Aliens (1986)

Almost 30 years ago, a nearly unknown filmmaker named James Cameron created a science fiction masterpiece that changed the genre forever and became a landmark film with long reaching influence. As a pure action movie, Aliens is as well constructed and paced as any in Hollywood history. Let’s take looks back at James Cameron’s Aliens, one of the greatest films of our generation.

aliens2Aliens is set 57 years after the events of the first film. It begins with Ripley being rescued & revived from hypersleep after drifting in space far longer than she ever expected. After hearing her account of what happened to her former crew on Nostromo, the panel board turns down her story, revokes her space-flight license & makes her aware of the colonisation of the planet LV-426, where the alien spaceship was found in the first film. Things set in motion when the contact with the colony on planet LV-426 is lost and Ripley is requested to join a group of space marines to investigate which she, after initially refusing, finally accepts in order to face & overcome her fears.

Given the task of following up Ridley Scott’s Alien, a lesser director would have simply provided more of the same. Another ship, and another crew to impregnate, stalk and terrorise by an apparently indestructible alien creature. It’s to James Cameron’s credit that, when he wrote and directed the sequel to Ridley Scott’s original, he chose to strike out on a different path, creating a film with its own tone, pace and themes while still adhering to various visual and narrative laws set up in the first film.

aliens4In Alien, we got to know the monster; how it grows to maturity inside an unwilling host, how it bleeds acid, and how difficult it is to kill once it’s loose. In that film, we watched a single one of these life forms tear an entire ship out from under its crew, and no matter what steps were taken to defeat it, the alien simply would not die. In Aliens, James Cameron shows us what an army of them is capable of, and by doing so transforms his movie into more than a mere sequel.

Where Alien was a comparatively slow horror thriller that prowled like a lion in undergrowth, Aliens was a war film that sped from one set piece to the next, slowly building up to a roller coaster of bombastic action. That Aliens is bigger and louder has led some to suggest that Cameron’s sequel is superior to Scott’s original, while others prefer the latter’s reliance on atmosphere and quiet suspense. But I’d suggest that, rather than either being superior, the two films complement one another in a way seldom seen in cinema.

aliens3Alien was metaphor for sex and encountering something traumatic that could barely be comprehended, a monster that violated as well as killed, that rendered its victims chillingly powerless. Aliens is about facing trauma head on, and gaining closure in the process. In Aliens, Cameron quickly establishes that the events of the first film had caused Ripley to lose everything. By returning to LV-426, the now terraformed planet of Alien, Ripley is able to confront the trauma of her past, and in the final battle with the alien queen, ultimately overcome it.

It’s also worth noting that, where Alien was cut off from any sense of society, Aliens gives a greater sense of social order. We even see the ant-like hierarchy of the aliens themselves, with soldier aliens protecting the egg-laying queen. We even learn that the aliens can, in a basic way, be bargained with, as Ripley threatens the queen’s eggs with a flamethrower. With a quiet nod from the queen, the soldier aliens back away.

As a pure action movie, Aliens is one of the best constructed and paced in Hollywood history. Its first hour methodically reintroduces Ripley and the outfit of cocky Colonial Marines who will accompany her to LV-426. Once the action starts however, the film peels back the layers to reveal a display of pure action and suspense.  Then there’s Cameron’s endlessly quotable script and broad, memorable characters. Wisecracking space marines have since become a cliché of cinema and video games. Cameron’s, headed up by Hicks, Hudson and Vasquez, are the original and still the best.  And let’s not forget about that creepy android (or Artificial Person) Bishop, or the slick company representative Carter Burke. We can trust them… or can we?’

As for this film’s technical achievements, Aliens’ art direction & set designs may not have surpassed the artistic levels set in the previous film but it certainly comes close. However, the one category where this film sets a new benchmark of its time is in its state-of-the-art visual & sound effects. Visual effects are absolutely groundbreaking and that’s one part which has since become a trademark in James Cameron’s films. Sound always plays a big role in combat & horror films and is impressive here as well, be it the sound of guns blazing, aliens shrieking or explosions. Cinematography successfully creates a more evolved atmosphere of what existed in the original film. Editing is cleverly done & it successfully manages to keep the viewers gripped to their seats for 2.5 hours which goes pretty unnoticed. And finally, the score perfectly balances the tone of the film and stays in sync with the film’s content. It’s loud, terrifying, suspenseful & also touching wherever & whenever it’s supposed to be. Splendid work by composer James Horner.

Cameron’s biggest achievement in Aliens was in creating a film that dovetails so perfectly with the original Alien. Watched back to back, Alien becomes the first act to Cameron’s lengthier story. Ripley encounters the xenomorph and all the horror that comes with it in the first film, and through a mixture of circumstance and bravery, is able to put those horrors to rest in the second. This gratifying sense of closure is one reason why the attempt to create a second sequel was always doomed to failure. With Aliens, Cameron had already created an arc for Ripley’s character that was both satisfying and logical, and demonstrated that the aliens themselves, apparently indestructible in Scott’s movie, could be killed after all.

