Alien: Rebooted 12 June 2009
Posted by primus in : Posts , 2 commentsNews that I had been dreading for quite some time (ever since Aliens vs Predator: Requiem tanked) finally broke a couple of weeks ago - 20th Century Fox are drawing up plans to remake/reboot Alien. Only chit-chat so far, but there seems little doubt that a new project is in the works, and is unlikely to be a direct continuation of the original series.
It seemed inevitable somehow, given the current fad for rebooting/remaking anything that ever made a reasonable amount of money in the past. The recent box-office success of Star Trek has only intensified studio efforts to look at which proven money-maker could be dusted off next. But that does nothing to quell the anger and despair at seeing something you love being butchered, broken up and sold off to make a fast buck. News that should be some form of consolation, namely that Ridley Scott would be co-producing this new take with his brother Tony, does little to asuage my fears.
My problem is that any sort of prequel or reimagining would destroy the elemental mystery of the original. Of course it would be interesting to know the origins of the Alien, and also that of the doomed Space Jockey. But do we really want to know? Would it not cancel out the original film’s unique atmosphere of ancient and otherwordly terror? Is it not better the leave the creature’s true origins obscured, impossible to determine, thereby enhancing its unnatural horror?
I trust Sir Ridley enough to assume that he has thought this through already and found a story angle that won’t ruin his first masterpiece. But I can’t help but fear that I will follow each new announcement of the project with a sinking feeling inside - especially if the director turns out to be a “hot new talent” from the world of music videos or visual effects. Spare us that at least.
The new Predator project (possibly to be directed by Neil Marshall it seems) appears to be a sequel of sorts to the originals. Let’s hope the new Alien will similarly respect the qualities and intentions that marked out its original so vividly.
The new 1982 21 May 2009
Posted by primus in : Posts , 4 commentsBlade Runner, E.T., The Thing, Poltergeist, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Creepshow, Conan the Barbarian, Tron… all great films and all released in 1982, a year commonly picked as a golden one for genre cinema (just ask the Ghost). Men of a certain age may remember visiting their local cinema to catch these classics-in-the-making; sadly I was too young at the time to see most of them.
The one that I did get to watch was E.T., which my dad took me to see in a long-since closed one screen fleapit. Cinema trips were pretty rare for us back then, so it was a special treat to be taken (once a year was about it). The hype for E.T. had been steadily growing - the poster image of the iconic logo’s two letters, together with the moon and silhouetted bike rider, seemed to be everywhere. I remember the backs of a few breakfast cereal boxes at the time having background scenes from the movie painted on, and you could stick some free stickers of characters anywhere you liked in the scene. The story captured my imagination immediately, long before even seeing the movie. I don’t remember much at all about the actual day I went to see it, but I think it’s a safe bet I was entranced throughout. It’s a movie I still love today; more than any other film it instantly takes me back to my childhood, and its status as a children’s classic is indisputable.
Since then of course I have caught up with the other treasures of ‘82, and it is a source of some regret that I could not catch them first time around (mind you, the same goes for many other movies). The fact that one year in particular is singled out by a generation as better than most suggests an unusual convergance of quality, something out of the ordinary - when ideas and scripts and directors and studio greenlights happily coincided, resulting in a number of special films being released over the same few months.
So the obvious question begged is: could it happen again? Or perhaps it has already happened? Are there more recent years that saw great genre films released which could also stand the test of time? I offer below three possible candidate years which could emerge in the future as a new 1982:
1. 1999
This is an obvious one, a year made especially memorable by the release of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. The hype from years of expectation, the great teaser trailers, the posters - culminating in a film that simultaneously caused rejoicing and bitter disappointment for many. I enjoyed it the first time around, and there are still some aspects which are good fun, especially the duels with Darth Maul and the pod race.
Beyond Star Wars, 1999 also saw some other strong genre films released, especially of the horror variety. The big success story was The Sixth Sense, the film that refused to stop raking in money because everyone had to see it twice, thanks to its infamous twist. It’s still an effective ghost story, but to my mind not quite as good as Stir of Echoes, released the same year but which died a quick box-office death because of its perceived similarities with the Bruce Willis effort. Starring Kevin Bacon and based on a story by Richard Matheson, it’s well worth seeking out.
The other big horror film of the year was The Blair Witch Project, another money spinner but for quite different reasons. The first film that really used the internet to build awareness, it was very much a Marmite movie: you either love it or hate it. I was one of the ones that loved it, and it still gives me the creeps every time I see it.
For SF fans 1999 gave us The Matrix, which came out of nowhere to quickly become a new yardstick in mind-blowing sci-fi. Though it borrowed elements from earlier science fiction classics like The Terminator, it undeniably fashioned them in to a brilliant new whole, using the then-hot topic of hackers and the internet as a jumping off point in to a world of machine domination, human enslavement and rebellion.
Another children’s classic was born with The Iron Giant, a wonderfully intelligent and touching animation that in some ways was reminiscent of E.T. - following a young boy’s friendship with an alien outsider. Brad Bird’s film managed to be both a decent adaptation of a much-loved story, as well as a film that could be enjoyed by anyone. Its swift demise at the box office was attributed to a poor marketing campaign by Warner Bros.
There were other memorable films too: David Fincher’s brilliant dark satire Fight Club became an instant cult classic; The Mummy was a very likeable piece of Indiana Jones-style fantasy adventure escapism; and Austin Powers follow-up The Spy Who Shagged Me nicely lightened the mood with its extremely silly spy spoofery. There were other films technically released in 1999 like Sleepy Hollow, The Green Mile and Galaxy Quest, but they didn’t get released in the UK until 2000, so I’ve left them off.
2. 2002
2002’s crop of films also had several highlights amongst them. I could start with E.T.’s 20th anniversary re-release, but that seems a tad unfair so I’ll skip it. If 1999 was the year of Star Wars, then in 2002 it was all about Spider-Man. Long in the works, this eagerly anticipated superhero movie became a box-office phenomenon - not surprising considering that comic-book adaptations were all the rage, yet fellow iconic comic-book characters Batman and Superman were still in the wilderness, awaiting rebirth. Though not as good as the first Batman and Superman films, it was still fine entertainment, and it paved the way for its superior sequel two years later.
Marvel also found success with sequel Blade II, directed by Guillermo del Toro. A strong sequel to the 1998 original, it boasted plenty of action, del Toro’s trademark fantasy-horror atmosphere and a decent villain in Luke Goss. Some preferred the original, but I would say both are as good as each other, just in different ways.
My personal favourite of the prequels, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones tried to fix the problems evident in Episode I. Jar Jar Binks was relegated to a cameo, Natalie Portman was sexed up a bit, the action quotient was significantly increased and Ewan McGregor’s Obi-Wan started to become the great Jedi knight spoken of in the original films. It also had a lighter tone than its much darker successor, and is the most purely enjoyable prequel as far as I’m concerned.
Jason Bourne began his quest to regain his memory in The Bourne Identity, quite the best spy thriller for some years. Many reviewers preferred the Paul Greengrass-directed sequels, but Doug Liman’s original is just as good in my book, maybe even superior. Liman seems to have done his homework and studied the classic thrillers of the 70s - his film feels like an updating of those in many ways, with its concentration on plot rather than action. The action is still good of course: the car chase here was the best since 1998’s Ronin, and far more effective than those of its sequels.
