The Israeli original is much lighter on the comedy, but I guess post-Porky's they wanted to make things more marketable

Catchin' up, yo...

The Last Emperor - 9/10
Harakiri - 9/10
The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior - 4/10
Kramer vs. Kramer - 6/10
Certified Copy - 5/10
"Mystery Science Theater 3000": The Castle of Fu Manchu - no rating
Beastie Boys Video Anthology - no rating
Nashville - 7/10
Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame - 6/10
"Mystery Science Theater 3000": Last of the Wild Horses - no rating
Battleship - 5/10
Top Hat - 7/10
What to Expect When You're Expecting - 5/10
Belle de Jour - 7/10
We Need to Talk About Kevin - 9/10
"Mystery Science Theater 3000": Time of the Apes - no rating
"Mystery Science Theater 3000": King Dinosaur - no rating
"Mystery Science Theater 3000": Mighty Jack - no rating
Meet Me in St. Louis - 5/10
Tinker Bell - 5/10
"Mystery Science Theater 3000": Gamera - no rating
The Enforcer (1976) - 6/10
Chernobyl Diaries - 4/10

Throwdown: Alien (1979) vs. Aliens (1986) (Theatrical cuts)

In anticipation of the upcoming Prometheus, a friend of mine and I sat down to re-visit these films back-to-back. 90+% of the people reading this have probably seen one or both of these movies. I have probabloy seen both movies about 4 or 5 times each over the past 25-30 years.

Alien, directed by Ridley Scott, tells the story of a 7 person civilian crew of the mining ship Nostromo (Tom Skerritt, John Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Ian Holm, Veronica Cartright, Yaphett Koto, and Harray Dean Stanton) who are on their journey home to Earth and are diverted to investigate a signal from an alien world. During their investigations on the planet they unwittingly bring back the titular creature on board their ship and resume their journey. The crew scrambles to track down the creature when it starts to attack the crew one-by one.

Aliens, written and directed by James Cameron, picks up 50 years after the events of the first movie. The alien planet from the first story has since been colonized with over 100 colonists oblivious to the danger nearby. Contact is lost with the colony and a platoon of colonial marines is sent in to investigate with Weaver reprising her role as Ripley acting as a civilian adviser to the marines. Cameron ratchets up the action by multiplying the creature threat but it comes at the expense of the characters with Michael Biehn, Lance Hendrickson, Bill Paxton, Jenette Goldstein and Paul Reiser playing roles of note.

For over 25 years there has been a debate between sci-fi geeks and some cinephiles as to which of these 2 is the "better" movie. Usually the diplomatic (cop-out) answer is "Well, Alien is more of a horror movie and Aliens is more straight up action so you really can't compare the two." Well I can, and in this reviewer's opinion Alien is the stronger movie.

First off, from an aging perspective, Alien has held up a bit better than its successor. The first movie relies on fewer external special effects shots and instead draws strength from the internal sets of the Nostromo and the creature effects, which are both nearly flawless. There are a couple of matte shots that give away some of the movie's pedigree, but they are pretty limited in their usage. Ridley Scott's claustrophobic direction does not really call to mind any specific decade of production. Aliens, on the other hand, has several effects shots that are very reminiscent of action fare from the 1980's in both how some of the miniatures are utilized and in some of the matte effects. My friend noted a lot of pastelle color temperatures (pinks, oranges, purples and the like) during the final sequences in Aliens.. Throw in some 1980s hair and fashion styles (mostly with Paul Reiser's Burke character) and some timely cultural references ("illegal aliens", "game over, man") and it is much easier to pigeon-hole the decade Aliens was produced as opposed to its predecessor.

As far as the characters and stories themselves go, Alien has the better characters and a more compelling storyline than the latter. There is a nice slow build up of the tension in Alien as we follow the crew first on their journey of discovery and then on survival. The second movie relies much more on action set pieces as the characters scramble from encounter to encounter and explosions rock the screen for much of the time. The character interactions in Alien have a nice organic flow with overlapping conversations and petty bickering like you'd find with any group confined in a constrained space for a long period of time. In Aliens the Ripley character takes center stage and is given some depth, but most of the other characters are shallow caricatures who don't have much to do except spout bravado or one liners and shoot guns.

I think I know the direction Cameron was trying to take by being "risky" with Ripley's transformation from near basket-case at the beginning of the movie to ass-kicker by the end, but a few story turns are a bit over the top. In Alien, indivdual crew members were able to contribute to the discovery of how to fight the creature (the maintenance guys rig up flamethrowers and cattle prods, the science officer invents a motion tracker and offers fire as a way to combat it, the captain formulates the plan on how to track it through the air ducting); in Aliens it falls to Ripley and Ripley alone to discover the unseen things and make the plans of any significance, even of a "military" nature. It's as if none of the marines before had seen any sort of combat, which was not the implication from earlier in the film. I'm not saying that Ripley did everything, but she certainly had to do most of the heavy lifting as opposed to the first movie.

