Blade Runner 2049 (2017) review

In 1982, director Ridley Scott released the second big science fiction film of his career, Blade Runner. An adaptation of author Philip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the film starred Harrison Ford in the role of Rick Deckard, a Los Angeles police officer tasked with hunting down humanoid robots known as Replicants in the year 2019. Upon release, the film didn’t do so well at the box-office and received a generally polarizing response from critics. A few years later, however, it started to attract a cult following that was paired with the release of different cuts of the film, which helped to provide new context to the narrative after the theatrical cut had been severely shuttered by studio-mandated cuts. Thus, this initially polarizing film has gone on to become one of the landmark entries in the sci-fi genre, and now, 35 years after the original, we finally return to the world of humans and Replicants with Blade Runner 2049. And as that long gap in time between these two films’ release dates suggest, this sequel was in development for many, many years. For a while, it seemed unclear if it would ever get made or if Scott and Ford would even be involved with it at all. But, ultimately, both are back for this highly-anticipated sequel, as Ford returns to the role of Deckard while Scott serves as the film’s executive producer. In the director’s chair this time around is Denis Villeneuve, who’s made quite a name for himself these past few years thanks to critically-acclaimed hits like 2015’s Sicario and 2016’s Arrival. And thanks to solid direction from Villeneuve, along with several of the things that made the original such a classic, fans of the original Blade Runner should be extremely satisfied with this long-awaited follow-up.

It’s admittedly rather hard to talk about this film’s plot as some of its elements delve into spoiler territory. Villeneuve even made a request to those who reviewed the film prior to its release to not reveal anything from the plot, and while this ‘embargo’ has technically been lifted now that it’s out, I’m still going to try and keep plot spoilers to a minimum in this synopsis. As the title suggests, this film takes place 30 years after the original Blade Runner in the year 2049. While the development of human-like robots known as Replicants has blossomed in the past few decades, several older models are still on the loose, requiring the continued need of special police officers known as Blade Runners to hunt them down and ‘retire’ them. One such officer is K (Ryan Gosling) who, after retiring a Replicant that’s been hiding out on a farm, stumbles across a fascinating discovery; the remains of a female Replicant who was pregnant despite it being theoretically impossible. Thus, K now finds himself on the search for this elusive child of the Replicant mother, who turns out to be none other than the former assistant of the original Replicant creator Dr. Eldon Tyrell, Rachael. This, of course, then leads to K crossing paths with Rachael’s lover, former Blade Runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who’s been missing for several years. And soon, the two find themselves hunted by the current leader in Replicant development, manufacturer Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), who seeks to use the child to further advance the process of creating Replicants.

Just like the original Blade Runner, one of the first things to stand out in this film is its impressive visual/production design. While visual effects have obviously come a long way since the original film, which had been made back when the art of CGI wasn’t fully realized yet, this film still manages to maintain the great atmospheric feel of the original while also utilizing its larger effects budget to its full potential. That and the always fantastic cinematography from the legendary Roger Deakins, along with the completely mesmerizing score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch, help as well when it comes to fully immersing you within this futuristic world. As for the main plot of this film, it manages to be a natural follow-up to its predecessor without ever feeling like it’s just a direct carbon copy of it. With that said, though, as was the case with the original Blade Runner, this film does maintain a slow and methodical pace throughout with a sparse amount of action sequences. This may once again prove to be problematic for some audiences, especially given that this film boasts a far heftier runtime compared to its predecessor at nearly three hours long (I think it’s safe to say that we won’t need a Director’s Cut for this one, unlike the original). And while I do think that the film is perhaps just a tad bit overlong, it still benefits from having a generally engaging story based around a solid cast of characters.

While the film does see the return of Harrison Ford in the role of Rick Deckard, it should be noted that he doesn’t actually appear in it until after the halfway point. Still, the character is well-utilized in his limited amount of screen-time and Ford once again does an excellent job as the gruff but emotionally conflicted former police officer. Ultimately, the film mainly belongs to Ryan Gosling in the role of K, who embarks on a very similar emotional journey compared to Deckard’s that yields equally fascinating results. But as for the film’s biggest standouts, that honor goes to its two main female leads. As Joi, K’s loving A.I. companion, Ana de Armas brings much warmth to this generally somber sci-fi story. Plus, she has great chemistry with Gosling and is arguably the most interesting character in the entire film given their relationship, which is ultimately the main source of the film’s emotional depth. Sylvia Hoeks, who plays Niander Wallace’s Replicant assistant Luv, is also great in a role that blurs the line between diligent assistant and a stone-cold killer. But as for Wallace, played by Jared Leto, he’s, unfortunately, one of the weaker parts of the film. And for the record, no, it’s not because of Leto’s trademark eccentric performance which, for many people, would’ve been a situation similar to his recent turn as the Joker in Suicide Squad. Instead, it’s more because he’s not in the film all that much… which, ironically, was also the case with Suicide Squad. While he does get to have a few effectively unsettling moments whenever he’s on-screen, the character feels vastly underdeveloped. I promise that I’m not spoiling anything when I say that there is absolutely no resolution for the character whatsoever.

Well, like the original Blade Runner, there’s not much else that I need to say about this film, and that’s because most of the internet has already done that for me. Also, I’m not going to be delving into any sort of diatribe about mainstream audiences’ apparent rejection of this film given its rather lackluster opening weekend at the box-office. If it just wasn’t their cup of tea, then that’s perfectly fine. And besides, the exact same thing happened to the original back in 1982… and look how that one turned out. At the end of the day, I bet that this film will go on to have the same kind of legacy that its predecessor has when all is said and done, and that is because Blade Runner 2049 is very much one of the best films of the year. Director Denis Villeneuve does an excellent job in giving us a film that serves as a fitting follow-up to its predecessor without losing any of the stuff that made the original such a classic in the first place. And while it is just as much as an undeniably slow burn as its predecessor, it also has its same great sense of visual/production design, strong storytelling, and layered characters that help to make it all worthwhile. In short, if you were a fan of the original Blade Runner, then you’ll be pleased to know that this film did manage to live up to most of the hype surrounding it.

