Directed by Paul Verhoeven
1997
RT score: 62%
My rating 9 out of 10
A few months back someone tried to suggest that Starship Troopers is one of the all time great guilty pleasure movies of all time to which I respond 'why would anyone feel guilty about enjoying this phenomenal film.'
Is it that Verhoeven has a reputation for being over the top with his action and violence? Is it because the acting (lead by Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards) is dry and totally lacks a sense of authenticity?
Well, if those things cause you to believe that this is a guilty pleasure movie that's fine, but let me encourage you to recognize that this is anything but a guilty pleasure. The first reason I love this film is it's treatment of the alien attackers. To of the top performing films of our lifetime that involve aliens attempting to exterminate humans our Independence Day and Transformers. What drives me nuts about both is that they first 90 minutes of each the alien attackers appear to be unstoppable. In particular with ID4 we even drop a nuclear bomb on one and nothing happens. This puts the filmmakers in the position of trying to come up with a satisfying ending over the films final 45 minutes and Jeff Goldblum deciding to give the aliens a virus was anything but a satisfying ending.
Verhoevn in contrast doesn't make the aliens unstoppable, he just makes sure their big, that there is a lot of them and that they are bad ass. Even if you have a problem with the design (and I don't) you still have to admit that they kick some serious butt.
Another thing here that is an improvement in terms of story is the fact that the aliens aren't just indiscriminately attacking us. The film tells us that there was an attempt to set up a Mormon colony on the alien planet and that's one of the events that set in motion the events of the film. ID4 offers no explanation for why the aliens wanted to attack us and Transformers explanation is so forgettable that all I remember is that it some how involved Shia Lebouf, a pair of glasses and an audience being stupid enough to buy anything Michael Bay is selling.
Throw in a distopian future where democracy has long fallen by the wayside and you had to serve in the military to be a citizen and the film is easily packed with often hilarious satire especially in the 'would you like to learn more' news casts. The film moves at a nice pace and the action sequences are tremendous. It's so much better than other films that share this genre that I stand by my assertion that this is not a guilty pleasure movie.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Moon
Director: Duncan Jones
2009
RT score: 90%
My rating: 10/10
About 10 years ago I remember a stir being created around a film named Memento and a director named Christopher Nolan. The film felt new and fresh and everyone I talked to asked 'have you seen Memento yet?' And from that moment on every Christopher Nolan film has felt like a must see.
That brings me to Duncan Jones. For reason I can't fully comprehend, Moon did not have that same effect and even after Source Code was a mild hit, I am still not sure Duncan Jones has the name recognition he deserves.
The two driving forces behind Moon are Jones and Sam Rockwell. Jones delivers the vision and Rockwell drives it home. When we first meet Rockwell he is seen as a contracted employee of a fictional company who has revolutionized energy consumption by harvesting energy from the moon. He is nearing the end of a three year contract and the emotional and psychological damage caused by only having a robot Kevin Spacey to interact with is apparent, but not over done. While attempting to perform work on one of the harvesters Rockwell has an accident and we suddenly we meet a new Rockwell. This one is fresher, uninjured and does not have the emotional baggage of the previous Rockwell.
The two eventually cross paths and one of the brilliant things Jones does is he wastes no time having the two discuss the possibility of one of them being a clone. The two share many combative scenes as they try and understand whats happening to them. How this performance didn't net Rockwell an oscar nomination is a testament to how out of touch the academy still is.
Perhaps the films greatest achievement is that you still feel a huge emotional gulp when we reach the final reveal despite the fact that Jones has allowed the characters to discuss the fact that they may be clones. It is a testament to Jones as a story teller that we still care in this moment and watching it again I even forget how prevalent the clone talk was since the reveal was powerful enough to stay with me since first seeing this in theaters. I recently watched both Jones films with my wife, the final test for just how good a director is, and like Memento many years ago, it didn't matter that this isn't the type of film she goes for. All the mattered is the fact that the story is told with incredible conviction, it is wonderfully acted and when you finally get to the end you feel like it actually meant something. Which is precisely why Duncan Jones is on the must watch list for me now, much like Nolan was after Memento.