Adding in to the atmosphere, Jerry Goldsmith's score in Alien is at points dreamy and doesn't really overextend its welcome. It is very sparse and doesn't overpower anything. For Aliens James Horner channels his inner Holst and brings forth a bombastic score that suits the action elements of the sequels, but with its blaring orchestrations pounding you over the head relentlessly in the final confrontations. I'm not saying that less would have necessarily been better, but there's only so many finale crescendos a guy can take.

Finally, I just think Cameron borrowed too heavily from Scott's version in certain ways.


After repeated viewings (familiarity breeds contempt?), I come up with a whole bagful of story nitpicks with the sequel and fewer with the original.

In the final analysis, I like both movies quite a bit and Aliens DOES work as a balls to the walls action piece, but in the final anlysis I will take thoughtful characters and genuine tension over explosions and one liners any day.

Alien 3.75 / 4.0 Aliens 3.25 / 4.0

Observe and Report (2009)

Seth Rogen is a borderline psychopath with a badge who heads up security at a shopping mall. His 2 biggest crimes to deal with are with a serial flasher on the premises and another case of thefts inside some of the shops. He is at odds with a local police detective played by Ray Liotta over the handling of the cases and has a case of unrequited love with Anna Faris' cosmetics counter girl. Sporadically funny and pretty crude, this story of a somewhat-lovable loser with authority issues for the most part worked, but it was a tad uneven overall. 2.5 / 4.0

That was a very good comparison of both movies, with which I agree wholeheartedly. I would also add that the single, near indestructable xenomorph in 'Alien' is a much scarier and effective antagonist than the masses of monsters, which are mowed down by the space marines' machine guns in 'Aliens'. Of course, as you have mentioned, this may well be in line with the different nature of both movies (horror vs. action), but 'Alien' works much better for me than 'Aliens' (which is still a good movie, just not a great one).



I'm not sure whether I agree that 'Melancholia' is designed to have a socio-political message. I believe it is a very personal piece of filmmaking, reflecting von Trier's take on depression, which feels like the impeding end of all things to the person concerned. I must concede that my interpretation of the movie may be influenced by an interview with Lars von Trier (made before his self-imposed media exile), in which he said as much - and if there is one unreliable source, it is notorious prankster Lars von Trier.

Nevertheless, it is a very good movie and your take is far from absurd.

Crash (1996)
Director James Ballard (James Spader) and his wife (Deborah Unger) have an open, but sexually unfulfilled marriage. One day, Ballard has a traffic accident, which leaves the other driver dead and the driver’s wife Helen (Holly Hunter) as well as Ballard badly injured. During his recovery, he gets closer to Helen and, after both are involved in another near-accident, has sex with her. Soon, Ballard and his wife discover a subculture of car crash victims, who are sexually aroused by car accidents and the resulting injuries and scars, led by the charismatic Vaughan (Elias Koteas) and including the invalid Gabrielle (Rosanna Arquette).
David Cronenberg’s explicit movie from J.G. Ballard’s novel caused a bit of a scandal at the time and seems to have divided critical opinion. Personally, I like bizarre movies and don’t mind it much if they are in bad taste or even a bit perverse, but there has to be more about the movie than bizarreness or perversion for the sake of it. Unfortunately, this is not the case with ‘Crash’, which appears to have the simple message of “some people get off on weird and dangerous fetishes”. No shit, Sherlock. ‘Crash’ is certainly very well-made and stylish, but it is also, perhaps necessarily, somewhat detached from its subject and, consequently, not very involving and perhaps even alienating. Also, the performances are uneven – Elias Koteas is very good, but James Spader, whose character provides the entry point for the audience, simply isn’t good enough. In total, I thought that the movie wasn’t uninteresting, but not interesting enough to justify being subjected to all of its unpleasantness. 4/10

Troy (2004)
Mainstream Hollywood version of Homer’s Iliad.
I really didn’t like Wolfgang Petersen’s ‘Troy’ on a first viewing, mostly because it transforms the larger than life myth involving divine intervention and invincible demigods into a mundane sword and sandals epic. After having watched it again, I have to slightly reverse my opinion: ‘Troy’ still butchers its literary and legendary source, but as far as antique battle action movies are concerned, it is actually a rather watchable movie with decent action scenes. Having given it some thought, some of my initial problems with the casting were actually misguided. Orlando Bloom as a wimpy pretty boy is not such a bad fit and neither is Brad Pitt as a brooding and petulant superstar. Eric Bana – a very underused actor – is excellent as Hector. Also, the sword fights are also much better than in comparable movies. In other word, ‘Troy’ isn’t really bad, it’s just mediocre. 5/10

Puss in Boots (2011)
In this spin-off of the ‘Shrek’-franchise, Puss in Boots (voice of Antonio Banderas), the infamous feline outlaw, teams up with bad egg Humpty Dumpty (voice of Zack Galfianakis) in order to rob magic beans off Jack and Jill and steal a golden goose.
After disappointing ‘Shrek’ sequels have left the franchise dead and buried, it wasn’t illogical to base a movie on the Puss in Boots character, which stole every scene in ‘Shrek 2’ on the strength of Antonio Banderas’s vocal performance. Although the idea of a ‘Puss in Boots’ spin-off may seem like a cynical exploitation of a one-note character, it is still a sufficiently funny animated movie. Above-average 6/10

How does that quote date the movie?



