Alien vs. Predator.

Review #1688: Alien vs. Predator.

Cast: 

Sanaa Lathan (Alexa "Lex" Woods), Raoul Bova (Professor Sebastian De Rosa), Lance Henriksen (Charles Bishop Weyland), Ewen Bremner (Dr. Graeme Miller), Colin Salmon (Maxwell Stafford), Tommy Flanagan (Mark Verheiden), Carsten Norgaard (Rusten Quinn), Joseph Rye (Joe Connors), Agathe de La Boulaye (Adele Rousseau), Sam Troughton (Thomas Parks), Petr Jákl (Stone), Liz May Brice (The Supervisor), Karima Adebibe (Sacrificial Maiden), with Tom Woodruff Jr (The Alien / "Grid") and Ian Whyte (The Predator / "Scar") Directed by Paul W. S. Anderson (#1670 - Mortal Kombat)

Review: 

Well, we have now moved into the next phase for two separate film franchises, and it's interesting to consider how it affected the quality of each over the prevailing next few years. Alien (1979), if you recall, was a series of four films that had four distinct visions of people being terrorized in space (each starring Sigourney Weaver), whether involving a gradual build in terror like the first film, or a segue into action-horror with the sequel, or whatever the idea was supposed to be for the third and fourth movies. Predator (1987) is a different story (written by Jim and John Thomas). The first one was pure sci-fi action, one carried by Arnold Schwarzenegger and other folks generating bravado for a well-done experience. I honestly can't really remember the second film, which either might mean it is due for a re-consideration, or it just means that it was forgettable enough to have killed further attempts more sequels about the predator and its hunt. Both franchises would also see follow-ups come in the years that followed this (Alien went to the past while Predator had two films released eight years apart that had soldiers banding together to take down modified predators). To be technical, the inspiration for doing a crossover came first within comic books, because a series was done that crossed the two franchises that was released in 1989 by Dark Horse Comics; further stories would be released by the company over the next two decades that also involved video games (of course there was also a tease in the aforementioned Predator 2). Got all that? Good, because you get a crossover between the two franchises with people that are seemingly designed to just get gobbled up for fodder while involving temples hidden in Antarctica. Anderson was responsible for the screenplay while co-writing the story with Ronald Shusett and Dan O'Bannon (writers of the story for Alien). 

Maybe the only ringing endorsement of the film that means anything is from James Cameron, who described it as the third best film of the Alien movies. Of course he initially thought the idea was akin to Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (which irked him enough to where he had stopped trying to do a script for a potential fifth film), so take that for what it is worth. Besides, Alien: Resurrection (1997) might actually be more interesting, comprised of goofy narrative decisions to go with hyper-extended acting/acting choices. There are two reasons to probably see the movie: seeing the fight sequences to override a thin plot, and Henriksen show up for nearly an hour. Of course I am talking about the unrated version when it comes to said violence, because why would you watch the original (PG-13 rated) version? The original lasted 101 minutes, while this version has an increased runtime of eight minutes, which adds little moments of story (like an opening in 1904 Antarctica) alongside shots of CGI blood added in to certain shots. In that sense, the action sequences are fairly decent, since one is mostly looking at performers at work and not too much CGI wrangling that makes for useful grimy moments. Lathan does okay here, in that everyone around her is a wax figure waiting to be melted down, which is very okay for the obvious final leftover. Bremner and his instantly-doomed presence (uh huh, take photos before you get started with the mission) is probably the only other presence to note, because face it, you are sort of chuckling when it comes to dinner time for the creatures in the dreary pyramid. Henriksen is cut and dry in what is needed in a spot designed for a familiar presence, one that you know exactly where it is going to go but enjoy because it is a reliable actor involved.

The comparison to the aforementioned Frankenstein crossover is interesting, but perhaps a more apt comparison would be Freddy vs. Jason (2003), which also took a number of years to finally do a monster mash that involved character you couldn't remember if they wore name tags before being vanquished (of course that movie also fudged with basic qualities such as geography, so there's that). Man is this a bleary movie to watch. Making a movie that lives to the title really isn't a high bar to clear, but you have to be kidding with this, right? The aforementioned Predator movie may be a macho extravaganza, but one always has the feeling of excitement when it comes to the actual action that just never hits with this feature; conversely, there are no moments that reach the level of Aliens (1986) when it comes to ripping tension in action with the creatures, probably because there isn't a single moment of shock when it comes to building camaraderie between its characters before the terror hits (i.e. there isn't a Hicks parallel one is curious to see again). I guess it really depends on what one is desiring for a movie about predators that gave humans pyramids to build while doing a hunt every century to take down Xenomorphs with human hosts - and they have the perfect solution if they end up as losers. At least the idea to have a focus on a predator for longer than a few minutes is interesting, but the cynic in me thinks a film that just features predators and Xenomorphs without much dialogue might be a better experience (in that I would endorse it driving other folks nuts). Overall, it is a movie that rides hard on how much one really wants to see monsters fight with the bare minimum involved that obviously found a favoring with the audience it wanted to warrant a sequel with Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem three years later. So yeah, it is incredibly average, but it might be good to doze off too before the creatures wake you up. Oh well...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Gladiator (2000).

