Video Pick: The Hunger Games

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.SectThere are only so many directions a film involving children fighting to the death can go.  Near the end of Hunger Games, there’s a scene that’s ultimately tragic, imbuing a sense of loss.  An innocent child is murdered.  It’s deflating and lingers in your soul.  At this point The Hunger Games did something that’s missing in most films: it depicts its violence as meaningless and ugly–even within its PG-13 limitations.  As far as I was concerned, we hit the emotional crescendo.  The film was over.

But it treads forward with the surviving children battling on while the film slowly drifts into a more cliché-ridden action-movie formula: enemies are dispatched and quickly forgotten.  Before we can ingest any sense of futility, we’re off to the next skirmish.  Rinse-and-repeat.  The actual conclusion lacks the same element of danger or suspense or grief.  The real capper: CGI dogs enter the fray to remind us that we’re in a summer blockbuster.  What a shame.  Before the third act, I was about to declare The Hunger Games one of the most daring Hollywood franchises in recent years–with one whammy of an ending.  Instead, it remains a good film that just happens to feel more like Mortal Kombat than, say, Taxi Driver.  

Having not read The Hunger Games, I can only guess the principal purpose of the story–if there is one all.  On an aesthetics level, I was enchanted by the world the film-makers created and its dazzling display of contradictions.   In the future, the social classes are bifurcated between the extremely wealthy and the destitute, with the middle class all but eradicated.  I especially love the rich class’s disconnect from genuine human emotions and their wardrobe selection which makes every show on Bravo look tame by comparison.  North America is now under the rule of the nation of Panem.  As retribution for a failed rebellion, the government created a tournament where one male and female teenager–between 12 and 18 years of age–are drafted from 12 districts to complete in a battle to the death, where only one will survive.  

The main reason to see Hunger Games is the dazzling performance of Jennifer Lawrence as District 12 “tribute” Katniss Everdeen, who quickly jumps in to replace her “tribute” younger sister.  In a wonderful bit of coincidence, the male draftee is Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), who shares a personal history with Katniss.  The two are transported to the nation’s capital where Katniss, Peeta and the other 22 draftees train, don fake smiles for the media frenzy, and wait with dread for their fatal ends.   Katniss and Peeta’s coach, former Hunger Games winner Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrellson) sells their love saga to procure sure-fire fandom and sponsorships.  As an added incentive, during the opening ceremonies, the two ride a chariot with burning flames protruding from their torso backsides.   The crowd eats it up.  As Maximum Aurelius once uttered in Gladiator, “Win the crowd…”  

The pre-tournament conditioning is splendid.  The waiting game twists the insides of Katniss as she exchanges glances with her future competitors, including Peeta, who must die in order for her to survive.  The long-winded prelude to the fight allows us a chance to ponder over the predicaments and think about how we would handle this, especially when it involves people we love.  

The suspense and intrigue builds up to the tournament’s beginning when Katniss is elevator-lifted through a port hole smack dab in the field of battle, where half of the combatants are killed within seconds.  There’s no glory, just a plethora of discombobulated shots that emphasize the chaos, confusion and overwhelming tension of the turmoil.

The first half of the tournament is intense, focusing on Katniss’s clever, stealthy maneuvers to evade her competitors.   She chooses to hide rather than fight.  The show’s technicians recognize the folly and toy with the world and the rules in order push her back into the fray (ala “cue the sun” from Truman Show).  It’s truly a reality show where the only certainty will be the 23 corpses.      

The Hunger Games only occasionally has fun with the concept of feverish fandom for competitive violence, but generally, everyone maintains a straight face.  It’s not too difficult to swallow that in the future TV viewers will become so desensitized to violence that they are able to stomach and even relish kids being slaughtered.  But, the dynamic of having children, rather than adults, engaged in combat doesn’t entice more intrigue.  
For example, during the film’s most tragic moment, a father witnesses the slaughter of his child on television.  In dismay and anger, he rallies the masses to start a mob up-rise.  Why start now?  Weren’t children being slaughtered each year?  What did he expect was going to happen when a young child is pitted against older, stronger teenagers?  The odds are so overwhelming given the sheer number of combatants and age gaps, that it’s hard to believe that such displays of dismay would be reserved up until this moment.  The film also misses a prime opportunity to make a bolder statement such as showing the unflinching rich classes cheering on in the face of the horrors.  Instead, the film chickens out–leaving us to wonder why this tournament remains a ratings bonanza.  

