Strange Days.

Review #2494: Strange Days.

Cast: 

Ralph Fiennes (Lenny Nero), Angela Bassett (Lornette "Mace" Mason), Juliette Lewis (Faith Justin), Tom Sizemore (Max Peltier), Michael Wincott (Philo Gant), Vincent D'Onofrio (Burton Steckler), Glenn Plummer (Jeriko One), Brigitte Bako (Iris), Richard Edson (Tick), William Fichtner (Dwayne Engelman), and Josef Sommer (Palmer Strickland) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark, #2361 - Blue Steel)

Review: 

"Well, I don’t see Strange Days as a pure action genre piece. I think of it as a character-driven piece. It’s got a tremendous amount of dialogue and story—at one point we thought of it as science fiction as if written by David Mamet. The pauses in Strange Days are motivated more by story and character than by the need to linger on the mise-en-scène. That’s not to say we don’t fill every frame; your eye wanders outward to this complex environment that the principal characters don’t bother to acknowledge. They take it for granted that there’s an ad hoc revolution taking place, a civil war."

Inadvertently, I stumbled onto this movie when looking around for further movies involving Kathryn Bigelow. This was her fifth film as a director that just happened to be in between Point Break (1991) and The Weight of Water (2000). It came around after years of script development from James Cameron, who first envisioned it in 1985 and apparently wrote it mind for Bigelow (incidentally, they were once married) to direct it. They then collaborated on working the elements that interested them into the film, with Bigelow striving for grit while Cameron strove for the romance that resulted in a treatment. The treatment was then worked by Jay Cocks into a script that happened to get developed around the time of the Rodney King beating and the L.A. riots (incidentally, Bigelow was involved with the city cleanup). Cameron was more involved with the effects than being on set as a producer (he noted he visited the set just twice as a co-producer), particularly with wondering how the opening scene would look like in showing someone being part of a robbery that sees them swarmed by cops to see one run up a staircase and then have a jump from a ledge that had special cameras and rigs for it. This film and True Lies (1994) were part of a deal between 20th Century Fox. Set in the then future year of 1999 on December 30 and December 31, the movie was released in October of 1995 and somehow flopped with audiences, making less than half of its $42 million budget*, but there is a slight cult audience for the film.

  

Okay, so here's one: an electronic device (SQUID: Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) that lets you experience recorded memories and physical sensations of other people that happens to have little discs for storage (older film lovers might remember that interfacing oneself to record their sensations on tape for others to experience came a bit earlier with Brainstorm [1983], although that dealt with the military trying to get their hands on it). Memories were meant to fade, particularly when doomsday or redemption is on the line. This is a fascinating film that is hard to really piece down as belonging to any one genre, mainly because it makes the mark for sci-fi thriller just as much as it does belong to the noir genre, complete with plenty to astound the audience with beyond its violence. Sure, maybe we aren't all looking upon the world with VR headsets, but our fascination with technology is a strange one when you consider where "parasocial" has evolved to in the last couple of years with how now we can see any type of "living" to stream on a phone you can hold in your hand. People probably are isolated now more than ever, particularly in what we "see" and "feel", and there is something amusing in parts for what the film shows in how people use and don't use SQUID, specifically with the lead two characters. Fiennes (cast in the wake of being nominated for an Academy Award for Schindler's List instead of Andy Garcia) makes for a fascinating conman, one who is particularly vulnerable and fascinating because of how he eventually lands up in the quest to do the hardest thing one might think of: learning to let the past go and actually move forward. There's more to life than being a two-bit pathetic person, and he makes it a curious one to actually emphasize with. Of course, it is Bassett who provides the key moral center of the film, one who is just as handy in asserting herself (such as with a fist) as she is someone clearly desiring to see someone actually make a leap forward with her (as one does with arguably the biggest hero of the film). Sizemore and Lewis might seem outmatched within the confines of basically being in a noir (right down to the latter singing like a femme fatale might do), but I liked both of them in what they provide in their odd duck qualities that think people can be used up just like a beverage to eventually see go by the wayside. The 145-minute runtime leads to plenty of buildup for what type of world would have such a device go around even if someone might use it on a person dying of sexual assault, for example (also disturbing is a scene showing someone going brain dead from amplified signals). Sure, it might hit a ray of hope for its climax that may only work best as if one was watching a fable close itself down, but there is something to be had about a movie that seems to want to remind us to actually get real beyond being looped in playback. As a whole, Strange Days is a curious film in its desire to show the weird world of voyeurism within the confines of a dystopian future that may very well seem a bit familiar to those viewing the world with their eyes and ears nowadays. It deserved better than where it landed in 1995 and should be looked at by all the curious ones out there for its dazzling execution.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

