John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV
Creator of the award-winning web series, Abnormal Fixation. One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.
Sunday, July 19, 2026
40 Years Ago: Vamp (1986)
Saturday, July 18, 2026
40 Years Ago: Aliens (1986)
The first two films in the long-lived Alien franchise tend to stir passionate debate, especially when placed in direct comparison to one another.
James Cameron's greatest decision regarding Aliens, perhaps, involves his judgment to move the protean film series in a fresh direction. His sequel does not, in any significant manner, attempt to re-create the Gothic atmosphere of Ridley Scott's classic horror film. Instead, the Cameron film forgoes the "ten-little-Indians," or "haunted house in space" aesthetic of Alien for a wider, more epic scope, one exemplified by the well-remembered ad-line "This time, it's war."
Where Scott's Alien focuses on an atmosphere of dread, jumps and jolts, plus out-and-out terror, Aliens functions more as a non-stop rush; a roller-coaster ride of almost unparalleled excitement. And as much as Scott brought his remarkable perspective to Alien, James Cameron imbues the sequel with his own individual viewpoint and obsessions. The result is that Alien and Aliens complement each other in a most gratifying and satisfactory fashion. Each film is the superlative work of an individual artist; meditations on a theme (or franchise), as it were, with Sigourney Weaver and the titular monsters as the primary connective fabric.
The basis for Ripley's common sense, bravery and intelligence arise, apparently, from her initial experience with the alien in the Scott film, but also, importantly, from her singular status here as a fish-out-of-water. As the film opens, Ripley is 57 years out of her natural element, and (in the special edition of the film) has lost her only daughter. These qualities diagram Ripley as both outside a command structure of any type, and as a woman seeking to re-capture what she has lost, namely motherhood.
Because she is unfamiliar with the technology and protocols of the soldiers and the space yuppies, Ripley is also a powerful surrogate for the audience: one who catches on quickly, and who countenances no bullshit regarding the hostile alien species. We in the audience share Ripley's concerns, having "lived through" the traumatic events on the Nostromo with her. A distinctive quality of Cameron's approach in Aliens is that he uses our familiarity with Ripley and her "biases" (regarding androids, for instance), against us. He plays on our expectations again and again, to layer surprises and shocks into the film's narrative. These "bumps" in the road have the effect of keeping us both off-balance and anxious.
A movie of breathtaking action and intense emotions, Aliens also ably functions on an allegorical level, serving as a commentary on American involvement in the Vietnam War (1962 -1975). This commentary makes the film a crucial example of the Vietnam War film "revival" that occurred mid-way through the two-term Reagan Presidency, and which -- for lack of a better description -- re-fought the conflict either under more favorable, familiar "war movie" terms (Rambo: First Blood Part II [1985]) or which, contrarily, demonstrated vividly why the Vietnam War seemed a lost cause (Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, etc.)
At the time of the film's release, critics were overwhelmingly positive about James Cameron's Aliens, often comparing it favorably to Alien. Elliott Stein at the Village Voice termed the sequel "intense, suspenseful" and "filled with gritty dialogue." Time Magazine voted Aliens one of the ten best films of 1986 and noted its "technically awesome blend" of horror and science fiction. I still remember Joel Siegel's review on ABC TV at the time, wherein the movie critic noted that the last half hour of Aliens was like attending a Bruce Springsteen concert...from "inside the bass drum."
Needless to say, considering the film's sterling reputation today -- now 25 years later -- Cameron succeeded wildly with Aliens. In 2011, the film still thrills both as a straight-up war movie in space, and as a metaphor for America's involvement in Vietnam.
From 1984 to 1989, audiences saw Missing in Action (1984), Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985), Oliver Stone's Platoon (1986), Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (1987), Hamburger Hill (1987), The Hanoi Hilton (1987), and 84 Charlie MoPic (1989), to name just a few films.
Unlike the Vietnam conflict, which lasted through the presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford, this effort was a short, contained engagement and one in which the Americans could readily and easily be declared victorious. There was no "mission creep," so-to-speak. In that new moment of American victory and clarity, it was easier, perhaps, to exorcise the demons of Vietnam than it had been in the 1970s, when new military failures such as President Carter's Operation Eagle Claw only reinforced the sense of America's inability to use armed force successfully.