As the tournament presses on, an alliance of tributes chase Katniss.  She perches on top of a tree, unable to do anything but wait while her assailants stalk below.  Her pursuing combatants are single-minded antagonists without much dimension or emotion.  We don’t really care when they bite the dust.  Apparently, their scheme is to rally together to eradicate the competition before, supposedly, they sever their truce and off each other—an enticing subplot that isn’t exploited.  Katniss’s enemies laugh, joke and mock; sleeping soundly within their unholy allegiance.  Essentially, they’re just a bunch of Biff Tannens.  

There is the faint stench of a Twilight-inspired love-triangle with Katniss and Peeta hinting at sparks while Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth) jealously observes them through television screens, patiently waiting for more to do in the sequels (I’m assuming).  Unlike Twilight, the teens are more fleshed out, even likable.  Lawrence remains the film’s emotional rock throughout the chaos even until the very end as an invisible “to be continued…” hovers above the credits. 

But Hunger Games is too capricious.  It adds a confused, tepid amount of social commentary onto a B-movie action film.  The first half builds to a haunting display of aggravating violence that is disturbing and scary but eventually caters to more conventional fare.  The script is more eager to indict the wishy-washy rules of television competition rather than reach even further–as if to suggest that all would be justified if the kids could kill each other without any mid-game meddling.    

Inevitably, the film half is very effective–it’s suspenseful and enthralling with some genuine intelligence speckled throughout.  I am eager to see where to story goes in the next installment.  I hope the saga will scale beyond the single-minded reality television gimmicky and the “two boys chasing one girl” formula.  The film-makers paint the world of Panem with a canvas too rich to evade such interesting ideas for the sake of focusing exclusively on the trials of one boy getting the girl while the other, supposedly, winds up as a corpse on the battle field–while both the TV-viewing audience and, we, the actual film fans collectively clamor for more.

Countdown to the Rise!–Part Two (Batman Begins)

 …continued from part one…

When Christopher Nolan was handed the keys to the Batman film franchise, he intended on borrowing elements from Ridley Scott’s 1982 futuristic noir, Blade Runner.  The finished film, however, bears only vague hints to the earlier film.  The setting of the Gotham City narrows share striking similarities to the harrowing streets where Harrison Ford is first introduced.  There’s also Batman’s first confrontation with the Scarecrow that leads to the rain ridden rooftops which hearken back to the Ford’s final face off with Rutger Hauer, who Nolan also casts as the CEO of Wayne Enterprises.

Despite the homages, Nolan finds room to mix in his own flavor.  His major deviation–which also sets Begins apart from earlier Batmans–is imbuing the world with a level of realism never seen in a comic book film.  For instance, compare his Gotham City to the films of Burton or Schumaker.  The city is not a brick-for-brick fabrication, but a recognizable replication of Chicago with some dose of GCI coating.  There are no 500-story tall cathedral skyscrapers or traces of Gothic architecture that permeates in the comics and past films.  Nolan pursues an “an exaggerated contemporary New York” with maps and photos from real-life locations intermixed with his fictitious schematic.    

One of the film’s best shots epitomizes the contrast.  Immediately following Batman’s first night of crime fighting, our hero is shown perched on top of a skyscraper that’s unlike anything seen before in a comic book film.  There is no CGI or trickery used.  The settling is neither surreal or stylized–such as the closing shot to Burton’s first film.  The backdrop is real.  The night sky and lighted window panes of the background buildings are all real.  It’s a real man sitting on top of a real building.

Nolan’s mission for verisimilitude still makes concessions.  Batman Begins’ screenplay retains the comic book curriculum, including a diabolical plot revealed in the third act where the chief villain plans to kill many innocent lives unless, of course, Batman can stop it.  But Nolan’s villains have a more original ploy.  They don’t aim to take over the world or seek vast wealth.  Both the antagonists of Begins and its sequel, The Dark Knight, aim to start a chain of events that ends with Gotham’s self-destruction, believing that true order is only attainable through chaos.  They would rather see Gotham City crumble beneath itself rather than continue to meander in sin.       

The British-born Nolan uses his Batman saga to dissect the follies of America.  In Begins, he touches on the contrasts between the rich and powerful from the destitute and helpless.  Batman’s close ally is Jim Gordon, who is only a meager lieutenant and the one idealist among a corrupt police force.  As a consequence for his nobility, his family lives in a shabby apartment amongst the poor.  Batman pegs him as a possible alley for unexplained reasons other than the fact that Jim first met and comforted Bruce when his parents were murdered.  No doubt Bruce did some extra homework and learned that Gordon doesn’t take bribes. 