2009
RT score: 90%
My rating: 10/10
About 10 years ago I remember a stir being created around a film named Memento and a director named Christopher Nolan. The film felt new and fresh and everyone I talked to asked 'have you seen Memento yet?' And from that moment on every Christopher Nolan film has felt like a must see.
That brings me to Duncan Jones. For reason I can't fully comprehend, Moon did not have that same effect and even after Source Code was a mild hit, I am still not sure Duncan Jones has the name recognition he deserves.
The two driving forces behind Moon are Jones and Sam Rockwell. Jones delivers the vision and Rockwell drives it home. When we first meet Rockwell he is seen as a contracted employee of a fictional company who has revolutionized energy consumption by harvesting energy from the moon. He is nearing the end of a three year contract and the emotional and psychological damage caused by only having a robot Kevin Spacey to interact with is apparent, but not over done. While attempting to perform work on one of the harvesters Rockwell has an accident and we suddenly we meet a new Rockwell. This one is fresher, uninjured and does not have the emotional baggage of the previous Rockwell.
The two eventually cross paths and one of the brilliant things Jones does is he wastes no time having the two discuss the possibility of one of them being a clone. The two share many combative scenes as they try and understand whats happening to them. How this performance didn't net Rockwell an oscar nomination is a testament to how out of touch the academy still is.
Perhaps the films greatest achievement is that you still feel a huge emotional gulp when we reach the final reveal despite the fact that Jones has allowed the characters to discuss the fact that they may be clones. It is a testament to Jones as a story teller that we still care in this moment and watching it again I even forget how prevalent the clone talk was since the reveal was powerful enough to stay with me since first seeing this in theaters. I recently watched both Jones films with my wife, the final test for just how good a director is, and like Memento many years ago, it didn't matter that this isn't the type of film she goes for. All the mattered is the fact that the story is told with incredible conviction, it is wonderfully acted and when you finally get to the end you feel like it actually meant something. Which is precisely why Duncan Jones is on the must watch list for me now, much like Nolan was after Memento.
Source Code
Director: Duncan Jones
2011
RT score: 91%
My rating 8/10
With a run time of one hour and twenty-seven minutes, Source Code is a testament to the idea that in film making all you need to do is get in, tell your story and get out. No fluff, no wasted scenes and nothing superfluous.
And that's exactly what Source Code is, a complicated sci-fi thriller that is explained as it's experienced. At the films center is Jake Gyllenhaal, a wounded soldier who has been placed in a machine that allows him to continually relive the same 7 minutes before a bomb blows up a commuter train in Chicago.
One of the things I appreciate most about Source Code is that there isn't an overly complicated explanation of how source code works. It's sci-fi and director Duncan Jones recognizes that if you bought the ticket to see this film than your probably willing to suspend reality for 90 minutes and just accept that this story exists in a world were source code is possible.
Aside form Gyllenhaal, the film also features Vera Farmiga in a sort of pilot role, guiding Gyllenhaal through source code and pressing him to find an answer. And, like all great sci-fi that involved military intelligence and experiments, she is also the films moral compass. She pushes Gyllenhaal initially knowing that it's necessary to save lives and eventually makes the human decision to allow Gyllenhaal to die instead of being the subject of future experiments.
Rounding out the cast is Jeffrey Wright as the doctor who founded source code and Michelle Monaghan as the girl who once dated Tom Brady. Both serve their roles well and in particular Wright is great at not making his character overtly evil, but a character we can empathizes with even when he takes it too far.
Of course as the Gyllenhaal progresses the mystery behind the bombings is solved and then their is the question of what happens if the seven minutes don't end in a bombing? I understand the reason Jones made the decision he did and perhaps one could say it was probably studio pressure to give the film a mega happy ending, but there is a moment where the film clearly could have had a more meaningful ending and the only thing keeping this thriller from being a 10 out of 10 is the fact that they went for the mega happy ending instead. Still, lots of great things going on here and well worth the 90 minutes.