Speilberg’s Minority Report was an impressive if flawed sci-fi thriller based on Philip K. Dick’s story; intelligent and exciting, it was highly anticipated given the potential of the material matched with the calibre of director. It wasn’t quite the classic it might have been; if Blade Runner proved anything, it was that Dick’s stories work best with a truly visionary director able to project a sense of darkness and paranoia, like Ridley Scott. Speilberg, for all his talents and strengths, doesn’t do ‘dark’ very well, but nevertheless it’s a fine SF film.
It was a good year for low-budget British horror, especially werewolves and the undead. 28 Days Later was Danny Boyle’s stab at reviving the zombie sub-genre, and, though derivative (harkening back to the likes of The Day of the Triffids), it was extremely effective. Shot on digital video, the film had an authentic ’survivalist’ feel to it, and the bleak tone was a refreshing jolt. Neil Marshall’s Dog Soldiers on the other hand plundered from the likes of Aliens and The Evil Dead to concoct a highly enjoyable tongue-in-cheek horror thriller set in the wilds of Scotland - it was cheap and cheerful in the very best sense.
M. Night Shyamalan returned with Signs, a film about a global alien invasion but told from the perspective of a preacher and his family living out in the sticks. If you can look past the odd narrative weakness, it’s actually a pretty good yarn, but admittedly it does depend on your opinion of M. Night.
Other films worthy of note were Reign of Fire, an underrated apocalyptic tale of dragons taking over the British Isles; Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams, easily the best of the Spy Kids films and certainly a very likeable family film; and Eight Legged Freaks, that year’s Snakes on a Plane - a film that drew huge attention just from its great B-movie-esque title, and wound up being reasonable fun.
Finally, there was the double whammy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Harry Potter was fun, but The Two Towers was in a totally different league. Following on from The Fellowship of the Ring, director Peter Jackson superbly juggled the three main narrative threads (Frodo and Sam, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, and Merry and Pippin) whilst delivering an atmospheric and epic adventure. Though Fellowship may just edge ahead as the best of the trilogy, Two Towers is a very close second.
3. 2008
What, last year? Well yes, actually. There were some pretty damn good genre films in 2008, and top of the heap would probably have to be The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan’s follow-up to his 2005 caped crusader reboot, Batman Begins. Opening to staggeringly good reviews, TDK quickly became a fan favourite, and it’s not hard to see why. Continuing Bruce Wayne’s quest to rid Gotham City of crime, he finds himself up against The Joker, an insane(?) criminal who becomes Batman’s nemesis. A large part of the film’s success comes down to the late Heath Ledger, whose brilliant interpretation of the famous villain eclipses every previous portrayal. It has a few minor flaws certainly, but TDK as a Hollywood blockbuster is still a wonder to behold.
Most anticipated film of the year (for people of a certain age anyway) was surely Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the long, long awaited return of cinema’s greatest archaeologist. Not seen on the big screen since 1989, Indy, like Episode I, had to shoulder the weight of enormous expectations, and unsurprisingly it failed to meet them for many people. I myself enjoyed it a lot, thanks mainly to the sure hands of Harrison Ford and Speilberg, though it probably ranks as the least of the four films so far. Sensibly updating the “teacher” (part-time) to the 1950s, it’s a great last hurrah for the venerable hero.
Iron Man surprised many by becoming one of the big successes of the year. Taking one of Marvel’s second tier superheroes and catapulting him in to the major league, Iron Man was quality entertainment, with Robert Downey Jr. giving a barnstorming performance in the lead role.
Marvel also found success with their Incredible Hulk sequel/reboot. Not as successful (critically or commercially) as Iron Man, it still by and large pleased the fan community, supplying the popcorn thrills missing from Ang Lee’s original. I liked it a lot, though no more than Lee’s effort - both are very different takes on the character, but both have qualities I enjoy. Surely the perfect Hulk film must lie somewhere between the two?
More comic-book shenanigans came in the form of Hellboy II: The Golden Army, del Toro’s sequel to his 2004 original. Upping the fantasy elements considerably from Hellboy part one, this was a rich, majestic-looking work that many felt was an improvement on the original. Again, I felt the sequel complemented rather than significantly surpassed the first film. But great entertainment once again.
The summer’s best family film came courtesy of Pixar: Wall-E was hailed as an instant classic, and it’s difficult to argue against that view. The bravura opening 20 minutes or so as the audience is introduced to the charming titular waste collecting machine are utterly beguiling, and though the film feels a little long (a common nitpick of mine with most of Pixar’s films), it’s difficult to point out unnecessary scenes. A fantastic piece of work from start to finish.
Bookending the year was Cloverfield, the ‘Godzilla-meets-The Blair Witch Project handheld video monster movie’ that proved to be much better than it sounds, and Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig’s highly anticipated return to the role of James Bond following the superb Casino Royale.
So, are any of these candidates worthy of comparison to 1982? Or is there another year I’ve overlooked?
Aliens vs Predator: Requiem (2007) 5 March 2009
Posted by primus in : Posts, Film reviews , 2 commentsWell, finally we come down to it. After the glorious heights reached by the Alien franchise, we come now to the water circling the toilet bowl that is Aliens vs Predator: Requiem (also variously called AvP-R or AvP2). Of course, this is a spin-off series and not part of the ‘true’ franchise (and nobody can tell me any different), but even so, it’s a sad day indeed to see the dreck to which the once mighty monsters have been reduced.
After the original AvP had been met with indifference and disappointment, hopes were not high for a sequel. Certainly it had been a financial success, easily making its budget back, so a follow-up was more than likely. But could a sequel rescue the Aliens and Predators from the mediocrity of Paul Anderson? Initial signs were mixed. Anderson was quoted as saying he would not be returning for a sequel, which certainly drew a huge sigh of electronic relief across the web. However, the bad news was that the screenwriter quietly attached to the project was Shane Salerno.
Salerno was well known for being involved on the first AvP project as Anderson’s co-writer and script polisher (yes, the script was polished apparently), though he was uncredited on the finished version. In fact, that led to the laughable situation of original Alien writers Dan O’Bannon and Ronald Shusett being given a scripting credit, even though neither had touched it. Given that the first AvP script was not exactly a roaring success, Salerno’s return was something of a disappointment.
On the other hand, in addition to booting out Anderson, Fox studio head Tom Rothman had publicly stated that the sequel would be aiming for an R rating, as opposed to AvP’s more timid PG-13. This opened up the possibility that the studio had actually listened to the fans and was aiming to make a film that better honoured its sci-fi horror origins.
Alas, it wasn’t to be. One is tempted to lay the blame at the door of the directors, the Brother Strause - special effects specialists who were described as huge fans of the earlier films (as Anderson was too). How one shuddders these days when one hears of a film being directed by a first time director whose background is in SFX. Rarely do SFX crew make great directors; in fact, more often than not, their films are catastrophic failures: loud, flashy and without two brain cells to rub together.
