200 Movies, 1 Woman, 1 Blog

Aliens, 1986, USA/UK

As promised, I watched the second film in the series, and I liked it more than I liked than Alien. The story is stronger, and I appreciated the increased intensity of the film.

Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) has been found after 57 years in stasis. The home planet of the alien in the first film has been colonized by humans, and Ripley is horrified. Her story is dismissed by executives at the Weyland-Yutani Corporation and her reputation is tarnished, until they lose communication with the colonists. She is offered the chance to work as a “consultant” to a group of soldiers going in to investigate. Ripley reluctantly agrees to go, but when they arrive, Ripley and the soldiers (played by Michael Biehn, Bill Paxton, and Jenette Goldstein, among others) discover that the situation is far worse than they could have ever expected.

There is quite a bit more action in this film than there is in Alien. While Alien featured one alien “hunting” the crew members, Aliens features many more aliens. However, the soldiers are better trained and in a position to kill the aliens. This doesn’t mean the film isn’t scary, though. In fact, in many ways I found Aliens to be scarier than Alien was. I actually squealed a couple of times!

Easily the best part of the film is Ripley. Weaver is fantastic in the role, and it’s no surprise she received an Academy Award nomination for the role. It was a joy to see the character developed further in this film, and I really loved her relationship with Newt (Carrie Henn), the young girl the soldiers discover in the colony. Ripley is one of the best science fiction characters, period.

Like Alien, Aliens relies on special effects consisting of stuntmen in monster suits and puppetry. The special effects in Aliens are stronger, as there were far more special effects shots, and many of the shots are full bodied shots, as opposed to the selective close-up shots in Alien. It looks fantastic. I was reminded of Jurassic Park – which was released in the early 90s and relies on mechanical dinosaurs instead of CGI. The dinosaurs still look realistic, and often frightening to me, even close to two decades later.

I think this is a sign that filmmakers rely on CGI too much. When CGI looks good, the effects look real and natural, but when it looks bad, it can completely take you out of a film. Why can’t we go back to using intricate costumes and puppetry for some films, instead of making everything CGI?

It took me far longer than it should have, but I’m happy to say that I’ve seen both Alien and Aliens. And, I’m pretty excited for Prometheus, now that I have a decent understanding of the Alien universe.

Last night in my creative writing class, my professor had us do an interesting exercise. He asked us to name our favourite movie – and name the person who wrote it. Most people in our class struggled, unless the individual directing it also wrote it.

It made me think. I respect the work done by screenwriters, because they’re the ones who craft the story (whether it’s by adapting a previously existing work or a completely original story), but they get remarkably little credit. Films are always seen as “belonging” to the director. I do understand that, because it’s the director’s job to determine what the movie will look like, and get the actors to produce an appropriate performance for each scene. The movie is, essentially, their vision. But that vision would not exist in their heads if it were not for the screenplay.

Were I interested in getting into filmmaking, screenwriting would be the way I’d do it. I fear the very idea of fame, so I find the anonymity of the profession appealing. I could win an Oscar, but nobody would know who I was. Although, I would be one of those people played off stage rather quickly to make way for the A-list award winners! But it’d be neat to see my words and ideas come alive on film. I often toy with the idea of writing a full screenplay. I prefer writing novels, novellas or short stories, but I may write a full screenplay one day. The piece of fiction I’m most proud of is actually a screenplay, and I fully intend on adapting it into a novel one day.

The question of my “favourite movie” is a really tough one, because I have about 15 “favourite” movies. It really depends on my mood. But the answer I ended up giving was Edward Scissorhands, partially because I knew who had written it (thanks to an article I’d read a few days earlier). The writer: Caroline Thompson, based on a drawing done by Tim Burton as a teenager.

Can you name the person who wrote your favourite film?

Alien, 1979, USA/UK

I’ve decided that, in preparation for the upcoming prequel, Prometheus, that it’s time to finally watch Alien and Aliens. I’ve long held off because I’m a huge wimp, and I’m terrified of horror movies.

