Alien

From the film’s ominous beginning to its iconic, adrenaline-filled end, Alien is a masterpiece. Perfectly paced, this classic leaves people of all ages gripping their seats in excitement. The Alien creature is fear and terror incarnate, and is an amazing creation. Unlike Predator, the film spends time developing its human characters and pays incredible attention to visual detail. Alien is the finest of director Ridley Scott’s films, and that is saying something.
Once again, I have to recognize the incredible work of the creature designers. Scott’s Alien is one of science fiction’s most terrifying icons, a creation that’s second to none. And no, not even the Predator can really compare. The most memorably original traits of the Alien are probably the second mouth and the acid blood. In the words of a Nostromo crew member, it is “a perfect organism. It’s structural perfection is matched only by its hostility. It is a survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.” This spine-tingling monologue is high praise for a fancy movie prop, but upon seeing the murderous Alien onscreen, one really believes it.
In many respects, Alien is quite similar to Predator. Similar enough to spawn a disastrous crossover cash cow known as Alien vs. Predator, but that’s not the point. The elements that set this film apart from its younger, B-grade cousin lie chiefly in the human characters and the special effects. The cast of this film is significantly better developed than in Predator, and doesn’t set up a predictable, Austrian hero. Instead, the seven characters are given chances to act, utilizing lots of interaction, drama and back-story, as well as some occasional humor to keep it all going. This allows you to  care for the humans of the story, and grow to hate the dreaded Alien all the more.
In the realm of special effects, this film really shines. In over thirty years since its release, it hasn’t aged a day. The giant mining vessel in which the movie primarily takes place is tediously and realistically designed, and closely mirrors the actual look and feel of a present-day space shuttle. There are no absurd beeping noises or control panels with big buttons and flashing lights; this is not the starship Enterprise. Rather, it reminds me more of the design of a ship from Star Wars. The intricate sets along with the Alien creature make for a timelessly breathtaking visual ride.
Bearing all of this in mind, it’s hard to believe that Alien could ever have produced a worthy sequel. There is an innate mastery of filmmaking and dramatic exposition in Alien that can seldom be rivaled, particularly in the same franchise. But I digress. This film is an American masterpiece, and deserves ten out of ten stars.

Saw

The tired-out “Saw” series was never very high on my list of movies to see. I was always under the impression that it was gory garbage that relied too heavily on torture porn. Well I finally watched the first film, and was forced to reevaluate my whole standing on the franchise. It may not be the best horror movie out there, but its core concept of sick “games” are truly disturbing and worthy of the genre. The story was interestingly paced, though could have done with fewer silly twists. It’s not a great movie, but “Saw” may be one of the only horror flicks made in years that actually encompassed some form of sophistication and even some small doses of quality.
One of the great things about the first “Saw” film is the cleverly designed “games” that Jigsaw plays with his victims. One of the most famous of these is the situation with the reverse bear trap, where a woman must find a way to unlock a device that will eventually rip her face apart. I was surprised to see that these scenes barely even touched on the torture and goriness, and focused more on the setup and rules of the games. This distinction, I think, was what made this film good, while its sequels got progressively worse. It’s also what classified the film as a “psychological thriller” and not a characteristic horror flick, unlike the other six films in the franchise. No, film creators, three dimensions did not fix this problem at all.
Another cheap gimmick the “Saw” franchise tends to employ is ridiculous twists all throughout. Actually, the first film is no exception in this regard. One of the most famous twists is the knowledge that the Jigsaw killer was actually dying of cancer. The most absurd twist, however, came at the very end of the film. I won’t spoil it, but be assured it’s not exactly life-changing. The film may have suffered for it, but I was still impressed with the majority of “Saw.” There were many flashback scenes, several cuts to the goings-on of Jigsaw, and a subplot of two cops in a race to catch the killer before he struck again. These and the main story of Adam and Lawrence are artfully balanced, and make for an overall better film.
For the most part, “Saw” is still a mediocre movie. The fact that it holds any weight critically is mostly due to comparison with its vastly inferior sequels. The only reason to be interested in this film lies in its original idea of the torture games, an area where the film delivers beautifully. Its storyline is no Stephen King novel, though it at least soars above the level of Stephanie Meyer. For fans of the genre, “Saw” is worth a view. For the rest of us, it may be a movie to avoid. It deserves five out of ten stars.

I Apologize!!!

I am so sorry to my one follower and to my own conscience for these massive delays! I will get back into the swing of things now, and I will upload my review of Saw shortly. To my follower: your last wish shall be appeased, keep bringing them on.

Delays

Sorry for the delay on new reviews! The end of the semester draws to a close and I've been stuck in my dorm studying like a madman. I will be returning to a normal schedule in the next few days.

Superman Returns

When it was first announced that “Superman Returns” was going to be filmed, fans up and down the country grew wild, and the pressure was on for those filmmakers. They had the hopes of ten million Super-fans riding on their shoulders, and they were actually able to produce a decent movie. By no means is this film anywhere near the excellence of the original, but it has finally given Supes a chance to hold his head up. I applaud it for its nostalgic familiarity to the first film, and its decision to be a sequel that blatantly ignores the last two sequels, but its mediocre story and bland cast members somewhat disenchanted me. It’s nothing too special, but this film is definitely a step in the right direction for Supes.

