The Cinemasitter

Category: Film reviews

  • The Tree of Life (2011)

    It's been a while since I last came out of the cinema on a high. You know that feeling: buzzing with excitement, genuinely thrilled with the experience that a film has given you – one that seems to speak to you personally. It rarely happens, but it did for me coming out of The Tree of Life, Terrence Malick's latest. 

    It took me a little by surprise. Going in, I was hopeful I would like it. Terrence Malick is not a filmmaker I have especially loved in the past, though I did enjoy his last film, The New World. What intrigued me most reading about it in advance was Malick's intention to explore the origins of the universe, and the involvement of Douglas Trumbull in the special effects sequences (striking a chord with my genuine love of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey). Here perhaps was a film that could genuinely lay claim to joining the ranks of the other great science-fiction films Trumbull had contributed to, like Close Encounters, Blade Runner, Silent Running, and of course 2001.

    The Tree of Life ultimately isn't one of those films; it's so much more. Crammed with thoughts and ideas about the nature of existence and the "meaning" of life (and indeed whether there is any), Malick's visual poem is a wonder to behold. Beautiful to both look at and listen to, it's a genuine work of art, whether earthbound with Brad Pitt's family in 1950s Texas or leaping back to witness the origins of life, the universe and everything. The space sequences are quite simply breathtaking. But no less powerful are the emotions running through Pitt's family following the death of a child, and the struggle for understanding and resolution.

    That's not to say it's flawless: it certainly drags a little in places, particularly towards the end (though I disagree with the common view that the dinosaur sequence is a mis-step; on the contrary, it is a necessary counterpoint to the view that humanity is the beginning and end of all life). But it's easy to forgive the flaws when the ambition and success of the whole is so dazzling. Maybe it's just taken me a while to tune in to his sensibilities, but the genius of Malick certainly revealed itself to me this time.

  • Predator 2 (1990)

    The first Predator was a huge success, combining the suspenseful action of Aliens with an uncluttered plot and the muscle of Schwarzenegger in his prime. Yet, somewhat surprisingly, a follow-up was not instantly greenlit. There are varying accounts about why this was: Arnold’s rumoured dislike of the proposed storyline; his scheduling clash with the forthcoming Terminator sequel; and studio bean-counters waiting to see how well the comic-book spin-off series was received. In the end, for whatever reason, Schwarzenegger bailed and the sequel was forced to search for a new leading man. Enter… um, Danny Glover?

    This would actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise. In contrast with the Alien franchise, where Sigourney Weaver’s continued participation eventually became something of a narrative millstone, the Predator series was free to make its extra-terrestrial villains the stars of the show, and not worry about how to convincingly re-work Dutch in to the story. But this created a different problem. How would audiences react to a Schwarzenegger-less sequel? Were the Predators sufficiently interesting to merit a return visit without the familiar presence of Hollywood’s number one box-office star?

    The Predators are often compared to their Alien counterparts, especially with reference to the AVP crossover series, and the argument usually goes that the Alien is a darker and more interesting creation that its younger stablemate. I wouldn’t presume to dispute that, but the Predator is too often unfairly dismissed as clumsy and silly by comparison. Where the Alien originated from the nightmarish imagination of artist H.R. Giger, the Predator had its roots in the somewhat more conventional mind of the late SFX maestro Stan Winston. Reptilian in appearance but humanoid in stature, it initially seems only a few short steps away from being a Star Trek heavy.

    But it is the characteristics and behaviour of the Predator, rather than its look, which makes it a worthy addition to the monster hall of fame. The notion that an alien species has evolved to the point of being capable of long distance space travel, but whose culture continues to be defined by their skill as competitive hunters, is both mysterious and slightly chilling. Its penchant for collecting the skulls of its victims (taking time to clean and polish them of course) and its preference to commit suicide rather than live with defeat re-enforce the impression that this is an advanced and intelligent race that is also knowingly violent and bloody – and therefore should be avoided at all costs.