Yes, it was scary. But it was also a pretty good film. Ridley Scott does an amazing job setting the scene and tone of the film. The scares are entertaining and satisfying, and the alien looks fantastic. I must wonder – will any of the alien creatures in Prometheus be actors in costumes, or will they all be CGI? I’d assume they’d now be CGI. I loved the visual effects in Alien, though. Due to special effect limitations, the alien was shot from close-up, and this added to the terror of the movie. The gore is also fairly limited. One thing that drives me nuts about contemporary horror films is that they tend to be all about torture porn and explicit gore. I don’t find that sort of thing frightening – instead I find it disgusting. The key to good horror for me is atmosphere, and Scott hit it out of the park in that respect.

The vast majority of the film takes place on the mining ship Nostromo. The 7 member crew are awakened from their deep sleep when the ship picks up a beacon signal. Unfortunately, they discover too late that it is NOT an SOS signal, and Kane (John Hurt) is attacked. Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) does not want to bring him aboard due to quarantine concerns, but Ash (Ian Holm) overrides her decision. This decision leads to an alien coming aboard, and the remaining crew members must figure out a way to kill it off while simultaneously being tracked by the efficient and ruthless creature.

I enjoyed the movie, but I didn’t love it. I think it comes down to my bias against horror movies. But, as someone who loves science fiction, I appreciated the “lore” of the film, so to speak, and I really appreciated Ripley. Strong female characters are so rare in cinema, and she was awesome. I have so much respect for Scott for making this film with such a strong lead female character. And – to put it into perspective: this was 1979! We still struggle to make films with strong female protagonists! When will we see films like this one become the norm?!

I’m going to watch Aliens in the coming days. It will be interesting to see James Cameron’s take on the Alien world. And, no, I won’t be watching Alien vs. Predator. I respect myself too much to submit myself to such punishment.

Shame, 2011, UK

This film has gotten a bit of a reputation for being very sexually explicit, and because Michael Fassbender does full frontal nudity in the film. It’s hard to say if this reputation has hurt the film (people choosing to avoid it due to the NC-17 rating it received in America) or helped it (curiosity surrounding the nudity and sexually explicit scenes).

But, despite all of the talk surrounding the nudity and sexually explicit scenes within the film, it’s not actually about sex. The film is about human connection, addiction and, as the title tells us, shame.

Brandon (Fassbender) lives in New York and regularly goes out with his boss, David (James Badge Dale) to pick up women. When Brandon’s troubled younger sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan) shows up in his apartment, his life and day-to-day habits are thrown into a tailspin.

It’s a very deep film, and the dialogue is sparse. Instead, director Steve McQueen tells the story primarily through long shots exploring the emotion each character is feeling. We watch as characters slowly break down emotionally. Because of this, one must read between the lines in order to get a full sense of the story. It remains fairly open ended – and I do have my own theory regarding the film, but I won’t share it here, because coming to your own conclusion and making your own theory is a significant part of enjoying this film, in my opinion.

Now that I’ve seen the movie, I’m terribly disappointed it wasn’t nominated for Best Picture, and that Fassbender did not receive a nomination. The Academy still seems fairly conservative, and there’s no denying that this film is intense and raw. Fassbender was extraordinary. It takes a brave and talented actor to put it all on the table, emotionally AND physically and to embody such a complex and disturbed character. He was in every scene of the film, and he made Brandon completely realistic and painfully difficult to watch. The audience is not meant to sympathize with Brandon, necessarily, but I found the character to be very bleak. Mulligan was very good, as well.

There has been significant press coverage (and jokes during the award season) regarding the full frontal scenes in the movie. In some ways, that has overshadowed Fassbender’s amazing performance, and that’s a little disappointing. It is human nature, though, and also a sign of just how rare it is for a man to do a full frontal nude scene that is not comedic in nature here in North America. On the rare occasion that it does occur, it is a pretty big deal, I guess.