Like Cameron’s later work, Terminator 2, what makes Aliens more than just a sci-fi action thriller is the underlying emotional connection between the characters, particularly between Ripley and Newt. There are also semi-romantic undertones between Ripley and Hicks, but they are wisely kept as undertones. A full-blown romantic subplot would have interrupted the movie’s lightning fast pace. By the climax, we’re not only on the edge of our seats because of the action and tension, but because Ripley, Newt, and Hicks have come to mean something to us. When Newt is taken by the aliens to their nest, necessitating Ripley’s climactic confrontation with the Queen, it ups the stakes even further in a climax that already approaches the harrowing urgency of Alien. And the climactic battle between Ripley and the Queen is not only human vs. alien, but two mothers pitted against each other in defense of their “children.”

Even though many fans will be divided over which is a better film between Ridley Scott’s Alien & James Cameron’s Aliens, there is no denying that both films are masterpieces & immortal for their contribution to horror, action & science-fiction genres. And looking back, Aliens is indeed a perfect follow-up to Alien, not just because it explores the elements of the original beautifully, but also because it places greater emphasis on staying true to the original by following it up with an equally mesmerizing story rather than something made just for financial gains, like most sequels of today. Highly entertaining, immensely satisfying & a spectacular roller-coaster ride of non-stop action, Aliens refuses to age even after three decades and continues to rank amongst the most intense & fulfilling pieces of action films, ever. Although Aliens is strong enough to be a standalone film, it still would be a wiser move to visit the original by Ridley Scott before moving on to this one. Despite their differences, Aliens feels very much of a piece with Alien, and in retrospect, this is where the series should have ended. Unfortunately, opportunities to continue milking a franchise for box office profits often supersede creative integrity, but the shortcomings of the following installments do not diminish what Ridley Scott and James Cameron achieved with Alien and Aliens.

Facebook Comments

Vertigo (1958)

Vertigo-0022Vertigo is a psychological thriller film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. The film stars Jimmy Stewart as a former police detective John “Scottie” Ferguson, who has been forced into early retirement due to his discovery of crippling acrophobia and vertigo. Scottie is hired as a private investigator to follow a woman, Madeleine Elster (Kim Novak) who is behaving peculiarly. The film received mixed reviews upon initial release, but has garnered acclaim since and is now often cited as one of the defining works of his career. It is currently listed at #65 on the IMDb Top 250, which I think is a travesty. It shows you what type of list the IMDb Top 250 is, to see this film and others, like Citizen Kane, outside of the top 50, but The Dark Knight currently holds the #4 place. But in the 2012 British Film Institute’s Sight & Sound critics’ poll, it replaced Citizen Kane as the best film of all time and has appeared repeatedly in best film polls by the American Film Institute.

I have to confess. This is one of those movies that you hear about and want to watch because others say it is so good. I’ve had it on my watch-list for years. This was one of the many Alfred Hitchcock films that my parents owned. But for some reason, unlike North by Northwest or The Birds or Psycho, I just never got around to watching this one. But I finally tackled this one on Saturday last year and have been digesting it ever since. This draft has literally been sitting in my project pile since March 2013 and if WordPress is correct in its count, I have made 67 different revisions in that time. Well, I finally watched it again tonight with the purpose of finishing what I started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b69YGZizcKc

Ebert’s Great Movies Review from 1996

*** SPOILER ALERT *** Because of the nature of this film, I must warn anyone who reads further on that the rest of this review will contain spoilers. Please take the time to watch this classic before reading any more. *** SPOILER ALERT *** Continue reading Vertigo (1958)

Facebook Comments

Looper (2012)

Director Rian Johnson began his career with the language-muddling high school film noir Brick, before moving on to the con-man film The Brothers Bloom, yet his third film, arguably his best, is a science fiction time-travel action film called Looper. Creating an original, but familiar location of near-future Earth, Johnson is able to place interesting characters with a complex time travel story line and let the audience go along for the ride.

Roger Ebert’s original review from 2012.

In the year 2044 time travel has not yet been invented, but thirty years later it will have been. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper, a man hired to assassinate troublesome enemies of criminal gangs in 2074. These men are transported back in time with silver attached to their backs, are killed by the loopers and disposed of. looper 1While it is a lucrative career, there is one downside, Loopers are expected to ‘close the loop’ by assassinating themselves. At this point they are given a huge payout and are effectively retired, left to enjoy the remaining 30 years of their life. When Joe’s future self (Bruce Willis) appears before young Joe, he hesitates to kill him, allowing him to escape and forces the younger self to track down the older self and kill him before the leader of the loopers, Abe (Jeff Daniels) finds him. The chase leads the two men to a remote farm, the home to Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon), where they must finally sort out the ever-growing list of potential paradoxes.