Rating: 5/5!

Blade Runner (1982) review

(Disclaimer: As fans of this film know, there have been several versions of it that have been screened over the years. In total, 7 different cuts of the original Blade Runner have been known to exist. 5 of these can currently be found on the 30^th Anniversary Collector’s Edition Blu-Ray release. And while I’ll admit that my original plan for this film was to look at all 5 available versions of it, I soon realized that this would be too much to handle, especially in such a short period of time before the release of the sequel this weekend. Thus, today’s review will be of the film’s ‘Final Cut’, released in 2007, as this is director Ridley Scott’s preferred version. However, I will be addressing the major differences between all the various cuts after the review. Also, there will be spoilers, which are okay in this case given that the film came out in 1982. Still, I just wanted to put that warning out there for those who have yet to see this film.)

Sometimes a film manages to overcome its initially tepid critical and commercial reception to become one of the most beloved entries in its genre. That was exactly the case with Ridley Scott’s 1982 seminal sci-fi classic, Blade Runner. The film was an adaptation of author Phillip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and was Scott’s first big project after helming another sci-fi classic, Alien. However, upon its initial release, Blade Runner did not fare well at the box-office and was subjected to many a mixed review. It wasn’t until after its initial release that it would eventually go on to become a staple of the science fiction genre, touted especially for the production and visual designs that went into creating its futuristic setting. And, of course, this weekend sees the release of the film’s long-awaited sequel, Blade Runner 2049. While Scott is still involved as an executive producer, Denis Villeneuve, director of critically-acclaimed hits like Sicario and Arrival, takes on directorial duties for the sequel, set 30 years after the events of the original film. But before we see what happens next to Blade Runner Rick Deckard, it’s time to look back at the film that started it all and ask one simple question. Is the original Blade Runner truly the sci-fi masterpiece that everyone says it is? Well, based on my first viewing of its ‘Final Cut’, I’d say that yes, yes it is!  

In the year 2019, the Tyrell Corporation has revolutionized the field of bioengineering with the development of ‘Replicants’, life-like androids that possess superior strength and intellect over their creators. However, after an incident on an off-world colony, Replicants were then deemed illegal on Earth, requiring the use of special police officers known as ‘Blade Runners’ to ‘retire’ them (‘retire’ being the term used to describe the killing of a Replicant) if they ever trespassed there. One such Blade Runner is Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) who, despite having retired from the job, is called back into action by his superiors. They then proceed to task him with the job of hunting down four trespassing Replicants; combat model and leader Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), nuclear-head loader Leon Kowalski (Brion James), ‘basic pleasure’ model Pris Stratton (Daryl Hannah), and murder squad model Zhora Salome (Joanna Cassidy). Due to the limited lifespan of their design (four years, to be precise), the four Replicants have arrived on Earth looking for a way to extend their lives. Thus, Deckard now finds himself on the hunt for these four Replicants before they can achieve their goal. Along the way, he also becomes romantically involved with Rachael (Sean Young), the assistant of Tyrell Corporation founder Dr. Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel), who is also revealed to be a Replicant.

Now, of course, one of the most iconic elements of this film is its visual/production design. In a time where CGI effects still weren’t fully realized yet, a lot of effort went into creating the futuristic landscape of 2019 Los Angeles in a practical manner, from matte paintings to models to having to film certain scenes several times with different lighting set-ups. Bottom line, these visuals still hold up incredibly well today,  and it’s easy to see why this film’s futuristic setting became the standard that many sci-fi films have borrowed from in the years since, like Ghost in the Shell and The Fifth Element just to name a few. But, of course, this film is much more than just a bunch of pretty visuals. It’s also a well-layered story with a lot of deep themes… which I won’t go into here because, simply put, there are people out there who can analyze this stuff far better than I can. Now, admittedly, this film is a bit of a slow burn, and although there are some good action sequences in it, they’re not exactly grand-scale affairs like most other films in the sci-fi genre. And yet, just like Scott’s other sci-fi classic, Alien, this film manages to keep you fully engaged throughout. Whereas Alien’s slow burn mainly helped to build up the suspense of its horror plot, Blade Runner’s slow burn allows the audience to become fully immersed in its world… that and it also gives you more time to appreciate the film’s gorgeous visuals.

Nowadays, Harrison Ford has generally been known for his rather grumpy behavior as witnessed in several interviews. Thus, you could say that this is what ultimately made him a perfect fit for the role of Deckard in this film, as the character is initially established as someone who’s forcibly pushed back into the business of hunting Replicants. All joking aside, though, Ford does do an excellent job as per usual in the role. Rutger Hauer is also quite excellent as the main antagonist, Roy Batty. Hauer commands the screen whenever he appears thanks to Batty’s calm and collected composure, especially during his iconic final monologue when he remarks about how the things that he’s seen will be forever ‘lost in time, like tears in rain’. And yes, as it’s been well-documented, Hauer himself wrote much of that monologue. As for the other members of Batty’s Replicant squad, admittedly they don’t get as much to work with by comparison (e.g. Joanna Cassidy’s Zhora only appears in one scene; an iconic one for sure but still brief) but they too do great jobs in their respective roles and they all have their standout moments. The same applies to the other main Replicant in the film, Rachael, played by Sean Young, as the overall conflict surrounding her having to come to terms with her identity as a Replicant that’s so advanced that she genuinely thinks she’s human provides the film with some of its best emotional moments.