The Brothers Strause (who almost invite mockery with their billing) clearly wanted to make a good film, but what became apparent was that the studio were determined to keep Salerno’s script and simply hired someone who could capably shoot it. And Salerno’s script was utterly dire, thereby dooming the whole enterprise. Even if the directors were talented (which is debatable, shall we say), it is unlikely anything could have been salvaged from this pile of manure.
Where to even begin? How about the setting? Small town America. What could be more exciting than seeing Aliens and Predators duking it out in shops and restaurants, right? Well, frankly, anything would have been better. Nothing can demystify and diminish the threat and horror of these creatures more than having them in an everyday setting. The Aliens clearly belong in the future, far from Earth; the Predators seem best suited to exotic and challenging locations. I don’t want to champion the first AvP, but at least it tried to keep the setting as hostile as its guests (both Alien and Predator). Seeing an Alien walk through a swing-door in to a roadside cafe kitchen is perhaps the most heart-sinking moment I have witnessed on screen since James Bond’s car turned invisible in Die Another Day. One could almost hear the nails being banged in to the series’ coffin on that occasion; so it is here.
The characters are just as depressingly mundane. It has been said before in other reviews, but it’s worth repeating: the hero of the tale is a pizza delivery boy. Who on earth thought that was going to be a good idea? The original films thrived thanks to the human characters whose strength and spirit allowed them to triumph over the creatures. This time we have to put up with an adolescent who is pining for a girl he has a crush on at school. Oh, and there’s also his older brother, who has just been released from jail. And a female soldier just back from Afghanistan (or was it Iraq? I forget), who is trying to become a mum again to her small child. It’s all just so TV-movie-of-the-week. The actors seem to do their best, but with so little to work with, performances are merely perfunctory.
One might look for consolation in the action or special effects, especially considering the directors’ backgrounds. Sadly, there’s not much doing here either. One or two moments, where the pace quickens sufficiently to reawaken your interest, is not enough. The effects are ok, but the gore factor is turned up considerably, to the point where it far exceeds anything in the original films. It feels like a desperate attempt to be trendy for the Saw generation. Gore should be used wisely, and sparingly - any good director worth his salt knows that. It should serve the story. There is a time and a place for gooey goodness, of course, but in the Alien or Predator films, it should be used in moderation, at key moments.
Even from a technical standpoint, the film fails to achieve basic competence. Most of the photography in the film is so dark it’s often hard to make out what’s going on. This is presumably to try and obscure the film’s low budget build an atmosphere of forboding and dread. Well, it doesn’t work. Neither does the pacing. When the studio released the first five minutes of the film on to the web, the main response from fandom was: “Er, it’s going a bit fast, isn’t it?” No time is wasted at the beginning in trying to establish any sort of interest or tension; instead, it feels like a Star Trek episode trying to set up the story in the first three minutes before the theme tune and credits start.
Why the studio should treat not one but two of their crown jewel franchises in this way is beyond comprehension. Surely it has not come to the point where both series could only be used to make a quick buck? Surely they can’t be this eager to bury them?
The truth is, the studio didn’t know what to do with them and, frightened they might miss out on making some money while they dithered, the AvP series was launched to see if there was still enough interest amongst cinema goers to sustain the franchises. The trouble is, they forget to attach proper talent to the films, which resulted in mediocre products that people aren’t interested in. Which ironically, and sadly, might mean that the franchises really are now dead. Way to go, Tom.
An AvP3 apparently remains a possibility; lately there have also been rumours of the Predator series going it alone again, which to me seems the preferable option. Given the poor quality of this sequel, the next logical step is direct-to-dvd piffle. Almost unthinkable.
But what of the Aliens? For the time being, it seems they have been frozen and put in to hypersleep. But my guess is that they are too good (and too profitable) a monster to stay down for very long. Their time will come again. One way or another, they - and the bitch - will be back.
Rating: 
Alien vs Predator (2004) 26 January 2009
Posted by primus in : Posts, Film reviews , add a commentLast year, in a fit of unabashed love for my favourite film series, I reviewed all four Alien movies. I don’t normally write reviews on my blog, having neither the requisite skills nor time to do so on a regular basis, but this franchise is a big part of my movie DNA and a personal write-up extolling their virtues seemed long overdue. The Alien franchise consists of four films, but the Aliens themselves proved to be too big for one franchise and they managed to appear in two further movies: a spin-off series co-starring another monstrous intergalactic species of the cinema - the Predator. Yes my friends, I’m talking about the oft-maligned Alien(s) vs Predator, and for the sake of completeness I’m going to review them both. Strap yourselves in, because we’re on an express elevator to Hell.
After Alien: Resurrection’s mediocre financial and critical reception, a fifth entry seemed to be an increasingly remote proposition. Sigourney Weaver’s fee alone was probably a major part of the financial headache, even if a satisfactory storyline could be hammered out, which apparently it couldn’t. Years went by, but fan interest in a new chapter remained steady. Somewhere along the line original Alien director Ridley Scott started to circle a new instalment, raising the hopes of many a sci-fi fan. His story preference was to visit the Alien homeworld, a quite daring idea which would demand a director of his vision and calibre to deliver a film that could live up to the fanbase’s high expectations. Aliens director James Cameron was also reported to have joined the effort in a writing and/or producing capacity, to try and move the franchise forward. Surely with these two Alien alumni onboard, the next chapter was a surefire winner?
Well, 20th Century Fox obviously didn’t think so, because it was abandoned in favour of their long-gestating crossover concept, Alien vs. Predator (commonly shortened to AvP). AvP started out as a comic book series in 1990 (titled Aliens vs Predator, as Cameron’s film was by far the more popular of the two flicks at the time) and was famously suggested in the same year’s Predator 2 when Danny Glover’s character examined a Predator’s hunting trophy case, among whose contents was a very familiar looking elongated skull. The popularity of the idea did not go unnoticed by the studio and they bought Peter Brigg’s initial treatment in 1991. But Weaver dismissed the idea as terrible and, unable to finalise a satisfactory script, it was shelved.
Fast forward to the early 2000s, when the Alien series seemed to be without life (as did the Predator - a third film was in development for much of the early 90s, but failed to progress). Pitches for an AvP movie had come and gone with no success. Then in 2002, seemingly out of nowhere, the project was greenlit. Cue much rejoicing… until, that is, it was revealed the man into whose hands the long-cherished project had fallen was none other than Paul W.S. Anderson.
To say there was disappointment would be to understate the reaction. Anderson was by and large loathed by the genre community. His adaptation of hit video game Resident Evil (2002) was met with derision by fans, while his earlier Soldier (1998) starring Kurt Russell was universally agreed upon as a complete waste of money and talent, despite the original script receiving strong reviews. The previous year’s Sam Neill/Laurence Fishburne starrer Event Horizon had appeared to show some promise, though it failed to live up to its pre-release hype as the scariest sci-fi horror since Alien.