The crimes in Batman Begins aren’t the typical masked gunmen and bank robbers, but a seedy bevy of powerful crime lords who pay law enforcement to turn the other cheek.  On its surface, Nolan’s Gotham City is a typical metropolis, but underneath is actually plagued by a world of organized crime and corruption.  There’s a scene in Begins when Bruce Wayne and his childhood friend and confidant, Rachel Dawes (the newly liberated bachelorette Katie Holmes) take a drive through the bright, bustling city.  She suddenly detours into a parking garage which leads to a vast, dank, dark underground area.  Bruce sees the harsh reality of Gotham City where the impoverished dwell within meters of the exquisite private clubs of the criminal underworld.

Rachel herself represents Bruce’s last chance for normalcy–remaining the life-long family figure (other than Alfred) who wasn’t taken from him.  We get the sense after Begins concludes, Bruce foresees an ending–a mission goal.  Once Batman’s taken down the mob and restored order to Gotham, Bruce and Rachel can be together and realize their life-long love and affection.  The most telling moment is when Rachel enters the frames, Bruce loses the facade as an over-privileged, spoiled rich kid.  She’s the only person he wants to impress.  It’s no surprise when he tells her the truth of his dual identity. 

Bruce spends most of his time attempting to work out the kinks of his new role, which means discovering a cave hidden under the wing of his mansion and turning it into a lair where he can transform into Batman.  Thankfully, there just happens to be a secret entrance hidden behind a running waterfall not too far off.  Keeping within reality, Bruce procures his costume and core items from numerous foreign companies under a pseudonym.  To keep from attracting suspicions, he orders a huge stock of each.  “Well, at least we’ll have spares,” Bruce says.

Nolan’s reinvention compromises some of the Batman cannon for the sake of realism.  Bruce Wayne no longer invents and builds his vast array of gadgetry–Lucius Fox sets him up with many of the Wayne Enterprise’s underutilized catalog.  Inevitably, this makes more sense whereas Michael Keaton’s Batman has a laboratory and computer console that would require thousands of man hours, brilliant construction work and precise maneuvering.  The Batcave is explained as being a giant hole that was used to hide slaves via the Underground Railroad.  The Batmobile is an unused prototype built for military tactics.  It all makes sense, even if you can excuse that fact that no one at Wayne Enterprises (besides one inquisitive person from the sequel) recognize the Batmobile during its publicized police chase.   

One element that Nolan borrows comes from the first successful comic-book blockbuster Superman, which was noteworthy for its roster of respected thespians and iconic stars.  In Begins, Nolan accumulated A-listers such as Liam Neeson, in the atypical role as the central villain; Michael Caine, as Bruce’s loyal butler, Alfred; Morgan Freeman as Bruce’s gadget supplier, Lucius Fox; Tom Wilkinson as the mob boss and Gary Oldman, again atypical in the role as the honorable Lieutenant Gordan. 

With Batman Begins being Nolan’s fourth film and his first 100+ million dollar production, there are avenues left for him to improve, especially the action where the camera is too close and shots are over-edited.  His friction with CGI effects is obvious as he still has to endure some shots that were too difficult to be coordinated any other way.  Both of these elements would be improved greatly in the films to come.  But Nolan’s voice–which he established with Memento–is in full force, instilling his Batman with a mood less gloomy, more intimate and without any signals of camp. 

Batman Begins earmarked a rebirth to an icon and, along with Spiderman 2, ushered in a new dimension to the comic book superhero.  Both characters are fully explored for the first time and become the most crucial element to the movie, rather than depending on the hyperbolic villainy and special effects. 

When Batman Begins premiered, the wounds from Batman and Robin kept the audiences at bay.  The film grossed a modest $50 million opening weekend and ended with $200 million–a tremendous sum, but meager in comparison to previous Batman films.  However, the home video sales were impressive as word of mouth spread on Nolan’s success.  The buzz left by film’s ending sequence–hinting that the Joker would be Batman’s next foe–left fans longing for a sequel.

Next…Why So Serious?!?

Countdown to the Rise!–Part One (Batman 1989-2005)

Many folks have given me an earful for my praise of the newest Spider-Man, which they regard as an unwarranted retelling of a story that was already successfully offered ten years earlier.  But many of those same individuals did not utter any disdain when Batman received a similar treatment back in 2005.   Quite the opposite I’d wager.