2011
RT score: 91%
My rating 8/10
With a run time of one hour and twenty-seven minutes, Source Code is a testament to the idea that in film making all you need to do is get in, tell your story and get out. No fluff, no wasted scenes and nothing superfluous.
And that's exactly what Source Code is, a complicated sci-fi thriller that is explained as it's experienced. At the films center is Jake Gyllenhaal, a wounded soldier who has been placed in a machine that allows him to continually relive the same 7 minutes before a bomb blows up a commuter train in Chicago.
One of the things I appreciate most about Source Code is that there isn't an overly complicated explanation of how source code works. It's sci-fi and director Duncan Jones recognizes that if you bought the ticket to see this film than your probably willing to suspend reality for 90 minutes and just accept that this story exists in a world were source code is possible.
Aside form Gyllenhaal, the film also features Vera Farmiga in a sort of pilot role, guiding Gyllenhaal through source code and pressing him to find an answer. And, like all great sci-fi that involved military intelligence and experiments, she is also the films moral compass. She pushes Gyllenhaal initially knowing that it's necessary to save lives and eventually makes the human decision to allow Gyllenhaal to die instead of being the subject of future experiments.
Rounding out the cast is Jeffrey Wright as the doctor who founded source code and Michelle Monaghan as the girl who once dated Tom Brady. Both serve their roles well and in particular Wright is great at not making his character overtly evil, but a character we can empathizes with even when he takes it too far.
Of course as the Gyllenhaal progresses the mystery behind the bombings is solved and then their is the question of what happens if the seven minutes don't end in a bombing? I understand the reason Jones made the decision he did and perhaps one could say it was probably studio pressure to give the film a mega happy ending, but there is a moment where the film clearly could have had a more meaningful ending and the only thing keeping this thriller from being a 10 out of 10 is the fact that they went for the mega happy ending instead. Still, lots of great things going on here and well worth the 90 minutes.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Unforgiven
Director: Clint Eastwood
1992
RT score: 97%
My score: 6/10
By now it should be obvious that one of my weaknesses in life is movies. As a teen movies were my one escape for the reality of how uncool I was and as an adult I have continued watching movies even as I learn to understand how unnecessary being cool is.
With that in mind, I have found that I am prone to picking up movies at $5 (or less) all the time. Unforgiven, being my brother in laws favorite movie and one I remember being pretty good when I saw it nearly 20 years ago was one such movie I picked up under these circumstances.
What I had forgotten though is that the film has long stretches that are painfully dull. How I managed to forget that is beyond me considering it's directed by Clint Eastwood whose movies I often feel like are over-rated, poorly paced and frequently feature long stretches that add nothing to the overall story.
All of that is true in this western tale of old guys hired to exact revenge on behalf of a towns brothel which believes it was done wrong by the towns sheriff.
The best part of the film is the towns sheriff who is played by Gene Hackman. His character is not your typical villain but is more Machiavellian in his desire to sacrifice justice in order to maintain peace in the wild west. His unwillingness to provide harsh punishment to a man who beats a prostitute leads to the brothel putting out a bounty on against their attacker.
An aged Eastwood and Morgan Freeman come to answer their call. There's plenty of soul searching on their journey as they also serve as mentors to a young kid who has no business being there. We eventually see a confrontation after 90+ minutes and then the films final 5 minutes feature the Dirty Harry Clint Eastwood pulling off victory in an impossible to believe final shoot out.
I suppose the lesson here for me is to pass on movies I may honestly be adding just to improve my position as a movie snob. The film is a best picture winner with an impressive RT score and I'm not going to pretend that it's a complete loss. But if I am ever in the mood for a western I think I would be far more likely to go with the Coens True Grit or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford which are far superior films to this.