Hopes had been dashed, expectations cruelly slashed, skinned and strung up like a victim of the Predator itself. Two franchises with strong fanbases felt betrayed. Not even the casting of Aliens veteran Lance Henriksen could lift the general air of gloom about the project. The problem was that Anderson was (and is) a hack, a director who does enough to make a decent-enough looking film, but no more. We were treated in the past to some great directors of vision and true craftsmanship. Anderson is neither; prone to MTV-style editing and effects, and shameless in his ransacking of older, better movies, his films lack any memorable, outstanding or original moments. They totally fail to conjure any sort of tangible atmosphere, and the less said about his writing, the better - the word “cliché” apparently does not exist in Anderson’s book. I won’t go so far as to say he cannot direct at all, as his career clearly shows that he has managed to; but no discernible talent has yet been displayed, so quite how he manages to continue bagging top Hollywood directing gigs is beyond me.
When the film opened in 2004, it was met with predictable criticism. The usual Anderson trademarks were on display: little-to-no characterisation; awful dialogue; no atmosphere; gaping plot holes; silly SFX scenes; and the overall pervading air of desperation and eagerness-to-please. Of all the crimes committed in this film, the bullet-time shot of a facehugger flying through the air is about the worst, though I’m sure everyone could list their own personal ‘favourite’. In particular, the decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the States was singled out as a chief flaw, though I doubt a bloodier version of the same film would have improved matters much.
For non-fans it seemed to be an acceptable enough 90 minutes of sci-fi action, and to be fair it is competent studio product, but for me that’s the point: the other Alien films were much more than just product. They were ‘real’ films, born of a director’s vision - even Alien 3 was such, despite its infamous history of studio interference. Anderson is not a visionary like Scott, Cameron, Fincher or Jeunet, and unless something spectacular happens, he is unlikely to become so. That Fox considered hiring him at all to bring this film to the screen was a crime against cinema.
So what of the film itself? Well, despite all the above, there are one or two positive aspects to it. The seeds of a good story are in evidence: elements of the comic-book are mixed up with ‘Chariots of the Gods’-style historical fantasy, the film positing that Predators have been visiting Earth for thousands of years, worshipped as gods as they used humans and Aliens to establish a rites-of-passage challenge for their young. Interestingly it tries to position itself as a prequel to the first Alien movie: Henriksen’s character, Charles Weyland, is a nod to his earlier portrayal of the android Bishop in Aliens, evidently designed in tribute to the co-founder of the Company.
To his credit Anderson does try and build up atmosphere by concentrating on the human characters to begin with, delaying the onscreen introduction of the two monsters for a good while. And if the film had to be set on Earth (which it didn’t), then Antarctica is a good location choice - the inhospitable environment has the makings of a very alien setting (and of course it was mentioned at the start of the first Alien film). The pyramid under the ice set looks fantastic, and the first time an Alien comes face-to-face with a Predator is the closest the film comes to being genuinely exciting.
Sadly, Anderson squanders it all by failing to make any of the human characters interesting or the action thrilling. The aforementioned bullet-time facehugger is a classic head-slapper, but there are many others, like the opening lines of the dire dialogue: “Where’s the signal coming from?” “Sector 14.” “But there isn’t anything in Sector 14.” “There is now…” Ooooooh, scary. Actually, no it isn’t - it’s risible.
Plot holes abound: if Predators visit this pyramid every 100 years to hunt Aliens, then how the hell did the Aliens hatch in 1804, 1704, etc. when no humans were on the continent to act as incubators? Did they just turn around in their spaceship and fly home, grumbling to themselves about coming all this way for nothing? Why on earth would Weyland’s team bring that much firepower to an archaeological expedition? And the Alien lifecycle seems to have been sped up significantly for the convenience of the plot…
It’s all very frustrating, because with a director of just a bit more talent, a half-decent film could probably have been churned out. As it is, it’s not even half-decent. The sense of disappointment considering its enormous potential means it will forever be a rather sad experience for this fan. That said, it looks pretty good (at least the production values are easy to admire) and there are one or two potentially cool moments, which makes it better than some of the direct-to-dvd dreck you might otherwise encounter. So if you do find yourself watching it for whatever reason, then just remember to tell yourself: it’s a comic-book spin-off, not a real Alien movie. It helps lessen the pain, and who knows? You might even not hate it.
Rating:
Where have all the DVDs gone? Part II: The Recession 7 January 2009
Posted by primus in : Posts , 6 commentsFirstly, apologies (to anyone who cares) for the long absence since my last post - time seemed to get sucked away from me, what with DIYing a new bathroom and the rather busy Christmas period. Hope you had a good break, anyway. My old Sony CRT television decided to give up the ghost during December, so I’ve now upgraded to a 40inch Sony LCD, which has also (agreeably) taken up some of my time. Good for dvd-watching (next on the shopping list: a Blu Ray player), not so good for Freeview-watching - everything gets quite blocky in low-lit scenes. But I’ll get used to it I suppose.
Anyway, I digress. Back in July 07, not long after I first started writing this little blog-ette, I wrote a small piece lamenting the decline in the number of high street retailers selling dvds. What on earth is a film addict supposed to do with their lunch break if there are no discs to peruse? Back in those easy-credit days, I rather glumly noted:
“…enjoy your high street dvd retailers while they’re still there: you never know when they’ll be forced to pack up and go the way of the do-do.”
Curse my prophetic words of doom! 18 months on, we’re in the grip of a rather nasty recession that no-one seemed to predict (with the exception of Vince Cable, apparently) and high street retailers are falling over left, right and centre. This week alone has seen the final demise of Woolworths, one of the last remaining shops stocking a reasonable number of dvds instore. This was a particularly painful loss, not just for me but for the British people in general; long had Woolies been the shopper’s refuge from rain, the source of useful odds and ends, and the rites-of-passage that was the singles, album and film charts. Of course I bought my first 45s and cassettes there, but also my first videos: copies of Alien or Star Wars, plus battered old lesser items rescued from the bargain bin (RoboCop for £3 - that was good in them days).
In recent years you could still find the occasional nugget of gold, but the internet really ate in to its trade. Even so, the most I would have expected is that it would give up selling music and films, and concentrate on its more profitable areas of trade - sadly, it appears that there were no profitable areas. At all.
However, the internet has not been immune to the credit crunch either. Zavvi became the first major online dvd retailing casualty, closing its website just before Christmas 2008 (though its stores remain open for the time being). Who’s next? It’s a fair bet that other online retailers will follow suit. The top players like Amazon and Play.com should be able to weather the storm, but if Zavvi and Woolies can go down the pan, then so could anyone else, quite frankly.
So, who’s left then? On the high street, if Zavvi disappear, then HMV are basically the last man standing. No other nationwide music/film/games retailers spring to mind. If you’re feeling charitable you might include Blockbusters, but they concentrate on rentals, and they certainly don’t stock music. If you’re lucky, a supermarket might have a reasonable selection on offer, but for sheer choice, they can’t compete with a specialist trader.