See you in 2026.

*In comparison, in its first full week (it was limited on the first week) of release, the movie was beaten out by newcomers such as Jade and the Scarlet Letter to go along with the popular movie of the week again with Seven. And yeah, Get Shorty was the week after that.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

Review #2376: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

Cast: 

Kevin Costner (Robin Hood), Morgan Freeman (Azeem Edin Bashir Al Bakir), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Lady Marian), Christian Slater (Will Scarlett), Alan Rickman (the Sheriff of Nottingham), Geraldine McEwan (Mortianna), Michael McShane (Friar Tuck), Brian Blessed (Lord Locksley), Michael Wincott (Guy of Gisborne), Nick Brimble (Little John), Harold Innocent (the Bishop of Hereford), Walter Sparrow (Duncan), Daniel Newman (Wulf), Daniel Peacock (Bull), and Jack Wild (Much) Directed by Kevin Reynolds (#1081 - Waterworld)

Review: 

Okay, so Kevin Reynolds did other movies besides Waterworld (1995). Actually, the San Antonio native got his start in film with co-writing the script with John Milius for Red Dawn (1984). His first film as a director came with Fandango (1985), which actually sprung from a film he had made when at USC Film School that was inspired by his experiences at Baylor University. The production, featuring a young Kevin Costner as the star, wasn't a hit, but Reynolds found further work with The Beast (1988). Reynolds later served as a second unit director with Dances with Wolves (1990)*, significantly with the buffalo hunt scene. Naturally, the two united for a movie that sprung from British people. Well, okay, British writer-producer Pen Densham wanted to do a Robin Hood movie that went on with the idea of not just being a rerun of the famed 1938 film of the tale in adventure, instead billing it as "Robin Hood a la Raiders”. He wrote an outline with John Watson that attracted attention and getting Reynolds basically meant getting Costner involved. Reynolds apparently wanted to avoid making "Indiana Jones" with the tone. With a rushed production schedule to try and make sure they were not beaten out by a rival Robin Hood movie and not be stuck in England winter, the result was, well, funny. Apparently, preview screenings had people say that Rickman's sheriff was their favorite character rather than Costner. They then replaced editors with a team that trimmed and beefed-up certain scenes that saw Reynolds leave the production prior to the final editing/scoring. Interestingly, a 2003 DVD of the movie has an extended version of the movie that runs at 155 minutes (i.e. 12 minutes of restored footage, most notably showing the parentage of a certain character).