In short, what more can be said about this film that hasn’t been said before? Blade Runner truly is a landmark entry in the sci-fi genre. It’s a film that countless others have taken inspiration from when it comes to creating a futuristic landscape. But, of course, at the end of the day, this film still holds up after all these years. Sure, it’s undeniably slow-paced, resulting in a more cerebral sci-fi thriller than an action-oriented one. However, thanks to Scott’s excellent direction and a strong ensemble cast, you’re fully invested in everything that’s going on in this film. Like any good film, it ends up leaving quite the impact on the viewer by the end of it, whether it’s through Roy Batty’s famous ‘tears in rain’ monologue or the final scene that has led to much debate over the possibility of Deckard being a Replicant himself, especially depending on which version of the film is being watched. And, of course, the film’s pre-CGI era visuals still stand as some of the best to ever come out of a science fiction film. Thus, Blade Runner is easily one of director Ridley Scott’s best films, and while the copious amounts of cuts that this film has may seem daunting to those who haven’t seen it, it’s still a masterpiece any way you look at it.

Rating: 5/5!

THE VARIOUS CUTS OF BLADE RUNNER

As we all know, Blade Runner has gone through quite a number of iterations over the years. After some disastrous test screenings, the film was edited down by the studio for its initial theatrical release against the wishes of Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford. In the years since, however, new ‘cuts’ of the film have been released that have provided audiences with some interesting new additions to this sci-fi masterpiece. In fact, some of these changes even alter the nature of the plot entirely, specifically during the ending. Ultimately, though, many argue that the film is always great no matter what version you’re watching. And today, we’ll be discussing the major differences between the 7 known versions of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner.

We start things off with the original Workprint cut of the film, which was shown to test audiences in March of 1982 in the cities of Denver and Dallas. However, the response to this version was mediocre at best, which then led to the various cuts that were made to the theatrical release. A few years later in both 1990 and 1991, this version was shown again in Los Angeles and San Francisco, where it was touted as a ‘director’s cut’. However, these screenings were unauthorized and Scott did not approve of the ‘director’s cut’ designation. Still, it did fare better with its audience this time around compared to the initial screenings, which then ultimately led to the creation of a true director’s cut the following year. This version did not feature the ‘happy ending’ that was added to the theatrical cut and it also opened with a different intro. Instead of starting with the opening crawl that explained the history of Replicants, a definition of the term ‘Replicant’ was used in its place. It also didn’t include the famous unicorn dream sequence. Two months after the initial screenings, another Sneak Preview version was shown in San Diego. This one was more like the impending theatrical cut but featured three scenes that ended up getting cut in the latter version. These three scenes, consisting of a different intro scene for Roy Batty, a shot of Deckard reloading his gun after his fingers are broken by Batty, and a scene where Deckard and Rachael ride off (which would’ve presumably tied into the theatrical cut’s ending) have not surfaced since, not even with the recent Collector’s Edition release.

Which brings us to the original Theatrical Cut of the film; the one that was re-edited following the initial test screenings. This version introduced the ‘happy ending’ where Deckard and Rachael escape from Los Angeles. By comparison, other versions of the film simply ended with them leaving Deckard’s apartment without any indication of what lied ahead. Some of the final shots of Deckard and Rachael’s departure were unused aerial shots from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. This version also featured voice-over narration from Ford; however, this narration was ultimately poorly-received by most audiences. Ford himself would later quell rumors that he intentionally performed the narration poorly in protest of the film’s changes, instead stating that he simply did his best with the poor material. Internationally, a different ‘theatrical cut’ was being shown, with a few more violent moments that were later included in the Final Cut (e.g. Batty’s brutal killing of Dr. Tyrell). Four years later, the film had its Broadcast Premiere on CBS. As was the case with almost every major film that airs on network television, it was edited down to meet broadcast standards, which meant toned down violence, language, and nudity. It also implicated that Deckard is, indeed, human via a teaser that aired immediately before it and featured a slightly different opening crawl compared to the theatrical cut.

As the film began to attract a cult following during the late 80’s, paired with the previously mentioned unauthorized ‘workprint’ screenings in 1990 and 1991, an official Director’s Cut ended up getting released in 1992. This version added in the big unicorn dream sequence, which helped to fuel the flames of the long-running ‘Is Deckard a Replicant?’ debate brought upon by the origami unicorn that fellow officer Gaff (Edward James Olmos) leaves in Deckard’s apartment in the final scene. However, the full sequence is not featured in this version as the original footage wasn’t of good quality at the time. It also removed the controversial voice-overs from the Theatrical Cut along with the ‘happy ending’. While Scott did have a hand in the development of this cut, he would later state that he wasn’t able to give it the full attention that it deserved because of time constraints, money constraints, and his commitment to 1991’s Thelma and Louise. Thus, we come to the Final Cut, which was released in 2007. Scott had complete creative control over this version, which reinserted the violent scenes seen in the International Cut along with the entire unicorn dream sequence. It also featured a re-edited version of Zhora’s death scene. Originally, Joanna Cassidy’s stunt double performed most of the scene, resulting in some obvious tell-tale signs that it wasn’t Cassidy doing the scene. Thus, with the Final Cut, Cassidy’s head was digitally transposed onto the stunt double, thereby fixing the continuity error.

And that’s my review/discussion of Blade Runner and its various cuts. Thanks for following along and be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own thoughts on the different cuts of this sci-fi masterpiece. Heck, while you’re at it, feel free to chime in with your stance on the whole ‘Is Rick Deckard a Replicant’ debate too. You can also expect a review of the sequel, Blade Runner 2049, sometime in the next few days.

“It’s too bad she won’t live! But then again, who does?”