    In a stroke of genius, Kevin Peter Hall’s intriguing performance echoes this culture of the primitive mixed with the futuristic through his use of tribal dance movement, especially noticeable in the original movie during the showdown with Dutch. The Predator has the distinction of being one of the few Hollywood aliens that is instantly recognisable through its body language. Add to this the cool weapons and toys they have (invisibility, various forms of thermal imaging, shoulder-mounted cannons, etc.) and you have a character more than worth revisiting, especially if unencumbered by the presence of Ahnuld.

    Predator 2 brazenly takes this challenge on, not only eschewing the jungle setting of its predecessor in favour of an urban environment – a heatwave-struck Los Angeles – but also moving the action forward ten years to 1997. It also bravely replaces the optimistic, brawny, pro-American attitude of the first film with a grimmer scenario of high racial tensions and failing law and order. Against a background of immigrant gang warfare between two drug cartels (the Jamaicans and the Colombians) which the police are barely able to contain, Danny Glover’s no-nonsense Lt. Mike Harrigan quickly realises a new player is in town when henchmen from both sides start to turn up dead, with their bodies hung up and skinned. His investigation is blocked however by mysterious government agent Peter Keyes (Gary Busey), who it turns out has been investigating the Predator ever since Arnold’s encounter a decade earlier and is obsessed with finding and capturing another.

    Flashily directed by Stephen Hopkins, Predator 2 doesn’t come close to capturing the suspenseful action of its predecessor, though there are a couple of decent set-pieces: the subway sequence is rather good, while the meat warehouse showdown enjoyably, if unashamedly, rips off Aliens. But the various factions lined up against the new Predator – Jamaicans, Colombians, the police, secret government agents – add a few more layers to the plot than the comparatively straightforward first film, thus avoiding the usual trap of simply repeating the original. It also has plenty of blood and sweat, and in its leading man a real actor rather than, well, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Glover just about passes muster in the action scenes, but crucially he has a gravitas which anchors the film throughout. The supporting cast all register strongly as well, with Busey especially good value and Harrigan’s team (Rubén Blades, Maria Conchita Alonso and the always welcome Bill Paxton) nicely filled out.

    The ending is far from perfect, with its disappointing interior design of the alien ship (all naff orange walls and dry ice) and Glover miraculously overcoming the Predator in hand-to-hand combat. But it does have its infamous trophy case of skulls, and a pistol dated 1715 tossed to Harrigan by a Predator leader intriguingly raises more questions than it does answers. All in all Predator 2 is a decent sci-fi actioner, and its weak reputation is ill-deserved. It didn’t do too well at the box office, and plans for a third film melted away in the mid-90s (though a script was written by a young Robert Rodriguez, who finally, and rather unexpectedly, managed to bring it to the screen earlier this year in the form of Predators). Fans of the first film expecting another dose of loud Schwarzenegger-style action may be left disappointed, but everyone else will find a refreshingly different follow-up.

    [xrr rating=3/5]

  • Predator (1987)

    I originally came across Predator not long after I first saw Aliens. In desperate need of another edge-of-the-seat soldiers vs. monsters thrill ride, I came across a review of Arnie’s second greatest 80s sci-fi film in the Radio Times prior to an airing on ITV. It seemed to be exactly what the doctor ordered: a small group of elite U.S. soldiers are picked off one by one by a malevolent extra-terrestrial. Indeed, it was released almost within a year of James Cameron’s sci-fi blockbuster, and it is not too difficult to imagine 20th Century Fox giving it the greenlight in order to capitalize on the success of its Alien sequel.

    Schwarzenegger is Major “Dutch” Schaeffer, commander of an elite military squad, who is asked to rescue an American VIP from the clutches of South American rebels after his helicopter crashed south of the Mexican border. Joining him is a former colleague, Dillon (Carl Weathers), who now works for the CIA. As they close in on the rebels, it becomes clear Dutch’s team is not the first to attempt the rescue, and that an unseen third party is making short work of any passing combat units that happen to be in the area.