The primary difference was that the Batman do-over was more than just a redesigned costume, a fresh cast or a different arch-enemy–he was given a new focus and a fleshed out back story that was only teased in the original Tim Burton/Michael Keaton films, which basically tells us that Bruce Wayne’s parents were murdered (by the Joker of all coincidences), which compels him to become a masked vigilante.

Batman Begins became a different animal by closely examining Bruce Wayne’s motives, his overwhelming anger, dread, fear and inner turmoil.  Bruce and his alter ego would finally become the focus on their own film.  Before Begins was even announced, the caped crusader had already soured the tastes of movie-goers much more severely than Spider-Man 3 ever did. When the reboot was declared–along with the names of the director and principal cast–the fans overwhelmingly voiced their approval faster than you could utter “riddle me this”. 

Back in 1989, when Batman received his first big budget movie treatment, the new franchise was intended to be a darker, more adult-oriented juxtaposition to the campy 1960s television show with Adam West, who was at the time the most recognized screen incantation of the DC comic book hero.  After the first feature film destroyed box office records, Batman was immediately re-branded as a grim, mysterious figure who was more violent and complex.

The mature tone began with the most unconventional choice for director and star: Tim Burton,who had just finished his second motion picture–the horror comedy Beetlejuice, which starred Michael Keaton in the title role and was Burton’s choice to play the dual roles.  Despite both men’s notoriety for comedy, they successfully instilled Batman with a isolated, tormented mystique.  You could argue that they interpreted Batman as a crazed lunatic who is just a few shades nobler than the villains he seeks to stop.

The man who would be Batman

The first installment’s massive success lead to an immediate sequel with both Burton and Keaton returning.   Batman Returns was even darker and more extreme than its predecessor–more in keeping with Burton’s style.  It was not as warmly received commercially.  The negative responses caused McDonald’s to discontinue its Happy Meal tie-ins.  The sexual innuendo did not sit well with families (Don’t get me started again over the parents’ disparaging sex over violence.  I already commented on that.) 

Hoping to lure children back to its third installment, Warner Bros deferred the directing duties to Joel Schumacher, which lead to Keaton’s departure from the franchise.  The next two films–Batman Forever and Batman and Robin–sunk the franchise back into the campy territory.  Batman had a pair of ice skates that deployed from his boots, his costume switched from ominous blacks to action-figure greys and blues (with nipple outlines) and the villains devolved into crazed colorful caricatures that made Jack Nicholson look reserved by comparison.  The moment Arnold Schwarzenegger (who is no stranger to bad puns) remarks “Iced to see you!”, the franchise was dead in its frozen waters.  After eight years and four films, the franchise quickly degenerated to the tongue-in-cheek romp it originally planned to avoid.

Everybody chill!!

Batman and Robin’s tepid box office and even cooler (bad pun intended) critical and audience response placed the franchise in a seven-year dormancy.  During that time, WB talked to numerous film-makers about the DC character’s film future.  Most notable were discussions with Pi and Requiem for a Dream director Darren Aronofsky.  According to David Hughe’s book “Tales from Development Hell”, Aronfsky had conceived a unique take back in 1999.  “I told them I’d cast Clint Eastwood as the Dark Knight, and shoot it in Tokyo, doubling for Gotham City.  That got their attention.”  His idea was to bring Batman back into a grim, raw world, echoing films like Taxi Driver.

Warner Bros felt the idea was too extreme and pegged another hot director who had just completed an indie thriller Memento, which involved a similar premise about a man obsessed with hunting the murderer of his wife.  The noirish overtones and obsessive protagonist were ideal ingredients for Batman.  First, Christopher Nolan had to prove his worth as an A-list budget and talent.  In 2002, he successfully tamed the eccentricities of both Al Pacino and Robin Williams in Insomnia.  This was enough to convince the studio to give the green light.  Batman was being reborn!  According to the IMDB, he showed studio reps, cast and crew members a screening of Blade Runner.  Once the film ended, he stood up and declared “This is how we’re going to make Batman”. 

Coming up next…Nolan Begins!

Countdown to Prometheus Part 3: "Alien 3"

When your first installment epitomizes pure horror and the second is a full-fledged thriller, what genre is left for a third?  Comedy?

