Pacific Rim was all CGI, yet it was done so well that I forgot I was looking at a big pile of zeroes and ones while I was watching it.
The special effects like the rest of this film are second rate too and the acting, on the whole, is only passable.
The main reason i watched this flick were that i wanted to see some low-key horror flick and especially something with Lance Henriksen - i really like this actor, so basically i got what i asked for it - a low-key horror flick with Lance Henriksen - and it was pretty OK one.Overall, if you skip "Harbinger Down" you won't lose anything, as you have seen this movie many times if you like the genre and in much better form.
This is a fun B-movie with really clever use of practical effects and miniatures (which most of the time will not be spotted, because they're integrated so well)combined with clever camera work and editing.
I think once the hipster crowed is done being better than this film, retro punks and young horror fans alike will form fond memories of group movie nights over popcorn and Harbinger Down.
I started hearing about this movie a while ago and was really keen to check it out because of its' interesting Kickstarter origins and because of its' rather refreshing commitment (at least in this day and age) to avoid using any CGI in favor of employing entirely practical on-screen monster effects.
It seemed to be, at least philosophically, an attempt to do a throwback to movies like ALIENS and John Carpenter's THE THING (two of my favorite movies), so I was very eager to support the project and primed and ready to go along for the ride.Unfortunately, this movie only ended up reminding me of the very first and most important rule about visual effects in movies--they only ever matter when they are being used as a tool to serve something that is far more important--a great story and interesting characters.
Given how much the filmmakers were trumpeting this movie as a triumphant return to all practical effects, they needed to raise the bar and bring out some mind-blowing, next-level practical on-screen visual magic and it falls well short of that.Bottom line (and important lesson of the day)--no amount of visual effects wizardry, whether CGI or practical, can save a movie that is lacking good storytelling and characters.Here's the thing--at the end of the day, real movie magic doesn't come from creating creatures and effects that seem real.
It was a fun movie to watch, far from perfect, but perfectly good entertainment if you enjoy low budget sci-fi monster horror thrillers.
All things considered, I don't feel I wasted my time watching this movie like I have with some movies..
I only heard of this movie on Friday afternoon , I checked out the trailer The trailer looked really good and it did remind me of the thing, which Is one of my all time favourite movies ever I just seen this movie, I thought the movie did not take long to going Whinch one of things u liked in this movie I really enjoyed some 80 effects in thus movie, I prefer those effects then normal over the top effects we get to see these days.This was sure inspired by thing to me it felt little too similar.This movie was no near as great as the thing.To me where cracks stared to show were some parts of the script, I felt like some of things they were just really odd.I also felt the actors them felt same and he those scenes , we're the script was wake , I felt those acting scenes were really forced And very wood at time I am going to give this movie 5 out of 10.
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.
We've been suffering a prosthetic drought, and this particular reviewer is very thirsty.Enter Studio ADI's successful kickstarter for Harbinger Down, which came with a promise of delivering an old school practical effects-driven horror/sci-fi film - an oasis in the desert of creature features.
Unfortunately, not as good as we hoped.On its surface, Harbinger Down is an admirable homage to the classics, drawing its aesthetic and plot directly from Carpenter's The Thing while making numerous visual and dialogue nods to Alien, Jaws, Predator and other beloved creature features.
We need a practical effects monster movie to hit the screens with a force of originality and show that there's still plenty of life in this art form rather than reinforce the idea that it's a thing of the past only worthy of homage and fondness for the good ol' days.
well at blood temp.To compare it against the recent "The Thing" which had a budget of #38mill, and this which was about $2mil max then what they have done is great.So enjoy a good creepy movie - but accept that a lot of this was a labor of love :).
While the reason to make this movie seems like a good idea and the motivation and the effort that were taken to make Harbinger Down are truly honorable - for all creature-feature builder and its fan base.But in the end the movie proofs again, that FX is not enough - especially if the script and the editing are let us say it nicely; in a poor state.
Or I re-watch an old classic, like Cronenbergs The Fly, Carpenters The Thing or Peter Jacksons Braindead, they proof at least that both works story and practical FX.I really WISHED for the makers of this movie it would have been a better movie - for the sake of their professions and their future.