Sure, the tales of Robin Hood is a folktale of British origin. Sure, there is no straight-to-the-point version of what the myth is beyond a man who can use arrows and/or swords. There is no one person that inspired folks to talk about a bandit that dealt with the rich beyond people who were outlaws in some way. The movies did their own thing, suffice to say. Hell, people even made ballads about Robin Hood. The only ballad people will make of this movie is how ridiculously all over the place it all is. Sure, I got a kick out of the movie more often than not, but its flaws are evident to even those who don't care about a certain degree of violence or the tone of the whole thing. The fact that Kevin Reynolds elected to work with Kevin Costner again with Waterworld (1995) after this means that people really do have plenty of patience to share with each other. I have no time to really quibble about Costner *the American* playing Robin Hood, because freaking Errol Flynn was an Australian (incidentally, did you know James Cagney was supposed to play the role before Flynn?). I will, however, quibble about the fact that someone thought it was a problem that Rickman overshadows him in the movie. What the hell was his performance before they did the edits, a stronger block of wood?** To be clear, I don't really care that much about if Costner varies in trying to do an accent, because, well, meh, but I will quibble with the fact that he barely has any charisma in the first place. I think he just coasts better with alleged classics like Bull Durham (1988) when he has some sort of actual breath of fun with actually doing something besides looking into the distance and doing a hobby shop Clint Eastwood impression. And yet...the movie does what it does in spite of his okay qualities. I at least see the interest that comes with a lead that sees the Crusades and all that comes from it and decides, no, life isn't about chasing glory. Freeman accompanies this with a zest to play with the idea of enjoying this quest and sticking out like a sore thumb (as one does when being referred to as a "Moor") in staid charm. And then of course there is Rickman, who saw the script and proceeded to come up with (read: enlist the help of writer friends such as Ruby Wax and Peter Barnes) better lines for himself (the "cancel Christmas" line, for example). His menace in chewing the scenery and zeal for doing exactly what he feels is both damn funny and also absorbing in a way that saves the movie in showing energy beyond just doing the same adversarial bit. What can I say, I like ham (for reference, the Sheriff in the 1938 version was played by Melville Cooper, but it's easy to forget when Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone play the real threats of that film), particularly when sharing time with the amusing hack mysticism of McEwan. Mastrantonio has exactly one interesting scene: her introduction, when she fights under a mask for a bit. She then coasts along as just an adequate observer to the growing absurdity (except for the climax, which has her wail while Rickman aims for extra-cooked ham and Costner sifts into "sword" mode). Slater basically pops in and out to play a brat with the most evident twist necessarily, but McShane and Brimble at least make the merry band of men (okay, not all men) have energy to make these people seem like you would actually want to be there in the British countryside (insert your own British joke here, guv'nor). The movie does strain in the credibility of an okay (read: generous) lead backed with a far more capable cast (read: one really good actor and a few names to like here and there) and some action that I'm actually okay with. Some will find it joyless, some will find it a pleasure they can roll with in the sheer bombast that comes through for some useful adventure that I can appreciate. It's the ultimate "love it or hate it" kind of movie that you might find worth stumbling onto or stagger away from.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*That would be the *overrated* Dances with Wolves, released in 1990. Sure, fine movie, but I will never understand how Costner's efforts with a movie outdone by, well, pick a random Eastwood Western, was the best movie by a certain Academy.

**And who wanted to see his bare ass? 

Born on the Fourth of July.

Review #2031: Born on the Fourth of July.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Sergeant Ron Kovic; Bryan Larkin as Young Ron), Willem Dafoe (Charlie), Kyra Sedgwick (Donna; Jessica Prunell as Young Donna), Raymond J. Barry (Mr. Kovic), Jerry Levine (Steve Boyer), Frank Whaley (Timmy), Caroline Kava (Mrs. Kovic), Cordelia Gonzalez (Maria Elena - Villa Dulce), Ed Lauter (Legion Commander), John Getz (Marine Major - Vietnam), Beau Starr (Man #2 - Arthur's Bar), and Michael Wincott (Vet #3 - Villa Dulce) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street, #1090 - Platoon, #1265 - Natural Born Killers, #1523 - Any Given Sunday, and #1595 - Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps)

Review: 

“I’m puzzled by life, horrified by the daily newspaper. The only sane response is re-creation, drama . . . an ordered series of events that arouse pity and terror, to paraphrase Aristotle. Making movies is my way of exorcising demons, of creating an ethos, a philosophy of life. I’d go crazy without fantasy.”