Alien: Covenant (2017) review

In 1979, Ridley Scott directed a sci-fi horror film that would go on to become one of the quintessential films of the sci-fi genre; Alien. It was then followed by Aliens, directed by James Cameron, in 1986; that film would also become one of the most critically acclaimed films of the genre. After that, though, the Alien franchise admittedly started to go downhill. Both 1992’s Alien 3, directed by David Fincher in his directorial debut, and 1997’s Alien: Resurrection, directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet and written by pre-Buffy the Vampire Slayer Joss Whedon, went through rather tumultuous productions and that ultimately translated to both films’ mediocre reception amongst critics and audiences. And don’t get me started on the infamous crossover films that the series had with the Predator franchise in the early 2000’s. However, in 2012, the Alien franchise was revitalized by the man who started it all; Ridley Scott. That year saw the release of Prometheus, a pseudo-prequel to the original Alien that wasn’t directly tied to the events of that film but was still set in the same general universe. The film did perform solidly on both a critical and commercial level but would prove to be one of the most polarizing films of that year. It spawned an equal number of fans and dissenters, the latter of whom criticized it for leaving some plotlines unanswered in a philosophical-based plot focusing on the origins of humanity. And thus, here we are this year with Alien: Covenant. Scott returns to direct this follow-up to Prometheus, which claims that it’ll provide some of the answers to the unexplained mysteries of its immediate predecessor. Whether it does or not is ultimately up to the viewer, but Scott does deliver another enjoyable, if somewhat predictable, suspenseful adventure in this historic franchise.

In the year 2104, the colonization ship Covenant travels to a remote planet named Origae-6. Onboard are over 2,000 colonists, around 1,000 embryos, and a 15-man crew made up of advanced synthetic android Walter (Michael Fassbender) and several couples, including Captain Jacob (James Franco) and terraforming expert Daniels Branson (Katherine Waterston), First Mate Christopher (Billy Crudup) and biologist Karine Oram (Carmen Ejogo), and pilots Tennessee (Danny McBride) and Maggie Faris (Amy Seimetz). When a run-in with an unexpected neutrino blast severely damages the ship, even causing a few casualties in the process, the crew, forced out of stasis, begins to consider other options should something like this happen again. Specifically, they come across a mysterious transmission from a nearby planet that they learn has a seemingly viable atmosphere that they can potentially inhabit. Deciding that they’d rather not risk going through another stasis-based catastrophe, the crew heads down to the planet to investigate. However, once they arrive, they unknowingly unleash a collection of terrifying creatures that begin to hunt them down. Along the way, they also learn what happened to the surviving crew members of the Prometheus; Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and the android David (also played, once again, by Michael Fassbender).

As was the case with Alien and Prometheus, one of the absolute best parts about Alien: Covenant is its overall production design. From the scenic landscapes of the remote planet that the crew lands on to the cramped confines of the crew’s ship, as is tradition with the Alien films, the film has some excellent cinematography and special effects. Yes, the alien creatures are primarily CG this time around but from a technical perspective, this film is practically flawless. Admittedly, though, I don’t think that the film delivers on its intention of returning to the series’ horror roots. Sure, the action in Covenant outdoes any Alien film before it in terms of how gruesome it is, but overall, the film is more like Prometheus in that the plot is more based around mystery and suspense. And, for the most part, I do think that the film does succeed in having an engaging mystery plot. With that in mind, though, the question remains; does this deliver on its promise of answering some of the questions that were left unanswered by its predecessor? Well, I’m not entirely sure that it does, but it does continue to lay the groundwork for the events of the Alien franchise in fascinating ways. Though, admittedly, if I did have any gripes with the writing, it’s that the film ends on a rather lackluster note. For the record, this has nothing to do with the overall context of the plot or how it sets up a sequel; it’s more because of this one big reveal that the film ends on. And to be perfectly frank, without giving it away in this review, you’ll likely see this twist coming a mile away.

The film also boasts a solid ensemble cast. Sure, most of the characters are your typical ‘expendable’ crew members and the fact that there are around 15 ‘primary’ characters in this film sometimes makes it hard to keep track of all of them. However, at the same time, because most of them are paired up as couples, it does kind of make things a bit more interesting on an emotional level whenever one half of a couple is killed off. This is especially the case with Katherine Waterston’s character, Daniels. Right out the gate, she becomes one of the most sympathetic characters in the film, thanks in no small part to Waterston’s excellent performance in the role, after (Minor Spoiler!) her husband is killed in the neutrino blast incident that forces the Covenant crew out of stasis. But when chaos ensues, she easily slips into the same badass territory that the franchise’s iconic heroine, Ellen Ripley, has always been known for. Danny McBride is also great in an against-type role as pilot Tennessee, another likable member of the crew. And, of course, there’s Michael Fassbender, in a dual role, no less! He returns as Prometheus’ main android David, who’s still as enigmatic as ever and still one of the most fascinating characters in the entire franchise. At the same time, he also plays the Covenant’s android, Walter, who, despite being more advanced than David, still has some interesting quirks of his own. Fassbender does a great job of differentiating between the two characters and any scenes where the two share the screen together are a major highlight.

Well, it seems like we have another Prometheus on our hands as far as this film’s current critical reception is concerned. Just like its predecessor, I’ve seen plenty of responses towards this film, both positive and negative. So, where do I stand? Well, I’d say that I’m somewhere in the middle of this spectrum but am leaning more towards the positive camp. I can’t say that the film is perfect as there are some noticeable flaws, especially a rather predictable finale that’s based around an obvious twist. However, despite this, the film still manages to be an engrossing new story set within this universe, thanks in part to its solid ensemble cast and the same great technical merits of its predecessor. And, through it all, I’m still interested in seeing where they go from here (Scott has stated that a sequel is currently being prepped and will likely start production next year). Because despite the previously mentioned obvious twist that anchors the whole ending, to the film’s credit it does end on a rather ballsy note. And while it’s debatable over how much the film answers Prometheus’ mysteries, it’s still very interesting to see how it begins to set the stage for what we saw from the previous Alien films. Thus, while it won’t win over everyone who wasn’t a fan of Prometheus, Alien: Covenant is still an entertaining entry in this long-running franchise.