Looper as a science fiction film is innovative but thoughtful. There are nods to previous classics in the genre, and while many have compared it to The Matrix, it is actually more akin to The Terminator. There is time travel, a seemingly convoluted plot to assassinate and defend and a potentially unstoppable killer at its core. Yet Willis/Gordon-Levitt are a better pair than Schwarzenegger/Biehn and the plot allows for a neat summary at the end, to avoid any potential sequel issues. It’s nice for a modern film not to immediately play for a sequel with a cliffhanger ending and Johnson’s script is almost wipe-clean in its conclusion.

looper-movie-screencaps.com-7782The cast are uniformly excellent and Emily Blunt and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (with a prosthetic nose which is very convincing in the close-up shots) are as good as you would imagine. It is however, Bruce Willis who is the stand-out. It’s been a long time since Willis has had to show any range, and while he gets to show-off his action chops in a series of scenes that will delight fans of Die Hard, it is in the more emotional scenes that he excels. In fact after the barmy opening act, Looper is strongest when engaging in the depth of character on display.

Looper doesn’t just rest on engaging characters and dialogue though and the action scenes walk the line between slick and cool gun fights and visceral horror gore and violence. In an early scene when another old looper avoids execution, the methods used to bring him to ‘justice’ are horrific and more at home in a slasher horror. It is this edge-of-your-seat, adrenaline-fueled mayhem that gives Looper it’s edge and allows the character development to ground it, while simultaneously allowing the plot not to stall. It’s a masterful balancing act by Johnson and his team.

Looper 3Looper is an exciting, original-yet-familiar science fiction action film that is likely to become more and more popular with age. The term ‘Cult Classic’ is often applied to low-budget films that were passed by on their original runs, but Looper has all the hallmarks of a film that will transcend this status and become a sleeper classic. While a lot of science fiction films are all flashy effects and no soul, Looper bucks the trend and delivers something slick, but with a heart of emotion. Just don’t ask about the time travel paradoxes or you’ll be stuck in a diner for hours, making charts out of straws.

Facebook Comments

Jurassic Park (1993)

Jurassic-Park_Logo-2-Back in 1993 (That’s 20 years ago!), this little movie called Jurassic Park came out in theaters. What Steven Spielberg did with a shark 20 years earlier, he did again here with dinosaurs. I can’t recall whether I saw this film in theaters or not. I would have been 10 and this movie was right up my alley, but we didn’t see a lot of movies in the theater. Regardless of where I saw it, I do remember watching the movie and loving the science and the visuals. It is probably one of the movies that I watched most frequently. I loved the movie and it has become a classic. Following the success of the the first movie, they decided to make 2 more and they even have a 4th planned for 2014. This summer, either to promote the new movie or just to make some more money, they released the original in 3D. I was very tempted to take my son who is now 9 to see this action-adventure popcorn flick on the big screen. Alas, that opportunity came and went. So, I settled for a Sunday afternoon viewing in house. So, I can;t speak to the quality of the post-processing 3D, but this movie was filmed before HD was even an acronym. I’m afraid if I did see it on the big screen I would have spent the entire time critiquing the technical side of the movie instead of just enjoying it with my boys, which is what I did.

Jurassic Park 2So just in case you been hiding under a rock for the past 20 years and haven’t seen or heard about Jurassic Park, here is a brief synopsis. On Isla Nublar, a small island 120 miles off the coast of Costa Rica, John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) a billionaire decides to  create a new type of theme park; there are no giant mice or cartoon characters here (except for a very informative Mr. DNA). Instead of illusion, the attractions at this theme park are all too real. If you’re thinking about a zoo, it’s like that but much more flashy and the featured attractions of this zoo aren’t your run-of-the-mill animals; this park is full of real dinosaurs. The park has had some issues, so John invites a group of people to come and experience the park and hopefully give their endorsement. They include, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), a paleontologist and Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), a paleobotonist. They make their living digging up dinosaur bones and studying them, they don’t know that they are about to witness a scientific discovery that will put them out of a job. I mean, who wants to look at the bones of a creature that you can see alive? They are joined by an irritating lawyer of little consequence and Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a chaos theory mathematician, and the final two members of the group are John’s grand kids Lex and Tim.

2013-Jurassic-Park_612x380One of my favorite scenes is in the opening 40 minutes which runs dramatically slower in pace than the rest of the film. I was a bit afraid my boys would begin to nod off as some of the less entertaining plot points were lined up. The group of eager explorers arrive on the island, ushered in by John Williams amazing score. They take jeeps from the helipad to the welcome center and along the way they run into a group of dinosaurs, they are completely taken by surprised and in awe.  Once they arrive at the visitor center, they take a tour explaining how all of this had been made possible. During which they get to observe a baby raptor being born. This series features some really great dialogue about the ethical underpinnings of cloning and the pride of man.