    Predator is of course quite different from Aliens. It is strictly earthbound (bar the opening shot of a spaceship); it is set in the present day; and it is most assuredly an Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle. Almost at the peak of his box-office popularity, Arnie is front-and-centre throughout the film. There are naturally a few of his trademark quips, thrown out while merrily dispatching South American rebels (“Stick around!”). But, like James Cameron before him, director John McTiernan is savvy enough to know how to use his star to best effect. Lean and mean, with only an occasional smile to acknowledge he isn’t another machine from the future, Arnie is an unquestioned leader of men, and, with rippling muscles, the very definition of Eighties Action Hero.

    They may share some similarities, but it is fair to say Predator has not aged as well as Aliens. The 80s obsession with muscles and machismo is very much in evidence, as is the gung-ho American militarism of that decade. While Aliens successfully integrated themes such as motherhood and America’s failure in Vietnam in to its narrative to create a science fiction masterpiece, Predator has no such intellectual ambition. It is as narratively streamlined as possible, focusing purely on Dutch’s team and their battle for survival throughout. Dialogue is pared down to orders, quips and manly poses.

    But this is not necessarily a bad thing. The film had the good fortune of falling in to the hands of McTiernan, who turns what might otherwise have been a routine Arnie action flick in to a thrill machine as lean and mean as its star. Predator was McTiernan’s first great film, and he would go on to direct the definitive 80s action thriller, Die Hard, the following year. His skill at generating suspense and shooting action is abundantly clear with Predator, surprisingly only his second official directing credit. Jumping effortlessly from one set-piece to the next, Predator is an object lesson in how to fashion an edge-of-the-seat entertainment with a reasonably modest budget and a star who can barely act. The explosive assault on the rebels’ camp is merely the curtain-raiser for the real action that kicks in once Arnie’s team try to return to base.

    The script dispatches Dutch’s crew in a variety of entertaining ways (though not without a fight – the moment where Old Painless is unleashed never fails to raise an astonished smile) until only Arnold himself remains. The scene where a mud-covered Dutch realises the Predator is unable to see him is a great moment, and one senses McTiernan relishing the approaching showdown. It’s a genuinely suspenseful, largely dialogue-free finale that sees Dutch, armed only with a knife and his commando training, try to outwit his nemesis with a few nifty traps made from a log and some sharp sticks.

    Alan Silvestri’s memorable score effectively conveys the exotic nature of the Predator’s preferred hunting ground, and also that of the alien itself. Designed by the late Stan Winston, the Predator has justly entered the Hollywood Monster Hall of Fame (should such a thing exist). While it may lack the nightmarish terror of Giger’s Alien, it makes up for it with intelligence and some cool technology. Plus it really is one ugly motherf*cker. Combined with McTiernan’s directorial intelligence, Predator can justly lay claim to be a minor genre classic.

    [xrr rating=4/5]

  • Starship Troopers 3: Marauder (2008)

    If Starship Troopers 2 aimed low but managed to hit some of its targets, part 3 aims higher but misses far more. Some will find ST3 better than part two simply because it is more in keeping with the scope of the first film, but for my money, it is the least enjoyable of the three.

    The ‘War on Bugs’ rumbles on, and Colonel John Rico (Casper Van Dien, reprising his role from the first film), though still loyal to the Federation, has become a bit more cynical about the conflict since we last saw him. After a bar brawl, he is convicted of treason and sentenced to hang. However, the Federation actually has other plans for him: to head up a top-secret team that will take on the most terrifying bug yet.

    After the ultra-cheap first sequel, it appeared that the Troopers franchise was dead in the water. But clearly a reasonable profit was made, so this second sequel was announced, along with a slightly improved budget. Even better, this budget stretched far enough to rope in the star of the original movie, Casper Van Dien (although I’m not sure he was that hard to get: given the state of his post-Troopers career, he would probably have made this film for $20 and a Snickers bar).