Or as Hudson notes: "They're coming outta the walls. They're coming outta the goddamn walls!" The alien battle tactics are certainly guerrilla in nature, then. The beasts use natural cover (their resin-coated caverns), pools of water, and air ducting to engage the humans in conditions favorable to their extra-terrestrial strengths. This is not a "stand-up" fight in other words. Again, consider that in Vietnam the Viet Cong was famous for using a subterranean tunnel supply system. Once more, the aliens mirror that function, taking up residence in the "sub levels" of the battlefield, moving back and forth out of easy sight.
But suddenly, these high-tech soldiers are forced to use old-fashioned pistols and shotguns to fight their invisible, incredibly powerful enemy. Like the American forces in the jungles of Vietnam, the Colonial Marines thus wage a war with one hand tied behind their backs, and not surprisingly are unable to win that war in direct engagement.
On the urging of Burke, Gorman attempts to safeguard property (corporate property) ahead of actually winning a battle, or even safeguarding his men. Burke's agenda is to preserve an expensive "investment," not destroy the aliens, and so the bureaucratic agenda surfaces and, again, clouds the rules of war.
Naturally, Burke can't get on board with that idea, and he says that Hicks is just a corporal and "not qualified to make a decision like that." Again, he is attempting to impose limits on the nature of the fight. These are limits, by the way, that the aliens don't observe. Rightly, Hicks overrules the yuppie.
Importantly, Ripley's nuke-the-whole-site-from-orbit plan is a philosophy in direct contradiction to the "limited war" scenario engaged by both Gorman and by American generals in Vietnam. Ripley's suggestion, in the fictional case of Aliens at least, seems entirely reasonable. If the colony is overrun by deadly aliens, why engage them at all on ground level? Limited, bureaucratic war is not a blueprint for victory, the film seems to make note.
Again, this doesn't mean (at all...) that nuclear weapons should have been utilized in the Vietnam War, only that the bureaucratic, one-hand-behind-the-back strategy settled on by the American leadership was flawed, and in some sense, lacking in common sense. Why fight a war if you don't intend to leverage your own strengths and win it? Like Rambo before her, Ripley seems to be searching for a way to "win this time."
That way to win is, specifically, by avoiding the half-measures and limitations imposed by generals and bureaucrats. Accordingly, the end of the film sees the terra-firming station go up in an (accidental) nuclear blast, and the survivors returning home, their enemy vanquished. This is a victory (at least after a final "bump" with the Alien Queen) denied America in Vietnam. You may remember the shocking images of helicopters pushed off air craft carrier decks as the U.S. Armed Forces returned home in 1975, for instance. Aliens re-fights the war on better terms, and brings at least some of the boys (and girls) home from the battlefield. At least until the sequel.
There are other simple connections to Vietnam in Aliens as well. Many Americans felt that the Viet-Cong were primitives living in "rice paddies." Their tactics, experience and skill were not respected, nor honored. Because the Viet Cong weren't from a modern, high-tech, industrial Western culture we were lulled into believing that the war would be a cake walk. The opposite, of course, was true. In Aliens, the marines -- but never Ripley -- often underestimate the aliens in a similar fashion. When the aliens cut the power to plunge the hiding marines into darkness, Hudson wonders aloud how "animals" could have cut the power. Even at this late juncture, he is still making the mistake of underestimating his opponent. The aliens are not just animals: they are a highly organized hive mind, a surrogate, in some sci-fi way, for Communism, too, I should point out. And of course, Communism was the real American target in the Vietnam War.
Right down to the marines' manner of self-expression, Aliens very powerfully suggests the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 1970s. "The dialog itself, the idiom, is pretty much Vietnam era," Cameron reported in an interview here. "It's the most contemporary American combat "war speak" that I had access to. I studied how soldiers talked in Vietnam, and I took certain specific bits of terminology, and a general sense of how they express themselves, and I used that for the dialogue, to try and make it seem like a realistic sort of military expedition, as opposed to a high tech, futuristic one. I wanted to create more of a sense of realism rather than that of an interesting future."
Another unique facet of The Vietnam War: many Americans did not understand why the war was fought. The notion, of course, was that if Vietnam fell to Communism, other countries (Laos, Thailand, etc.) would also fall like "dominoes" to that ideology. But who were our allies, exactly? What would victory look like? Why should the average American on the street, struggling to make ends meet, care about what was happening in Vietnam, half a world a way? This wasn't like World War II, for instance, where fascism was moving like a dark tide across free Europe, and the consequences were easily understood. Instead, the motives and strategies surrounding the Vietnam War were ones of intellectual gamesmanship. It was, as James Cameron himself noted "a weird and surreal kind of war."