t rex jurassic parkAs the group takes their safari type tour to see the live dinosaurs, the excitement ramps up. Due to a combination of an impending tropical storm and sabotage by Newman (I mean the greedy computer programmer), the power to all of the electrical fences goes offline. The T-Rex breaks through the fence and attempts to eat the kids in the car. To summarize the movie, there’s a chase scene with a jeep and the T-Rex,  the raptors escape from their enclosure, and finally they are able to get the power back on and meet up at the visitor center. However, before they can escape the island, there’s a scene involving two raptors and the two grand kids. This is probably the scariest scene in the movie, it certainly caused some gasps and eye-hiding from the boys. However, spoiler alert, they escape the raptors and everyone (well almost…) makes it to the helicopter and lives until the sequel.

picture-of-jeff-goldblum-and-laura-dern-in-jurassic-park-large-pictureMy favorite character, even as a kid, was Dr. Ian Malcolm. Besides the humor he adds to the movie, he also brings up some great moral points. During a discussion about the park, Dr. Malcolm states, “Don’t you see the danger, John, inherent in what you’re doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet’s ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that’s found his dad’s gun.” After some more discussion he concludes by saying, “Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

This brings to mind the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. The people wanted to build a tower to the heavens and they thought they could do it. But God didn’t approve of their purpose/intent in building the tower, so he confused their language. We have made an incredible amount of discoveries and technological advances in the last century.  As our civilization continues to advance, we need to make sure we don’t let it get to our heads or abuse the power we have been granted.

jurassic-park-image-4

In the words of Uncle Ben, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Just because we have the power to do something doesn’t mean that we should. Another main point that he brings up is the chaos theory. While very interesting to nerds like me, I’m not going to go into detail about it. But the gist of it is that even if we think we are in control, we really aren’t. John Hammond believed that the park was perfectly safe and under his control, but in the end Malcolm was right. Often times we want to be in control of what happens in our lives, but all to often we find out that we have no control. God is the only one who is truly in control and we must trust in Him.

So in conclusion, I think this is a great action movie. It has a little bit of everything in it: humor, suspense  a chase scene, and best of all giant dinosaurs! The music, which was written by John Williams,  is great throughout the movie. And despite being an action movie, Jurassic Park brings up some thought provoking ideas. Just because you have the power to do something doesn’t mean you should and who is really in control? Now go out and watch this movie!!!

Facebook Comments

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

reservoir_dogs_3

At this point, the story of Quentin Tarantino has become fodder of the dreams of independent and amatuer filmmakers. Just over 20 years ago, Tarantino was working at a video store and all he had were his dreams. Now he is considered to be one of the most creative and visionary storytellers of our generation. His name has been listed along those of Scorsese, Kubrick, and Hitchcock. This is the film that started all of that. Before Pulp Fiction rocketed him to fame, Reservoir Dogs shocked and surprised audiences and critics alike. Empire magazine called it the greatest independent film of all time. It cost 1.2 million to make and doubled that in box office reciepts even though it was shown in less than 100 theaters. Tarantino has cited Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing as one of the major influences for Reservoir Dogs. Sadly, I have not seen this earlier gem. But I see many similarities between Kubrick and Tarantino. Tarantino, the fast-talking former video store clerk remains a major player. In fact, of his seven features, five are listed in the IMDb Top 250:

  • Reservoir Dogs
  • Jackie Brown
  • Kill Bill
  • Inglourious Basterds
  • Django Unchained

So, what can I say about Reservoir Dogs that hasn’t already been said? Not much, but I can say it again. It’s a straightforward heist film that follows the genre’s basic format. A group of talented professionals band together for one big score. The attempt goes awry and the members turn on each other in the aftermath. There’s also a traitor, often an undercover cop, who places the others in jeopardy, willingly or not. In his debut film, Tarantino takes this model and infuses it with his now signature style and breathes life and chaos into the predictable formula.

reservoir-dogs

First of all, Tarantino injects on the genre is his over-the-top dialogue, which has become more renowned because of Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and his more recent projects. Reservoir Dogs opens with a lengthy conversation about the meaning of Madonna’s “Like a Virgin”, led by Tarantino himself as Mr. Brown. This type of pop-culture discussion from his characters would become a signature part of Tarantino’s movies going forward. Heist films aren’t generally known for their dialogue, so this was quite a dramatic change and widely expanded the audience for this movie. Characters mention Lee Marvin, Marlon Brando, the Thing from the Fantastic Four, The Lost Boys, and other enjoyable references. These guys may be involved in a daring crime, but they’re still people with other interests.