    Certainly the return of Van Dien as Johnny Rico is worth some sort of a cheer (of course, only in a Troopers sequel could the appearance of CVD raise any sort of a cheer). Whatever you might think of his thespian skills, he provides some welcome continuity from ST1. Also returning is Ed Neumeier, writer of parts one and two, as writer for part three, as well as making his directorial debut here. Neumeier is a decent genre writer, so any effort from him is usually worth a look.

    Unfortunately, without the sure hand of a director like Paul Verhoeven at the helm, it seems Neumeier let this one get away from him. The script is a fairly messy affair that aims to mix the crowd-pleasing action of the first film with a satire on government involvement with religion. Sounds good on paper, but it fails on both counts.

    The action, just as in the first sequel, is limited by the low budget of the production. Although there are several locations used in this film, and a variety of battles, they mostly look like bargain basement stuff. In trying to match the first film without the same resources, the film ends up looking like a (reasonably budgeted) TV show. The final battle, involving Rico’s super squad tooled up with the Marauder suits from the original Robert Heinlein novel, should have been a winner. Instead it is a fleeting damp squib, lasting barely a few seconds and cursed with some of the cheapest-looking CGI I’ve seen in quite some time.

    The satire, on the other hand, is just bewildering. The idea of the Sky Marshal (effectively President of the Federation) also topping the charts as a pin-up pop star is an amusing idea, but this sets the film up as a spoof of American Idol, The X Factor and the like. A dictator being worshipped as a hero by his people is nothing new of course, but here it is basically played for cheap laughs, and thus feels somewhat out of place.

    More confusing are the religious themes of the film. It’s never terribly clear exactly what Neumeier is trying to say. Sometimes it seems he’s attacking people for believing in any religion at all (someone is admonished for believing in “the wrong God!”); then at the end, the (always wonderful) FedNet announcer states “Federation experts agree that: A: God exists, B: He’s on our side, C: He wants us to win” – clearly a swipe at the way that governments use religion for their own dastardly ends. Yet lead character, and former Rico squeeze, Lola Beck (Jolene Blalock) becomes a believer in a weird sort of happy ending. Some reviewers have even suggested Neumeier is pushing a pro-Christian agenda. So what is the audience supposed to make of it all?

    The rest of the film doesn’t fare much better. It’s good to see a story that involves other planets, and the surprising return of a key villain from the first film creates some intrigue. The story’s focus isn’t always clear – we start off expectedly following Rico, but he then disappears for several prolonged stretches while the story’s main plot is developed.

    The new characters aren’t up to much either. Jolene Blalock plays pretty much the same character she played in Star Trek: Enterprise. Stephen Hogan’s Sky Marshal Anoke is amusing for a while, and Amanda Donohoe adds a bit of value as a high-ranking Federation official. It would have been nice to see one or two other characters from the original beyond Rico – what are Jake Busey or Neil Patrick Harris doing these days anyway? Van Dien himself is fine, clearly at home playing the simple American good guy (though he does look surprisingly short in or two shots).

    So a messy second sequel overall. It has its moments, but the confusing tone, uneven pace and lacklustre action seriously impede one’s enjoyment. Unless Sony decide to invest some serious cash in a proper sequel, it regrettably might be time to lay this franchise to rest.

    [xrr rating=2/5]

  • Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)

    Having reviewed the first Starship Troopers film recently, I feel duty-bound, as a hopeless completist, to review its direct-to-dvd sequels, Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation and Starship Troopers 3: Marauder. First up, ST2.

    Immediately after viewing ST for the first time, a sequel went straight to the top of my most wanted movies. All sorts of possibilities presented themselves: new worlds, bigger battles, even more thrills and spills. Sadly, the distinctly average box-office returns from the first film destroyed any hope of this. Though fanboy interest like mine sustained the occasional rumour, a sequel looked ever more unlikely.