Does it even matter anymore? If we’ve got the internet, do we need a high street retailer? Well, it’s certainly true that nearly all of my filmic purchases are made via the web, but when I walk past a store like HMV, I still can’t resist poking my head inside to see what’s on offer. This is the modern dilemma of the physical entertainment form versus the digital. I like to see the films in front of my eyes - hold the packaging, admire the artwork, choose the one I like the look of best. Music fans who treasure their CD or vinyl collections will know what I mean. Browsing a store is so much more interesting than clicking around a website (though admittedly, not having to queue on the web is a definite plus). And how can a downloaded film or music collection ever be as interesting and fun as a real collection of discs, ones you picked up here and there down the years, and that can be lovingly admired and perused? The act of browsing can be very pleasurable, and that’s the experience the web and downloads have yet to match.
So I will miss the high street dvd sellers - the Zavvis and Virgins, the MVCs and Music Zones, Choices, and of course Woolies - with their tempting but ludicrously over-priced chart displays and their bargain bins of naffness. I certainly enjoyed many a lunchtime searching for the nugget of gold hidden away in their stores. And if you happen to be walking past an HMV, pop inside and take a look around - don’t let it go the way of the do-do (or Woolworths).
Alien: Resurrection (1997) 12 October 2008
Posted by primus in : Posts, Film reviews , 6 commentsAnd so we come to the fourth and (thus far) final film in the original Alien cycle, Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Alien: Resurrection. It is in some ways ironic that this is (thus far) the last of the series (not including the Alien vs Predator spin-offs), as it was heralded on its arrival as the saviour of the franchise - a return to form after the negative response to Alien 3; to get it “back on track”, as Kim Newman described it in his Radio 4 review. My sense is that, on the contrary, time has proven A:R to be the weakest of the line.
This was the first Alien film to be exposed to internet fan speculation during its development, where fact and fiction often walked in hand. Rumors abounded of the direction that a new film might take (one story suggested that the events of Alien 3 would be written off as a hypersleep dream, paving the way for the return of Hicks, Bishop and Newt). How big a part the still-young world wide web played in the actual decision-making process is of course questionable, but it was clear there was still a great hunger for more sequels. This was despite the apparently final conclusion of Alien 3 that saw Ripley’s own story come to a memorable close, even if the film itself was not as beloved by audiences as its predecessors. It was this lingering dissatisfaction that seemed to drive demand for a new entry; questions still needed to be answered and more Xenomorph-style terror was desired, in the belief that Alien 3 was merely a blip.
At least, that’s what it felt like from a fan’s perspective. From the studio’s point of view, this was a series that was still solvent and capable of making more money, just as the Planet of the Apes series had done for the same studio two decades earlier. That might sound cynical, and it probably is, but there’s no doubt that if it wasn’t capable of making money, a new chapter would never have got made.
The studio does deserve some credit though. All three of the earlier films had been directed by up-and-coming directors of talent and vision, who all went on to equal or greater successes (Ridley Scott made Blade Runner and Gladiator; James Cameron made Terminator 2 and Titanic (yes, yes, I know); and David Fincher made Seven and Fight Club). Commendably undeterred after the mixed reception to Alien 3, Fox and the producers stuck to their guns and went after another visionary for the new episode. One early frontrunner included Danny Boyle, who had just come off Trainspotting. In the end they signed up Jeunet, despite his speaking little English and not having directed a feature-length film by himself before; his earlier films, Delicatessen (1991) and The City of Lost Children (1995), were co-directed with Marc Caro. Jeunet of course went on afterwards to direct the wonderful Amelie (2001).
A:R bears all the hallmarks of having been conceived as the start of a new series of films, perhaps a new trilogy. Writer Joss Whedon certainly tries to give audiences what they wanted from a new film. Firstly Ripley herself is resurrected, using the then-trendy plot device of cloning. Sigourney Weaver was tempted back with a whopping paycheck. Clearly the producers felt that her involvement was crucial to get the series going again; earlier attempts to get an Aliens vs Predator film off the ground came unstuck, so it’s not surprising that Weaver was drafted in. It does smack a little of desperation though, almost like the producers felt it would be too risky trying to create a new character to carry the franchise.
To be fair, the idea is interesting and has potential: two centuries after the events of Alien 3, Ripley is cloned from stored blood samples by military scientists (will they never learn?) aboard a spaceship attempting to recreate the Alien (something to do with “urban pacification”); this results in her DNA becoming mixed with that of her nemesis, making her a rather different Ripley from the one we remember. The idea that her ultimate sacrifice was in vain, and worse, she is now bonded with the evil she has battled to eradicate, does pose some intriguing questions. Of course, the Aliens manage to escape their shackles and start to do what they do best: kill, kill and kill again.
Whedon’s script ticks other crowd-pleasing boxes too. Back come the colonial marines from Aliens; back too comes the spaceship setting from the original, complete with ship’s computer called Father (as opposed to Mother in the first film). The basic story is also familiar, as a dwindling group of survivors try to make their way out of the infested ship alive.
For the first time in the series, Weaver’s name was not alone headlining the poster: joining her was Winona Ryder. Ryder’s addition to the franchise is convincing evidence that the studio were looking for a new name to carry the series on if and when Weaver bailed out (though the revelation about her character that comes towards the end of the film is slightly bizarre if she was indeed to pick up the torch as the new star of the series). Unfortunately Ryder doesn’t fare well in the film, being altogether too weedy and annoying, and Weaver easily keeps the limelight to herself.
Ryder is not the film’s only fault however. The most serious flaw is a very uneven tone, one that lurches from thriller to farce and back again. It’s often a frustrating film to watch, as one feels that in the hands of a different director, A:R could have been a much stronger addition to the series. Instead, Jeunet adds moments of pure silliness when what we really want from an Alien film is horror and suspense. Scenes like Dan Hedaya’s death-from-behind, looking at his own brains; or the frankly bizarre ‘conception’ scene as Ripley is ’smothered’ by the Alien Queen, resulting in the entirely risible Newborn. The style of humour here is totally out of place; it might work in Whedon’s Buffy tv series, but an Alien film needs to be grounded, believable, scary. Hedaya’s whole character seems to have walked in from a sitcom shooting next door.
These supposed innovations only serve to distract from a story that seems fine on paper, but actually turns out to be more like a greatest hits compilation of its predecessors. Whedon’s script included some colonial marines, but only one actually plays anything like a significant role. And for all the guns on display, desperately trying to evoke memories of Aliens, there’s precious little shooting.
Which would be fine, if there was horror and suspense to replace it. But sadly the film is deficient here too. Certainly there’s nothing to match the terror of the first or second films, or even Alien 3. There’s the odd moment of excitement, such as the underwater swim and the egg ‘farm’ where the survivors emerge, or the scene where the abducted passengers awake to find themselves each suspended above an Alien egg just about to hatch. But the trouble is it’s all been done before, and better. Jeunet may have an imaginative eye with the camera, but he doesn’t seem to know how to build a tangible atmosphere of tension or dread.