Rating: 4/5

Alien Series Retrospective (1979-2012)

In 1979, a sci-fi horror film was released to theaters, with one of the most iconic taglines in film history; ‘In Space, no one can hear you scream’. This tagline was for director Ridley Scott’s classic, Alien, a film that has gone on to become one of the most iconic films of the sci-fi genre while also spawning a highly successful media franchise in the years since. And this weekend, Scott returns to the franchise that he helped create with Alien: Covenant, a follow-up to the franchise’s 2012 ‘prequel’ Prometheus, which he also directed. By the looks of it, this new film is returning to the series’ original roots as an intense sci-fi horror flick. And in honor of its release, today we’ll be looking at the films in the Alien franchise when it was at its highest of highs… and its lowest of lows. Specifically, we’ll be looking at its four initial installments, which starred Sigourney Weaver in the role of Lt. Ellen Ripley, and Prometheus. I won’t be covering the two Alien vs. Predator crossover films that came out in 2004 and 2007, respectively, for multiple reasons. First off, if I did decide to cover these films, I’d have to look at the Predator films as well, and I’m saving that for the upcoming Predator film, directed by Shane Black, which isn’t set to come out until next summer. Also, I’m aware that both AvP films have attracted a generally negative reaction from both critics and audiences. So… I didn’t want to bother with them anyway. Though with that said, I guess that I will have to cover those eventually when I do that Predator post next year. Well, until then, grab your big guns and avoid those alien eggs because here is my look back at the films of the Alien franchise.

ALIEN (1979)

We start things off, of course, with the original Alien from 1979; Ridley Scott’s classic tale of a spaceship crew who are awoken from stasis to investigate a mysterious transmission from an uncharted planet. This investigation, however, soon results in the crew being hunted by a terrifying alien creature that’s literally ‘birthed’ from one of their own crewmates. While initially polarizing amongst critics upon release, it has since gone on to become one of the most iconic films of the sci-fi genre, and rightfully so as it’s an excellently-made space-set chiller. A lot of this is due to Scott’s direction. His use of long, slow-moving, and uninterrupted takes helps add to the overall suspense, along with the general nature of the film’s setting. The film is primarily set within the dark and cramped confines of the crew’s ship, the Nostromo, and it results in an effectively intense and unsettling atmosphere because of the claustrophobic feeling throughout. Even moments that don’t involve the Alien, like when crew member Ash (Ian Holm) is revealed to be an android, have a great and suspenseful vibe to them. In fact, the Alien doesn’t even appear until just under an hour in. Like I said before, this is a slow-moving film but there’s never a dull moment in this. Thus, it’s easy to see why Alien is still regarded as one of the best films in both the science-fiction and horror genres. While I’m not that big a fan of the latter genre, this film does succeed in being a part of it thanks to Ridley Scott’s excellent direction and a solid cast that includes the likes of Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt, Ian Holm, and John Hurt. Heck, this wouldn’t be the last time that a sci-fi film directed by Scott would overcome initial critical reception to become a seminal classic of the genre… but more on that when Blade Runner 2049 comes out.

Rating: 5/5!

ALIENS (1986)

After making a name for himself in 1984 with The Terminator, James Cameron was brought on to write and direct the follow-up to Alien, titled Aliens. However, Cameron faced some scrutiny during production from the primarily British crew, who felt that he was inexperienced for a project of this magnitude. However, upon release, Aliens would go on to become just as beloved as the original Alien. This, of course, leads to the primary debate of the franchise; Alien or Aliens? Me personally, I lean slightly more towards the latter. I’ll admit that this may be because I’m not a big horror fan but this shouldn’t take anything away from Ridley Scott’s masterpiece. As for Aliens, though, while Cameron does lean more towards the action genre in this sci-fi story, it doesn’t mean that he completely shies away from the franchise’s horror roots. There are still some incredibly tense and creepy moments throughout this film along with the same great dark and claustrophobic set designs that the first film had. Ultimately, though, this film is more action-oriented than the first and it delivers on that aspect brilliantly. Plus, this film has arguably the best ensemble cast in the history of the franchise. Of course, it’s all led by Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, who went from being the secondary protagonist of the original film to one of cinema’s most badass action heroines in this film. Heck, she was so good in this film that she got nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress, a rarity for the genre. But the rest of the cast is excellent as well, including Carrie Henn as the scared young girl Newt, who Ripley becomes a surrogate mother to, and Lance Henriksen as this film’s android, Bishop. Even minor characters like Hudson (the late Bill Paxton (RIP); “Game over, man, game over!”) and Vazquez (Jenette Goldstein) are extremely memorable. In short, Aliens is just as much of a masterpiece as its immediate predecessor, but if you forced me to choose one over the other, I’d go with Cameron’s sci-fi action epic.

Rating: 5/5!

ALIEN 3 (1992)

I’ve talked about this film before in my Directorial Retrospective on its director, David Fincher, way back in 2014 so I won’t repeat myself too much here. Bottom line; Alien 3 was, unfortunately, a disappointing follow-up to the first two Alien films, namely because it went through one of the most tumultuous productions of all time. Several writers and directors were brought in to try and figure out its overall plot, from William Gibson’s HIV-influenced storyline to Vincent Ward’s concept of a ‘wooden’ planet that held a monastery. Ultimately, David Fincher was brought in to direct; sadly, his directorial debut put him through hell. He was given little time to prepare and didn’t have a full script when filming began. To make matters worse, the studio blocked many of his ideas during the shoot; thus, it’s easy to see why Fincher has since disowned the film. I don’t blame him; the primary flaws of the film aren’t his fault. Alien 3 makes the questionable decision of going down a dark and gloomy route that goes against the optimistic ending of the previous film. Case in point, the opening scene sees most of the surviving cast of the previous film killed off, with Ripley being forced into an all-male prison. Of course, Fincher is well-known nowadays for his dreary thrillers but here, it just doesn’t translate as well. The supporting characters are all bland, partially because they’re predominantly a collection of similar-looking bald white men. Not to mention, these are all murderers, rapists, etc.; they’re not exactly a sympathetic bunch. Thankfully, Sigourney Weaver is still great as always as Ripley and the film’s ending is a highlight, as Ripley sacrifices herself when she learns that an Alien has manifested within her to keep the Weyland Corporation, the primary ‘evil corporation’ of the franchise, from using it for nefarious purposes. Had it not been for the next installment of the series, this would’ve at least ended the franchise on a decent note despite the film that it came from.