    However, these hopes had reckoned without the booming straight-to-dvd market a few years later. Sony decided that they wanted a piece of this action, and began to scour for potential franchises that might make suitable material for a cheapo sequel. Fortunately for them, the team behind the first movie (producer Jon Davison, writer Ed Neumeier and SFX king Phil Tippett) presented them with an offer: a sequel to Starship Troopers, made for just 5% of the original film’s $100m budget. How could they say no?

    Originally Clancy Brown was set to reprise his role as Sgt. Zim from the first film as the lead in the sequel, but schedule clashes forced him to pull out. So his character was rewritten as Dax, played by Richard Burgi, and one suspects this was ultimately for the best, given the film’s ending.

    ST2 posits that the war has ground to a stalemate since the first film, with neither side gaining the upper hand. On one planet, a small bunch of surviving troopers hole up in an abandoned command post, waiting for rescue. In this small enclosed space (a useful plot device for the low budget), a new type of bug with a very cunning plan makes its presence known…

    Given its extreme budgetary limitations, Hero of the Federation could have been a hell of a lot worse. Certainly, with no characters being carried over from the first film, and without the directorial muscle of Verhoeven (or, it has to be said, the financial muscle that came with him), ST2 fails to convincingly expand on the themes of the original film. Any fan looking for the all-out action of ST1 will be sorely disappointed. Bits of SFX footage from the original crop up here as FedNet newsreel footage; FedNet itself is sadly only retained as a bookend device. And the new battles are indeed rather cheap looking, particularly so in the opening sequence.

    The real weakness however lies in Phil Tippett’s direction. Admittedly his hands were tied in terms of budget, but a stronger director would probably have been able to hide it better. Certainly they would have tightened the pace and developed the atmosphere of tension a lot more. The look of the film is also rather flat – again, this is due in part to the budget and technology used, so perhaps Tippett couldn’t do much about that. Nevertheless, the film suffers for it.

    That is not to say that the film is a total loss though. As a companion piece that pushes forward the story of the bug war, it succeeds to a degree (if one can look past the production values). The epic tone of Verhoeven’s original is gone, true; but in its place is one of claustrophobic sci-fi/horror, similar to John Carpenter’s The Thing. There’s a nice smattering of satire in Neumeier’s script which goes some way to bridging the gap between the two; the Federation remains the villain here, as it was in the original, and Dax’s cynicism about his government is the logical conclusion to a war that has repeatedly failed to be won (as promised in ST1).

    The cast aren’t too bad – Burgi is good value, while the rest play their parts well enough. The film’s ending is good too, with the Federation presenting Dax as a Stakhanov-type figure to boost their government’s popularity and their troops’ morale – a tone certainly in keeping with that of its predecessor.

    Unable to compete with the original film, ST2 deliberately lowered its ambitions and as a result feels like a much smaller movie than one might have wished for. But it does succeed on its own limited terms if, like me, you are a fairly forgiving viewer.

    [xrr rating=3/5]

  • Starship Troopers (1997)

    I herewith present my case for inducting Starship Troopers in to the Sci-Fi Cinema Hall of Fame (if such a thing were to exist). It may not wash with everyone (or indeed anyone), but dammit, that doesn’t mean I won’t try.

    Directed by Dutch lunatic Paul Verhoeven, ST was released in November 1997 in the States, and 2nd January 1998 here in the UK. Verhoeven had of course been responsible for two earlier sci-fi greats, Robocop and Total Recall, so a third effort in the genre was always going to be welcome. I had read some reports about its filming on ye olde internette prior to its release, and thought it sounded a bit like Aliens, which naturally got my immediate interest. When the adverts and posters started to appear at bus stops, I was even more intrigued (as I recall, the now-iconic image on some of the posters plastered all over London was the bug pincer sticking through an unfortunate trooper’s helmet – now used on the cover of the Troopers blu-ray trilogy boxset). I certainly hadn’t read the novel in advance, so I was going in pretty much blind, except for some reasonable advance reviews.