In many ways, this film is before its time – at least here in North America. Human sexuality – especially the darker aspects of human sexuality can be seen as a bit of a forbidden topic in art. Most films that include explicit sex scenes and nudity receive an NC-17 rating and are destined for obscurity. It’s tragic, really, because I find sex to be far less offensive than explicit violence. Substance addiction is a very common topic in film, but this is the first film on sex addiction I can think of. I’m sure there are others, but it’s really not a prevalent topic. The President of Fox Searchlight wore the NC-17 rating as a badge of honour and I’m so impressed with that attitude. It’s very progressive, and the film industry needs far more people who think like him. Human sexuality should not be a taboo topic and NC-17 should not be the kiss of death.

What makes an R rating an R rating? It’s different in every country and usually depends on the culture of the country in question. Canada is generally similar to the United States, but we tend to be harsher on violence, and far more liberal with language. We’re slightly more liberal regarding nudity and sexual content, as well.

As I’m sure you’re all aware, the documentary Bully initially received an R rating in the United States because of 6 uses of the word “fuck”. These instances were not used in a sexual fashion, but were a part of one child’s taunts of another child. The scene in question was powerful, and removing those words would have lessened the impact of the scene. It ultimately was edited slightly to receive a PG-13 in the States; here in Canada, the original version received a PG rating.

I truly don’t understand rating a film based on language (at least in cases where the language is sporadic). The “f word” and other curses are a part of daily life, and I’d wager to say that everyone over the age of 11 knows what the more common North American curse words are. I don’t feel that the occasional instance of a curse word should be deemed offensive, because people tend to swear when they do something stupid, are annoyed, or when they hurt themselves.

The problem with the MPAA is that they judge movies in a very black and white manner. They don’t look at the context of the swearing. The King’s Speech received an R rating because of one humourous scene where a character repeatedly says the f word. The uses of the word were not meant to be offensive, and the rest of the film is as clean as can be (I believe it was PG here in Canada). The R rating implies that the movie is far more risqué than it is, which may scare away audience members.

In the same vein, the curse words in Bully are uttered by a preteen, and they’re meant to be shocking and disturbing. But they’re also meant to show people the realities of growing up, and what young people often go through at school. How can the audience get an accurate picture of the horrors children are facing if the language is scrubbed away?

When it comes to brief instances of strong language, why not base the rating on the other content of the film, and give the film the rating it’d get based on the other content, but warn that there is strong language in the movie? That way, parents who do not wish to expose their child to language are warned, but other children can see it if their parents deem the movie acceptable.

The MPAA needs to evolve, or die at this point. There are always exceptions to rigidly set rules, and the MPAA is embarrassing itself when it refuses to compromise on those rigid rules. Throw away the rules and rate each movie based on the context of the subject matter, and the content as a whole. Don’t pull out a stopwatch and make note of the number of seconds a shot lingers on a nude body or count the number of swear words. Movies aren’t a mathematical formula and rating them based on a formula just doesn’t work. Use some bloody judgement.

I don’t always agree with the film ratings given here in Canada, but there’s never been one here that I’ve been vehemently offended by.

The Avengers, 2012, USA

I’m STILL on a buzz from seeing this movie last night. It was thrilling, funny, and a real good time. There’s a reason it made more in its opening weekend than any other movie in history. Mark my words: it will end up making more money than Avatar did. The bar for summer blockbusters has been set VERY high. I definitely need to see it again, since I missed some of the dialogue and one-liners because of all of the laughter in the theatre.

For those of you living under a rock, The Avengers is an ensemble superhero movie featuring Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson, in the token female role) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). They must work together to fight against Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who is trying to rule mankind by commanding an alien army. And that’s all you need to know about it going in!