This does all rather sound like I hate the film, but actually I don’t. Even if Jeunet proved to be the wrong man for the job, he didn’t necessarily deliver a bad film - just an unsatisfactory Alien film. Certainly there are enough ideas of interest to make it worth a look. The tone may not be right, but the setting is good; in fact Whedon reworked this space smugglers scenario to much better effect with his short-lived but much-missed TV series, Firefly. The smuggler crew are an interesting bunch of characters, including the likes of Ron Perlman and Michael Wincott, and they help keep the film afloat. The build up to the escape of the Aliens is quite involving. The action may be a disappointment, but the sets and cinematography continue the series tradition of looking superb, both claustrophobic and moody - it certainly looks like an Alien film, and some pleasure is derived from that fact alone. Sadly the Aliens themselves are not as scary as they once were, the film over-relying on CGI and therefore automatically losing some of the horror the first two films had. There are some neat touches though, such as the way the Aliens escape from their cells by killing one of their own. The other standout moment is the scene where Ripley encounters the earlier attempts to clone her; failed experiments horrificly gone wrong, yet unaccountably kept alive.
But much of the good work is lost when the ending with the Newborn arrives. The best that can be said here is that if the studio wanted their director to inject something unique in to the film, then they certainly got it. Unfortunately, the creature is more often laughable than the tragic beast he seems intended to have been. And the whole idea of a human-Alien crossbreed as the product of what seems to be a sexual liaison is just too silly for words. I’m amazed the studio let it get by.
So in the end it’s a mixed bag really. Some good bits, some bad, some imaginative, some absurd. It was a noble attempt to do something different with the franchise, to make it feel familiar yet new, whilst getting the series back on the road to success. Unfortunately audiences didn’t get onboard with it and the moderate box-office returns it generated meant the series was put on hold indefinitely. Still, if this was the weakest of the series to date, then that shows the strength of the franchise’s quality overall.
An Alien 5 has been mooted now and again, with Cameron and Scott apparently interested in making a fifth and final chapter that visited the Alien homeworld. Sadly it was overruled by the studio in favour of the long-gestating Alien vs Predator… but that’s a review for another day.
Rating:
Alien 3 (1992) 5 October 2008
Posted by primus in : Posts, Film reviews , 5 commentsAfter two artistically and financially successful films, where next for 20th Century Fox’s sci-fi horror franchise? Why, another sequel of course - but could they make it three out of three? Defying the usual pattern of cranking out sequels as soon as possible to milk the cash cow, there was a six year gap between Aliens and its successor, though this was not really intentional. In the meantime, the studio’s Predator franchise was born in 1987 to try and tide the same audience over, itself spawning a sequel as well as a future crossover franchise (triggered by the infamous shot of the skull trophy case in 1990’s Predator 2).
As has been well documented, this was no normal period of development hell - Alien 3 became a real problem child for the studio and producers David Giler and Walter Hill. They were determined to keep to the successful established pattern of picking an up-and-coming hot talent to take the reins, but finding the right direction to take the story for the next episode proved a real sticking point. Directors and scripts came and went with alarming speed. Writers such as William Gibson, David Twohy and Vincent Ward took a stab, only to have their efforts tossed in to the bin. Renny Harlin was first offered the director’s chair (what were they thinking?), followed by Ward, but both were shown the door when a satisfactory script failed to surface. Giler and Hill eventually took charge and wrote a script themselves, using various elements from earlier drafts; but this was also rejected by Fox. Finally first-time director David Fincher was signed up, and Giler and Hill continued to revise their script, even as the film was forcibly pushed into production. Star Sigourney Weaver herself got involved to try and get the development mess in to some sort of shape.
It has been said before, but it’s worth saying again: Alien 3 should have been an utter disaster, and indeed initially it was reviled by most fans of the previous entries. This is quite understandable. Once again the tone of the film changed tack; instead of taking the easy road and simply serving up more of the same, Alien 3 bravely tried to go in its own direction. Gone are the colonial marines and their firepower (most of the survivors from Aliens are disposed of in the opening minutes with shocking speed); gone too is the haunted house in space from the first film. In their place are some 25 fairly nasty convicts, mostly converted to a “Christian fundamentalist” religion, populating a lice-ridden, broken-down prison complex (bereft of any sort of weapons) on an obscure, desolate world: inhumane people on an inhumane planet. Bleak is just the beginning. The story, unfashionably downbeat with religious overtones, was almost certainly not what the studio or fans were hoping for. No wonder audiences left crushed and disappointed.
I have to admit, I was one of them when I first saw it. The loss of Hicks, Newt and Bishop was especially traumatic. The marvelously gripping ending of Aliens was suddenly negated, its meaning cut out and lost. There were odd and frustrating story inconsistencies (where DID the egg on the Sulaco come from?). And the lack of any characters to warm to in the new film - no Parker or Brett, no Hudson or Hicks here - made it difficult to empathise with the plight of the prisoners when hell expectedly breaks loose. Even Ripley herself seemed strangely alien, with her shaven head and having become so fatalistic about her nemesis that she welcomes her own death at the end.
But time has been rather kind to Alien 3. Once over the initial shock and disappointment, and accepting the fact that it was admirably and determinedly going to be its own beast, the true qualities of Alien 3 have slowly emerged. Director David Fincher by all accounts had a nightmare experience trying to make the film, with constant interference from the studio, but credit for the final product almost certainly should be laid at his feet. His subsequent films have proven him to be a greatly talented director, but Alien 3 showed this talent first emerging. The bleak atmosphere, eschewing the adrenaline rush of Aliens, is one to savour. It’s certainly memorable, more so than the characters; and even if the final script was a mishmash of ideas from earlier drafts, the story and setting proved to be intriguing science-fiction. Fincher’s direction turns the script in to an intense sci-fi horror thriller that refuses to go for a happy ending. If Aliens was a ‘beer-and-snack’ movie, this is a whisky flick: no fizz, just savour the strength and mood. Even the photography makes it look like it was shot through a glass of Scotland’s finest: all yellows and browns, deceptively warm-looking, but actually anything but. In this regard it is certainly the equal of its predecessors, providing a location and atmosphere as godforsaken as its Alien visitor.
And although the characters are no match for its predecessors, it does have one or two highlights. In a cast full of British character actors, Charles Dance as Clemens comes across as pretty much the one likeable guy in the whole place, exuding charisma in a charisma-free zone. The legendary Brian Glover is also good value as the warden Andrews (”This is rumour control. Here are the facts!”), as is Ralph Brown as his assistant Aaron, blessed with an IQ of 85. Of the prisoners, Charles S. Dutton as Dillon is the most likeable, emerging as a reluctant leader to his wayward flock. Paul McGann and Pete Postlethwaite are also in there, and of course good old Lance Henriksen turns up in a baffling cameo at the end as ‘Bishop II’, causing much debate about whether he was just another android or in fact the real Bishop that designed the android, as he claimed he was.
Mention should also be made of Elliot Goldenthal’s melancholy score, memorable throughout for its sombre, medieval mood. The early CGI looks a little primitive these days, but on the whole the effects are fine; the occasional cuts to space as the Company’s ship races to ‘rescue’ Ripley is a welcome nod to Scott’s original, as is the ghostly radio message heard at the very end. And while one certainly laments the fact that the film as a whole failed to be as satisfying as the earlier two entries, it does at least take itself seriously: there are some great set-pieces, particularly the climax, and it provides satisfying closure to Ripley’s story. On its own terms, Alien 3 is undoubtedly good, grown-up science-fiction horror.