By the time the second Alien film made waves at the box office (and even garnered Sigourney Weaver a rare Oscar nomination for a science-fiction film), 20th Century Fox realized it created a monster–and not just the one with two sets of jaws.  Pre-production plowed ahead for a third installment while the producers and writers struggled to imbue the franchise with a fresh direction, or a finished screenplay. 

The final product (whose title deceptively looks like Alien cubed) returns the series to its horror roots, borrowing heavily from the first installment as a consequence–a single monsters roams and inflicts death on a a bevy of people, one at a time.

The debate continues over which of the two earlier features is the best (for me, it depends on the mood I’m in.  Today it’s Alien), but all would agree that series is bifurcated: there is Alien/Aliens…and then there are the rest…

Alien 3 spawned the franchise’s downward spiral; it was the first bomb in terms of box office and perception.  For all of its negativity, Alien 3 is not a bad film, but a mishandled one.  Whatever plans the filmmakers had to deviate from the earlier films were lost in the final concoction.  The film is a cheap retread of Alien without the tension or believable characters.  Even Sigourney Weaver appears disengaged, leaving her character’s final sacrifice devoid of meaning or emotion.  The real surprise, in hindsight, is that Alien 3 was directed by David Fincher, who has later become an Hollywood A-Lister producing classics (Seven, Fight Club).  The behind-the-scenes documentaries (provided aplenty in the blu-ray and DVD collections) reveal some of the struggles he and the production crew faced.

Even in the early stages of pre-production, drafts of the script called for third installment to pick up immediately after the conclusion to Aliens.  During the marine ship’s return to Earth, a fire causes the escape ship to jettison to a nearby planet.  Ripley revives to learn that all of the remaining passengers perished in the crash.  Yes, the film begins by killing off Ripley’s allies–even her newly adopted daughter, Newt–a morbid opening that set many fans aflame in anger. 

This twist was intended to return Ripley to her loner status and insinuate that she will be forever plagued by death as long as the evil extraterrestrial roams.  When the bodies of Newt and Hicks are cremated, there is no other reference to their deaths or the impact the losses have on Ripley.  The film literally disposes of the last film’s excess baggage in favor of placing Ripley among a new troupe of human fodder for the alien villain. 

The death of Newt, specifically, negates the impact of the second film, which centered around her inevitable rescue.  The tragedy was truly surprising and atypical for a summer feature, but Newt’s death feels like unfinished script element that never came to fruition, save for allowing Ripley to more freely choose her fate at the film’s end.  

There are many scenes in Alien 3 that feel like leftover plot holes.  Ripley is found and taken in by a prison colony.  She befriends and becomes romantically entwined with Clemens (Charles Dance), the colony doctor.  There conversations (which are almost inaudible in all television and home video versions) don’t stretch beyond Clemen’s and Ripley’s curiosity in each others past.  There is little humor or chemistry, and when Dance is inevitably killed by the beast at the half-way mark (right before his meaningless revelation of his history), there is no sense of loss or consequence.

Fairing only slightly better is the Ripley’s camaraderie with Dillon (Charles S. Dutton), the prisoners’ religious leader. When the two meet, Dillon asks “Do you have any faith, sister?”  “Not much”, Ripley coolly replies.  There is a tease that the two will engage a debate of the prevalence of God, and his divine plan during their time of crisis, but there is no further intrigue. 

The rest of the cast include a fine mix of British and American actors, including Peter Postlethwaite (The Lost World, Usual Suspects, Inception).  Unlike the earlier features, the characters lack any distinguishing qualities–their shaved heads doing the audience an additional disservice. Other than the maniacal Boggs (whose scenes were severely cut in the final version) there are no standouts.  When the alien wipes them out, we couldn’t care less. 

Script issues aside, there are some technical qualms, including the film’s editing.  In one sequence, Ripley returns to her crashed ship to search for the remains of her android comrade, Bishop.  As she rummages through the wreckage, the camera and music imply she’s being watched.  Is the alien about to attack?  Seconds later, it is revealed to be only Clemens.  The fault with this sequence–other than the tired “fake scare” tactic–is the scene is never fully established, and first-time viewer struggle to understand what’s happening rather than languish on the lame false alarm, which is just forced.  Did anyone really think we would suspect the alien was going to kill Ripley within the first half hour?  This isn’t a Hitchcock film!  

This brief sequence epitomizes the main faults with Alien 3–it’s not frightening and resorts to cheap movie cliches rather exude the craft and patience of the two earlier movies.  When the alien begins knocking off convicts, there is no time to ponder when the horror will occur.  The alien flat out slaughters each victim without any warning, and even the revelations aren’t very shocking.    