Review #1524: Gladiator.

Cast: 
Russell Crowe (Maximus Decimus Meridius), Joaquin Phoenix (Commodus), Connie Nielsen (Lucilla), Oliver Reed (Antonius Proximo), Derek Jacobi (Senator Gracchus), Djimon Hounsou (Juba), Richard Harris (Marcus Aurelius), Ralf Möller (Hagen), Tommy Flanagan (Cicero), David Schofield (Senator Falco), John Shrapnel (Senator Gaius), Tomas Arana (General Quintus), Spencer Treat Clark (Lucius Verus), and David Hemmings (Cassius) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, #739 - The Martian, and #1076 - Thelma & Louise)

Review: 
"I'm a yarnteller. My job is to engage you as much as I can and as often as I can. I love the process and still continue to adore the process, actually. I don't get attached to anything. I'm like a good antique dealer. I'm prepared to sell my most valuable table."

A director of many trades in genre can be a valuable voice worth seeing their vision. In the case of Ridley Scott, he has managed to do a variety of interesting films within science fiction, adventure, and drama. After all, Scott started with a historical drama in The Duellists (1977), a culmination of having spent years making television commercials in his native United Kingdom and graduation from the Royal College of Art (where he made his only short in 1965 in Boy and Bicycle). One surely must hope to find inspiration in paintings when it comes to creating something of their own. In this case, it was the painting Pollice Verso (Gérôme) by Jean-Léon Gérôme that was shown by producers to Scott that inspired him to do the film before they even handed him a script, as he felt that image spoke to him of the glory and evil of the Roman Empire that interested him in its duality of grace and savagery. There were three writers credited for the film, with David Franzoni having the initial pitch that became the first draft of the script done in 1998, which was inspired by Daniel P. Mannix's 1958 novel Those About to Die alongside reading history about Roman emperors while doing travelling across the world. Scott and Franzoni looked into films besides the traditional "sword and sandal" movies of the past, such as All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) while citing Ben-Hur (1959) and Spartacus (1960) as influences on his youth Numerous re-writes would be done during the production, with even cast members providing input. A second writer was brought in with John Logan that dealt mostly with the first act and increasing Maximus' motivation through the death of his family. William Nicholson was brought in a little later on in order to make the main character more diplomatic.

There is a mix of history and fiction as one could expect from an epic that wants to stick out from previous films of its kind like The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964). For example, Maximus is fictional but is inspired by several figures of history. Commodus really was a loon who actually fought in the arena, although his end was strangulation by Narcissus (which was the name the first draft used for its lead). Of course it still quibbled enough with clothing and weaponry that one historical consultant hired for the film quit. I guess for me it is like Titanic (1997), with its attempts at sweeping away quibbles of history with intensity and ambition, which may work better or worse depending on one's preference for sword combat over romance (which is the case for me). The Colosseum is shown here as a mix of fragmented reconstruction of the first tier of the famed building for filming in Malta while using CGI (as done by The Mill) to finish the rest. Other effects to note involve composited tigers on bluescreen, mixing real and CGI for crowds, and a digital body double for Reed after his death in May of 1999 (at the age of 61) before his scenes were all finished.

Sure, Crowe (known previously for rising roles in Australia and abroad) may have had his trials and tribulations with handling a main role that requires brooding intensity and a tough hand without an immediately satisfactory script to start. But he manages to do well here, hefting the film along with dignity that commands our curiosity in resonating stature that handles a sword and others quite well as a noble warrior. Phoenix delivers a great intensity on the other side of things, one hungry for power and love with the talent required to make his presence quite convincing in all that is needed, particularly when it comes to the final battle between the two of them. Nielsen accompanies the proceedings with decent results in what is needed when doing a double act of protector and advocate with care. Reed does well with a crucial segmented role, capturing gravitas with appropriate gruffness required. Jacobi and Hounsou each lend a bit of measured interest to the proceedings within bureaucracy and combat, while Harris lends momentary experience suited for the first quarter of the film.

Undeniably, this could have been a long slog at 155 minutes with a lesser director (while also perhaps being thought of as a worse Braveheart (1995), as opposed to just being thought of as at least close to its level). But with Scott here, he manages to cultivate a tale of vengeance and what it means to be a man of the people in the time of mob rule that generally hits the mark fine. What we have is a film that blazes through brutality and spectacle without too many stumbles in plot detailing, where the experience of believing one to be entertained or wincing in feeling like one is in Rome is likely enough to win over a few narrative stumbles. On the whole, I quite enjoyed the film for what it aspired to do in a sword-and-sandal epic with capturing excitement and the terror that could come from making a mythic tale of Rome. Scott and the cast do well enough with capable effects and music to back them up enough to inspire further films in the decade. If it doesn't quite reach the peaks of the great sword films of the past, it at least does its part in setting a new century on a good start for film with worthwhile ambition.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Here we are again, the ninth edition of Tribute to the Decades. We welcome the 21st century with 30 films for the month, which I hope you will enjoy.