Rating:
Aliens (1986) 19 September 2008
Posted by primus in : Posts, Film reviews , 4 commentsContinuing my series of Alien movie reviews, we come to the second entry, James Cameron’s 1986 sequel, Aliens. This was actually the first Alien movie I ever watched, and fortunately it was the 1992 Special Edition director’s cut (rented out from the local video shop - remember them?). I therefore have a tremendous amount of affection for it, even whilst admitting that the original is probably the superior piece overall. Not to slight Cameron’s work, however; he crafted a technically brilliant and highly influential film in its own right, and it’s extremely doubtful the Alien mythos would have survived and thrived as much as it has were it not for his work here.
A sequel to Alien could have gone in numerous directions, but it eventually landed in the lap of Cameron, having proved his talents on low-budget hit The Terminator (1984). Coming a full seven years after the original, and working from a story by himself and producers David Giler and Walter Hill, Aliens gave the director the first real opportunity to stretch his skills on a proper budget (though certainly not huge for the time - around $20m). Rather than simply retelling the same story, Cameron sensibly raises the stakes in several ways. Firstly, there is now more than one Alien, as the title implies - in fact there are LOTS more. Necessarily this does take away some of the sheer terror that Ridley Scott’s original developed. There we saw how just a single creature almost supernaturally stalked and killed Ripley’s entire crew. By having hundreds of the creatures on the loose, thereby giving them the advantage, the terror should conversely be greatly diminished. Thankfully this is not the case, for two reasons: firstly, H.R. Giger’s creations are so superbly nightmare-ish that being afraid is still the only option; and secondly, James Cameron turned out to be one of the finest action directors Hollywood had ever produced. The tension and adrenaline he succeeds in generating through set-piece after set-piece is phenomenal by anyone’s standards, and certainly overcomes any loss of mystery and suspense that sequels usually suffer. This is a different terror from the original movie: this is no longer a haunted house in space; this time it’s war.
The term ‘rollercoaster ride’ might have been invented to describe the film’s story. The happy ending from the first movie (well, hopeful rather than happy, perhaps) turned out to be not-so-happy, as the movie picks up 57 years later, with Ripley’s family having died in the interim, and worse still, the planet that Ripley’s ship landed on is now colonised. Ripley is coerced into revisiting the planet with a platoon of hi-tech colonial marines when contact with said colony is lost.
Cameron’s certainly a much better director than he is writer (see Titanic for proof of that), but I would argue he did some of his best ever writing here. Ripley’s character is much beefed up, with a psychology and history that adds depth and intelligently builds on what we learnt from the original film. Sigourney Weaver takes the script and delivers a powerful performance, and, astonishingly for a genre film (and a sequel to boot), won an Oscar nod for her trouble. The stakes are raised for Ripley too - her maternal relationship with Newt (Carrie Henn - never seen onscreen again since), the girl who miracualously survived the slaughter of the colony, is key to the film’s emotional wallop. Were it not for this beautifully-judged and handled plot thread, the subsequent action scenes would lose their resonance, and this is what separates it from the imitators and rip-offs that followed.
But that’s obviously not what makes the film so cool to a teenage boy - that would be the action scenes. The film delivers in spades here. The initial investigation in to the abandoned colony buildings, the devastating first encounter with the Xenomorphs, the subsequent desperate defense against the unstoppable foe and the final running battles - it’s brilliant, relentless, buttock-clenching stuff. Making the most of his mere six Alien costumes, Cameron offers a deft lesson in how to make less appear more. Yes, the film lacks the subtlety of its predecessor, but when the replacement is this much fun, who cares? Chock full of memorable moments (the attack underneath the cooling towers, with Gorman watching his monitors helplessly while his troops are wiped out; the auto-sentries; the moment where Hicks discovers how the Aliens have evaded their defences (ripped off wholesale in 2005’s Doom); Ripley’s descent to rescue Newt), Cameron’s inventiveness and ease at shooting action is quite evident to see.
Coupled with that is the instantly quotable dialogue - especially from Bill Paxton’s panicky Private Hudson:
“We’re on an express elevator to Hell - going down!”
“I am the ultimate badass! State of the badass art!”
“Stop your grinnin’ and drop your linen.”
“Yeah man, but it’s a dry heat!”
“They’re coming outta the goddamn walls!”
“That’s it man, game over man, game over!”
“What do you mean, “they cut the power”? How could they cut the power, man? They’re animals!”
“You’re dog-meat, pal!”
Ever since this film, as far I’m concerned, Paxton can do no wrong. The rest of the cast are also excellent, led of course by the often-underrated Michael Biehn as the quietly resourceful Cpl. Hicks, Paul Reiser as corporate slimeball Carter Burke, and the ever-reliable Lance Henricksen as android Bishop. The rest of the cast play their roles with equal conviction and, as with Alien, are far more memorable than usual in films of this ilk. Indeed, one feels greatly saddened when they are whittled down to the final survivors.
Another key element in the mix is James Horner’s score, which is both suitably atmospheric and heart-poundingly exciting when necessary. The production design is also noteworthy, building on Scott’s original whilst updating it too. As with Alien, very little of it has dated, and I would go so far as to say that it is still being imitated today; again, only the computers have aged. And the sets and photography are terrific: I swear there are times you can feel the chill air, damp with the smell of hot gunmetal and sweat, blowing off the screen. Hats off to the late, great Adrian Biddle, who struck gold on his first outing as Director of Photography.
The main point of contention that seems to divide fans of Scott’s and Cameron’s films is the Alien Queen. This is understandable, as it does remove a lot of the mystery that surrounded the origins of the Aliens, and how those eggs came to be in the wrecked spaceship of the first movie. It also added some confusion about the Alien’s lifecycle, conflicting with the excised scene in the first movie where Ripley discovers the fate of Dallas. Cameron’s modification to the lifecycle does at least make sense, and undoubtedly makes for a thrilling showdown, though the point about demystification is well made.
All in all, it’s an excellent film, and a most worthy follow-up to Alien. The 1992 special edition is the superior version, without question - it adds about 17 minutes more, including a good deal more action and backstory for Ripley and Newt, whilst never feeling overlong. One suspects this was the version Cameron would have preferred to originally release in cinemas, but was overruled by the studio (I’ve not read this anywhere, but it sounds plausible). It was that rare beast: a sequel that could legitimately claim to be the equal of its predecessor.
One final note of praise: I love the sound effects in this film. Kudos to whoever came up with the sound for the pulse rifles and the motion trackers - just fantastic!
Rating:
Alien (1979) 31 August 2008
Posted by primus in : Posts, Film reviews , 5 comments
At long lost I have got around to writing a review of probably my favourite film - Ridley Scott’s Alien. Long time readers will be well aware of the enormous affection and esteem in which I hold this sci-fi horror masterpiece, and I know I’m not alone. Far from it - such is the quality of the movie that it probably has far more fans now than ever before. I obviously can’t compete with all the professional criticism out there that has dissected the film far more thoroughly, so these are just some of my own thoughts.