1992
RT score: 97%
My score: 6/10
By now it should be obvious that one of my weaknesses in life is movies. As a teen movies were my one escape for the reality of how uncool I was and as an adult I have continued watching movies even as I learn to understand how unnecessary being cool is.
With that in mind, I have found that I am prone to picking up movies at $5 (or less) all the time. Unforgiven, being my brother in laws favorite movie and one I remember being pretty good when I saw it nearly 20 years ago was one such movie I picked up under these circumstances.
What I had forgotten though is that the film has long stretches that are painfully dull. How I managed to forget that is beyond me considering it's directed by Clint Eastwood whose movies I often feel like are over-rated, poorly paced and frequently feature long stretches that add nothing to the overall story.
All of that is true in this western tale of old guys hired to exact revenge on behalf of a towns brothel which believes it was done wrong by the towns sheriff.
The best part of the film is the towns sheriff who is played by Gene Hackman. His character is not your typical villain but is more Machiavellian in his desire to sacrifice justice in order to maintain peace in the wild west. His unwillingness to provide harsh punishment to a man who beats a prostitute leads to the brothel putting out a bounty on against their attacker.
An aged Eastwood and Morgan Freeman come to answer their call. There's plenty of soul searching on their journey as they also serve as mentors to a young kid who has no business being there. We eventually see a confrontation after 90+ minutes and then the films final 5 minutes feature the Dirty Harry Clint Eastwood pulling off victory in an impossible to believe final shoot out.
I suppose the lesson here for me is to pass on movies I may honestly be adding just to improve my position as a movie snob. The film is a best picture winner with an impressive RT score and I'm not going to pretend that it's a complete loss. But if I am ever in the mood for a western I think I would be far more likely to go with the Coens True Grit or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford which are far superior films to this.
Moonrise Kingdom
Director Wes Anderson
2012
RT score: 94%
My score 10/10
The following is a list of films I have never seen (and likely never will) because they won the Academy Award for best picture and I will never be able to watch them without spending the entire time believing another film should have won;
Dances with Wolves (Goodfellas should have won)
The English Patient (Fargo should have won)
Shakespeare in Love (Truman Show should have won)
I saw Gladiator but can't watch it because it had no business beating Almost Famous
The Artist (I would have liked for Hugo to win, but lets face it, 2011 was a terrible year for movies)
With that in mind we come to Moonrise Kingdom. I suppose if Django wins this will be a non-issue as I wouldn't miss a QT film, but lets say for a second Argo, which is already being pushed as an early favorite wins best picture. The odds are I'll never see it then. My wife saw it and loved it and I would really like to see but there is no way I will ever be able to sit down and be convinced Argo or any other movie released in 2012 will be better than Moonrise Kingdom.
I would probably be asking for too much to suggest that everybody, everywhere should love and appreciate Wes Anderson as much as I do. I believe Royal Tenenbaums was the 2nd best movie of the past decade, but even with the brilliance that is Tenenbaums I can recognize a certain level of inaccessibility that exists with a film that centers a character like Royal that is so perfectly flawed and a family that is delightfully dysfunctional. And as you work your way through Anderson's other works it's easy to recognize the quirks that may turn an average audience off.
But with Moonrise Kingdom I refuse to accept that any of these quirks should be enough of a reason for even your average Meet the Fockers/Transformers mouth breathing movie audience to be turned off. The film is simply too good.
Of course, the beauty of it all for a Wes Anderson fan is that none of his trademark quirks are sacrificed in the name of reaching a broader audience. From is color schemes and clothing designs to his dialogue that is frequently direct in a way that you don't see in daily life, Moonrise Kingdom should challenge every fan to reconsider what their favorite Wes Anderson film is.
Perhaps the defining difference in the film is it's heart. Not to say that Anderson's other films didn't have heart, but where those films featured a more hardened heart this one wears it's heart on it's sleeve. The film follows the budding romance of two adolescents, each of whom has their own social and family issues. The two kids in these roles are fantastic as they simultaneously appear to be very distant towards those around them but have a vulnerability that makes it impossible to not fall in love with them.