Disagree. Hicks quietly shows himself as a leader as the overconfident Gorman fades. Newt and Ripley's interaction rings true and enhances the film. Bishop has hidden depths. Vazquez and Drake have a nice understated friendship. None of this is deep, mind you, but neither is Yaphet Kotto or (God help us) Veronica Cartwright's character development. But in both films we learn enough to care.

You may be too young to recall the flourishing of video arcades as a social hangout for kids and teens in the 1980's. Witness the same "game over" line used in a more direct reference by Michael Winslow in 1984's Police Academy


If by "leader" you mean he takes Ripley's lead and then enforces it at the point of his implied gun, then yeah...I've never seen a more quiet "leader." Geez, he almost deflates when he is resigned to the fact that he is in command when Ripley points it out



Agreed that that is probably the most genuine relationship in the film, but the original did not need to rely on a scared and lonely little girl to make the audience care about the characters.

Brett and Parker's relationship in Alien is still pretty interesting in my book. It's the future and yet you still have these class relationships with these guys being underrepresented and underpaid (in their eyes) and yet it is up to them to do all of the grunt work. They have an easy banter and play off each other in little ways that doesn't have to be as showy. Of all the crew, these are probably the only 2 who hang out when the ship returns home. Parker winds up being the blunt instrument of the crew who thinks with his gut while everyone else is trying to think with their heads.

Cartwright's Lambert is easily the weakest link in the crew...but then I wouldn't expect that in any given group that everybody would be able to handle the situation. There's probably going to be someone who's going to freak out and she's it.

At this point, if the quote dates the movie, it's only because it has mutated into one of those memetic things that make people laugh at the movie, simply by virtue that everyone knows it going in.

The friend I watched the 2 Aliens flicks with posts on a bunch of other movie boards and does not have the time to formally join this forum, though he does occasionally check in to read the goings on here. He is definitely more film literate than I and "authorized" me to post the following:

Lupin the Third: The Castle of Cagliostro is an entertaining movie that's notable as the first feature film directed by living legend Hayao Miyazaki. Lupin is Arsène Lupin III, who is grandson of the famous French gentleman thief and carrying on the family tradition. He's the title character of Lupin III, a manga that's been running for more than forty years, and which has spawned at least three tv series and six movies; this was the third movie and the second animated one.

In this one Lupin and his sidekick, Daisuke Jigen, are running away from a casino, their car full of money, when Lupin realizes the money is all high-quality counterfeit. Ten years earlier, he had traced these to the Grand Duchy of Cagliostro, the least populous member (3400 people) of the UN, but was stopped before he could solve the mystery. Now it is time to try again. On their way, he rescues a runaway bride who is being chase by a car full of thugs. This is the young princess of Cagliostro, who is supposed to be getting married to her evil regent, who is the head of the junior branch of the family. The joining of their signet rings is the key to the revelation of a great treasure. The Cagliostro family has a long history of political intrigue which makes the Borgias look tame and helps keep the Grand Duchy's population down. Lupin, who owes the princess one, is determined to rescue her from a fate worse than Lucrezia's.

This is the most primitive of Miyazaki's films in some ways, with the characters and castles (one for each branch of the family) looking a lot like television anime, but it's still consistently entertaining and nice to look at. There are several long-running characters from the series who figure in the plot. You can enjoy the film without knowing who they are, but I found it helpful to check out the wikipedia page for Lupin III. (7 of 10).

In the thread that JK started about Pan's Labyrinth, I cited Petersen as an example of a foreign director who was emasculated after going to Hollywood to make films. This film is a key example of this sad story.

I really hate getting into arguments like this because in order to make my case, I need to make points against Alien, which I love. However, I think the number of well-developed characters in both movies is equal. We may not give a damn about Spunkmeyer, Frost, etc. but after they die it leaves us with a core number that's roughly the same as Alien. Hudson, Vazquez, Hicks, Bishop, Gorman, we care for and then Burke the asshole. Compared to Dallas, Brett, Lambert, Parker, Kane (I guess) and Ash the asshole. Seems about even.