One surprising highlight of the film was Ruffalo. I’ll be the first to admit that I am not a fan of the Hulk as a character. I found Hulk terrible, and The Incredible Hulk was passable at best. I was actually disappointed when they cut Edward Norton, because I did like his interpretation of the character, but I understood why it was done, considering the fact that Norton is notoriously difficult to work with. I can say, firmly, that they made the right decision because Ruffalo is, far and away, the strongest interpretation of the three. I really like that they’ve moved away from the “I don’t like myself” crap from the first two Hulk films, and that this incarnation of Bruce Banner appears to accept himself and his powers. The character also had a sense of humour about himself and others, which the previous two seriously lacked. I actually WANT to see Ruffalo in a Hulk-centred film.

As expected, Black Widow was mostly around to offer some token female eye candy. I’d suggest they make a movie about the character, but I fear that Johansson would make it woefully dull. I just couldn’t get invested in her character. To a lesser extent, I felt the same way about Hawkeye. Renner’s character suffered from poor character development (or: no character development), but he did about as much as he could with the character. I can see Hawkeye having an interesting back story.

I saw the film in 3D on an IMAX screen. I was fairly impressed with the 3D, particularly in the second half of the film. I was actually nauseous towards the end, which can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, I suppose. It highlights just how realistic the 3D looks….but being nauseous isn’t fun! The visual effects were amazing, and the film was fun to look at.

If you haven’t seen The Avengers yet, check it out! Be sure to remember to stick around after the credits because there are TWO scenes after the credits. I won’t say a word about them, because it’s best to be pleasantly surprised by them.

I’m almost disappointed to know that the “team” won’t be getting together in all of the Marvel superhero films. I think the audience has been thoroughly spoiled by The Avengers. I’m always excited to see another superhero offering, but Iron Man 3 can’t possibly be as cool as The Avengers was.

Watching this movie has made me wonder, yet again, why I don’t read comics. I LOVE superhero movies and the stories behind all of the characters, but I haven’t really read any of the comics. I suppose it’s because I don’t know where to start. Can you pick up the latest issue and start from there, or is it best to start from a particular storyline? Or just read some of the more popular storylines before heading to the contemporary issues?

Bully, 2011, USA

This documentary hit close to home. I was bullied growing up and middle school and high school were an awful sort of hell that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. I can look back on those years with a more rounded and mature perspective now – but I am also close to five years past high school. I know that the sort of pain a bullied teenager feels will begin to heal once they’re out of that environment, but it’s hard to tell that to someone who is hurting. They have to learn it for themselves once they’re out of there. That makes the suicides of young teens and preteens even more heartbreaking.

Filmmaker Lee Hirsch speaks to many families: some have lost children because of suicide, and others are dealing with the realities of having a child that is being bullied. Alex’s story was especially heartbreaking because the poor kid was being tortured in a way I never was. He spoke casually about being strangled on the bus, and stabbed with pencils, and it made me so angry.

The worst thing is that the school officials seemed almost indifferent with confronted with what he (and other bullied students) were going through. Alex’s principal actually lectured a bullied child for not shaking the hand of his bully. When this poor child spoke up and started talking about all of the things this kid was doing to him, the principal said that HE was no better than the bully and that he hurt the bully’s feelings for not shaking his hand. I wanted, more than anything, to jump into the scene and yell and scream at this ignorant woman. I wanted to speak up for this poor kid because the principal was obviously unwilling to act for him. Later on in the film, when another child tried to speak about for themselves, a school official talked down to the child. Young people are taught to tell an adult or school official if they’re being bullied, but being spoken down to appears to be the norm.

That actually happened to me once. When I was in my first year of high school, I was being treated poorly by a male classmate who’d tormented me since elementary school. One day, while we were watching Schindler’s List, he coloured on a tampon with red marker and shoved it in my face. He also threw candy at the back of my head throughout the entire class. I loudly told him to stop it, and our teacher told him to stop it, as well. But he didn’t listen, so she pulled me aside after class and told me she was going to tell the principal about what he did. She did, and he got detention. This opened up a whole can of worms, because friends of his who were previously kind to me started treating me very badly. They hurled abuse at me, and eventually I got fed up and went to the school guidance councilor. The day he came to speak to all of us, the girls were being so mean to me that I was crying in class, and he spoke to us all together and they blamed me, and said that I was being uncooperative. So…I got a lecture by this guidance councilor while they sat there smirking. After that, they continued to be mean to me and mocked me for talking to the school officials about them.