One of the film’s sole surprises is that Ripley was impregnated while still on the marine ship and the fully grown alien won’t attack her.  When Ripley goes to confront the alien, the scene cuts away before we can see the end result.  Were the film-makers afraid to show too much of the alien?  The potential to give the creature more to do than just bite every human being it finds is tossed aside.  The alien has become a predictable menace.  It lives to kill–not to eat to survive.

During the conclusion, the convicts attempt to lure the alien through a series of corridors into a trap.  There is no establishment of space, so there is no room for suspense.  When one man is killed off, we have no idea if the alien is any closer or nearer to the Ripley and the trap.  We do know that almost everyone will be killed off before Ripley squares off against it.

Alien 3 is the unfortunate product of a rushed production.  Fincher left the production in frustration before completion and the final product left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth (audiences and film-makers alike).  Almost nothing in the film works.  The dialog is trite–the convicts all have a sailor’s mouths that lack the poetry found in a Mamet or Tarantino film.  “No fucking way.”  However, underneath Alien 3’s failures, there are hints of an interesting film to be had.  A completed script would have fleshed out characters and allowed Ripley to contemplate about many things such as the loss of her friends, her cursed existence or the futility of bearing an alien fetus.

However, the potential to try something different was tossed aside for the sake of making a release date.  The alien xenomorph had now become a bona fide franchise with toys and merchandise.  (SPOILER ALERT) Ripley dies in the end, but there is always more money to be made.

Next…

Witness the resurrection… 

Countdown to Prometheus Part 2: "Aliens"

“Game over, Man!”

It took seven years before a sequel to Alien would be released.  During that time, copycat horror films came in droves.  20th Century Fox hired James Cameron (Titanic, Avatar) a young director hot from his first success, The Terminator, who decided not to replicate the haunted house formula of the first movie.  His ride was going to be a roller coaster.

Cameron’s films have nearly always highlighted his love for military testosterone-induced action.  This is never more obvious than is his Cameron’s third feature which stars protagonists who are not working-class civilians (as in Alien), but marines who fight the alien horde rather than hide and wait to picked off one-by-one.

The story begins with Ripley’s rescue from her escape shuttle only to find out she’s been in hibernation for 57 years.  Ripley returns to the planet–along with the military–where the alien first appeared, which is now inhabited by a human colony that recently severed contact with Earth.

Originally, Ripley declines to assist in the risk mission and risk her life a second time.  Later, when it becomes obvious that she’ll be haunted by the nightmares forever, she acquiesces. In the extended cut, we learn that Ripley had a daughter, who died while Ripley was in hyper-sleep.  This plot point adds a dimension to Ripley’s character when she returns to the planet and finds one survivor–a little girl, Newt (Carrie Hehn).

Cameron’s script and Weaver’s portrayal give Ripley a heroic edge, but Aliens takes moments to invoke Ripley’s motherly protective nature for Newt, which is highlighted in the extended edition.  However, both cuts cement a foundation for Ripley’s motivations: All that matters to her is that Newt is rescued.  When Newt is eventually captured by the alien horde, Ripley goes on a one-woman rescue mission to save her.  

Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) was paid $1 million to return to the series and become one of the first female action heroes–taking charge and braving the alien threat as efficiently as Rambo.  Cameron’s female heroines are not damsels in distress, but tough chicks who can stand toe-to-toe with the men.  Late in the film, an alien ambushes Ripley and her military comrade, Hicks (Michael Biehn).  In any feature prior to Aliens, Ripley would be useless in this moment–cowering behind her male protector.  But when the attack is over, Hicks get’s injured and it is Ripley who has to save Hicks and take up arms.

As in the first Alien, the troupe of characters are established early; although we know that most will not live to see the ending credits.  Given the little screen time, Cameron maximizes the most out of supporting players without caving into military cliche’ (although Hudson has become a horror movie cliche’, but more on that later).

Some of Cameron’s most interesting side characters are Vasquez (Jenette Goldstein), a tough-as-nails female soldier; Bishop (Lance Henriksen), a cryptic android technician who Ripley suspects will betray the group; Hicks (Biehn), the unassuming soldier who sparks a mutual respect and possible interest possibility with Ripley.  (Thankfully, Cameron never bogs the film with a romantic subplot, since both would be too preoccupied with survival to kiss and hold hands.)    