This movie has loads of great scenes and i think that go in with an open mind and you will really enjoy this film, decide for your self not base it on ratings!
Campbell short story "Who Goes There?")- and people do seem to insist on doing that - the only effective way to do it is the way the RKO original did: to remove all the close-ups of the "monster" or their modern day CGI equivalents and let the viewers' imaginations supply the chills in classic B-movie fashion.Writer/Director Alec Gillis seems to have understood this perfectly in his low budget but effective HARBINGER DOWN, which cuts right to the chase with his ANDROMEDA STRAIN inspired premise, setting up the origin if his particular "Thing" and then leaps forward 50 years in time to the ice bound body of his creepy tragedy.
A bit more attention to the less is more camp, for achieving a scare where you don't have a big enough budget, would have done more for the poor poor effects and this coupled with poor acting in parts, leaves the film sagging in places where it could have been sailing high.As i said, not the worst, but by no means the movie it could have been.
From The Master Special Effects Technician Who Has Worked In Films Like Aliens(1986), The Monster Squad(1987) and Tremors(1990)..
If you loved the special effects in John Carpenter's The Thing, you dare not miss this film.
It has major actors like Lance Henriksen(from the Alien movies) as the captain of the trawler Harbinger but I think he'd have been kinda disappointed too with how the movie turned out.
This is a great example of how good practical effects actually are, CGI almost always looks like a fly on a windshield but here you really see that it's part of the environment..If they had a bigger budget they could have done the practical effects even better..The story is simple and is mostly the same as The thing.
If you expect a big budget movie then you're in for a big disappointment, if you expect a B-movie then you'll have a good time..As I said, I'm glad that we finally see a completely practical effects monster-movie when most companies go for CGI (which if the budget is low (which still means higher than this movie had) it looks awfully fake, or it looks kinda decent but still fake and did cost tenths of millions of dollars).I did see a webdl version, but as soon as this hits bluray I do hope they have a lot of behind the scenes and this one will enter my already large bluray collection..Hope they'll do another movie with a bigger budget...
Good enough for watching one time - if you like movies like Carpenters The Thing.
Ultimately at the end I really felt I had watched a bad 80's horror B movie..
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.
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.
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.
Ill leave saying this if you where a fan of 80s/90s horror be of big budget or "B-movie" and you appreciate the real effects that films of that era was built on and the talents behind the bog franchises then this is a fond, welcome long overdue return to those days..
IMDb Score: 4.6 out of 10My official Score: 1 out of 10My real score: 3- out of 10When it comes to Sci-Fi In not really that picky in the whole plot thing as long as it has good effects, good acting or something else to balance the movie, (something good to out weight the bad) but even though I thought the script was pretty alright, the effects where terrible.
The great thing about this predictable movie is the special effects, which look fantastic and were done without a single frame of CGI, something very rare in this day and age.
We cant continue half of it, bad acting, sound not match, I feel like its cheap budget film.Story line so poor one.Cinematography all the shot close up close up!!!
It even has Bishop from Aliens in it.I might see things different because I grew up with this 80s style aesthetics in horror movies and in many regards I wish movies were a bit more like Harbinger Down these days.
Character development just wasn't a big thing in the horror movies of the era that Harbinger Down is trying to reflect.It's the ideal movie if you wanna watch a movie LIKE Alien, but can't watch Alien for the 150th time.
It is amazing that all the effects were created using practical effects rather than visual effects that are computer generated.This movie will especially be fun to watch for Alien or The Thing fans as I am one of them.
Which isn't a bad thing, not at all, actually, especially when you consider The Thing to be one of the best horror movies ever made...The reason most people are checking this film out is because of the pedigree of the effects team behind this.
I love practical effects, I love John Carpenter's The Thing, I hated The Thing prequel (and not just because of the CGI), and I really wanted this film to be something to stick in the craw of Hollywood...
I just really, really wanted this film to harken back to Carpenter's The Thing, for the effects to be show stopping, and some were.