Secondly, Tarantino removes the normal focus of a heist film. The only scene we get of the heist is Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) fleeing from police after being ambushed. He recounts his escape to Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) after they gather at a vacant warehouse, which is the primary setting for the movie. By doing this, he deepens the film. The film really begins in the aftermath of the botched heist, and it’s jarring to leap right into the unknown situation. Mr. White is driving a getaway car while his cohort Mr. Orange (Tim Roth) writhes in the back seat and bleeds profusely from a gut shot. Most heist films introduce us to the characters and focus on their preparations for the big robbery. Tarantino does flash back to the time prior to the heist, but he’s not interested in their specific plans. Instead, he’s concerned with briefly setting up these professional thieves and their backgrounds.

reservoir_dogs 4

Third, heist movies typically focus on criminals, there usually is a lead character (or a group of characters) that we identify with and want to succeed. A good example is Frank Ocean, who we follow from the start of Oceans 11, and while we meet others, we are tied to Frank and root for him and his team, even though he is a crook. In Reservoir Dogs, it’s not clear who we should root for because Tarantino scrambles the narrative. If the story was told chronologically, we’d likely connect with Tim Roth’s undercover cop, known by the alias Mr. Orange. In this structure, however, we don’t learn his identity and back story until more than an hour into the movie. By that point, we’ve grown to like Harvey Keitel’s Mr. White, especially because of his loyalty to his comrade. Steve Buscemi’s Mr. Pink is also interesting, though he’s a bit too manic and doesn’t tip. After we see the lengthy interlude of Orange’s preparations to infiltrate the gang, we feel sorry for the guy, but he’s not really our hero. Tarantino is taking a real chance by stopping the forward plot so late in the game. Watching Orange rehearse his made-up story is a classic segment, but it only works if we’re invested in the story. Tarantino trusts that we’re interested enough in this world to stick with him until the final shootout.

reservoir_dogs 2

A fourth departure is the graphic violence, which keeps us on edge throughout the movie. Unlike gangster films, heist movies usually spend more time on the characters and plans of the heist and don’t include brutal killings. Tarantino actually moves some of the grisliest moments off-screen, but the overall nastiness remains. The prime example is Mr. Blond (Michael Madsen), who’s recently spent time in prison and has returned with a crazy streak. In the movie’s signature scene, he tortures a helpless cop, cuts off his ear, and prepares to burn him with gasoline. There’s no motive for this action beyond inflicting pain in the most vicious way possible. Strutting to the sweet sounds of “Stuck in the Middle with You” by Stealers Wheel, he delivers a frightening, yet cool depiction of a psychopath. This is not your everyday working-class thief.

The ending of the film is classic. It encapsulates the nihilism that we have seen throughout. We see loyalty and trust as well as betrayal and death. So, should everyone watch this film? Certainly not. If coarse language and violence is offensive to you, if you’ve seen other Tarantino films and been disgusted, then this won’t be for you. However, if you are a fan of gangster and heist movies or if you enjoy Tarantino’s style, you will like this first of his efforts. Tarantino injects his own unconventional style into the genre and delivers a powerful, energetic, and original film.

Do you agree with me? Am I way off on this one? Let me know in the comments below or on Twitter or Facebook.

Facebook Comments

John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982)

Thing 1

Any horror fan worth his salt has a deep respect for John Carpenter. Although most of his recent efforts have lacked originality and quality, we have to give him his due. His filmography is impressive to say the least. I know that my generation can credit Mr. Carpenter with a few soiled Fruit of the Looms because of the likes of Halloween, Christine, In the Mouth of Madness, They Live, and The Fog. But horror is not his only instrument. He also directed, Big Trouble in Little China, Starman, Escape from New York, and Escape from L.A.. However, I would count his 1982 classic, The Thing, as the film that encapsulates Carpenter’s style and ability above all his other works. This film, over 30 years old, still watches very well. The pulsing suspense and gory visuals are still effective even to my eyes which have now seen “superior” computer generated effects. It isn’t nearly as scary to me as it was when I first saw this film at 14 or 15 without my parents permission. In fact, I probably owe some of my dislike for dogs to this film, but it is a worthwhile film nonetheless.

This story of a small group of researchers braving an Antarctic winter at a remote research outpost is brilliant. After the seemingly deranged man with the rifle blows up his helicopter and shoots one of the researchers as he continues to hunt this seemingly innocuous canine, he is quickly taken out by a sharpshooter with a pistol. The men quickly put two and two together and determine that the men in the helicopter were part of a Norwegian research outpost some miles away. Radio communications are failing and even with a blizzard rolling in, MacReady and his team decides to go and investigate. They arrive to find a disturbing bloodbath.

snapshot20090425163256.jpg

The corpses of the Norwegian outpost members are strewn across the site, and several of them are grotesquely (and inexplicably) deformed. Much of the outpost has been torched in Kerosene as well, leaving some of these “bodies” burned. The initial scope of the Norwegians investigation is not known because all of their research is in another language, however after a little more probing, it’s revealed that the Norwegians had discovered the site of an ancient Antarctic crash, and they managed to excavate some sort of extra-terrestrial relic.There’s really no other word to describe it. The plot is refreshingly simple: R.J. MacReady (played by Kurt Russell) and his colleagues are startled one afternoon as a dog comes running across the frozen wasteland that surrounds their station. What catches their attention about this particular situation, though, is that the aforementioned husky is being pursued by a helicopter. A man with a rifle is leaning from the open door of the helicopter, trying desperately to kill the dog. MacReady and company emerge as the helicopter lands, and they try to make sense of the situation.

