Hollerbach Reviews

Alien: Resurrection (1997)

Buffy the Alien Slayer

[1/10 · 10 March 2007]

This is an abomination. Classic stories work best in 3 acts, and the Alien Trilogy worked fine. Why was this necessary? If a 4th was to be done, it could have been good, had it explored the origins of the aliens, the boneship, and the "space jockey" species. The plot appears to have been drawn from a Dark Horse comic story, about breeding Aliens for profit. 20th Century Fox could have developed a great screenplay. Instead, Joss Whedon is brought in to create one of the lamest scripts in movie history. Definitely on par with ROBOT MONSTER. The dialogue is appalling. Cringe inducing one-liners and throwaway wisecracks abound. Worse, they are delivered by the actors in pantomime style. "Must be a chick thing", "Who do I have to f*** to get off this ship?" and so on. Terrible visual "larks" are thrown in for good measure. There doesn't seem to be anyone who isn't overacting. Except maybe Ryder, who turns in a plank-like performance. However, Ron Perlman and Dominique Pinon, take the arm-flapping and mugging to extraordinary levels. Perlman, as Joner, the "tough guy" Space Pirate, shouts, grimaces, and demonstrates that he is the badass of the story. The X-treme Badass. Pinon as the "physically challenged" character, annoys from start to finish. He whines, pouts, and plays the underdog part with the subtlety of a pipe-bomb. A pity, some fine actors were involved- Brad Dourif, Michael Wincott, Leland Orser. All wasted here. There are goofs throughout- blasting an alien head, through it's mouth, then extracting a pristine tongue/jaw. Christie has his hands by his side. Then not. Then back again, etc. This movie can be viewed, just to spot the many goofs. There are too many "hijinks", and extroverted attempts at "comedy". Jeunet and Weaver had too much "creative control" and appear to have made the film by constructing it around set piece shots and scenes: "Let's have Ripley dreaming that she is covered in cheesecloth". "Wouldnt it look brilliant to have a pit of squirming tentacles?". "What about an Alien pushing the punishment button with it's inner jaw? Not it's hands, it's dripping jaw!". "A robot in a Chapel! How very subversive, and avant garde!". The end result is forced, and seems to serve only these ostentatious "artistic" scenes. Logic is nowhere to be found in this tale. Christie cuts himself loose and thereby sacrifices himself, for his little buddy, for no apparent reason. He isn't incapacitated, the acid on his face looks little worse than a bad case of acne. Is he so vain, he would prefer death, to a future without a modeling career? Joner displays his edgy, in-your-face disposition, by blasting a spider, whose web he is inconvenienced by. Spiders on space ships? What do they catch to eat? Never mind, it is symbolic of their struggle against the aliens. Spider, bugs, aliens... get it? Tres anarchistic! The production itself blows chunks. The movie starts off well enough, but soon descends into a gaudy, psychedelic style. There appear to be lights that serve no function other than to provide a multi-coloured wash. The sets look far too big and are more "Poseidon Adventure" than "Alien". The bombastic score reminds the viewer this is a suspenseful movie, with a melodramatic- Dun, dun, dun ...DUNNNN! In over the top leathers, Weaver seems to meander through the part, falling back on a role she used from her last production. The characterization of Ripley-clone, and "The Queen" from Snow White, are awfully similar. There is actually a scene, where Weaver repeats the same "signature" hand gestures, with Ryder, that she used in "SNOW WHITE: A Tale of Terror", which was shot just prior to this. Perhaps she was channeling the Evil Queen through Ripley? Or telling us that Call is really a banished Princess? There is at least one dwarf. "What were you expecting? Santa Claus?". No, but I wasn't expecting this piece of ****, either. It makes Armageddon look cerebral. Buffy the Alien Slayer. Fox really should have hired a director who spoke English. Jeneut is not entirely to blame. Weaver and Whedon did little to help. Was going to give it 2x stars. But just thinking about this mess, makes me angry. It takes a dump on the Alien Trilogy.

Ripley: "We did it. We saved the Earth". Call: "What do we do, now?"...

Make another multi-million dollar, crappy rip off, from a now violated, cinematic legend, of course!

Alien 3 (1992)

Worthy finale to Alien Trilogy

[8/10 · 9 March 2007]