But now, let’s talk about the film’s alternate cut. Each of the first four Alien films has gotten a ‘Special Edition’ released over the years. But while the first two films didn’t add ‘that’ much to their Special Editions (though James Cameron and Sigourney Weaver have expressed preference towards the ‘Special Edition’ of Aliens for having more depth to it), the ‘Assembly Cut’ of Alien 3 adds in 30-plus minutes of material to try and improve upon the original theatrical cut. And for the most part, it does manage to do that. Some additions are welcome aesthetic changes, like having Ripley end up on the prison planet’s beach instead of being found in the crashed ship (which fixes a few plot-holes from the theatrical cut) and having the Alien emerge from an ox instead of a dog. But then there are some additions that improve the narrative, like a greater focus on the inmates’ religious beliefs and how Ripley’s arrival puts that into chaos, allowing for some additional character development for some of the main inmates. Crazed inmate Golic (Paul McGann), particularly, is focused on more in this version of the film as we see him become fascinated with the alien, so much so that he begins to compromise the protagonists’ efforts to destroy it. However, despite the improvements that it makes over the clearly truncated Theatrical Cut, I still can’t go as far as to say that it completely saves the film. Parts of it are still a chore to sit through, especially considering that the extended cut is almost two-and-a-half hours long. In conclusion, if you’re going to watch Alien 3, stick to the ‘Assembly Cut’ as it’s more in line with what Fincher was going for. Still, it isn’t enough to save the film, which will easily go down as one of the most hellish productions in film history, from being a mediocre conclusion to the Alien trilogy, a designation which lasted five years until…

Ratings: Theatrical Cut: 1.5/5 Assembly Cut: 2.5/5

ALIEN: RESURRECTION (1997)

While Alien 3 ended with the death of Ellen Ripley, the studio ended up reviving the franchise half a decade later with Alien: Resurrection. To bring back Sigourney Weaver, the plot involves scientists cloning Ripley, who gains ‘alien’ abilities due to her DNA being mixed with the Alien queen that was first introduced in Aliens. Like its predecessor, this film was primarily developed by a soon-to-be-famous filmmaker; in this case, the film’s writer, Joss Whedon, before he became known for his hit TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and way before The Avengers. And like with Fincher and Alien 3, the flaws of Resurrection are not primarily his fault. What we have here is a film that suffers from major tonal inconsistency. Whedon intended for the film to have a tongue-in-cheek feel to it; however, the film’s director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amelie), decided to play everything straight-faced. Thus, the film maintains a ‘serious’ tone throughout despite various moments that are extremely over-the-top, especially those that involve Brad Dourif as one of the scientists in charge of the whole process. This over-the-top nature also extends to the cast. Sigourney Weaver is still just as great as she’s always been as Ripley but the rest of the cast is hit-and-miss because many are just hamming it up. And while the supporting characters are more memorable than the ones from Alien 3, they’re still a generally expendable group. Overall, Alien: Resurrection is more ‘enjoyable’ than Alien 3, partially because it doesn’t carry the same grim tone. However, the film’s tone is all over the place, resulting in unintentionally hilarious moments that were trying to be serious. Thus, what was intended to be a better conclusion to the series than its predecessor just made the whole situation worse.

Rating: 2/5

PROMETHEUS (2012)

And finally, we conclude with the film that has become one of the most polarizing films in recent years; the pseudo-prequel to the Alien franchise, Prometheus. Ridley Scott returned to direct this film which, for the record, is not technically a prequel to the original Alien. It takes place in the same general universe as the other films but it is, ultimately, its own thing (e.g. this film does not take place on the same planet visited in the original Alien, despite the clear similarities). And to the film’s credit, it does a solid job of being its own separate story in this larger universe. Its overall plot, which delves into the mystery of humanity’s origins, is a fascinating one and I wouldn’t say that there’s a dull moment in the entire film. The production design is fantastic, particularly due to Scott emphasizing the use of as many practical effects as possible. And the film’s ensemble cast is solid as well, particularly Noomi Rapace as main protagonist Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, a much different kind of character compared to Ripley, Michael Fassbender as the enigmatic android David, and Idris Elba as the ship’s charismatic captain, Janek. But while the film is well-made on a technical level, its writing has been the main source of its polarizing response. Many have criticized the film for bringing up tons of questions that went unanswered. My thoughts on the matter? Well, I do agree that there are some plotlines that were only given vague explanations, like why the crew comes across a gigantic statue of a head during their mission. I think it’s safe to say that the ambition of the filmmakers might’ve surpassed what they could do in just one film. However, from the looks of it, Alien: Covenant will at least answer some of the unexplained mysteries that this film explored. And overall, I wasn’t too bothered by some of the more mysterious elements of the plot; I’d argue it makes the whole film more interesting. Thus, you can say that, overall, I’m still in the camp that likes this film. Admittedly, it may partially have to do with the fact that I have a personal connection to this film because it’s the first R-rated film I ever saw in theaters, but I do think that it’s still worth checking out if admittedly more for its technical aspects than the writing.

Rating: Way back in 2012, my first year on this blog, I had reviewed this film and gave it a 4.5/5 rating. Upon re-watch, I decided to lower that initial rating down to a 4/5 rating, which is still a strong rating on my scale.

"Final report of the commercial starship Nostromo, third officer reporting. The other members of the crew — Kane, Lambert, Parker, Brett, Ash and Captain Dallas — are dead. Cargo and ship destroyed. I should reach the frontier in about six weeks. With a little luck, the network will pick me up. This is Ripley, last survivor of the Nostromo, signing off."