Supporting and also occasionally standing in the way of these two kids is another outstanding Wes Anderson supporting cast. Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton and the king himself, Bill Murray all provide great performances. Norton and Willis in particular stand out as they rise above the one-dimensional 'grown up who comically screws everything up' character to be much more than just comic relief. They are integral to the heart of this story because we see them change as we learn more about Sam and Suzy.
In checking off my Wes Anderson trademarks, perhaps the most important one is the fact that this film only gets better on repeat viewings. So many of Wes Anderson's best lines are missed upon initially viewing and watching this film again only added to the depth and brilliance of the humor in the film. In an era where the Academy can nominate up 10 films for best picture I fully expect to see Wes Anderson get his first best picture nomination and if by some chance this film doesn't win, I'll like be in the position of skipping another film that's probably pretty good but will never over some the stigma of 'how is this film better than Moonrise Kingdom.'
2012
RT score: 94%
My score 10/10
The following is a list of films I have never seen (and likely never will) because they won the Academy Award for best picture and I will never be able to watch them without spending the entire time believing another film should have won;
Dances with Wolves (Goodfellas should have won)
The English Patient (Fargo should have won)
Shakespeare in Love (Truman Show should have won)
I saw Gladiator but can't watch it because it had no business beating Almost Famous
The Artist (I would have liked for Hugo to win, but lets face it, 2011 was a terrible year for movies)
With that in mind we come to Moonrise Kingdom. I suppose if Django wins this will be a non-issue as I wouldn't miss a QT film, but lets say for a second Argo, which is already being pushed as an early favorite wins best picture. The odds are I'll never see it then. My wife saw it and loved it and I would really like to see but there is no way I will ever be able to sit down and be convinced Argo or any other movie released in 2012 will be better than Moonrise Kingdom.
I would probably be asking for too much to suggest that everybody, everywhere should love and appreciate Wes Anderson as much as I do. I believe Royal Tenenbaums was the 2nd best movie of the past decade, but even with the brilliance that is Tenenbaums I can recognize a certain level of inaccessibility that exists with a film that centers a character like Royal that is so perfectly flawed and a family that is delightfully dysfunctional. And as you work your way through Anderson's other works it's easy to recognize the quirks that may turn an average audience off.
But with Moonrise Kingdom I refuse to accept that any of these quirks should be enough of a reason for even your average Meet the Fockers/Transformers mouth breathing movie audience to be turned off. The film is simply too good.
Of course, the beauty of it all for a Wes Anderson fan is that none of his trademark quirks are sacrificed in the name of reaching a broader audience. From is color schemes and clothing designs to his dialogue that is frequently direct in a way that you don't see in daily life, Moonrise Kingdom should challenge every fan to reconsider what their favorite Wes Anderson film is.
Perhaps the defining difference in the film is it's heart. Not to say that Anderson's other films didn't have heart, but where those films featured a more hardened heart this one wears it's heart on it's sleeve. The film follows the budding romance of two adolescents, each of whom has their own social and family issues. The two kids in these roles are fantastic as they simultaneously appear to be very distant towards those around them but have a vulnerability that makes it impossible to not fall in love with them.
Supporting and also occasionally standing in the way of these two kids is another outstanding Wes Anderson supporting cast. Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton and the king himself, Bill Murray all provide great performances. Norton and Willis in particular stand out as they rise above the one-dimensional 'grown up who comically screws everything up' character to be much more than just comic relief. They are integral to the heart of this story because we see them change as we learn more about Sam and Suzy.