ALIEN3 was a revelation. Despite the reaction from some, the well documented interference from the studio, this film succeeded. I was ambivalent about this installment, expecting another overblown, sub-par sequel, like ALIENS. If you had become an ALIEN fan, in 1979, there was no way that any sequel could be little more than a studio cash in. ALIEN3 changed this. It revealed the Trilogy. Fincher's vision is sublime. It is still locked into the spam-in-a-can plot, but everything else is new, and it returns to a more "ALIEN(1979)" feel. Technical aspects aside, the marvel of ALIEN3 is how it transformed the "franchise". Until A3, "Alien" had been the masterpiece that was the original, followed by a somewhat entertaining, but shameful rip off. With ALIEN3, the story suddenly clicked, and operated as a 3-act tragedy. ALIENS actually worked within this framework of a 3 part story arc. ALIEN3 is not a perfect movie. The weakest point of the theatrical release was a somewhat erratic narrative, some cons remained anonymous, and a couple of characters vanished from the story, midway through. Virtually the entire middle act of ALIEN3 was cut from the 1992 release. The recent "Special Edition" restores this, and much more. The cryotubes in A3 are a copy of A1, and do not match those from the Sulaco, in A2. This is an obvious error. Some of the "problems" with the story are due to Studio editing and rushed production. One should read the novel for the background. Like with ALIEN and ALIENS, Foster wrote the ALIEN3 novel during production, with the full, original story draft. Queens have the capacity to start new hives from scratch. When separated from the former hive, or exiled by a rival, the wandering Queen has 3x eggs inside an internal reserve sac, for recolonizing. Including 1x new Queen. These can be deposited very quickly. The eggs were laid in the dropship. The concept does not seem to track with the opening shots, but the Trilogy is not always perfectly logical (In A1 we hear thrusters in space, in A2 the marines are deployed "on shore", without retaining a single hand on board the main Vessel,etc). The EEV crashed on FURI-161, due to a malfunction caused by a collision with equipment that was ejected due to a blown hatch, in the cargo bay. This was not seen, unfortunately. The mix of American, British and Japanese characters was in keeping with the Military being all that the old USA has in the new order, and Weyland-Yutani a Japanese-British consortium, that relies on mostly American and British employees. If anything ALIENS is out of synch, with it's exclusive "American" characters, in the corporate and civilian sectors (not impossible, just less likely than in A1 and A3). Much of the vitriol directed at ALIEN3 came from ALIENS enthusiasts, expecting "ALIENS part-2". They resented the immediate deaths of Hicks and Newt (plus Bishop). The bald "unlovable" convicts. The lack of trigger time ("Let's rock!"). But ALIEN3 revealed that each chapter had it's own style, it's own identity. I don't understand the resentment of ALIENS fans. This movie actually strengthened ALIENS. Not because A3 was bad, but because it was good. ALIENS was epic. It was a fitting 2nd part. ALIEN3 was the final act, and is perfect as a concept in regards the whole, as a story arc. Fans of ALIENS wanted what Cameron saw for a future installment- "Heroic family vs Aliens". Cameron slanted ALIENS heavily towards the long term love interest of Hicks and Ripley, with Newt as "daughter". But this concept really is anathema to the ongoing "Alien" theme. "Crew expendable". Everyone dies. Anybody that Ripley gets to know, is killed, at inconvenient times. The "Alien story" isn't about fairy tales and relationships. It is about death. It is somehow fitting, that the lone survivor of the entire affair is Morse, a psychotic, hapless con. I saw ALIEN on it's initial run. I loved ALIEN3, and appreciated ALIENS more as a result. A3 is a bleak, emotional final act. It serves notice that nobody is "special". That any character, can, and likely will, be taken away, at any time. Even the "Hero". Rather than viewing the Alien story as individual, stand alone blockbuster movies, it ought to be considered a Trilogy. ALIEN in 1979 was incredible. ALIENS was the climax. ALIEN3 is the finale. The inevitable end to a horrifying, thrilling, but relentlessly depressing Tragedy.

Lord of the Flies (1990)

Not bad... But 1963 version far superior

[4/10 · 1 March 2007]

Having read Golding's novel, and being a fan of the original film version I approached this remake with some apprehension. It is flawed, but I wasn't disgusted with the result. It is OK. Doesn't hold a candle to the original, though, which kind of defeats the purpose. Much of the story is the same, and follows the same pattern, of the original, in which scenes, and plot turns are directly from the novel, and which are left out. The strengths of this version lie mostly in the photography, and use of colour. The tropical island, and physical changes are captured well. The opening shots, underwater, are particularly well done. The characterizations are not bad, overall. The chase at the end, is well depicted. The problems with this rendering, however, do tend to outweigh the good points. Most notably- The concept of "The Beast", and the more simplified relationships, and characters. In the novel, and 1963 film, there is no Adult survivor. This alters the story altogether, and casts doubt on the motives and actions. It does not work within the framework of the novel. The "beast" is meant to be a mystery, to the reader and the viewer. The presence of the wandering "captain" establishes from the get-go, that the "beast" is human, and in fact the "captain". It is doubtful that all the older boys would not make the connection. This in turn ruins the mystery for the viewer. In the novel, and the 1963 film, the "beast" (or "monster" in this version), is at first a puzzle, subject to conjecture. But initial encounters are presented as quite hair-raising, in no small part due to the knowledge that the boys are alone, on the island. Final confirmation of the nature of the "beast", is both gruesome, and terrifying. Despite the obvious fact that it is not supernatural, or actually "monstrous". The "Beast" is, as discovered by Simon, a downed pilot, possibly from an air battle. Many pilots were MIA during WW2, and the "Beast" is one of them, having come down on the island, and entered the cave/grotto through an opening in the canopy. Still strapped to his parachute harness, and clad in a leather flying helmet, goggles, boots and suit, the dead and decomposed airman continues to be animated by the wind, the chute and rigging emitting ominous flapping and groaning noises. The scene of Simon's discovery is both vivid and memorable. In the 1990 version, this is completely abandoned, for the notion of the delirious "captain". Some of the symbolism regarding society, and power is left out of this version. Most notably in the treatment of the relationship between Jack and Roger. In the novel, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the 1963 version, the roles of Ralph and Piggy are mirrored by those of Jack and Roger. As Ralph and Piggy rely on each other to maintain civilization, and "democracy", Jack and Roger likewise collaborate to bring about totalitarianism. In this version Roger is a relatively minor character, doing little but following the "chief". In the novel/original, Jack leads, but relies almost completely upon Roger, the physically strongest boy, to enforce his rule. Roger is quite sociopathic, and as the story progresses, Jack, rather than gaining power, actually loses it. Jack becomes little more than a figurehead, allowing more and more displays of autonomy by Roger. Finally, when Roger kills Piggy, Jack fears not just usurpation, but assassination. Jack is the Dictator, installed by Roger, the military, which becomes increasingly arrogant and violent. It is Roger that encourages Jack to hunt down Ralph, and kill him, although Jack would be content to banish him. Jack can no longer reign in his muscle. All of this is missing from the 1990 version, and replaced with the more streamlined narrative, and reduced characters. Overall, not bad adaptation, and would serve well to inspire to read the novel. However the 1963 version is far superior, and would be more satisfying for those who are familiar with Golding's book.