Every so often, I am reminded that my father was a war veteran. I don't have many memories of him talking about his service in Vietnam, aside from once seeing his dog tags and remembering his burial a couple of years ago at a cemetery for veterans. But men are not defined only by if they served for their country or not, they are served by who they are for those who end up alive to talk about it. One such man who found meaning in the (difficult) time that came after his service was Ron Kovic. After he graduated from Massapequa High School in New York (where he was raised to a family of Croatian & Irish ancestry), he quickly volunteered to serve in Vietnam in 1965. He was a member of the United States Marines, for which he made two tours of duty. It was on January 20, 1968, that he was shot and severely wounded that resulted in him being paralyzed from the waist down. After intensive recovery led to his arrival back home, Kovic found curiosity within peace demonstrations, starting in 1970. This happened not long after the events of May 1970 that had seen numerous student protests in universities such as Kent State University and Jackson State University, for which each saw anti-war demonstrators killed (the former by Ohio National Guard, the latter by local patrolmen). Kovic wrote Born on the Fourth of July in the span of over a month in 1974 that was published in 1976 that he stated was written to show people about the "hospitals and the enema room, about why I had become opposed to the war, why I had grown more and more committed to peace and nonviolence." Not long after, Kovic gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention, four years after him and other members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War had protested the Republican Convention (the war did not end until 1975). Even now, with his 77th birthday, Kovic serves as a constant anti-war presence. Cruise, Stone, and Kovic were each nominated for Academy Awards that year for this film (Best Actor, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Picture), with Stone winning for his efforts in direction (don't ask who won Best Picture). Stone would do one further film in what was later called his trilogy of Vietnam War films with Heaven & Earth (1993).

Relating to all of this is the production struggle to get things moving, as there had been interest in doing a film from the very moment Kovic spoke at the DNC, specifically Al Pacino. Oliver Stone, who had served in the United States Army with service from 1967-68, was brought in to try and write for the screenplay in 1977. Incidentally, Kovic served as a consultant on Coming Home (1978), a film involving a disillusioned Vietnam War veteran left in a wheelchair. It was not until the success of Platoon (1986) that Stone could get the chance to write (alongside Kovic) and direct this film. With Platoon, one would find that it argued most that the first casualty in war was innocence. With this film, now one finds how it goes for those who have arrived home after said innocence was lost, not to a hero's welcome but a state of indifference. The illusion of going off to a just war to fight for your country has been shattered into one of unimaginable agony, one where a love of country is warped by some into the idea that they somehow don't love it just because they want to speak up (of course, there are many perspectives when it comes to returning home from war that would shudder at folks who seem to toil in "self-pity" or other characteristics, but that is a different can of worms). As Kovic once said, you aren't meant to avoid conflict and pain in life but instead shape it into something beneficial. So, one minute you may be on the side of wanting to yell folks to "love it or leave it" and the next you may find yourself looking along with Abbie Hoffman (he appears in the film for a moment in a film released months after his suicide at the age of 52). This is conveyed in a mostly factual tale (the character played by Sedgwick is a composite, for example) that is carried near wholesale by the performance of Cruise. The 145-minute runtime is his to carry alone in the odyssey from idealism to the road back from hell, one that requires an actor who can convey the gravity of the situation, and he does a tremendous job here, never striking a false note in those human moments. The burrowing of idealism is handled with honesty with such commitment that Kovic gave Cruise his Bronze Star Medal after filming. The rest of the cast do reasonably well in support from the bits and pieces that arise from before and after time of war, whether that involves protest in Sedgwick or familiarity with Whaley and vulnerable parenting in Barry and Kava. Dafoe actually doesn't show up in the film until the last third of the film (set in Mexico with prostitutes), but he is on point in those moments of animus that only he could bring in a scene where he and Cruise are bickering on a dirt road. As a whole, the movie is a general triumph in communicating what it means to see a person go through the fight of their lives in terms of withering innocence and conscience for what it all means when back home and not "out there". There is no one solution fit for all, but a level of understanding for who one is a virtue that all people can see as worthwhile, American or not. As such, it is a tough sit for audiences in the ways that matter, thanks to the efforts of Cruise, Stone & Kovic.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Happy Independence Day, folks.

Nope.

Review #1865: Nope.