In checking off my Wes Anderson trademarks, perhaps the most important one is the fact that this film only gets better on repeat viewings. So many of Wes Anderson's best lines are missed upon initially viewing and watching this film again only added to the depth and brilliance of the humor in the film. In an era where the Academy can nominate up 10 films for best picture I fully expect to see Wes Anderson get his first best picture nomination and if by some chance this film doesn't win, I'll like be in the position of skipping another film that's probably pretty good but will never over some the stigma of 'how is this film better than Moonrise Kingdom.'
Prometheus
Director: Ridley Scott
2012
RT score: 74%
My rating 8.5/10
When I first walked out of the theater after seeing Prometheus this summer I had one word running through my head; perfect. I remember entering the film with guarded expectations. I was excited when I first heard Ridley Scott was planning a prequel to Alien and as a fan of Lost I was excited when Damon Lindelof joined the project. Then I began hearing that it's not a prequel, but a stand alone existing in a shared universe with the Alien films and I began to have my doubts about the project.
Of course, that's the risk you take when attempting to add anything to a movie universe as revered as Alien. From a creature/horror/action perspective the first two Alien films are virtually unparalleled in the annals of sci-fi and yet any subsequent use of the characters and or creatures has been meet with either disappointment in the case of Alien 3 (which I did like) or outright rejection in the case of any of the Alien vs. Predator films. As a fan, I think the most frustrating thing is feeling like the potential for genuine suspense and sci-fi entertainment involving the creatures Mr. Scott first created has never been fully tapped.
Which brings us back to Prometheus. I wanted this to be that opportunity to tap into the potential that still existed and for the most part it is not. It does however achieve a goal that walking in I feared was unachievable. It creates it's own unique universe while setting up a back story for the events that occur in Alien and a plausible (by sci-fi standards) explanation for the visualize we see in the first 40 minutes of Alien.
In achieving this objective, writer Lindelof brings to the table his unique ability to ask open ended questions about existence that were the mark of the TV series Lost. The story centers around the idea that man is a by product of an alien species who left their calling card in caves around the world during prehistoric times. Set in the relatively near future, a group of scientists have found these markings and put them together to create a map that they believe will take them to their creators.
The lead scientist is Dr. Shaw, played superbly by Noomi Rapace. She is the moral compass for the film as she balances her faith with a thirst for discovery. The rest of the team follows Scott's (and later James Camerons) blue print for putting together a team of differing and often one-dimensional characters all capable of offering a different response to the events going on around them. The best in the bunch is Michael Fassbender is the cyborg David. The cyborg is a staple of the Alien franchise, but has never been done better than here. Fassbender is able to play the role with a combination of control and cunning that is becoming his trademark. David plays both sides throughout the film as he is willing to help or hinder Shaw's pursuits depending on what is in his own best interest.
Like all good sci-fi films, Prometheus follows the formula of discovery and excitement before eventually turning to terror and fear. As a horror film, Prometheus however doesn't stack up with it's predecessors. The action/thrills come in bursts and often they feel disjointed or added on so the movie isn't too 'talky.' In particular, the zombie sequence feels completely out of place and the creator Alien we do meet, while being sufficiently bad-ass is thoroughly under used.
Still, the strength of the film is the Lindelof trademark of asking more questions than he is willing to answer. We discover with Shaw that our creators wanted to destroy us but their is no apparent reason why. The film ends with Shaw preparing to go in search of an answer to why and like an episode of Lost it might has well have ended with a 'to be continued ...' message. But, in accomplishing a goal of being a prequel and a stand alone both Scott and Lindelof have seemingly pulled off a magic trick of sorts. They leave everything in place for the folks aboard Nostromo to find and have me hooked to follow Dr. Shaw and David in their pursuit of answers regarding why the creators made us and subsequently sought our destruction. It's an adventure I look forward to taking in the very near future.
2012
RT score: 74%
My rating 8.5/10
When I first walked out of the theater after seeing Prometheus this summer I had one word running through my head; perfect. I remember entering the film with guarded expectations. I was excited when I first heard Ridley Scott was planning a prequel to Alien and as a fan of Lost I was excited when Damon Lindelof joined the project. Then I began hearing that it's not a prequel, but a stand alone existing in a shared universe with the Alien films and I began to have my doubts about the project.
