DVDs and Films You Have Watched Recently #2

[Bellenda Carlisle]

Is it SPOILER - Highlight the black box to read

Pumpkinhead

?

[Mr. Seven]

No, although he gets killed by him too? Not sure I'd go as far as 'icon' there.

[Halitosis Romantic]

The ghostface from Scream? Pumpkinhead?

[Mr. Seven]

Forgot he was killed by a Ghostface too. Jesus, is there anything Henriksen won't do?

[patiirc]

Fuck off pat, you absolute mong.

 

Is that it? I was expecting something more 'original'. Still if you want to continue the same old tired and frankly dull insults, carry on.

 

 

- A trivia question: Lance Henriksen and Bill Paxton both have the amazing distinction of being killed onscreen by a Terminator, an Alien and a Predator. Henriksen also meets a grisly end at the hands of another horror icon. Who?

 

Edit: Seen the other guesses.

 

'Nathan Petrelli' in Near Dark. What do you mean I'm miles out

Edited May 28, 2012 by patdfb

[Bellenda Carlisle]

No, although he gets killed by him too? Not sure I'd go as far as 'icon' there.

 

Come on Seven, Pumpkinhead is easily top 20 horror icons

 

Interesting Lance Henriksen fact, he has no acting training and he couldn't read til he was 35.

[Mr. Seven]

It was Pinhead.

 

Fuck off pat.

[Bellenda Carlisle]

It was also Ghostface and Also Pumpkinhead!

 

 

*edit*

 

- A trivia question: Lance Henriksen and Bill Paxton both have the amazing distinction of being killed onscreen by a Terminator, an Alien and a Predator.

 

Also that is so amazing and will be quoted by me to nearly everyone I know forever now.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Steve 'Big' Jobs

[Devon Malcolm]

- Alien or Aliens? And why?

 

- Is Sir Ridley Scott a world class filmmaker, only brilliant when the material is strong and challenging or a decent hack who got lucky over the years? His CV has some absolute stinkers and while Alien and Blade Runner are wonderfully crafted works, it's hard to think of a Ridley Scott directing signature that puts him up there with the greats. Plus, I reckon that there's an argument to be made that Blade Runner only works perfectly because its production was so fragmented. Furthermore, would anyone care about Scott's new film if it wasn't tied to this series?

 

- The theatrical version of Alien omits a scene where Ripley discovers what's left of her crew (including a still alive Dallas who begs for death), confirming that the Alien was abducting them rather than simply killing them. It's in the Director's Cut, and I find it a very curious omission first time round. Sure, intelligent films (sci-fi especially) should never hold the audience's hand and shout the obvious in your face, but this brief scene is important because it shows the true horror of the Alien's intentions and puts Ripley in a more harrowing situation than before. Am I wrong? Is it better left out?

 

- Is Alien 3 rubbish or an admirable failure? Was killing Hicks and Newt off the right move? It's ballsy as fuck but it robs Ripley of an ending and a family that she earned over two films of absolute personal torture.

 

- A trivia question: Lance Henriksen and Bill Paxton both have the amazing distinction of being killed onscreen by a Terminator, an Alien and a Predator. Henriksen also meets a grisly end at the hands of another horror icon. Who?

 

1) For me it's less a case of it being about Alien v Aliens, and more to do with the fact that I think Aliens is pretty much the complete film. It really is a remarkable piece of work that could so easily have gone utterly wrong - young director, largely unsung cast, very different use of the creatures, much longer running time - yet it never at any point looks as though it is going to be anything other than a triumph.

 

Cameron gives us very little action for the first 45 minutes or so. Then he gives us the cooling tower scene. At that point, when you first see it, you think to yourself, "Oh, hang on, it's all going to kick off now!" - and it doesn't. He hangs back for a while longer, gives the characters extra depth....and then REALLY lets rip. It's pretty fucking brave and admirable for someone with one good film under his belt to give that a go.

 

It's not a shot at Alien at all - Alien is a fantastic film. But Aliens is just jaw-droppingly fantastic.

 

2) Ridley Scott's made too many bad films to be considered a true great, which is really a poor effort on his part considering he has made Blade Runner and Alien, two truly great films, and several really good and underrated films like Black Rain, The Duellists, Someone To Watch Over Me and Matchstick Men. It's clear that his strength lies in science fiction and thrillers. He should just really have stuck more to do what he is very, very good at.

 

3) I haven't actually seen that version, so I can't really comment.

 

4) Neither. I just think it's a very good film. Certainly, I will always wonder what it could have been like if Fincher had full control over the film, but recently I've been of the thought that, y'know, maybe a full Fincher version might not have made for a considerably better film after all. You really don't know.

 

The deaths of Newt and Hicks are a move that really are a kick in the teeth, but I think necessary. I'm just not sure how they would have been able to fit into this particular story, plus I think it just heightens the sheer hopelessness of the situation she is in and hardens Ripley more as a character - which she needed to be considering where she is.