The Martian (2015) review

Ridley Scott is without a doubt one of the most prolific directors working today in Hollywood. He’s directed numerous cinematic classics over the span of nearly four decades, from a pair of critically acclaimed sci-fi films in 1979’s ‘Alien’ and 1982’s ‘Blade Runner’ to 2000’s Best Picture-winning swords-and-sandals epic ‘Gladiator’. But in recent years, some may argue that Scott’s filmography has experienced a decline in terms of quality. His 2010 collaboration with his ‘Gladiator’ star Russell Crowe, ‘Robin Hood’, ended up being a critical/commercial disappointment upon release. He fared better, for the most part, in 2012 with ‘Prometheus’, a ‘prequel’ to the ‘Alien’ franchise that he had originally kick-started, but the film has since become one of the most polarizing films of the last few years. After that, his next two films, 2013’s ‘The Counselor’ and last year’s ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’, both ended up getting generally trashed by critics. This year, however, it looks like Scott has a major success on his hands with his newest film, ‘The Martian’. Based off of the 2011 novel of the same name by Andy Weir, ‘The Martian’ centers on an astronaut who must survive on Mars after he gets left behind by his crew. What follows is a highly engaging and smartly written story of survival highlighted by a terrific lead performance.

The film opens up with the crew of the Ares III while they are in the middle of a manned mission on Mars. When an intense dust storm hits their area, they are forced to evacuate. However, during the return to their ship, astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is separated from the group when he gets knocked away by debris. Presumed dead, the rest of his crew, led by Ares III commander Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain), end up leaving the planet without him. But, unbeknownst to both them and NASA, Watney actually did survive and is now trapped on the Red Planet. With no way of contacting NASA and being forced to deal with the limited resources of his crew’s artificial habitat, which wasn’t designed to last for the amount of time it would take for another NASA mission to return for him, Watney is tasked with finding a way to grow food ‘on a planet where nothing grows’. Being an experienced botanist, Watney begins to ‘science the s*** out of the situation’ while also working to get back into contact with NASA. Once he manages to achieve both of these goals, the staff at NASA, as well as Watney’s crew, begin working on a way to get Watney home safe and sound.

This film has been getting a lot of attention for being ‘scientifically accurate’, from the way that Watney is able to produce water while on Mars to a scene in which he has to patch up his helmet when it cracks. And while it’s undoubtedly a very smart film, it never tries to overcomplicate matters. Some of the film’s scientific elements may fly over the heads of some people but at the same time it never talks down to them. Also, for a film that’s, at its core, a story of survival against all odds in one of the harshest environments imaginable, it’s actually not that intense, at least when compared to 2013’s big space survival film ‘Gravity’. Yes the main character is in a difficult situation and there are definitely some tense moments layered throughout the film but it ultimately maintains a generally light-hearted tone throughout, which is primarily due to Watney’s optimistic attitude, his witty video logs, and his clear disdain for Commander Lewis’ library of disco music. All of this results in a film that’s actually quite funny at times, which is something that one wouldn’t normally expect from director Ridley Scott as most of his other films are much more serious in tone.  

Obviously the key to the entire film is Matt Damon’s performance in the lead role of Watney and Damon more than succeeds in that regard. Damon of course is on his own for the majority of the film’s run-time and pretty much single-handedly carries the entire film on his back. As Watney, he’s very likable, even when he acts rather cocky, and you genuinely do root for him to succeed. Damon’s so good in this that the film’s ‘weakest’ points are basically the instances where he’s not on-screen. Now, for the record, I’m not completely criticizing the scenes of the film that focus on either some of the major employees at NASA, including NASA head Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels) and engineer Vincent Kapoor (Chiwetel Ejiofor), or the other members of Watney’s crew (Chastain, Kate Mara, Michael Pena, Sebastian Stan, and Aksel Hennie). The ensemble cast is great all around but perhaps there are just a bit too many characters to keep track of. Sure the film actually does manage to credit all of the major supporting characters in the film but at the end of the day, it is Watney who gets the most amount of character development. Again I’m not holding that against the film too much but admittedly the best scenes are with Watney and when he’s not on-screen, that’s when this almost two-and-a-half hour film tends to drag.

‘The Martian’ is a science-fiction film that very much emphasizes science over fiction. It’s a very smartly-written story that conveys its science in a way that’s easily accessible to the audience without ever becoming too convoluted. The film is consistently compelling throughout its hefty 141-minute runtime and is even rather humorous due to its light-hearted tone and witty screenplay courtesy of Drew Goddard. But at its core, it carries the simple themes of optimism, ingenuity, and the will of the human spirit to overcome adversity even when the odds are stacked against them. And as I’ve stated earlier this year in my review of ‘Tomorrowland’, we definitely need more sci-fi films like that; ones that convey messages/themes of hope and optimism over fear of the apocalypse. Matt Damon absolutely shines in the lead role of Mark Watney and is backed up by an excellent ensemble cast, even if at the end of the day he’s the one that gets the most attention and scenes without him tend to drag a little. Simply put, ‘The Martian’ is easily the best film that Ridley Scott has made in years; a very well-crafted sci-fi adventure/survival film that might even compel future generations to take up an interest in space.

Rating: 4.5/5

(P.S. This film has one of the most perfect end-credit songs ever!)

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) review

Easily one of the most famous sections of the Hebrew Bible is the Book of Exodus, the story of how the Israelites, who were slaves of Egypt, escaped captivity and left for what they called ‘The Promised Land’, the land of Canaan, led by their leader Moses. Moses himself had originally been born Hebrew but when the King of Egypt demanded that all newborn male Hebrew babies were to be killed, Moses’ mother saved him from that fate by setting him adrift on the Nile, where he was ultimately picked up by the Pharaoh’s daughter who adopted him into the Royal Family. There have been multiple adaptations of Exodus, including not one but two films of the same name; ‘The Ten Commandments’, both of which were directed by Cecil B. DeMille. He first directed a silent version of the story in 1923 and then ‘partially remade’ it in 1956, this one starring Charlton Heston in the role of Moses and is commonly regarded as one of the greatest film epics of all time. There’s also the 1998 animated, and in some cases fairly underrated, adaptation titled ‘The Prince of Egypt’, which was made by DreamWorks. This year, director Ridley Scott takes on the story with ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’, a film that has received quite a bit of controversy these past few months in regards to its casting. As for the film itself, it’s a pretty decent take on this iconic story, even though there are certain things it could’ve done better.