    I came out of the cinema completely blown away – it was such a rush. I don’t think I’ve had a movie experience to match it since. To be fair, I had only been going to the cinema regularly for 3 or 4 years at that point, so it didn’t have great competition, but even so, it was a memorably thrilling experience. Driving home with that much adrenaline pumping around inside you is probably not a wise move. Actor Michael Ironside appeared to agree; he commented in an interview around the time of the film’s release that (I’m paraphrasing here) he drove home after seeing it for the first time and failed to realise for some time that he was breaking the speed limit by a considerable margin.

    Verhoeven’s talent at directing action set pieces reached new heights here. Best of all is the Zulu-like battle at Whiskey Outpost, as hundreds of arachnids surge in to a military compound defended by a dozen or so troopers, guns blazing away, backed by Basil Poledouris’ pulsating score.

    Taken on this purely superficial level, ST excels as a sci-fi action movie. The $100m budget is all up on the screen, amid some of the finest special effects work I’ve ever seen. They certainly stand up just as well today. The bug battles are stupendous (Johnny Rico single-handedly taking down a rather large tanker bug is especially exhilarating), but so too are the starships themselves, floating like massive warships through space; the destruction of the Rodger Young and the rest of the fleet above Klendathu and Planet P is fairly jaw-dropping stuff.

    Comic-book sci-fi par excellence it may be, but on that level alone it wouldn’t rate as a classic. The satirical subtext that Verhoeven layers beneath the surface (none too subtly at times, it has to be said) adds a wicked streak of black humour to proceedings which gives the film an extra punch throughout. The director makes abundantly clear in his dvd commentary that the film takes a swipe at fascism and the role governments play in manipulating their people for their own ends. I read somewhere that the film has been interpreted as a celebration of fascism; the mind boggles at how it might be seen in this way. Short of unfolding an enormous sign at the end saying “This film loathes and rejects fascism in every conceivable way”, one wonders how much more explicitly its political views could be expressed.

    The tone is set right from the first scene, as we are introduced to the Mobile Infantry via a TV recruitment advert that looks suspiciously like a World War II propaganda short (the first of several references to WW2 – the Nazi-style uniforms worn throughout being another). This tongue-in-cheek announcements service, called FedNet, crops up at various points throughout the film, offering us snapshots of life under what is clearly a dictatorship, dressed up as an honest and just government. Televised hangings of “criminals”, interviews with “experts”, news reports with “eye witnesses” who always tow the party line – we’ve seen it all before, and we still do in certain parts of the globe.

    The political segregation of citizens from civilians is perhaps the most powerful tool the Federation has. In their world, only citizens are allowed to vote, go in to politics, get the best education, even have children. Civilians are therefore an underclass, allowed to live but otherwise not an active part of this society, so any dissenters can either safely be ignored or hauled out and made an example of. And how does one become a citizen? By signing up to do military service for the Federation. Presumably there are other ways, probably involving large piles of cash, though the film sadly doesn’t elaborate any further on this.

    The school we see in the beginning is also a tool of the government, indoctrinating children with the values of the Federation. Witness Ironside’s teacher extolling the virtues of a dictatorship versus a democracy:

    “This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since.”

    and further on:

    “When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence: the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”

    Such apparently subversive comments surely cannot be taken in all seriousness. The fact that the Federation isn’t overthrown at the end of the film and power returned to the people in some kind of Hollywood Happy Ending is probably the reason why a few brain-deficient observers decided the film was condoning such a form of government, rather than bothering to read between the lines. I wonder if the same people voted for George W. Bush’s regime in 2004 – a regime that locked up people in Guantanamo Bay indefinitely without trial, much as the Federation might. Verhoeven himself states in his commentary that he believed “War makes fascists of us all”. The funniest thought of all is that the people living under the Federation’s rule seem to be perfectly happy with their government, apparently content at the stability it has brought.

