Showing posts with label Aliens. Show all posts
    Showing posts with label Aliens. Show all posts
  • District 9 (2009)
    Sci-Fi; South Africa
    112 minutes


    One of my favorite sci-fi movies of the 80s was "Alien Nation". I'm not ashamed of this. But if you were to give that buddy cop flick about a race of aliens trying to integrate into life on Earth the Ron Moore style "Battlestar Galactica" reboot for modern times you'd most surely get something very close to "District 9". That's not an insult. Neil Blomkamp's directorial debut takes the same general concept as the Mandy Patinkin/James Caan movie, removes all of the hokeyness from the equation and makes it relevant to our times. It asks the question "what would happen if an alien mining ship filled with millions of hive-minded worker drones was stranded on Earth, cut off from their commanders" and then proceeds to play that concept out in a very realistic, but satirical manner.

    The result is probably the best movie I've seen this year, hands down (though there's still "Avatar" to look forward to, of course). Usually, and especially with "summer blockbusters", you have to hit up several different films to satisfy the range of your intellectual interests. You go to "G.I. Joe" to get your whiz-bang action fix and maybe to "Virtuality" to scratch that itch for high-concept, intellectual sci-fi and then to something like "Thirst" to fill that artsy fartsy "I'm a serious filmmaker" void, but "District 9" is like one stop shopping. The conceptualist in me was intrigued by the ideas presented and the conclusions drawn about human nature and the dynamics of society - and yet the total geek in me was psyched to see badass alien mechs and crazy energy weapons that make people explode into bits on contact. Even the artfag in me was in awe watching the arbitrary beauty of the documentary-style handheld cinematography that captured the patchwork slums and urban decay of Johannesburg, South Africa. All sides were equally satisfied.

    I know I've stated that there are some similarities to "Alien Nation" here, but this is not a remake or a reboot, it's not trying to cash in on your nostalgia or bank on an already successful property - it's an original concept that was widdled into an original movie by people who give a fuck about making good movies. See, Hollywood? See what happens when you come up with a cool idea and work tirelessly to bring it to life without hacking away at anything that might be deemed questionable to the lowest common denominator? You get a WIN, not a FAIL. Grab a post-it and jot that shit down.

    Give this some time if you're into: Aliens, Battlestar Galactica, Alien Nation, City of God, Cops, just plain entertaining shit.
  • Outlander (2008)
    Sci-Fi/Action/Period Piece; USA
    115 minutes



    One can't help but be intrigued by the premise of "Outlander". A spaceship crash lands on Earth in the time of the vikings bringing with it a technologically advanced warrior from a far-off planet and one of the indestructable alien monsters responsible for the near eradication of his civilization. Vikings vs. aliens...sounds awesome, right?

    Well, I hate to break it to you, but it's not quite as cool as you think it will be. That's not to say it's bad, of course - it's a pretty decent flick. Unfortunately though, timing killed this movie. The basic plot arc of "Outlander" is based heavily on the epic poem Beowulf, which also happened to be adapted in a similarly adult fashion by Robert Zemeckis just a few months prior to "Outlander"'s much delayed release. As a result, the movie feels a little less original than it could have and it doesn't quite out-do Zemeckis' awesome "Beowulf" film in any particular respect. It really is a shame because aside from that, the film has a lot going for it. The budget isn't huge, but they do a lot with what they have. The writing is decent and the performances are all passable (which isn't easy considering the somewhat ridiculous scenerio being presented). It's even got Ron Pearlman in it...who can say no to that?

    Give this some time if you're into: vikings, aliens, weird concepts, monster flicks, sci-fi in general, Predator
  • Predator 2

    Now with more Jamaicans!





    With the country's first African-American president taking office last week, it's easy for most Americans to start getting the idea that racism is dead in this country.

    But though our nation is finally ready to let a black man run the country, America still has a hard time with the idea of ethnic heroes being portrayed in our movies, comics, magazines and television shows.

    My friends and I have a game, it's called "The Name 10 Black Actors Game." It's fairly simple. There are no rules. You just ask a friend, a co-worker, a random person in a bar, etc. to name 10 working black actors off the top of their head.

    I guarantee the first answer will be Denzel Washington, the second answer will be Will Smith and the third answer will maybe be Samuel L. Jackson if they've really got their thinking cap on. The fourth answer may take awhile ... it may not ever come, depending on who you're talking to.