Cast: 

Daniel Kaluuya (OJ Haywood), Keke Palmer (Emerald Haywood), Steven Yeun (Ricky "Jupe" Park), Brandon Perea (Angel Torres), Michael Wincott (Antlers Holst), Wrenn Schmidt (Amber Park), Keith David (Otis Haywood Sr), and Donna Mills (Bonnie Clayton) Written, Directed, and Produced by Jordan Peele (#909 - Get Out and #1203 - Us)

Review: 

"I wrote it in a time when we were a little bit worried about the future of cinema. So the first thing I knew is I wanted to create a spectacle. I wanted to create something that the audience would have to come see."

Admittedly, Jordan Peele has made an argument for being the modern example of an auteur director, one with a distinct approach to his material that he has written, directed, and produced for three feature films in the span of five years, with each falling along the lines of horror (debatably, Nope is more of a genre-crosser than the other two, but more on that later). For the most part, these films have worked on their ambition to tell a story that would probably make Rod Serling give a compliment to (I say this knowing Peele was behind a reboot of Serling's The Twilight Zone, (2019-20) although I never saw it). For me, Get Out (2017) was the clear distinct captivator in staging and social critique (so in non-pretentious terms, a movie for the age that doesn't forget to be scary without forcing it). This time around, Peele aspired to make a movie involving spectacle that touches upon human nature in the art of alien encounter: trying to take an image of it in flight. Oh sure, there are other things that happen too involving strange clouds and animals running amuck, but the nature of spectacle isn't too far from one's attention. A good chunk of people seem to have a habit to take photos of something that looks interesting every day (for better or worse) that has come ever since the chronophotography days of the 18th century, as referred to in the opening with the showing of Eadweard Muybridge's The Horse in Motion (1878), which were a series of cabinet cards that (as mentioned in the film) feature a black jockey on a horse. There are a handful of inspirations that Peele has listed such as King Kong (1933), Jurassic Park (1993), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Signs (2002), and The Wizard of Oz (1939), although one could also make a case for seeing seeds of Jaws (1975) in there as well. This is more of a compliment than anything, not saying the movie is a shameless patische, since it does play with the expectations lended out by Peele to useful effect.

I think it works out decently for the goals laid out by Peele to do spectacle that generally rewards the viewer's patience for 131 minutes with a semi-solid outline and a decent ensemble to carry things around in the pursuit for whatever is out there for sensationalism without just being a movie making easy targets. Was it anything special? It is a good movie, but I believe it to be firmly in the middle between his previous works (probably a bit above Us for execution), and it says something worthwhile about the director when his first three films are each pretty good in unsettling its viewer with the foibles of modern times that makes a quality sci-fi horror movie with a look upon the age we live in the art of filming things where the line between being the viewer and being the one viewed can be blurred where one can be tested with filth and possible contempt. Truthfully though, I think I appreciated the movie best in the scope of images one can see and hear rather than the dialogue itself, which is fine. Kaluuya makes a quality lead performance in understatement, a strong-and-silent type who might've fit for a Western (such as say, Buck and the Preacher), which means he is the ideal straight-edge presence in the face of a chase. Palmer has a bit of charm in energy that makes for a quality sibling-pair in terms of the occasional bit in horror or humor. Strangely enough, Yuen makes more of an impression than Perea despite not being the key support of the ensemble, probably because his huckster attitude to what has happened around him, indicative of being a participant of spectacle in numerous ways. This isn't to say Perea is the weak link, it just means that his moments aren't exactly as captivating in spectacle relief, particularly when Wincott is the understated dry gem used sparingly as a look upon the filmmaker from a filmmaker (meta, if you want to say that). 

For me, the movie takes a while to really get going in staging attempts, and it can be said that your highlight scene is probably different from my highlight, which involves a chimpanzee that may or may not relate to the story. But maybe it relates to the bigger picture of what one might expect (or don't) for a film in spectacle, horror or not. The aerial sight depicted in the film is an interesting one, since it lurks around with only eyes on its target much like a viewer that has eyes only on what could pop up next on screen that has no time for dialogue (that, or the Medusa legend). Sometimes it isn't all about blood and guts, although you will find it worthwhile in unsettling nature with a scene spent trying to make a show out of UFO bait with horses being particularly well-done in timing. The climax is handled pretty well, in the general pursuit of how you would hope it goes in carefully planned staging that leaves a worthy final shot. As a whole, the patience required for what Peele wants to say about spectacle and the people who look to show it makes for a fine payoff, one that unsettles its viewer in ambition and a quality staging to make a solid movie that will reward some spectacle viewers better than others.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Alien Resurrection.