Also, don't forget that Ripley is much, much more of a character in the sequel than in the original, when her main quality is just her tenacity. It's only in the sequel that we discover anything about her as a person

You forgot Newt.

Of course we find out more about Ripley than we did in the original. The sequel does not need to give us a cursory introductuon to her character and it is very much her movie. Aliens is 20 minutes longer than the original and Ripley is in around 85% of the scenes whereas the original was much more an ensemble piece. I would say I got to know the non-Ripley characters better in the first movie than in the second and that those characters were sketched a bit deeper (again because they got more screen time in the original).

So as far as "the argument" goes, which would you say is the "better" movie? Or are they about equal in your judgment?

Honestly? Despite my argument, Alien is a better film. But I think you're doing Aliens a disservice and I love it dearly

Donnie Brasco (1997)

This film has grown on me since I first seen it as a 16 year old. I used to think it it was uneventful but missed how Depp as Brasco slowly compromises himself the deeper he gets. The film respects the audience and the pacing is more Merchant-Ivory than Scorsese. There is something genuinly tragic and sad about Pacino's character.

8.5/10

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Some good stuff is clouded out by the spewing hatred Moore has for the great unwashed. By far the most poignant part of this film is the interview with the genuinly mad, bad and dangerous to know James Nichols, but then the whole thing is dumbed down with cartoon montages that depict points of view so one-sided they couldn't stand up to any real scrutinity. Moore broadly belongs to the Naom Chomsky school of highlighting every wrong of the free world whilst ignoring or glossing over the crimes of the tyrannies we opposed. In this montage for example it doesn't inform us that the democratically elected Allende of Chile had his campaign funded by the Soviet secret police who no doubt had the intent of setting up a communist puppet state in South America. Nor does it mention the genocide the Serbs committed on the Bosnians and instead explains the US's bombing of Serbia as mere d*ck swinging on an international stage - then has the balls to link this to Columbine. Such journalism is shoddy and Moore deserved the treatment the South Park boys gave him in Team America.

5/10

And I like Aliens quite a lot too, but it is inherently necessary for me to point out what I thought were deficiencies in comparing one to the other. I didn't mean to imply that Aliens had NO character development, but I did feel that some of the characters were weaker in the latter effort. Had I been comparing Aliens to Alien3 or, for a more fair throwdown, Aliens versus The Abyss, then I would have been totally talking up Aliens and hitting on the perceived flaws of its opponents. It's all relative (and completely subjective).

I think Chomsky is a good deal more intelligent and knowledgeable than Moore, though that impression is likely influenced at least partly by his style of argument. Chomsky approaches argument as an intellectual and academic matter, whereas Moore is an emotional firebrand in the vein of TV and newspaper pundits. For this reason, I find Chomsky to be a fair bit cooler-headed and clearer in his thought processes.

He still sometimes misses the forest for the trees. My college degree technically falls under the heading of rhetoric and American cultures, and one thing that was drilled into the students from the word "go" is that there can be no effective, complete argument that doesn't address the points that oppose it. That's a big problem we have in today's political climate.

One of Moore's greater deficiencies, as you touched upon, is linking together things based more on the fact that he wants to include them than any logical connection to the flow of his argument. You mentioned the tenuous link between Serbia and Columbine, but I'm thinking also of (for example) the criticism of the welfare to work program on the basis that it encourages school violence.

It's not that these links don't exist, but they're far too general and abstract to really be a part of this movie. Much more effective are the interviews with Nichols, Heston, etc., plus the genuinely surprising payoff of the Walmart publicity stunt. It was a real step toward the goal of reducing the carelessness with which ammunition is sold.

Another movie with similar trouble is The Mormon Proposition, which tries to address all sub-issues within the relationship between the LDS church and homosexuals, and the result is the same: a scattershot of a movie that doesn't drive at anything in particular. It survives on the strength of the moments that work, such as the examination of gay kids cast out by their families.

Agreed all around, except for I rate it even a touch higher. I think it's immensely better than The Departed (which I do like) due largely to the better performances and emotional depth that comes from character and nuance rather than manipulation. Again, I really like The Departed, but it's a touch over-polished to me and a tad minor compared to Donnie Brasco.

While I fully your entitlement to your opinion, I feel like your criticisms of the film are based more on your own politics rather than on the actual content of the film. Moore wasn't focusing on the free world in this film, but rather on America and specifically gun violence in America. The segments that mention other nations, such as the one that tallied the number of gun homicides in various other industrialized nations, were only used as a means of showing how much greater the issue is in America by comparison. Again, that's my take on it, so read it as you will.

You're probably right about the politics bit. Moore represents a stand of self-hating leftism that I have really grown to hate, not least for the fact that such a position is only possibly reached from having considerable privilege and freedom. Moore, despite his alleged intellect, doesn't seem to grasp this.

Moore's considerable freedom, wealth and waistline are only made possible by the country he earns his living talking down.