    There just aren't that many prominent black actors out there, sure, but more importantly, there aren't that many mainstream movies that want to acknowledge that black people are anything more than sidekicks.

    That's why, whenever I get the chance, I pull out my trusty old copy of "Predator 2" and slip it in the DVD player. It's one of the only movies I can think of where the hero of the story, the real hero, is a normal guy that just happens to be black. He doesn't have a snappy retort to everything, he doesn't talk jive, he isn't a caricature of what white people think black men are like - he's just a dude with a shit job in a really fucked up city with some seriously messed up stuff going on around him.

    It's refreshing to see in a world where black characters in movies have to basically walk around with a shirt that says "Hey, I'm the Black Guy!" in huge day-glo letters, or where roles have to be re-written for Will Smith by his own private writing team because he couldn't just play any old character - he has to be sassy-talking and street-wise or the world just wouldn't know what to think of him.

    Danny Glover got a lot of attention for doing the Lethal Weapon movies because, well, Mel Gibson was standing right there next to him the whole time and people were bound to notice him sooner or later. But that audience didn't follow him over to "Predator 2," which really is a shame because he's great in it. Glover's role obviously wasn't written for a black guy. The filmmakers could have just as easily cast James Caan - his character's name is Mike Harrigan for chrissake - but that's part of what makes this movie such a one of a kind achievement.

    The role was written for a white guy, it could have easily been played by a white guy, the movie it was a sequel of starred a white guy and it still went to Danny Glover! Against all odds. When the hell does that happen? Almost never, folks. Almost never. Hollywood Rule No. 5: Never cast a black actor unless absolutely necessary.

    But our cultural stereotypes don't stop with race - a lot of people will ignorantly argue that sequels are never as good as the original movies that spawned them. But you know what? A lot of people think Britney Spears is a good singer. A lot of people think George W. Bush was a good president. A lot of people say a lot of shit, but it doesn't make it true.

    The reason most sequels fail is because the people involved are just trying to recreate the magic that succeeded for them the first time around. It's an easy pitfall.

    Unfortunately, what the filmmakers fail to realize more often than not is that it was probably the uniqueness of the original that was appealing to the fans in the first place. This is just another area where "Predator 2" defies all odds.

    "Predator 2" is nothing like "Predator." Sure, the alien is the same, and sure, they're basically both about lone badasses outclassing said alien with nothing but their own bootstraps, but that's pretty much where the similarities die.

    First difference: "Predator 2" abandons the jungle for a dystopic future Los Angeles. Second difference: it's basically a sci-fi noir flick, which as a film geek, I love. Third difference: the original "Predator" contains absolutely no Jamaicans, while the sequel - chock full of those rudeboys.

    The point is, it would have been super easy to just hire another five or six roided-out beefhead b-list actors, give them some big guns, fly them to the part of L.A. that looks most like a jungle and had a "Predator" sequel knocked out in like ... two weeks, max. But they didn't do that, and I, for one, commend them for not taking the easy route. Instead, they created a whole new setting, a whole new backstory and a whole new set of characters.

    They didn't have to, but they did. They broke Hollywood Rule No. 4: Never do more work than is absolutely necessary.

    That's not to say this movie is completely, painstakingly original - it does follow a lot of the action movie formulas and lone cop cliches, but I don't have a problem with that. Point me to a movie that isn't cliche in some way and I'll gladly illuminate you as to something you overlooked. But what matters most to me when watching a movie is not whether I've heard someone express a similar sentiment in another movie, but that I can buy what's taking place on screen as being organic to the story being presented.

    In this case, yeah, I totally buy it. If I was Lt. Mike Harrigan and this was happening to me, I can't say I'd react any differently than Danny Glover does. I'd be cussing my boss out, going off on my own and trying to get to the bottom of it.

    Call me cliche, but that just seems like the logical thing to do. And, you know what? It worked! He caught the bad guy, solved the mystery and put an end to the problem. Can't argue with results.

    "Predator 2" will always hold a special place in my heart because even with its cliches, even though it's a sequel, it's still more original than 99 percent of movies being churned out today. It reminds me that you don't always have to go the obvious route to make a great movie. You don't always have to cast the obvious guy that you think audiences will want to see, you don't always have to put forth the bare minimum of effort and you don't always have to beat a dead horse.