Thing 4

Carpenter has built some suspense as we see the damage that this creature could cause and we know that the Norwegian camp was destroyed. However no one knows what this alien relic might be and many of the team are skeptical about the existence of any alien life forms. Especially those which are able to kill and copy any organism they encounter. However, our thirst for gore is quickly satisfied after returning from the abandoned site. Some of the bodies were taken for examination and the sweet and friendly puppy which has been roaming all over the facility is put to bed with the other dogs in a kennel. We soon become privy to a disgusting transformation as this dog’s face blows off and begins splitting open, snarling, sprouting tentacles and devouring the other dogs in the kennel. The commotion is stopped as MacReady calls for a blowtorch and the freaky scene comes to a relatively peaceful end. However, this gives the scientist, played by my favorite diabetic Wilford Brimley, enough information to connect the dots and calculate with his impressive 80’s computer that there’s a 75% chance that one ore more of their party members is, in fact, the alien, and if this alien were to make it to the mainland all mankind would be infected in 3 years time.

Thing 3

The remainder of the movie is admittedly a bit of a mess both literally and narratively. As many of the researchers are attacked and infected paranoia abounds as the group starts to become suspicious of one another. Carpenter does an absolutely flawless job of building the tension between each of the characters, and the audience is never really sure about who’s human and who isn’t For those seeking answers this can be frustrating and disappointing. However, the real “monsters,” in many ways, are the people themselves. Many of them are willing to resort to murder to ensure that they don’t become infected. The setting plays a great role here too, as a blizzard sets in that causes a massive whiteout. They characters are surrounded and trapped not only by the oppressing elements but also by uncertainty and terror. It makes for a chilling atmosphere that constantly keeps you on the edge of your seat.

In addition to all of that clever storytelling, The Thing boasts some of the best special effects I’ve ever seen. Again, this was filmed in 1982, and, in my opinion, everything looks more realistic than the CGI-splatter fests that we see in so many horror movies today. When the alien life-form is taking over something, it’s an extraordinarily gory process—it almost makes you want to puke. It’s one of those movies where you can tell that everyone involved was simultaneously taking it seriously and having fun with it. Despite it’s over the top nature, though, it feels necessary; we, as an audience, believe that the transformation would be a gruesome process. I’m certainly not going to post any clips from the film although there are plenty out there to showcase the gore even more than these pictures have. However without the rest of the film, it all seems to be simply pointless blood and death.

Thing 5

It is surprising to me that this out of all of Carpenter’s films is the only one currently in the IMDb Top 250. However this could be due to the recent release of the prequel which isn’t even worth the pixels I might use to review it. The Thing was not well received when it was released. It debuted at 8th and never improved. It received praise for it’s technical achievements but overall lackluster reviews. It only lasted 4 weeks in the theater. Though, in it’s defense, it was competing against Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. And two other much more family friendly alien movies which were released two weeks prior: E.T.: Extra-Terrestrial and Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan. John Carpenter considered The Thing one of his biggest failures saying, “I take every failure hard. The one I took the hardest was The Thing. My career would have been different if that had been a big hit…The movie was hated. Even by science-fiction fans. They thought that I had betrayed some kind of trust, and the piling on was insane.”

While I would not encourage everyone to see this film, if you are a fan of the horror genre or are just in the mood for a good cringe, The Thing, is well worth the few dollars it will cost you to snag the DVD. You can also check it out on Blu-Ray, but I would encourage you to have a vomit bag ready because I don’t know if you can handle all that high definition carnage. It will become a regular especially when Halloween, or that winter blizzard, comes around. Have you seen The Thing? What do you think about it? Want to praise Kurt Russell for rocking one of the silver screen’s best beards? Let me know in a comment below or on Twitter or Facebook.

Facebook Comments

Thoughts on Turning Thirty

So, another decade has come and gone. I’ve officially passed from twenty-something to thirty-something. This is supposed to be one of those milestone birthdays… the big 3-0. But as I have spent the day contemplating my life thus far and my plans for future decades I am struck by how profoundly commonplace this day seems.

Despite having a gaggle of friends turn up on Facebook and other social networks to wish me good tidings, we had an average Saturday. Morning filled with our bi-weekly library and grocery shopping trip, home for lunch and an afternoon nap. Then as a bit of a special treat, Teresa and I went out to eat and then walked around Target aimlessly. I picked up a Redbox and enjoyed a movie after coming home.

Actually, that date night provides an interesting microcosm for my life as a whole. I have always tried to enjoy the simple pleasures. Teresa and I have been married for more than 10 years and I genuinely enjoy spending time with her. I don’t care what we do together. I also love good food and drink and am easily entertained. But most profound is the wandering metaphor. I feel as though I have spent 30 years wandering through life. I still don’t feel as though I’ve arrived.