[Loki]

On the subject of Aliens and its brothers and sisters, I would like to pose some off-the-top-of-my-head questions to the forum:

 

- Alien or Aliens? And why?

 

Alien. Although it's an incredibly close call as both are quite fantastic. I would say Alien is one of the greatest films ever made, whereas Aliens is "merely" one of the greatest scifi films ever made. The conversation we're about to have about Ridley could equally be had about Cameron, incidentally.

 

 

- Is Sir Ridley Scott a world class filmmaker, only brilliant when the material is strong and challenging or a decent hack who got lucky over the years? His CV has some absolute stinkers and while Alien and Blade Runner are wonderfully crafted works, it's hard to think of a Ridley Scott directing signature that puts him up there with the greats. Plus, I reckon that there's an argument to be made that Blade Runner only works perfectly because its production was so fragmented. Furthermore, would anyone care about Scott's new film if it wasn't tied to this series?

 

There was a time when Ridley Scott was be best filmmaker in the world, and at least 2 of his films are often rated as the best of all time, so I think it's fair to say he was a world class director.

 

His signature, if you like, is incredible art direction. We've talked about the art of Blade Runner many times before but it's worth looking again at a couple of random stills. If you didn't know, how old would you say the film this shot is from?

 

 

And this looks like a Vermeer:

 

 

Less famously, Black Rain is an absolutely gorgeous film too.

 

Some directors get better and better with age; some don't. Prometheus could change my opinion, but essentially he hasn't made a great film since Thelma And Louise. Gladiator is alright, but it's hardly Shakespeare. And it's not like he hasn't had good opportunities - Kingdom of Heaven should have been a belter.

 

 

 

 

- The theatrical version of Alien omits a scene where Ripley discovers what's left of her crew (including a still alive Dallas who begs for death), confirming that the Alien was abducting them rather than simply killing them. It's in the Director's Cut, and I find it a very curious omission first time round. Sure, intelligent films (sci-fi especially) should never hold the audience's hand and shout the obvious in your face, but this brief scene is important because it shows the true horror of the Alien's intentions and puts Ripley in a more harrowing situation than before. Am I wrong? Is it better left out?

 

It's better left out for two reasons. Firstly, it doesn't really work, it looks a bit fake and that's why they left it out. Secondly, it's not necessary to know what happens to the bodies. The horror is only enhanced by them disappearing into the ether.

 

 

 

- Is Alien 3 rubbish or an admirable failure? Was killing Hicks and Newt off the right move? It's ballsy as fuck but it robs Ripley of an ending and a family that she earned over two films of absolute personal torture.

 

Alien 3 is really a lot better than it's generally accepted IMO. I wish there was still an extant copy of the work print as I reckon it was probably great. Visually, stylistically it's on point, and it adds to the mythos of the Alien in nice subtle ways, plus it has a mega cast. The deaths of Hicks and Ripley was the only way they could do the sequel, so it was the starting point for the whole thing I suspect. The ending still doesn't really make sense to me though.

 

- A trivia question: Lance Henriksen and Bill Paxton both have the amazing distinction of being killed onscreen by a Terminator, an Alien and a Predator. Henriksen also meets a grisly end at the hands of another horror icon. Who?

 

Damien?

[WildSybianRider]

- Alien or Aliens? And why?

 

 

I posted in the top-something films thread that I was surprised how much higher Aliens was. I like it a lot but I think I've seen it three, maybe four, times. Alien is one of my favourite ever films. Alien is why I settle down each night with a box of tissues to watch the Prometheus trailer. (Altho, by the trailer, it does seem more like Aliens.)

 

 

- Is Sir Ridley Scott a world class filmmaker, only brilliant when the material is strong and challenging or a decent hack who got lucky over the years? His CV has some absolute stinkers and while Alien and Blade Runner are wonderfully crafted works, it's hard to think of a Ridley Scott directing signature that puts him up there with the greats. Plus, I reckon that there's an argument to be made that Blade Runner only works perfectly because its production was so fragmented. Furthermore, would anyone care about Scott's new film if it wasn't tied to this series?

 

I'm not deep into films, so I can't really comment on his whole...... oeuvre. But given all the diff versions, doesn't Blade Runner count as about five great films on his CV? Alien and BR alone make him one of my favourites but like I say, I'm coming at this from pretty much a position of ignorance.

 

I'm always conflicted, though, on Ridley Scott. I love those two films so much. But I've seen Gladiator and Black Hawk Down and the guy loves civilized crusaders slaughtering savages, doesn't he?, hurling natives through arrows or bullets to glorify the imperial overlords. Both films are stylish but they're not exactly interesting and they have a pretty nasty undertone.