When I first went to the theater to see this film, I was beside myself with excitement, I admit it. My excitement and happiness was greatly increased when the classic opening credits and familiar John Williams theme song from the first film began to play. And all throughout the film, I kept privately squeaking with joy every time a reference to the original film was dropped, such as the iconic night flight with Lois or the incredible return of Marlon Brando as Jor-el, for a brief time. I quickly realized that the film was intending to be a direct sequel to the second film in the franchise, and was choosing to ignore the existence of the last two sequels. This tidbit of information made me happier than ever, as “Superman III” and “IV” were utter garbage. This choice allowed the film to relax a bit, and create a good, unhampered story that could really work well.

The only problem was, they missed their opportunity. The storyline, I’m afraid, was very dull and completely unwanted. After this many years, a large subplot about Superman’s son and Lois Lane getting married to some stiff was not at all what audiences needed from the Man of Steel. Also, the large gap between movies could have allowed for a new, fresh villain from the comic books, but instead they threw Lex Luthor at us yet again, in another desperate bid for land, just like always. I also took issue with the utter blandness of the actors in this film. The worst of the lot was Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, who acted terribly and was not even close to the level of the great Margot Kidder. Also Kevin Spacey as Luthor was fairly lackluster and uninspired. The most important cast member, Superman himself, sure looked the part, but he was not exactly captivating in his acting.

For the most part, “Superman Returns” did alright. It stayed true to the original and was quite entrancing to watch, but suffered from a poor story and insipid acting. This film earns a fresh seven out of ten stars; I only wish it had come sooner and earned more.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

Just when the heartbroken fans of the “Superman” series thought that things couldn’t possibly get any worse, they were forced to think again. As impossible as it may seem, “Superman IV” managed to be even worse than its antecedents. The production company that made this film was well-known for being ridiculously stingy, and it shows in the special effects. This film was created in a time period where the nuclear weapons threat was still a big deal, and they incorporated that theme far too heavily into the storyline to be taken seriously. And somehow, everyone forgot how to act.

It’s hard to believe that the “Superman” franchise could have possibly allowed a film like “The Quest for Peace” to be made, but when it passed the production torch to Golan-Globus, all bets were off. The Golan-Globus production company was always notorious for being miserly, and the film’s original $36 million budget was cut to $17 million post-production. Therefore, the special effects suffered greatly. There were giant black lines around the characters every time they flew, the fight scenes looked terrible, and the running time was cut to less than an hour and a half. The latter didn’t stop anyone from impatiently checking their watches while watching, though.

One of the things that make “The Quest for Peace” so amazingly pitiful is WMD-smothered storyline. The film was created in a time period where nuclear weapons were the political centerpieces of all governmental actions, and Christopher Reeve strongly advocated to make that the primary theme of “Superman IV.” Well, his heart was in the right place, but his idea was a giant flop. Superman decided to put all of the weapons he found into a giant net floating in space, and then throw the net straight into the sun. This was cheesy enough, but then they went so far as to include a super villain called Nuclear Man. How hard is it really to incorporate some subtlety?

Both Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder stated in an interview that they considered the fourth and final film to be vastly substandard to the others, and Gene Hackman said something similar. Their opinions on the film may actually have affected the effort they put into their roles. All three of them did terrible jobs acting, and it made an already appalling film even worse.

Overall, “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” was one of the worst films ever made, and it shamed “Superman” forever. The film had a very low budget, which led to seriously low-quality special effects. The nuclear weapons theme was too obvious and way overused. The main actors did terribly this time. This film isn’t worth seeing at all, and it doesn’t earn a single star.

Superman III

It seems clear that the legacy of the “Superman” series is that each sequel is worst than the last. “Superman III” was definitely worse than “Superman II,” and since that one was bad to begin with, then where does that leave Number Three? Well, for starters, there was a director change. This director had some misunderstandings with some of the cast members, and they were actually written out of the film. The special effects were actually a lot worse than last time, which was something of a surprise. All of these things, along with overused slapstick humor and the worst villains of the 80s make for a very unpleasant movie experience.

The new director of “Superman III” wasn’t much of a people person, clearly. He actually managed to throw Lois Lane and Lex Luthor completely out of the story, just because they didn’t get along very well with him. That was a mistake of super-huge proportions, because those two were always brilliant additions to the “Superman” series. Instead, he added a new love interest, Lana Lang (why is it always L.L.?), and a two new villains, a self-aware supercomputer with Kryptonite weaponry, and an evil copy of himself. The new villains were unoriginal and completely ridiculous and the new girlfriend was just a blonde Lois Lane with inferior acting ability and no enthusiasm. These films should be directed by the fanboys.

Once again, the special effects were highly dissatisfying. I know it was the 80s and the effects are not like today, but in “Superman III” they actually got worse. Like when they tried to make Superman freeze a lake, pick it up, and drop it on a flaming building; it looked more fake than Michael Jackson’s nose. In yet another brilliant, strategic move, the genius director decided it would be helpful to stick in bad slapstick comedy to distract the action junkies. Was it funny? No. Did it help at all? Nope. Does bad slapstick comedy have any place in a movie about the Man of Steel? Absolutely and irrevocably no! This film is what modern day fans rightly call a super-fail.

Before I ever actually saw this movie, I’d heard nothing but very negative things about it. I thought that it couldn’t be as bad as what people were saying, and decided to check it out. And I saw this, and realized everything was true. Lois Lane and Lex Luthor were gone, only to be replaced by corny and clichéd characters whom no one could like. The villains were absurd, and the special effects were even worse than last time. Unnecessary and unfunny slapstick humor occupied half of the screen time, in a Superman movie, of all places. “Superman III” is not worth your time, or your money in any case. It gets 1 out of 10 stars. It’s best to just pretend it didn’t happen.