In contrast to the military in Aliens and the American soldiers serving in Vietnam, Ripley boasts a very strong and clear personal motivation for fighting a war on LV-426. She has an individual connection to Newt...a "family" member of a sort. So she picks up arms to fight the aliens, and does so effectively. I have always believed that Ripley is an example of the everyman (or woman) here in America. When our families are attacked or threatened, we will fight. To the death. But to fight for simply a cerebral theory of geopolitics (the Domino Theory), and one ultimately proven wrong, hardly seems an effective use of military might. What Cameron appears to express in Aliens is his grave concern about the application of American military power in foreign land when there is not a clear and just cause. This idea resurfaces powerfully in both The Abyss (1989) and Avatar (2009).
All this established, I think it's important again to note that Cameron is not anti-military. The "grunts" in the film, from Hicks to Hudson to Vasquez are clearly heroic in nature. Hicks is effective as a leader. Ultimately, Hudson finds his sense of courage. Vasquez fights to the death to save her fellow marines and survivors. Even the green Gorman finds redemption at the end, taking out a handful of aliens in a final act of self-sacrifice. So I don't think that Cameron is reflexively against the military or so-called "just" wars. Rather, his stance reminds me of what President Obama once said (and has since forgotten, vis-a-vis Libya): that he isn't against wars; he's just against dumb wars. In other words, there are legitimate applications of military might; but you better think them through; and you better fight to win.
Game over, man! Game over! Aliens and the fog of war.
In essence, Cameron reveals to us a futuristic version of the Vietnam War's particular brand of "fog." If you go back and watch Oliver Stone's Platoon, you'll notice how there are almost no clear battle lines, no clear "sides" in the many scenes of combat. Soldiers seem to run endlessly through the jungle, back and forth, constantly under attack, while air strikes occur all around them. It's Death from Above...and everywhere else, for that matter. It's impossible to guess where the enemies are hidden, at least in terms of geography It is pandemonium on a vast scale. As viewers we have no sense of visual order; of the enemy being on the left or right. Instead, we sense danger everywhere.
In Aliens, Cameron cleverly pinpoints a corollary for that approach, giving us "electronic" fog of war, essentially, in the first battle sequence. He uses video imaging, failed communications, and grainy visuals to suggest the bewilderment and panic of the grunts on the ground as they are attacked from all sides by an enemy that seems to literally appear out of nowhere, melting out of the walls. The point, of course, is that our technology will do us no good when fighting the aliens. The fractured, indecipherable images on a video screen provide us our only clues about what is happening, but again, don't reflect relative positions of armies or fighters.
"I work for the company. But don't let that fool you, I'm really an okay guy" - The Yuppie Mentality in Aliens.
By and large, the Yuppies were baby boomers, and therefore former hippies. But these peaceniks had by Reagan's years traded their political activism for stock options, power suits, and corner offices. Primarily, yuppies were concerned with personal status and conspicuous consumption. In other words, making oodles of money. A side effect of this self-absorbed outlook was that many Americans who were not Yuppies were left behind. This was an America were the rich grew richer, and everyone else was getting squeezed out. By the end of the 1980s, horror films were obsessing with this class warfare gap in films such as They Live (1988) and The People Under the Stairs (1991).
In an early scene set in a smoky board room (replete with coffee cups, fancy business suits and clouds of cigarette smoke...) we watch as the Company Board stages an inquisition at Ripley's expense. The Board arrives at the pre-ordained conclusion that Ripley is a liar, and focuses simply on the bottom line. Ripley admits to having destroyed the Nostromo, a "very expensive piece of hardware" and is summarily dismissed for her negative contribution to the bottom line.
Notice the terminology there: "bad call."
It explicitly refers to Wall Street jargon (namely "call options"), but more importantly, Burke's comments share the attitudes of many "players" on Wall Street. For a living, they gamble with the retirement and pension funds of investors, and don't necessarily act responsibly in light of such responsibility. In essence, Burke does the exact same thing in Aliens, playing with the lives of the colonists on the chance that he could win "exclusive rights" to what he perceives as a treasure trove: the rights to alien biology and "bio-weapons" created from it.
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
50 Years Ago: At The Earth's Core (1976)
In the early 1900s, David Innes (McClure) and inventor Abner Perry (Peter Cushing) test the doctor’s experimental “high-calibration drilling machine,” the Iron Mole, which can burrow deep into “the bowels of the Earth.”