Finally, that leaves me with Hudson (Bill Paxton), the whose cowering dialog has become ingrained as catchphrases for anyone feeling scare or overwhelmed.  “It’s a bug hunt, man!”  Every time I re-watch the film, I’m always suspect that Paxton is over-the-top, but his delivery is not as outlandish as his imitators make him appear.   

Although the sequel to Alien is a very different animal, there are some commonalities in structure.  Like Ridley Scott, Cameron takes time establishing the suspense.  When the military arrive on the planet, we witness only the aftermath of the horrors that entailed; the colony is abandoned and falling apart.  The soldiers slowly patrol the dark corridors, waiting for an attack to come.

The horror is further implied by one excellent suspense devise–the solders’ motion trackers, which signals whenever a threat approaches by displaying patches of light and emitting a beeping noise which intensify (in so many ways) as the movement comes closer.  One of the most effective spine-tingling moments occurs when the detector alerts that a whole horde of aliens are approaching.  The tension builds as they get closer.  Soon, the meter reveals that the aliens should be right in front of the group, but they are nowhere in sight.    

When the alien army initially but wipes out a majority of the marines, the survivors establish a defense perimeter while they prepare to evacuate.  There is an scene in the extended cut which involves motion sensing turrets that repels the waves of alien attacks.  The film works just as well without it–allowing for the suspense to build until the aliens finally make their way inside.  Cameron is notorious for cutting his films down to the basic story requirements (despite Titanic and Avatar).  The sequence involving the turrets is technically interesting, but the idea of the aliens making their way inside is all the more ominous…the waiting.

As the title implies, there are over a hundred aliens roaming the colony.  Rather that repeat the first film, Cameron’s horror elements rely more on the unstoppable force that won’t quit.  Although our heroes might successfully repel one alien attacker, there is always another creeping behind them.

Of course, the main attraction is the alien queen–a great movie monster, crafted by the creature designer, Stan Winston.  Not enough credit is shared with the film’s sound design by Ron Sharpe (which also won him an Oscar).  The sounds of the queens snarling breathing and high pitched screams really add to the villains menace and wickedness.  When Ripley finally stands off against the queen and shouts her iconic taunt, it’s impossible not to cheer.

Aliens is one of the most thrilling films of all time.  The last third is one giant cat-and-mouse game between the heroes and the alien horde.  Like The Terminator, Cameron loves to deceive the audience into thinking the horror is over, only to pull the carpet from underneath them.  So many action films fail to build to a crescendo in the last scene, but Aliens does. It is arguably James Cameron’s best film and one of the great sequels of all time.

Up next…

The Bitch is back!

Men in Black III–Review

Despite my earlier reservations about Men in Black III, my longing to continue the Memorial Day “movie date” tradition was more crucial.  Also, the film selection was so meager this year that my wife and I almost entertained the idea of rewatching The Avengers instead. 

Men in Black III exceeded my expectations, albeit by a margin (it wasn’t bad).  As in prior installments, MIB III works best when Agents K (Mr. Jones AND Mr. Brolin) and Agent J (Mr. Smith) engage in comical interchanges that beget from their disparate personalities.

Their characterizations remain intact from 1997: Smith’s Agent K is direct, no-nonsense and Smith remains the wise-cracker and outsider, even though he’s considered a veteran after 14 years.  Their chemistry has continuously offset the lackluster plots–a constant issue I have had with The Men in Black series.
In this installment, a vengeful alien goes back in time to kill Agent K and stop a protective shield from forming around the earth so his fellow species can conquer the planet in the present.  When history is changed, K disappears from existence and the Earth is about to be attacked.  Why would they wait 40 years to attack the Earth anyway?

J is the only one who remembers K was alive, which is partially explained, but doesn’t make a lick of sense.  K travels back to 1969 to preserve history and save his friend.

The villain is portrayed by non other than Jermaine Clement, the songwriter and performer from Flight of the Concords.  His villainy lacks any real originality and Clement’s comic appeal is lost beneath the makeup and uninspired dialog. 

Men in Back III was originally plagued by script issues during production–the script wasn’t finished!  Surprisingly the story never falls apart, but there are still some plot holes and elements that remain unexplained.

In fairness, the whole purpose of the script was to place Will Smith in 1969.  There are some funny moments such as the secret behind Andy Warhol’s true identity and the additional purpose of the moon landings.