Of course, that's the risk you take when attempting to add anything to a movie universe as revered as Alien. From a creature/horror/action perspective the first two Alien films are virtually unparalleled in the annals of sci-fi and yet any subsequent use of the characters and or creatures has been meet with either disappointment in the case of Alien 3 (which I did like) or outright rejection in the case of any of the Alien vs. Predator films. As a fan, I think the most frustrating thing is feeling like the potential for genuine suspense and sci-fi entertainment involving the creatures Mr. Scott first created has never been fully tapped.
Which brings us back to Prometheus. I wanted this to be that opportunity to tap into the potential that still existed and for the most part it is not. It does however achieve a goal that walking in I feared was unachievable. It creates it's own unique universe while setting up a back story for the events that occur in Alien and a plausible (by sci-fi standards) explanation for the visualize we see in the first 40 minutes of Alien.
In achieving this objective, writer Lindelof brings to the table his unique ability to ask open ended questions about existence that were the mark of the TV series Lost. The story centers around the idea that man is a by product of an alien species who left their calling card in caves around the world during prehistoric times. Set in the relatively near future, a group of scientists have found these markings and put them together to create a map that they believe will take them to their creators.
The lead scientist is Dr. Shaw, played superbly by Noomi Rapace. She is the moral compass for the film as she balances her faith with a thirst for discovery. The rest of the team follows Scott's (and later James Camerons) blue print for putting together a team of differing and often one-dimensional characters all capable of offering a different response to the events going on around them. The best in the bunch is Michael Fassbender is the cyborg David. The cyborg is a staple of the Alien franchise, but has never been done better than here. Fassbender is able to play the role with a combination of control and cunning that is becoming his trademark. David plays both sides throughout the film as he is willing to help or hinder Shaw's pursuits depending on what is in his own best interest.
Like all good sci-fi films, Prometheus follows the formula of discovery and excitement before eventually turning to terror and fear. As a horror film, Prometheus however doesn't stack up with it's predecessors. The action/thrills come in bursts and often they feel disjointed or added on so the movie isn't too 'talky.' In particular, the zombie sequence feels completely out of place and the creator Alien we do meet, while being sufficiently bad-ass is thoroughly under used.
Still, the strength of the film is the Lindelof trademark of asking more questions than he is willing to answer. We discover with Shaw that our creators wanted to destroy us but their is no apparent reason why. The film ends with Shaw preparing to go in search of an answer to why and like an episode of Lost it might has well have ended with a 'to be continued ...' message. But, in accomplishing a goal of being a prequel and a stand alone both Scott and Lindelof have seemingly pulled off a magic trick of sorts. They leave everything in place for the folks aboard Nostromo to find and have me hooked to follow Dr. Shaw and David in their pursuit of answers regarding why the creators made us and subsequently sought our destruction. It's an adventure I look forward to taking in the very near future.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Under Siege 2: Dark Territory
Director: Geoff Murphy
1995
RT score: 34%
My rating: 4/10
I'm not wasting a lot of time here. The setting changes from a boat to a train. The bad guys carry the film but are not even close to as much fun as Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey. And Steven Segal is still painful to watch as an actor. This came in a blu-ray two pack for $8 and it isn't completely without it's moments, but if I'm looking for shut your brain off mindless fun I'm going with the first Under Siege 9 times out of 10. Also, Katherine Heigl is in it.
1995
RT score: 34%
My rating: 4/10
I'm not wasting a lot of time here. The setting changes from a boat to a train. The bad guys carry the film but are not even close to as much fun as Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey. And Steven Segal is still painful to watch as an actor. This came in a blu-ray two pack for $8 and it isn't completely without it's moments, but if I'm looking for shut your brain off mindless fun I'm going with the first Under Siege 9 times out of 10. Also, Katherine Heigl is in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