I don’t think I’m in bad company though. King Solomon said in Ecclesiastes that there is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and enjoy his lot in life. And the Apostle Paul admitted that he hadn’t attained the goal. But we share the same ambition, pushing ahead reaching for the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

So what is the plan for the next 30 years? There will always be another career move, or hobby, or bill to pay. I might succeed in business. I might follow my dreams. I might fail horribly. However, all of those things might describe me, but they do not define me. I could feel empty as I look back on 30 years with nothing to show for it, however I’m not defined by the things I have or have not done. The gospel defines me. When Christ died on the cross, he made me new and replaced my fallen identity with his righteousness. When he rose he gave me new life, not this meaningless existence. I no longer live my life alone under the sun, now I live through Christ under the rule and reign of God my king.

Facebook Comments

Day 30 – 30 Day Movie Challenge

Your Favorite Movie of All Time – 30 Day Movie Challenge

Whether intentional or not, The Shawshank Redemption is a film about hope, and the redemption that can occur even in the most dark and degrading corners of our world. This engrossing film stands as one of the most entertaining, thought-provoking dramas of this century. It takes us to a disturbing setting, uses raw language, doesn’t present us with ideal role models, and there are numerous brutal, occasionally fatal, beatings. But we are not cast into this dark place to incite our own lust or rage. The film clearly shows us that these things are harmful or wrong. Because to tell a story of redemption; you have to sink to the depths before you can rise to the pinnacle. When the darkness is hellish, the light shines ever more brightly. Simply put, this film couldn’t have been made without these elements.

Our hero, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), is wrongly accused of killing his wife and receives two life sentences. Steadily and quietly in prison, he wards off the bitterness against that injustice and the further hardships he suffers by doing good for others, even those that despise him. When the film’s narrator Ellis Boyd “Red” Redding (Morgan Freeman) first sees Andy arrive, he wagers that the tall-but-quiet ex-banker is a guy who won’t last long. Red loses the bet, but as he gets to know Andy, he begins to respect him and the two become friends and help each other survive the long and dark days of incarceration.

The prison warden (Bob Gunton) is a hypocritical “Christian” who uses the Lord, the Bible, and the people for his own scheming, murdering purposes. We are meant early on to see through this painted on veneer as shown by his “welcoming” the prisoners to Shawshank, “I believe in two things: discipline and the Bible. Here you’ll receive both. Put your trust in the Lord; your ass belongs to me.” This is not the cheap-shot characterization that many believers have come to expect from Hollywood. If you are turned off by the warden, it is because you are meant to be. Just remember who it was that had our sinless savior crucified; it was the conservative religious coalition of the day carrying out a sinister plot in order to maintain its own political power.

In fact, there are many similarities between the heroes of The Shawshank Redemption and the Gospel. The central characters are both wrongly accused. One receives two life sentences and the other is crucified. Neither are respected by their contemporaries, Andy is s a banker and Jesus is a Nazarene? While Andy is certainly flawed, the good work he does while in prison actually serves a ruthless political end that ends up holding him captive. Jesus was ridiculed and executed by the same people He came to free.

The characters are believable, the actors sink into their respective roles perfectly, and light up a brilliantly executed script. But it is the cinematography (crafted by the Coen Brothers’ go to guy, Roger Deakins) that provides the all important look of the film. Thick walls, imposing fences, and confined spaces remind us of the oppression. The guards relentless marching and the heavy bars slamming open and slamming shut reinforce it. Dull, chipped walls in every room surround the dulled, chipped lives of utterly hopeless men. But director Frank Darabont isn’t content to linger in the darkness. Hope is scattered throughout, from an Italian opera broadcast over loudspeakers to a senate appropriation for library books. From a cold beer after a days work to the thought of a “place of no memory.” From High school equivalency exams to a harmonica. From Alexander Dumas to Rita Hayworth.

*—–SPOILER ALERT—–*

Hope triumphs gloriously in the end. It only takes 19 years. But when Andy escapes the hard way, he makes it possible for his friend to go an easier way. Andy escapes the bonds of prison like Jesus escaped the bonds of death. Andy disappeared with an invitation for Red to join him much like Jesus told us that he was going to prepare a place for us. There are so many pictures of Christian hope in this movie that they couldn’t help but put the central message of the gospel in the title.

What is your favorite movie of all time? What do you think of Shawshank? Am I going overboard with the Christian allegory? Leave me a comment below. Also, with the 30 Day Challenge coming to an end, I am here at work for an overnight twelve hour shift. That gave me plenty of time to stamp out my last challenge and hopefully to fill in some of the gaps that were left when life or technology got in the way. I’ll let you know on Twitter or Facebook if I update any of my older posts. Follow me there to keep up with me as I continue my journey through the ever-changing IMDB Top 250.

Facebook Comments

Day 29 – 30 Day Movie Challenge

A Movie From Your Childhood – 30 Day Movie Challenge

I could pretend that I had great taste in film even as a toddler, but that’s no fun. I do remember watching movies like Jurassic Park as a kid, but one that I come back to over and over again is Disney’s Robin Hood. For some reason, this treat tends to get the cold shoulder from animation purists whenever it comes up in conversation. For the life of me, I just don’t understand the hostility to this cozy, endearing adventure/comedy.

