Aliens (1986) - 7 stars out of 10

Aliens (1986) - 7 stars out of 10

I am going to oppose popular opinion and state that “Alien” is far superior to its sequel, “Aliens.”  This sequel has been praised for providing more violence, more special effects, and a better look at the aliens (plural this time), but you need to read my prior post about why these things actually make the sequel weaker.  The unwritten rule of sci-fi sequels states that they must feature more action and longer looks at the creature than the original to hold the audience’s attention.  The “Jaws” sequels are a prime (and painful) example.  Where the original used methodical suspense and suggestion to engage our imaginations until the big payoff at the end, the sequels required extensive shark violence from start to finish because we have already seen the previously unknown.  “Aliens” follows the same pattern.  The aliens themselves hold up remarkably well after 30 years (especially the terrifying queen) but their overstated appearance takes away from their intrigue.  Moreover, the film’s more intense use of the aliens actually weakens our fear of them.  In the original, the alien was so vicious that the characters couldn’t even get near it.  It transported us into Ellen Ripley’s nightmare, helpless to protect ourselves from this creature.  But the characters in the sequel are facing an army of aliens which means that they have to continually dispose of them to keep the story moving.  The prospect of encountering one of these aliens is much less scary when they can quickly be blasted away en masse and with ease.  Most of this disconnect with the original comes from the fact that two different directors are imagining two completely different stories that occur in the same universe.  Ridley Scott took a Hitchcockian approach while James Cameron opted for “Rambo In Space.”  I do like that the story offers a unique allusion to the Vietnam War in which a technologically superior group struggles to take down a hostile enemy in enemy territory.  I prefer the setting of the original (helplessly stranded on a spaceship with an alien) but encountering the aliens on the ground gives this sequel an interesting new direction.  It also better fits the action movie approach to the story with large-scale battles instead of crew members hiding on a small ship.  “Aliens” lacks a gradual buildup of tension as the cast seemingly kills time between the exciting alien encounters but that’s the trade off when creating an action film instead of a thriller.  Along those lines, the film is driven by action instead of acting.  Sigourney Weaver gives a dominant performance but the other crew members seem like each is an exaggerated caricature of their stereotype, especially Bill Paxton and Jenette Goldstein.  I also found Carrie Henn’s child performance to be rather weak, though it can’t be easy to find a 9-year-old that can give a dramatic performance amidst a bunch of aliens.  I wish that I could judge “Aliens” for its own merits but it is so hard to separate it from the iconic origin of the series.  Someday, I will have to watch this film out of context as if it were a standalone film.  Until then, I will just have to accept that the only similarity between the films is that they exist in the same universe.

[Pictured: The moment when Weaver appears in the power loader is one of the most iconic shots from the entire series]

Alien (1979) - 9 stars out of 10

Alien (1979) - 9 stars out of 10

“Alien” has stood the test of time because of its simplicity.  Horror films tend to thrill until their special effects become dated and obsolete, at which point they lose their scar factor and make way for a new era of horror films that are more graphic and more realistic.  But “Alien” doesn’t try to be a shocking horror film.  Instead, it operates as an intense thrilled that builds fear through atmosphere and the unknown.  There are a few payoff moments where a creature bursts out of someone’s chest and Sigourney Weaver comes face-to-face with the alien, but the film doesn’t rely on these moments to keep us watching.  You should always leave your audience wanting more and Ridley Scott found the perfect balance between showing the alien and leaving it up to our imagination.  One of the story's most ingenious plot devices to avoid showing too much is the alien's genesis.  Instead of seeing the alien in full form from the start, we see the process of the facehugger embedding the alien into a human host, the baby alien emerging, the shedding of the skin, and finally the fully-grown alien.  This allows us to imagine the alien's full-bodied appearance long before it reaches that stage.  In a cyclical way, “Alien” is strengthened by its sequels that match the tone of contemporary horror films.  The 80’s and 90’s sequels showed us how intense the aliens could be and the recent prequels show the graphic nature of an alien attack.  These films retroactively help our imaginations to fill in the gaps of the original film, gaps that would have used outdated special effects if they had been filled in 1979.  Since special effects and horrific imagery are saved for the important moments, the film’s tone is driven by the actors.  The casting is magnificent with each character fulfilling a crew member stereotype to create a contrasting group of personalities.  Sigourney Weaver is unmatched as Ellen Ripley.  She finds a perfect balance of fear and bravery that is complimented by the realism of her emotions.  Other notable performances include Ian Holm as Ash (hard to explain why he is so incredible without spoilers!!), Yaphet Kotto as the rough-around-the-edges engineer, and John Hurt as the ship’s captain.  These performances are as important as Scott’s signature imagery.  Every aspect of the production design from the sleeping pods and rotary hatch doors to the otherworldly alien spaceship are simultaneously retro and futuristic.  The nest is one of the creepiest set pieces ever devised, adding to the intrigue of this alien species.  “Alien” has a few scenes that will make you want to look away but its true identity is that of a mystery-thriller-disguised-as-sci-fi-horror film which can be enjoyed by most.

[Pictured: The film leaves much of the story to the imagination, but the facehuggers are an undiluted warning about the terrors that will plague this crew.]