    The real subversion is saved for the end of the film, when the audience’s loyalty, having initially sided with the humans, has almost switched to the side of the Arachnids. The merciless extermination of a few surviving bugs on Tango Urilla, followed by the capture of a terrified-looking Brain bug on Planet P (what glorious names!), serves to illustrate how the humans have become quite inhuman by the end. For all mankind’s technology and firepower, the bugs have easily matched their would-be exterminators through the power of nature alone.

    As an adaptation of the original novel, it is arguably less successful. Robert Heinlein’s book featured different technology, a few different characters, different events and even additional alien species. Unlike the film, it is also generally viewed as being pro-military, though it is certainly not pro-fascist. The book lacks the tongue-in-cheek approach taken by Verhoeven and Neumeier, being more focussed on what life is like being on the front line rather than the graphic bloody violence and love triangle of the film. But some of the changes were always going to be necessary in the transition to the big screen, and to be honest, I found the film’s approach of skewering fascism the more purely enjoyable one.

    But for all the political satire, there is just as much pleasure in seeing the film’s cast deliver Ed Neumeier’s dialogue. The fact that the three leads – Casper Van Dien, Denise Richards and Dina Meyer – couldn’t really act their way out of a paper bag is sort of the point. Their generic good looks and blandness serve to underline the fact that the youth of the world have been successfully indoctrinated and politically neutered, and are unquestioning fodder doing what they are told because they have been told it’s right. Having said that, they aren’t necessarily bad performances: Van Dien looks appropriately chiseled, Richards looks fairly pretty and unattainable (and is much less annoying here than she was in The World Is Not Enough), and Meyer is quite adept at playing the spunky girl-next-door, even if her death scene (spoiler) is more likely to generate laughter rather than tears. The film’s pacing is taut, ensuring that any stilted acting doesn’t slow proceedings down in the slightest.

    The best performances come from the veteran cast, including Clancy Brown as drill sergeant Zim, and the previously mentioned, ever-dependable Michael Ironside, who gets the single best line of dialogue, possibly from the whole of the 1990s: “They sucked his brains out!” Not only is it a classic line in what is essentially B-movie pulp sci-fi, it is delivered with such expertise, completely straight-faced and with not the slightest hint of a wink or nod, that I am left positively cheering at the screen whenever it arrives. There’s plenty of other magnificently Z-grade lines; Neil Patrick Harris gets a few good ones (“We’re going back to P to capture that Brain”), especially once he’s graduated to military intelligence and starts wearing a Gestapo outfit.

    Helping everything along is a truly stirring score from Basil Poledouris. Almost the equal of his classic Conan the Barbarian score, the ST soundtrack perfectly matches the pace and tone of the film. Listening to it in isolation still manages to get the blood flowing quicker round the body.

    Which brings me back to the sheer joy of seeing such an epic sci-fi spectacle delivered with such panache. Any quibbles about remaining faithful to the source material are swept aside when there is this much fun to be had with what is on show. I can quite happily sit back and enjoy a comic-book adventure about a young soldier’s rapid rise through the ranks of a futuristic intergalactic army. Or I can simply enjoy the superlative action, violence and special effects. Or I could laugh out loud at the sly digs the film makes about politics and war. Or better still, enjoy all three at the same time.

    [xrr rating=5/5]

  • Aliens vs Predator: Requiem (2007)

    Well, 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 Brothers 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.

    [xrr rating=1/5]

  • Alien vs Predator (2004)

    Last 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.

    [xrr rating=2/5]

  • Alien: Resurrection (1997)

    And 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.

    [xrr rating=3/5]

  • Alien 3 (1992)

    After 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.

    [xrr rating=4/5]