Part of Alien’s enduring appeal is of course the titular creature itself, which I’ll talk about later on. Firstly I want to discuss the film in its own right, because it is easy to overlook everything else in the movie that works so perfectly. The sequels and rip-offs that followed have helped to obscure the level of thought, detail and sheer artistry that constitutes this milestone in film-making.
Let’s start, as all films must do, with the script. Dan O’Bannon and Ronald Shusett’s writing here was never going to win any awards, but then it didn’t need to. What they did do, with hindsight very cleverly, was to resurrect a successful formula from the 1950s (monsters from outer space picking off helpless humans) and mash it up with a gritty 1970s sensibility. The dialogue for the first part of the story concerns itself with the humdrum work of a ship’s crew, consisting of conversations that could be transplanted in to any other social context and still work. Gripes about pay, bitching about work-provided facilities, jokes at the expense of senior personnel - for a movie supposedly about a lethal extra-terrestrial, this is pretty soft stuff. No ‘Jaws’-like kick-off here that instantly makes clear the impending threat; instead the audience is drawn gently in to a mystery about why a deep-space mining ship’s crew on their way home has been awoken early, after having been diverted off course. The dialogue and characterization is unusually intelligent for a film of its genre. Restricting the crew to seven was a wise move; this allows each character in the script to ‘breathe’ a bit more than normal, whilst making the inevitable death scenes to come more intense and gut-wrenching. There’s also a nice line of subtle humour running through the film that is easy to overlook – it certainly adds a dimension to the characters’ relationships.
How much of the end-product was down to the writers is arguable, given that the unquestionable driving force behind the quality of the film was director Ridley Scott. Certainly the earlier drafts of the script (titled “Starbeast”), whilst structurally similar, hewed far closer to genre conventions and lacked the wit and sheen of the final piece. In another director’s hands, the same lines and actions would likely have had far less impact. All the myths that have built up around the movie’s production usually involve Scott to some extent, adding to the sense that this is less a studio product and more the vision of an auteur. There is of course the famous/infamous anecdote about John Hurt’s chestburster scene, and how the other cast members were unaware of what was going to happen (apparently this is mostly true - they knew something was going to happen, but the details were left deliberately vague).
It was Scott’s attention to detail however that paid off in spades. To its credit, very little in the film has dated, which only further confirms Scott’s status as a visionary director. So much 1970s sci-fi succumbed to prevailing fads and fashions (made worse by the 70s fashions themselves) that within a decade, they were hopelessly dated - just look at Logan’s Run, which came out three years earlier in 1976, but in terms of design is practically prehistoric. Alien on the other hand almost completely evaded these pratfalls. Beyond the inevitable computer displays, the only elements that could be easily traced to the 70s are the computer control room (lots of pretty but meaningless blinking lights) and perhaps the odd pastelly uniform, though according to another story Scott himself rejected the original outfits as being far too naff and ordered more practical and realistic ones to be made instead. Regarding the computer displays, yes they are dated, but part of me still thinks that when mankind does finally explore the outer edges of space, they will be using software and hardware that looks and works just like these computers do - they somehow seem harder and more “sciencey” than Windows or a Mac. That’s probably more to do with my age, though.
Scott’s direction is practically faultless. From the moody establishing shots of the distant sun and empty vastness of outer space, to the ominous quiet of the Nostromo’s corridors, to the bitter inhospitality of the strange planet, to the utterly alien extra-terrestrial shipwreck, to the gripping onboard battle with the monster itself, Scott builds tension like a pro, despite it being only his second outing. Like all great horror, the viewer never quite knows what’s going to happen next. Scott’s camera lingers on little details around the ship, allowing us to become familiar with its vast empty corridors and throbbing engines. And when the action does come, it’s gripping, sweaty-palmed stuff, especially when Ripley makes her last attempt at an escape from the doomed vessel.
The production design is just superb – the sets are fantastically otherworldly. The gothic gloom of the Nostromo is suitably spooky by itself, but the alien planet and its foreign shipwreck is something else altogether. Certainly prior to 1979 there was little else to match it.
And now of course we come to pay homage to the other instrumental force behind the film: H.R.Giger, the Swiss artist who designed the Alien itself. An utterly terrifying mixture of the organic and mechanic, the best description one can make is to quote Ash from the film: “Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.” The sleek, steely exterior is bad enough, but then there’s the huge head, within which are its salivating jaws – both of them. I’ve no idea what nightmare this thing came from, but I’m glad I didn’t dream it myself. Possessed of a terrifyingly deadly intelligence and intent, this demon instantly became a classic movie monster, and remains there to this day.
Finally, there’s the cast. Of course Sigourney Weaver shines in her star-making role: she invests Ripley with a guts and intelligence that just allows her to scrape through to the film’s end. Crucially though, she remains resolutely a woman (female action heroines being fairly uncommon at the time, especially in a genre that was – and arguably still is - male-dominated); this was something James Cameron’s sequel developed further seven years later. The rest of the cast are just as good though, all inhabiting their roles so well that they feel totally real from the moment they appear onscreen. I could heap praise on each individual cast member, but it’s not really necessary – if you’re read this far, you’ll know yourself how good each performance is.
I can tell this review is fast turning in to a love letter, so I’ll conclude by simply saying that Alien is undoubtedly a classic work of science-fiction horror, building a wholly credible universe in the distant future, and then terrifying the poop out of us. Thanks to the minds of two geniuses (Scott and Giger), it remains entirely convincing and relentlessly entertaining.
Rating:
The Young and the Brave 31 July 2008
Posted by primus in : Posts , add a commentBeing a movie fan occasionally has its rewards. Let’s not forget for a second that watching films, at the cinema at least, is becoming quite an expensive interest. The cost of tickets and refreshments is soaring (along with everything else, sadly), to the point that adult tickets now generally cost £7 or more - although dvd prices seem to be falling, which goes some way towards balancing things out, I guess. If I tried to work out how much I spent a year on cinema trips and dvds, I would probably break down and sob for several days. And then buy a dvd to cheer myself up.
But just occasionally, your movie fan reputation opens up an unexpected door or two. This past July, because of my locally renowned status as an all-round movie egghead, I was asked to judge a young filmmakers competition. This was a real honour to me - everything I know about films I’ve gleaned from watching them and reading articles in print or on the web. So to be considered experienced enough to actually judge other films critically was quite something.
The films I judged were two minutes long and made by primary school children, but they were all enthusiastically made, and it was a pleasure to see the planning and hard work that had gone in to them. The sense that I was perhaps contributing to a filmmaking community was almost palpable. And their efforts were well worth watching. It is something I hope I can contribute to again.
The icing on the cake was the guest of honour at the awards ceremony in Cambridge, Son of Rambow star Will Poulter. A thoroughly charming and gracious young man, he happily signed autographs for all the kids (and some adults too… ahem). It was apparently the first time he had been mobbed for signings; once he has finished filming the next Narnia flick, there will probably be a few more.
The experience has really inspired me to take up pen and parchment and give this damn filmmaking thing a go, something I have wanted to do for ages but never had sufficient inspiration to make it happen. If the young ‘uns can do it, then surely a thirty-something wannabe critic can do too. But I had better be quick, because the green shoots of new talent are starting to show…