![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALIEN
Vs. PREDATOR (2004)
ARE WE THERE YET?
(2005)
THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK (2004)
Alien
Vs. Predator Starring: Sanaa Latham, Lance Henriksen. Director
and screenwriter: Paul W.S. Anderson
Of the two
franchises merged here, I guess I prefer the Alien, especially the
Alien of the first film. The films since Ridley Scott’s
1979 work have devalued and diminished the creature, from a possibly
intelligent, mysterious entity to a big dumb bug.
As
for the Predator, there was never a whole lot of mystery about the
creature; it was a hunter, pure and simple and was never seen in any
other context. The creatures are sore losers and have a certain
sense of honor, possibly comparable to latter-day Klingons.
They’ve got more in common with us (or at least they have more
understandable motives) than the Aliens do, so it’s not at all
surprising that when they and the Aliens both encounter the human
race at the same time, we end up teaming with the Predators.
Or
at least one of them. The Predators, here, prove fairly
vulnerable to the Aliens so that toward the end there’s
apparently only one left. While they have their
invisibility shields (and invisible weapons, to which I think, No,
No, No), the Aliens have sheer force of numbers as well as a great
deal of agility and flexibility.
Which makes one wonder about
the basic premise here. The idea is, the Predators have a
frozen Alien Queen, and every hundred years they thaw her out,
capture some humans for hosts for her eggs, and have a hunting
party. The Aliens are considered the ultimate prey for them,
and given the results here, I can certainly see that; what is less
apparent is how the Predators never get very good at hunting them.
One possible explanation is that the surviving Predator seems very
young and inexperienced (hard to say exactly how I get this
impression, but I do) and, if he is the leader here, it may be his
strategy and tactics that get the rest of his team killed.
Perhaps.
As for the film itself, it’s a typical Paul
W.S. Anderson piece, full of action set pieces and stylized bits of
business. If you’ve seen Event Horizon or the first
Resident Evil film, you’ll be familiar with the tricks and the
pacing and such.
One bit that might have been
interesting comes from the fact that the “company” that’s
been responsible for so much Alien-related business in that
franchise, is here called “Weyland” enterprises, rather
than Weyland-Yutani as in the later films. The surviving human,
Lex, is given a Predator weapon at the end in a show of gratitude; it
would have been kind of neat if her last name had been Yutani (I
don’t remember what it is in the film) and this had been the
start of the Weyland-Yutani partnership. It would have leant a
certain thrust to the company’s search for bioweapons, knowing
that they exist out there somewhere.
One rather stupid bit
concerns the Weyland name, as it's attached to Lance Henriksen, as
Charles Bishop Weyland. Henriksen, as always, is worth watching but
if all those Bishop androids from the other films are based on his
image, how can anyone be surprised (as Sigourney Weaver is in Aliens)
that someone who looks like this is an android? It would be like
seeing someone named “Ted” who looks exactly like Ted
Turner—how could you not know who or what it was?
But
that's that film, and this is this film. Overall, I had a pretty
good time. The film is a decent popcorn movie, nothing really
surprising but pretty entertaining nonetheless. Definite
demerits, though, for killing off the Scottish guy. I liked
that guy, and the fact that he was documenting the expedition for his
kids. In the thick of danger, he asks the other guy who’s
been trapped with him if he has any kids; when the guy says that he
does, the Scottish guy says that they both have to survive not for
themselves, but for the sake of their children. A nice touch,
and it pissed me off when he got killed.
This is the first
PG-13 film I’ve seen where the rating was derived, partly,
because of “Slime.” Don’t think the slime
bothered me that much, but hey, I’m sure Hollywood knows best.
For another, less kind view, check Brian J. Wright’s review here.
Are We There Yet?
Starring: Ice Cube, Nia Long, Aleisha Allen, Philip Bolden.
Director: Brian Levant. Cliché-wranglers: Steven Gary Banks,
Claudia Grazioso, J. David Stem, David N. Weiss
The
Incredibles is a great film, isn’t it? Lately, I’ve
been gaining a lot of appreciation for one of Syndrome’s lines,
as he complains about Mr. Incredible calling for help. “Lame,
lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame!”
Perhaps that
judgment is a bit harsh for Are We There Yet, which seems to
have fairly modest goals—it’s definitely a film for kids,
and as such, probably appeals to them far more than it does to me.
I don't think I can be blamed for lying outside the target
demographic for this film, but I watched it anyway and thought, well,
I'm sure I'm not the only adult who's going to have to see this, so
there ought to be some perspective from outside the box. So here I
am.
There are some nice things in the film (Ice Cube is
surprisingly charming, and the child actors are very good) but the
film is utterly and totally predictable. If I tell you
the basic idea—Ice Cube plays a bachelor who dislikes children,
forced to take two particularly obnoxious kids on a several hundred
mile road trip—tell me you can’t guess everything that
happens just based on that premise. It’s like the
screenwriters didn’t actually do any screenwriting, they just
grabbed the Big Book O’ Cliches and went to town with the
photocopier.
Throughout, there are great illustrations of
Chekov’s dictum that if you put a pistol on the wall, it should
be fired before the fourth act. Late in the film, for
example, everyone ends up at a kids’ party, and Ice Cube breaks
up some (mild) rough-housing. He tells the kids, “I’d
like to see you try that on someone my size!” and if you can’t
guess what happens next, please don’t tell me. I’ve
only got a few illusions left to shatter!