Like the prior two, MIB III excels when it showcases the inner workings behind the Men in Black organization, such as the secret pathways, the true identities of famous people, or the methods the organization takes to keep its secrets.  None of this incarnation’s in-jokes beat my favorite gag of the entire series: the revelation that The National Enquirer is the most legitimate news resource.  Also, a Men in Black film set in 1969 that doesn’t feature at least one equality-preaching alien hippie seems like a waist.

There aren’t even funny references to celebrities who are revealed to be aliens incognito, unless you look real very closely at the MIB video monitoring systems in the background.  (My wife and I took turns noticing that Lady Gaga and Tim Burton are both aliens.  Duh!)

It’s a shame that much of the obvious gags to come from the 1969 setting are brushed aside to push the uninteresting plot forward.  Men in Black III seems rushed and settles on amusing audiences just enough so they can leave the theater happy and get screeners primed for the next showtime.  The characters are fun, but there is never any sense of growth, even when one interesting tidbit of J’s past is revealed.  However, MIB III has its share of funny and even one touching moment.   It’s just good enough to recommend, but my original feelings remain.  I left the theater forgetting most of what I witnessed and remain convinced that Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones can put their glasses away.

Back in black. Should we care?

If you questioned film-goers as to which film series they’d like to see another sequel, Men in Black would not be their first choice.  However, these same folks will settle for one if it serves as a passable refuge from the stresses surrounding the holiday weekend.  By the time Memorial Day Monday arrives, any morsel of entertainment will suffice as long as it provides a temporary reprieve from the visiting relatives who can’t stop belching after their fourth hot dog, third serving of baked beans and an excessive amount of alcohol. 

Despite many obstacles–such as a decade-long dormancy–the cash-strapped Sony Pictures have produced a third film (opening on Friday).  The MIB fans don’t have the same obsessiveness (or volume) as The Avengers community; falling into much a smaller pack–like those who worship Babylon 5 and Aqua Teen Hunger Force.  A good chunk of today’s children won’t even recognize K and J, so they certainly won’t show up at the ticket booth in costumes composed business suits and cool sunglasses. 

And yet MIB III is still projected to do very well–domestically and internationally.  The main contributors to its success: Will Smith (the largest movie star in the world), aliens (proven assets for both The Avengers AND, to a lesser degree, Battleship) and ogles of 3D effects.      

Although the 3D hype has worn out its welcome in the United States, it’s on the rise in foreign territories like China.  When the film was first announced, the utilization of the third dimension (I’m not referring to the characters) was not-so-subtly implied by its original title: Men in Black 3D.

The 3D effect and its inflated ticket prices have increased the once-dead franchise’s odds of earning a profit.   

It’s a little sad that the huge Memorial Day blockbuster relies so strongly on the commercials rather than the fan enthusiasm–which has been diluted since the disappointing MIB II from 2002.  Many film-goers were content with K and J holstering their noisy cricket pistols forever. 

However, Sony has assembled the figures and all signs predict a profit for newest MIB–none of which have any reflection on the quality.  Instead, there were focus groups and precise calculations.  The check list includes:

• Will Smith’s popularity
• Family-oriented
• 3D craze
• Aliens
• Comedy
• Sci-Fi
• Action
• Hot chick
• Brand recognition
• Famous actors impersonating other famous actors
• Anachronistic jokes (misplaced time travelers)
• Famous New Zealander cast as villain
• PG-rated rap music video tie-in (deduct a point for not using Will Smith again)
• Toys, toys, and more toys!
• Video game tie-in
• Option for at least three more sequels
• Steven Spielberg as executive producer (for doing nothing)

Even though the early reviews are above average, I cannot chew on the hype surrounding a third Men in Black, even if Josh Brolin chimes in a pretty solid Tommy Lee Jones impersonation (judging solely by ads).

I don’t know whether Men in Black III will dazzle the audiences this weekend, or merely appease them.  Let’s pretend that the reviews are not in and we no preconceptions at this stage–how excited would you be?

If the film does well, all credit is due to the marketers’ ability to showcase the factors that entice families and appease their children’s obsession with 3D gimmickry.  In a world where good ideas still permeate and possible sequels to other films (like The Incredibles) would be more intriguing, I’m disappointed to see Hollywood once again to resort to figure overheads rather than what we really crave.  So, this weekend I’ll be wearing my black sunglasses only to divert the sun–not the memory erasers toys–on a sandy beach, buzzed and downing my fourth hot dog, dreading the arrival of Will Smith’s next project requested by no one–Hancock 2.