Monster's Ball - 6 stars out of 10

Monster's Ball - 6 stars out of 10

“Monster’s Ball” is a lot to digest.  This drama deals with everything from racism and love to suicide and the electric chair.  As a warning, these aren’t just themes that are discussed by the characters - the content is graphic and strong.  The film is most notable for Halle Berry’s Oscar-winning performance.  Her accent is great and she expresses a wide array of emotions, but I feel that the win was most likely for her realistic acting and willingness to show it all in the adult scenes.  Unfortunately, that isn’t quite what I am looking for when I want to enjoy an Oscar-worthy performance on a lazy afternoon.  Billy Bob Thornton is the driving force throughout the film but the most noteworthy performance comes from Peter Boyle as the bitter, racist grandfather.  All of the actors (including Heath Ledger, Sean Combs, and Mos Def) give inherently sad performances to create the eerily depressing tone that permeates the film.  Mentally prepare yourself because there is little to bring joy throughout this slice-of-reality story that graphically shows an execution, suicide, and the saddest burial in funeral history.  I don’t know that anybody really enjoys “Monster’s Ball” but its strong acting offers perspective into the unspoken struggles of many people that surround us.

[Pictured: Halle Berry’s broad range of emotions are vivid from start to finish]

Alien: Covenant (2017) - 7 stars out of 10

Alien: Covenant (2017) - 7 stars out of 10

“Alien: Covenant” is the big, scary older sibling of previous installments in the Alien franchise.  No scene is left to the imagination as aliens graphically burst out of human bodies and tear the characters to shreds.  This film is not for the faint of heart or the weak of stomach.  It is awesome.  It’s difficult to compare any two films that were made nearly 40 years apart, especially when it comes to science fiction films that rely on special effects to bring their world to life.  You can never beat the mystery and slowly building tension of the original story, but this “next generation Alien movie” enhances the series as a whole by opening our eyes to the true terrors enacted by the xenomorphs.  The line between the horror and thriller genre is often blurred (M. Night Shyamalan’s “horror films” should actually be categorized as psychological thrillers with a disturbing theme) but the graphic nature of “Alien: Covenant” makes it a clear-cut horror film.  The standout performance comes from Michael Fassbender as two separate androids with identical looks and very different personalities.  He layers these characters to the point that one can impersonate the other in a way that we can still keep track of who is who.  Katherine Waterston also shines as the brave-yet-terrified heroine of the film.  Guy Pearce's cameo as Peter Weyland is stunning, though it left me wishing that the writers could have incorporated him into the entire film.  All of the acting is satisfactory for a science fiction film but this is really all about Ridley Scott’s visionary atmosphere and the breathtaking special effects.  The vivid CGI makes it is easy to believe that we are actually seeing the characters travel through space and makes Scott’s industrial future feel like the present.  Meanwhile, the creatures are so realistic that nightmares are inevitable.  “Alien: Covenant” isn’t the best storyline of the series but it delivers all of the terror that belongs in this franchise.

[Pictured: Amidst the terror, there is still plenty of room for Ridley Scott's iconic style]

Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls - 3 stars out of 10

Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls - 3 stars out of 10

“Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls” is exactly what you would expect from a sequel released less than two years after the original.  New animals, new setting, same jokes.  If you thought that “Alrighty then” and “Like a glove” were overused the first time around, wait until they get repeated ad nauseam in the sequel.  It reminds me of that stereotypical sitcom moment when a character delivers their signature line and the live studio audience erupts into applause, only here there is nobody to applaud and the line is delivered several times in a single episode.  Jim Carrey delivers the exact same performance so you can anticipate your level of love or annoyance based on your experience with “Pet Detective.”  The only acting performance that I loved was Simon Callow as he makes a lot out of his shallowly-written character role.  The film does have its moments with a clever Tibetan monk sequence and a rather clever twist that is set up from the beginning, but those moments are fleeting amidst large gusts of slapstick humor and strong innuendo.  I will give the writers credit for taming down the adult content through the power of suggestion, making this iteration a little more family-friendly.  “Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls” is a film for fans that love Ace so much that they need a continuation of the first film; however, this film will fail to redeem the series (or its main character) for anybody who wasn’t a superfan of the original.

[Pictured: Same character, same jokes, new setting]

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective - 4 stars out of 10

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective - 4 stars out of 10

“Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” is a classic in the realm of 90’s goofball comedies.  This film springboarded Jim Carrey’s career and started a healthy competition between Carrey and Adam Sandler to create the silliest, most childish character of the 90’s.  I don’t believe that we would have characters like Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, of Fletcher Reede without the path paved by Ace Ventura.  This film is also the raunchiest of the iconic 90’s comedies as the writers must have realized that tempering the content could help to draw in more teens.  Unfortunately, I can’t ever see myself comfortably sharing this film with my own teenagers because of the in-your-face adult content.  The critics hated the film because of Carrey’s high-energy, cartoon-like acting but that is the very thing that made everybody else love it.  I do find it to be annoying (which makes me worry that I’m becoming that parent whose kids won’t be allowed to watch Spongebob) but as a teen, its slapstick comedy was exactly what we wanted.  The supporting cast’s acting is average for what you would expected from a comedy and the plot is rather silly, though the story manages to deliver a few clever surprises.  One of the most surprising parts of the film is its lack of animals.  I would estimate that animals appear in less than 5% of the film despite the fact that this is a film about pets!  That may seem like a bad thing but it is incredible that the crew was able to successfully create a film about animals without the headache of working with animals.  Perhaps it works because Ace Ventura’s animalistic amount of energy makes him seem like his own species.  The real moral is that a comedy’s plot is inconsequential as long as you have a strong, memorable main character.  “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” isn’t a masterpiece but it is etched in history for its impact on 90’s comedy films and strong pop culture presence.

[Pictured: The plasticity of Jim Carrey's face throughout this film is truly admirable]