 

 

- The theatrical version of Alien omits a scene where Ripley discovers what's left of her crew (including a still alive Dallas who begs for death), confirming that the Alien was abducting them rather than simply killing them. It's in the Director's Cut, and I find it a very curious omission first time round. Sure, intelligent films (sci-fi especially) should never hold the audience's hand and shout the obvious in your face, but this brief scene is important because it shows the true horror of the Alien's intentions and puts Ripley in a more harrowing situation than before. Am I wrong? Is it better left out?

 

It's been so long (and so many viewings) that I don't know which version I watched first. I'm now finding it impossible to answer this question, fuuuuuuck.

 

 

- Is Alien 3 rubbish or an admirable failure? Was killing Hicks and Newt off the right move? It's ballsy as fuck but it robs Ripley of an ending and a family that she earned over two films of absolute personal torture.

 

Space cult prison was a fucking awesome concept. But the execution was boring. The scenes with the fire are tortuous.

[Mr. Seven]

Black Rain is great fun. They don't really make them like that anymore.

[patiirc]

Fuck off pat.

Fuck off Sev. As for the rest of your Alien questions

- Alien or Aliens? And why?

I had much more exposure to Aliens growing up, and really didnt see Alien bar a few appearences on ITV as the 10.30 film on occasion. Alien, is a fantastic claustrophobic horror that explores many different issues Ian Holm is immense as Ash, but Aliens with its mix of corporate subterfuge, gender role reversals, suspense and action that that wins in this case. Away from the tech and the Aliens themselves, the way women are dominant, from Ferro, the Drop Ship pilot and then Vasquez, Ripley and the Alien Queen it is women who are very much the stronger sex. At the time, leading an action movie in such a way was out of the norm and it helps heighten things by further mixing up or making defamiliar traditional action roles adding to it over all. When I was a kid it was all about the guns and the Aliens getting pasted, now there is a whole other level to it that continues to make it great.

- Is Sir Ridley Scott a world class filmmaker, only brilliant when the material is strong and challenging or a decent hack who got lucky over the years? His CV has some absolute stinkers and while Alien and Blade Runner are wonderfully crafted works, it's hard to think of a Ridley Scott directing signature that puts him up there with the greats. Plus, I reckon that there's an argument to be made that Blade Runner only works perfectly because its production was so fragmented. Furthermore, would anyone care about Scott's new film if it wasn't tied to this series?

Ridley is a good film maker, even the best have their flaws or failures. I dont think he has got 'lucky' it's just as with a myriad of directors, they choose or get attached to films that are for whatever reason get panned or are shit. Matchstick Men, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Black Rain and the two aforementioned films are great or classics, Some of the others are meh, but there are very, very few directors (if any) with a perfect CV

- The theatrical version of Alien omits a scene where Ripley discovers what's left of her crew (including a still alive Dallas who begs for death), confirming that the Alien was abducting them rather than simply killing them. It's in the Director's Cut, and I find it a very curious omission first time round. Sure, intelligent films (sci-fi especially) should never hold the audience's hand and shout the obvious in your face, but this brief scene is important because it shows the true horror of the Alien's intentions and puts Ripley in a more harrowing situation than before. Am I wrong? Is it better left out?

I cant recall ever seeing this tbh. It's an addition to the Director's Cut that was omitted from the original release because of pacing issues to do with Ripley's escape. Afaik not yet seen that version.

- Is Alien 3 rubbish or an admirable failure? Was killing Hicks and Newt off the right move? It's ballsy as fuck but it robs Ripley of an ending and a family that she earned over two films of absolute personal torture.

Alien 3 is a decent film considering it was a cluster fuck from start to finish of production. That it came out as well as it did is something of a surprise and iirc it made profit of around $100 Million Dollars. It wasn't the complete disaster that some people keep trying to suggest it is. Newt and Hicks, weren't needed for the story to be told as was. Whilst it may have appeased some for Ripley to finally have a 'family unit' for keeps, it would have sucked out much of the Ripley vs everything nature of the series. She isn't just fighting Aliens, she is fighting the system, The Company, The Prisoners and so on. Basically, it is 'The Universe vs Ripley' and though the Aliens are the main protagonists, they are not by any means the only source of conflict for Ripley.The further removal of the possibility of a 'stable' family unit of Mother, Father and Daughter, continues to hammer home the bleakness and distress of the whole thing. Keeping Newt and Hicks alive would dilute that concept, because she would have some possiblity of salvation which would remove some of the suspense. Newt being in danger had been covered in Aliens, going there again wouldn't add anything new to the series, if she became kick-ass like Ripley, you would end up with Cal, in Resurrection and her character didnt really work with the films either. Hicks being the 'eye candy', sorry dominant male of the series wouldnt work, because they would distract from Ripley's story. It wasnt ever about them, they were merely bit parts in a bigger whole. Edited May 29, 2012 by patdfb

[Halitosis Romantic]

The bit with the marines begging for death is in Alan Dean Foster's Aliens novelization, which I wish I still had.

[LaGoosh]

I thought American Gangster was pretty good.