Review #1594: Alien Resurrection.

Cast: 

Sigourney Weaver (Ripley 8), Winona Ryder (Annalee Call), Dominique Pinon (Eom Vriess), Ron Perlman (Ron Johner), Gary Dourdan (Gary Christie), Michael Wincott (Frank Elgyn), Kim Flowers (Sabra Hillard), Dan Hedaya (General Martin Perez), J. E. Freeman (Dr. Mason Wren), Brad Dourif (Dr. Jonathan Gediman), Raymond Cruz (Vincent Distephano), Leland Orser (Larry Purvis), and Tom Woodruff Jr (Lead Alien, Alien Queen, and the Newborn) Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet.

Review: 

It is a funny thing to think about the progression of the Alien films. The original film, released in 1979, was a great experience in chilling horror that had its striking power created by inspiration from writer Dan O'Bannon (who co-wrote it with Ronald Shusett) to basically do a horror version of Dark Star (1974) that took inspiration from a variety of sources that revolved from The Thing from Another World to the writings of H.P. Lovecraft that combined with the talent of director Ridley Scott and creature design by H. R. Giger made for one of the best films to ever invade the genres of horror and science fiction. Aliens (1986), directed by James Cameron, moved itself into action sci-fi with particular influences being Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers alongside the Vietnam War that ended up making a sequel just as good (if not better) as the original feature. Alien 3 (1992), directed by David Fincher, was a depressing failure in every sense of the word, full of potential that went off the rails to the point that its director disowned it. That film ended with the death of its lead character, and yet here we are, with a cliche title to boot. The film was written by Joss Whedon, whose previous writing credits included Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992) and Toy Story (1995). Asked how he felt about the film that resulted from his script, his response is probably the most amusing part of the film, as he thought that it "was mostly a matter of doing everything wrong". In any case, one should really begin with director Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who had an interest in cameras as a teenager in France. He did animation, advertisements, and music videos before entering feature films with Delicatessen (1991, the first of two collaborations with Marc Caro) at the age of 38. This was his third feature film effort and only Hollywood production  (Jeunet's next feature in Amélie (2001) proved more fruitful and is arguably his most famous effort). He was picked after other potential names like Danny Boyle and Peter Jackson rejected the offer (the latter found it hard to find enthusiasm to do an Alien film. Not surprising, honestly), with freedom granted to do his own film without too many studio notes involved. There exists an extended cut that restores a few scenes to the film, although Jeunet has stated the original version is the preferred one by him.