The kids I saw this
with enjoyed it, and the performances are good throughout (it’s
especially nice to see Uhura again) and the film is good natured to a
fault. The two kids began as utter monsters, and it is a
tribute to the skill of the child actors that, later in the film when
we're supposed to be sympathetic toward them, they're able to pull it
off.
It is a film the entire family can see, as there's no
sex, only a few “damns” in language, and the violence is
always cartoony (the giant lumberjack thing seemed like it should
hurt a lot more, given the target). You won’t feel you’ve
wasted your time, but don’t watch if you like to be
surprised.
The
Chronicles of Riddick Starring: Vin Diesel, Judi Dench, Colm
Feore, Karl Urban, Thandie Newton, Nick Chinlund. Director and junior
mythmaker: David Twohy.
There’s this
galaxy-spanning group of mean people who like to go around and stomp
other planets and enslave them, and there’s only one guy who
has the ability to stand up and fight against them. Ultimately,
he triumphs over the main bad guy, and while the bad guys are still
around, the feeling is, they can be dealt with now.
Of
course, you recognize that as the plot of Battlefield: Earth.
But guess what! Someone else decided to make pretty much the
same picture.
But let’s start with the title.
Battlefield: Earth had “Battlefield: Earth, A Saga of
the Year 3000” as its full moniker, though it was never
referred to that way (except dismissively). Writer/director
David Twohy decided he’d try to grab some of that epicness for
his picture, but he also decided to craft him a title you couldn’t
shorten meaningfully, and we got The Chronicles of Riddick.
Good Heavens, if
that isn’t the most pretentious title for a sci-fi action
picture, ever, then I’d sure hate to hear what is.
If it was called The Chronicles of Riddick, Volume One: As
Falls the Sword, So Falls the Empire, it couldn’t be more
overblown and ridiculous (and that was a title I just came up with).
How on Earth did Twohy think this up, and NOT smack himself?
Riddick-ulous, I'd call it.
I imagine part of this is starting
to believe the mythos you’ve created is such a wonderful,
terrific framework that you start to overblow its importance and
forget that what ya got here is a sci-fi action picture. Oh,
it’s fairly epic in scale, hopping about from planet to planet
and with the threat of universal Armageddon hanging over the whole
proceedings, so it’s not like there isn’t the possibility
of living up to that silly title. It’s just that
the film itself doesn’t really try that. Instead, it’s
almost as if, once having thought up the title, Twohy figured the
hard work was all done and he could just bang out any old script and
it would work on screen.
And it kind of shows, throughout.
We have the frozen planet, which exists pretty much just so we can
have a frozen planet. (The whorled, finger-print like pattern
on the surface is interesting looking, but come on, “interesting
looking” is hardly a criteria for a whole movie.) We have
the hot prison planet, Crematoria, which exists for a couple of
action/outrun-the-sun sequences, and is generally effective, so that
can go in the plus column. Then we get Riddick making friends
with some hell-hound prison dog. It’s a nice scene (“It’s
an animal thing,” he says) but it goes nowhere.
(Don’t tell me about deleted scenes, those don’t
count.)
We also have a bounty-hunter subplot that takes
Riddick away from the action and to the aforementioned prison
planet. Ultimately, the purpose of this seems solely to
re-introduce a character from the first film and nothing more.
(Oh, and to provide some stunt sequences, and add to the running
time.) Keith David’s wife and daughter show up to be
briefly imperiled, then they disappear. There’s a scary
bad guy with a knife in his back who is way too easily defeated.
There’s just a lot of stuff that is picked up and turned over
then returned to the toy box without being played with.
The
main plot of the film, about some race of bad dudes called
Necromongers, seems to engage Twohy the least, yet ironically, the
scenes dealing with this plot are the most cohesive.
I dunno.
That whole title just hangs over the film like some dorky freshman
English metaphor that someone spent all night (and a hit on the bong)
concocting, and he ain’t gonna cut it out just for some silly
reason like, it doesn’t fit anymore. Fitting
with things is so bourgeois, man.
There are certainly some
nice sequences here and there, and the Riddick character remains kind
of cool and fun to watch, if a bit uninvolving other than as a
stuntman He does get one great line, though ("I'll kill you with my teacup."). Some of the Necromongers are interesting,
like those specially adapted either for mind-reading (the creepy
“Quasi-dead”) or as kind of human scanner-recorders (I
think they were called “seers”). The ships were
cool throughout, as were the strange rippling effects of the
Necromonger weapons.
But, boy, I just don’t know how you
could watch some of this stuff and not groan. The very end, for
example, when Riddick does what an exhausted person would naturally
do, is…well, okay it’s logical, and it’s
been kind of established, but man, is it stupid.
For something in which thousands of lives are at stake, it
remains pretty distant and indifferent throughout. Nice
eye-candy here and there, and the Necromongers have pretty cool
weapons and spaceships, and there are some scattered moments which
are great (the Necromongers rush through a hail of enemy fire to get
to an open area, where, just before they collapse dead, they detonate
a device which destroys all the opposing troops in the area—that
takes toughness, boy. None of the other Necromongers seem to
have that kind of dedication, though. It's like the film only had
that one scene for all of them to share. One gets the impression they are tough, bad dudes but the film never gives them another chance to be tough and bad).
So, see it if you are
in the mood for something mindless and flashy, but please don’t
think you’re getting something like that title. What am I
saying? Geez, in Hollywood today, this film probably counts as
deep thinking.