Released while the studio was still recovering from Walt’s death, this was one of the first Disney productions that didn’t benefit from his personal touch. The studio was still jittery when it came to artistic direction now that their greatest supporter was gone. It’s unusual to Disney films because it stays very tight on its characters. This leaves the plot winding a bit aimlessly at times, so there’s not a big payoff in the end, but the care with which the characters are handled grows on the viewer as the film strolls along.

Looking back, as an adult and a film snob, I can see that the picture is notorious for its corner-cutting animation, it simply doesn’t have the sparkling hand-drawn detail of earlier Disney masterpieces, or the glitzy sheen of the latter ones. It’s certainly one of the more crudely-drawn productions of the company. But even when you stack up the complaints lobbed at this incarnation of the Robin Hood tale, they really don’t matter, because in the end we get a richly entertaining good time, and I’m glad to say that this film is just as captivating to my children as it was to me.

What movies do you remember fondly from your childhood? What do you think about Robin Hood? Let me know in a comment below or on Twitter or Facebook.

Facebook Comments

Day 28 – 30 Day Movie Challenge

Favorite Movie From Your Favorite Director – 30 Day Movie Challenge

While my first instinct when going for my favorite director is to answer with Hitchcock, I don’t want to tread familiar territory. I already discussed my love for North By Northwest which is my favorite Hitchcock Film, although Rear Window could easily slide in there, but alas, I already discussed it too. So instead of pouring more deserving adoration on a director that everybody knows, I will extol the works of a lesser known director that I adore.

 

Sidney Lumet directed such an impressive string of movies that I am surprised that his name isn’t as familiar as Scorsese or Hitchcock or Spielberg. I think the reason behind this is the variety and style of his movies, There is no such thing as a Lumet type movie. He was diverse in his style, genre, and topics and yet he brought such a passion for the art and coaxed from his actors some of the best performances I’ve ever seen. This list speaks for itself: 12 Angry Men, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Fail-Safe, The Hill, and who can forget The Wiz. But his greatest film (that’s right, even better than 12 Angry Men which I love) is Network.

When I watch Network, I shake my head in wonder and think, “Lumet was not only an artistic genius but a fortune-teller!” He saw the future of television and its influence on popular culture and society. I wonder if Lumet and the rest of the players involved fully grasped how truly prophetic this movie would be. Network was intended, for all purposes, as a satire but in hindsight it was actually an oracle; a crystal ball super imposed on the big screen.

Peter Finch (who won a posthumous Oscar for Best Actor) plays Howard Beale, the nightly news anchor at UBS. A one time big shot journalist, his ratings have been in decline for some time now. Beale announces on air that he’s being forced to retire in two weeks due to low ratings and that he will commit suicide live on the air before then. Naturally, a media frenzy ensues with network heads demanding Beale be fired immediately but up and coming network executive Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) only notices the sharp increase in ratings. The beautiful, ambitious and amoral Diana is the future of television. Everything and Everyone is reduced to ratings. Howard Beale’s breakdown as well as a bank robbery by a quasi marxist terrorist group simply serves as inspiration for her unending quest for ratings. The ideas cooking in Diana’s head are what we now know as “reality tv”.

Frank Hackett’s (Robert Duvall) character is also the future of television. He could not care less about the news division or even the quality of the network for that matter. He is a CCA (The Communication Corporation of America) man. This is the company that has purchased UBS and as far as Hackett is concerned UBS exists to serve the interests of CCA and it’s shareholders. And to that end he approves of Diana’s programming schemes once he sees the ratings skyrocket. Mind you, this film was made in 1976, years before all the cable “news” networks even existed and way before we had people willing to give up their privacy and what little dignity they have left on national television just to be recognized and become reality show “celebrities”.

The performances are all powerful and magnificent even the brief on screen time by Max Schumacher’s wife is gut wrenching. Beatrice Straight won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in what is arguably the shortest time on screen for any winner previously or since. Faye Dunaway also won for Best Lead Actress as did Paddy Chayefsky for Best Screenplay. I think it’s a testament to a real actor’s talent when they can make the audience forget the movie star who’s interpreting a role and focus on the character. As I watch Network, I don’t see the movie star Faye Dunaway. I only see Diana Christensen. The same is true for Holden, Duvall and Finch. This is what masterful acting and movie making is. The film’s best known scene is known for a line that is repeated over and over again, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

[youtube=http://youtu.be/q_qgVn-Op7Q]

So, What do you think of Lumet’s body of work? Do you have a favorite Director? Perhaps Steven Soderbergh, Spike Jonze, or Darren Aronofsky? I’d love to hear your comments on Network or hear your pick for this challenge. Leave me a comment below or on Twitter or Facebook

Facebook Comments

"Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in awhile, you could miss it."