Something goes wrong on the initial journey, however, and Iron Mole emerges not on the far side of a hill, but deep within the Earth’s core, in a heretofore unknown world called Pellucidar. In this savage jungle world, humans are the slaves of giant, telepathic pterodactyl creatures, the Mahars, and brutalized by their enforcers, the Sagoth.
Even as David falls in love with the beautiful princess Dia (Caroline Munro), he attempts to unify the t human tribes of Pellucidar to confront and destroy the Mahars.
At the Earth’s Core is the second Amicus film in its Edgar Rice Burroughs cycle, and the film re-teams star Doug McClure with director Kevin Connor. This fantasy, set in the interior world of Pellucidar, is not quite as grounded or believable as the previous entry, The Land That Time Forgot (1975), which utilized World War as its background context, but its antagonists -- the green-eyed, squawking, strafing Mahars -- are certainly memorable in design and execution. They make effective villains in a film whose pace drags all the way through, and seem like an early version of The Dark Crystal’s(1982) Skeksis vultures.
At The Earth’s Core possesses a strong thematic through-line, and this fact helps to pass the time between monster fights. Early in the film, Professor Perry (Cushing) notes with irony that the Sagoth, creatures of limited intelligence, lord it over the far more intelligent humans, and that this is often the case on Earth as well; that aggression overcomes intellect.
Later, David recognizes that that the human tribes must rise up against the Sagoths (and Mahars) under the auspices of cooperation, rather than aggression. Or at the very least, he suggests cooperative aggression: that unity can combine to beat brute strength. The Sagoth, for all their brutality, are not divided: they are singular in their ruthlessness and barbarity, and this single-mindedness gives them power.
Much of the film involves David unifying the tribes and bringing the fight successfully to the Mahar City. In the end, one of the humans notes “For as long as we can recall, our tribes have been divided. Now, with our newfound friends, we are united.”
The idea, relevant to Burroughs’ time (pre-World War I) and also to the 1970s and Cold War Era, is that nations -- as well as people -- can overcome tyranny through cooperation and alliance. The same ethos is seen in such World War II era entertainment as Flash Gordon (1936), which involves another fantasy figure uniting disparate human groups on the distant world of Mongo in order to unseat Ming.
When At the Earth’s Core follows through on this idea, the film works, but even so the pace is often very slow. The film takes a long time and two different giant monster attacks before David and Abner even reach the Mahar City, and are introduced to their opponents. The film could use a bit more of the wicked sense of humor revealed by the brilliantly composed final shot, of the Iron Mole coming up through the Earth…onto the grounds of the White House, another realm where David’s brand of cooperation and unity would certainly prove helpful
Despite pacing deficits, At the Earth’s Core creates a vivid and colorful fantasy world on its sound-stages. The “alien” foliage of Pellucidar is bizarre and wild, and the monsters (mostly of the kaiju, monster-in-suit variety) are inventive, if weird. One scene that involves McClure battling a Mahar pet in a pit clearly forecasts Return of the Jedi’s (1983) rancor battle in both the specifics of the man vs. monster fight and the orchestration of the fight. And it's commendable that the screenplay doesn’t take the easy route and resolve the David/Dia romance happily. Instead (and unlike the Burroughs novel…), Dia willingly remains behind in Pellucidar while David realizes, expressing the idea that they each belong in their separate worlds.
I had the opportunity to speak to director Kevin Connor about the film at a Space:1999 convention 25 years ago, and talk about the film:
KEVIN CONNOR: Milton (Subotsky) wrote the script of At The Earth’s Core and I had become part of the Amicus stable. They seemed pleased with what I was doing so they hired me again. The script wasn’t the greatest but it had some fun sequences in it. Cushing and McClure were a delight as usual and enjoyed working with each other.
MUIR: Pellucidar is a different world from Caprona. Did you have discussions about making sure this was so, both visually and thematically?
KEVIN CONNOR: Again, I get on very well with all my actors and Caroline was no exception. She rarely left the set, and sat knitting next to the camera, distracting all the boys in her revealing costume.
MUIR: This movie was another big attraction at the box office, wasn’t it?
KEVIN CONNOR: It did well in the UK, but not so well in the States, but it does play on cable TV quite a bit. I don’t think the making of the third film was predicated on the success of this one. It was a good franchise and these stories have a good long shelf life.
40 Years Ago: Vamp (1986)
Writing for The Richmond Times Dispatch , movie critic Carole Kass termed Vamp (1986) “ sleazy, tawdry and disgusting. ” Oddly, those a...

