Here we are, with a movie that has a fundamental flaw in its premise: Ripley is cloned, with blood samples collected before she died. Somehow, her DNA is mixed with a Xenomorph queen that means she has a embryo in it to raise. So Ripley now has more strength and semi-acidic blood to go along with a link to the aliens. All of this, including the idea that someone wants to exploit the Xenomorphs for further use, is beyond ridiculous. 200 years after the third film, and there's still weirdos trying to play fetch with killer creatures? In the end, should anyone be surprised that this is such a bland movie? The aliens seem to have taken a hike in terms of actual scares (particularly with its offspring at the climax), and the pop-ups of close-up shots at times only serve to make a confused movie that can't seem to figure out exactly what it wants to be. It is too murky in its design beyond just muddled spaceships and attempts at humor, and it all boils down to the idea that only doesn't really care about what's happening at any point. They run around corridors and yell, but who cares? Actually, its even stranger, because the amount of people who come out of here alive is almost more than the entire amount of the other three films combined (six, as opposed to the four here). The acting doesn't really do many favors, not so much because they do awful, but it is more that they can't really hold the film up to anything other than wooden space fare. Weaver is undeniably the most interesting presence, in that the idea of making Ripley one with perhaps splintered loyalty to either human or alien-kind could have potentially made a useful premise to go on, with a hardened edge and less dialogue keeping things semi-interesting. The sequence with the failed Ripley clones is the most effective scene. Ryder does not fare as well, seeming miscast when it comes to trying to keep up in presence when it comes to supposed mystery (i.e. "she's a robot!", following in the tradition of the first two films) that results in wires of wood. Pinon (a regular in Jeunet's films) does okay, and Perlman seems to be enjoying himself in ham-fisted ham, at least (he shoots a spider at one point). Dourdan and others seem too stock to really make a useful impression (Hedaya and his examining the brain before death doesn't count), unless one counts bewildering in the case of Dourif, who spends separate scenes with his face near the glass of an Xenomorph and calling a new baby alien a "beautiful butterfly". And Whedon blamed the execution of his script? No, I think the failure of the film falls on everyone's shoulders starting with Whedon. He wrote five endings! And none of them were actually used, believe it or not. Can you imagine what could have happened if there had been a fifth film on Earth? Weaver wanted to see a good script before doing another film, and perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that there wasn't a sequel done - where else could you go? The next film to involve the Xenomorphs wouldn't be done until the crossover film Alien vs. Predator (2004). Beyond a silly way to bring back Ripley and the Xenomorphs, there is just a fundamental lack of scares and/or thrills to really inspire anything other than a bland 109 minute experience that proves that some film franchises just need to stay un-resurrected. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Crow (1994).

Review #1160: The Crow.

Cast: 
Brandon Lee (Eric Draven/The Crow), Michael Wincott (Top Dollar), Ernie Hudson (Sergeant Albrecht), Rochelle Davis (Sarah), Bai Ling (Myca), David Patrick Kelly (T-Bird), Angel David (Skank), Jon Polito (Gideon), Tony Todd (Grange), Sofia Shinas (Shelly Webster), Michael Massee (Funboy), Laurence Mason (Tin-Tin), and Anna Levine (Darla) Directed by Alex Proyas (#086 - I, Robot)

Review: 
The Crow is based off a 1989 superhero comic book series of the same name created by James O'Barr, which soon became an underground success. Tasked with writing the screenplay adaptation is John Shirley and David J. Schow, who were each known for their work on writing novels (cyberpunk and splatter-punk horror, respectively), with un-credited rewrites being done due to the tragic accidental death of Lee on March 31, 1993, which occurred a few days before production was set to end. Narration (along with a few new scenes) was added to accompany stand-in actors (such as Chad Stahelski) and CGI digital superimposition. The resulting product is a movie that is pretty entertaining, mostly due to its style and some fair performances, starting with Lee (in his fifth and final appearance in a film). He shows a good deal of charm and compelling nature (complete with a nice-looking costume) that dominates the screen for most of its 102 minute run-time. Wincott, although not having as much time to make up much of a villainous presence, proves entertaining enough. Hudson is enjoyable in pulling some watch-ability out of the cop role without feeling hollow, having a bit of humor to him. Davis does a fine job as well, going along well with Lee and Hudson. Although the supporting cast of adversaries are a bit routine, they aren't detrimental to the film's credit. The climax (complete with rain, naturally) is satisfactory to help cap the film, having a decent showdown that tries to make the final result a little less than easily predictable (for a vigilante hero, anyway), which works okay to a point. After all, this is a movie with a guy back from the dead who is accompanied by a crow that flies around, but at least there isn't some sort of shoehorned explanation of the origins of the title hero. The film is dark and moody with its approach, particularly with its cinematography by Dariusz Wolski that sure makes the setting come to life with plenty of fine shots to look at, reminding me of Batman (1989) and Blade Runner (1982). The film doesn't have too much in the way of a great story at times, and it can fall prey to some cliches, but I found that there are enough enjoyable moments to make this a entertaining experience. It makes for a fine vigilante film that has some fine action sequences to accompany a movie that certainly earns a cult following and at least one watch for people curious for some style and action.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.