    The film industry has a lot of crazy, self-imposed notions of what will bring them success. They don't like taking risks, they don't like standing on shaky ground when their money is on the line.

    I can certainly understand where they're coming from in that approach, but the problem with that mentality is that it leads us to situations like what we're experiencing today where the same five stars appear in variations of the same five movies over and over again, year after year.

    Nobody is creating anything, they're just trying to appropriate something that's already proven successful. Nothing changes.

    But look around you. Things are changing in the real world and it's time that our media reflects those changes.

    So now that Barack Obama is in the Oval Office, can we please get some color up there on the silver screen? Can we see somebody at least attempt not to follow the beaten path? Please?

  • //Rant On


    I was excited for the Star Trek reboot because I thought it might appeal to the people that were always like "Star Trek…. Really? SciFi really?"

    But the reboot seems angsty as fuck and Michael Bay-ed out. Really. " You've always had a hard time finding your place in the world, haven't you?" whispers Spock as he reaches for young Kirks cock (and not in a hot way – ooo that rhymed). Motherfucker please.

    I'm not comparing old Star Trek and this new incarnation. I'm just saying: Why not just leave the Trek alone and do what they're doing with a whole new cast of characters and story line. OMG I forgot - Hollywood doesn't know how to generate new material - we live in the age of the remakes where producers etc just dig into the bag of comics, foreign shows and now sci fi and 80's horror films to regurgitate. And I get that. I just think Star Trek was the wrong thing to fuck with and FOR WHY?! I guess we'll have to see.

    And what's the point of doing a reboot when you're losing the stuff that makes Trek the Trek. Its not Spock or Kirk, its about the lore and lessons and exploration of the human condition and our potential that sets Star Trek apart from oh, say Armageddon.

    Star Trek     is about human beings as a species reaching their potential after putting aside costly wars, greed, racism, sexism and all those other isms, and collectively turning their gaze and potential to the stars. In a altruistic yet fascist way, humans try to unite the universe under the Federation to spread their new found peace. I've always loved that duality about Star Trek. The Federation forces and coerces civilizations (with faster than light travel) to join the Federation – or else. They never really fuck with civilizations who are not space faring. The Federation's "or else" is a subtext the show (and movies) deal with continuously; if you and you're already self sustaining planet join the Federation you're granted access to super advanced technology that they "appropriated" from the planets that joined before you, safe trade routes, translators, etc etc. Trust me, the original mythos is good shit.

    Don't get me wrong – I'm not a Star Trek purist. The original Star Trek(s) had their issues, and I'm sure this movie will be a rock 'em, sock 'em good time and have okay action sequences, but come on. Why "reboot" the franchise when you're just going to follow Hollywood's blockbuster formula and leave all the good stuff out?

    Have you seen No Country For Old Men? One can do "General Audience" appeal and still have more than decent writing and a compelling story. I guess I just wonder why Hollywood thinks everyone is an idiot and/or wants to absorb entertainment for someone with an IQ below 30. People like intelligent stuff and ultimately feel let down when they pay $10 for a movie that just all around blows.

    And people like Sci Fi. Umm hello?!?! The Thing? Aliens? Jurassic Park (meeeh)? Terminator? Gattaca? The Abyss? Okay most of those were by the same guy but still (J.J. Abrams needs to consult James Cameron on this mofo stat). People like good stuff as proved by most of those being the biggest grossing films of their time – most of them even created what is now known as the "Blockbuster Weekend". My point here is that you can be "out of the box" and still make a buck.

    Hollywood only wants to do a certain kind of sci fi – one that looks good in a flashy trailer, has cool action scenes, tons of gadgets with no technical grounding, attractive lead cast and a fist pumping soundtrack. That's the kind of movie that will be low risk, have a big opening weekend and what do you know, that's the kind of movie Star Trek is looking like.

    To water down the concepts that makes Star Trek compelling and thought provoking loses what makes Star Trek an inspiration, both artistically and personally (I'm not even going to get into the cultural impact this show has had – I suggest you Google that shit for some perspective on why I'm so bent out of shape).

    Don't believe me about this caca? Read the breakdown of a jazzercised fan who saw a special presentation of some scenes from the movie and is actually excited for this bitch. Even his excited recounting illustrates how flaccid and formulaic it will be.

    //Rant Off

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)