The film begins as Moses (Christian Bale) is already a part of the Royal Family, serving as a general in the Egyptian Army working alongside his ‘brother’, Prince Ramesses (Joel Edgerton). One day, Moses travels to the city of Pithom to see into the current situation with Egypt’s slaves and while there, one of the slaves, Nun (Ben Kingsley), tells him about his true lineage as a Hebrew man who was raised by Pharaoh Seti’s (John Turturro) daughter after he was saved from being executed as a result of Seti ordering that all Hebrew newborn males were to be killed. Moses eventually reveals his true identity to Ramesses, who becomes Pharaoh after Seti’s death, and is exiled because of it. He soon begins a new life as a shepherd living in the town of Midian with his wife Zipporah (Maria Valverde) but one day, after getting caught in a rockslide, he comes across the famous ‘burning bush’ and is told by God, represented in this film by a young boy named Malak, to return to Egypt to demand that the Hebrews be set free. Moses does end up returning to Egypt, but Ramesses refuses to free the Hebrews. As a result, God inflicts the ‘Ten Plagues’ upon Egypt in order to try and change Ramesses’ mind, even if Moses isn’t exactly on board with some of the things God does to the people of Egypt.  

This film’s greatest strength is easily its visuals, which do a phenomenal job of recreating key moments in the story of Exodus, from the ten plagues of Egypt (e.g. the water in the River Nile turning into blood, the swarms of frogs and locusts, etc.) to the parting of the Red Sea, even if the sequence itself is admittedly a little lackluster. Still, this is easily one of the biggest takes on the story of Exodus on film to date in regards to its overall scale and scope, perhaps even more so than the Heston version. However, the film does lack a bit in terms of character development, namely in regards to the relationship between Moses and Ramesses. I don’t want to compare this film too much with other adaptations of Exodus, but one of the biggest strengths of ‘Prince of Egypt’ was that it really did a good job in conveying the relationship of these two men in that, despite the fact that they ended up being enemies, they were still brothers (not actual brothers, but you get the idea). This film states that these two had grown up as ‘brothers’ but in the film itself, they don’t spend that much time together before they become enemies. While I’m not saying that this film should’ve 100% copied what ‘Prince of Egypt’ did in terms of the ‘Moses-Ramesses’ relationship, it could’ve really benefitted from more scenes between the two.

As noted earlier, there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding this film, not over the film’s take on the story of Exodus like the controversy surrounding the other major biblical film of the year, ‘Noah’, but in regards to its casting. Namely, the thing that made a lot of people angry about this film is that while the supporting cast of the film was probably cast in terms of race, four of the main roles (Moses, Ramesses, Queen Tuya, and Joshua) were all played by white actors (Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, Sigourney Weaver, and Aaron Paul, respectively). Because I never like to talk about the subject of race in film, I won’t go into too much detail about it but I do want to point out some recent comments made by Scott in regards to this whole debacle. He said that the main reason as to why this film was cast the way it was is due to the fact that if he had cast a lesser-name actor of proper race in the lead role of Moses, then he would’ve been unable to get a movie of this scale (on a budget of $140 million, for the record) financed. So ultimately, regardless of what your stance is on this whole ordeal, Scott’s words are pretty true, showcasing a prime example of the recent controversy surrounding the idea of ‘whitewashing’ in Hollywood. Though like I said earlier, I won’t go any further into this matter.

But I will say that from a performance-perspective, the acting in this movie is pretty good, even with the whole ‘race’ controversy in mind. The two biggest standouts are easily Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton in the lead roles. Bale provides a pretty interesting take on Moses, who he referred to as ‘schizophrenic’ (another controversial statement that I won’t be going much into). This is definitely shown in scenes where Moses is talking to God where, from the perspective on an onlooker, it looks like he’s talking to himself. At the same time, Bale also does a great job at conveying both Moses’ leader-ship qualities and his humanity, the latter of which is highly emphasized in scenes where Moses disagrees with some of God’s decisions. Edgerton, as Ramesses, is a bit over-the-top at times but other times he also gives a very subdued and emotionally powerful performance, like in a key scene near the end where Ramesses experiences a personal tragedy. As I noted earlier, while the film could’ve benefitted from having more scenes between the two before they became enemies, Bale and Edgerton do work off each other really well. The rest of the cast is solid too, but some don’t get as much to do as Bale and Edgerton. Despite being one of the main characters in the film, Aaron Paul has arguably only a few lines in the entire movie. The same can be said for Sigourney Weaver, who has a very limited amount of screen-time.

This might end up being a case similar to Scott’s film ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, which was mainly panned when it was initially released in theaters but then got more recognition when the film’s ‘Director’s Cut’ was released. Scott has stated that there is a ‘four-hour’ cut of the film so I won’t be surprised if that version ends up getting released sometime in the near future. As is, ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’ isn’t a bad movie. It did hold my interest from beginning to end and the film certainly delivers in terms of its visuals and its overall scale and scope. However, the film can sort of be argued as being a case of ‘style over substance’ as it is lacking a bit in terms of character development. I wouldn’t say that the film is completely devoid of ‘substance’ but it really could’ve been better had certain things been done, like spending more time developing the relationship between Moses and Ramesses and giving some characters more to do. Still, the film definitely benefits from two strong performances from Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton so as is, it’s a decent take on the story of Exodus. I can’t say it’s the absolute best adaptation of the story but I am interested in seeing the ‘Director’s Cut’ of the film to see if it will fix any of the problems with the theatrical cut.

Rating: 3/5