I’ve let go of that sort of shit in my life for the most part, because I know that I’m better than them. But seeing these kids go through exactly what I went through made me cry really hard, because I know how much they must be hurting. But I also know how much better life gets after high school, and I hope I can follow their lives in the years to come to see all of these wonderful preteens and teenagers blossom into adults. I do recognize that one’s experiences shape who they become as an adult, and I know that being bullied has shaped me greatly. I like to think it’s made me a more compassionate person, but it’s also made me very shy.

The documentary is an independent documentary, and, as a result, the budget is fairly low. Hirsch filmed the movie himself, and it seems to have been filmed on a handheld camera. This gave the film a sort of “raw” look and tone. But the camera must have had an autofocus feature, because it was always going in and out of focus. This was slightly irritating, but cinematography was not the priority in this movie. Getting the story and the audio was far more important.

Here in Canada, Bully is rated PG. We also got the “unedited” version, with all of the F-bombs retained. I find it, quite frankly, ridiculous that it originally received an R rating in the United States. I’d like to go into that issue in more detail in a later blog post, because I found it disgusting. I think this movie is one that preteens and teenagers need to see. It will give them perspective on how their actions are affecting others, or show them that they are not alone. That being said, the movie does examine mature, and somewhat disturbing subject matter that may be too much for younger children. I’d show this movie to children in middle school and above.

So, how can we solve the bullying solution? Sadly, neither I nor the documentary have any answers. I don’t know how to make growing up any easier for children, and I don’t know how to solve bullying. I don’t think it’s something that can ever be solved. I do think school officials need to pay more attention to bullying, and lay down stronger punishments. But I also think parents need to watch what their children are doing, and advocate for their kids if they’re being bullied, or offer consequences if they are the bullies.

This documentary is so important, so please see it as soon as possible, especially if you’re a parent or work with children.

The Lucky One, 2012, USA

The Lucky One did not make me cry, which was slightly disappointing.  I’m a bit of a sucker for movies based on the books by Nicholas Sparks because they tend to offer the cathartic weeping a lady needs to experience on occasion.  I went in hoping I’d bawl my eyes out.

I guess I’ve been spoiled by The Notebook, which remains, to date, the best Nicholas Sparks film adaptation (and a pretty great book, too).  It’s one of those movies I can always count on whenever I need to “feel something”.

But The Lucky One was a pretty decent movie, in a guilty pleasure sort of way.  Zac Efron plays Logan, a marine who has just returned from Iraq who is traumatized by the things that he experienced while serving.  While in Iraq, he finds a photo of a woman, and this photo saves his life.  In order to heal from his emotional wounds, he sets out on foot to find her.  When he finally meets Beth (Taylor Schilling), he discovers that she is a single mom with a young son named Ben (Riley Thomas Stewart).  She helps to run a kennel with her grandmother (Blythe Danner).  Eventually Beth acknowledges her attraction to Logan and they enter into a relationship, which is fraught with difficulty because of Beth’s obsessive ex, Keith (Jay R. Ferguson).

One weakness in the film is Efron.  He certainly looks the part, but he struggled with some of the more emotional scenes.  He was too stoic, which was very stiff and awkward.  I’m not at all familiar with his work so I can’t tell if this is an ongoing issue of his or if he just made some wrong choices for this character.  Schilling was pretty good in her role, though, even if I didn’t quite buy her as being the same age as Efron.  She’s actually a few years older than him and they should have just said that she was a few years older than him and left it at that.  The movie itself was fairly predictable, and Ferguson’s character was rather “one note”, but that is standard in a movie like this one.  I knew it would be a little cliché, but I still enjoyed it!

This movie is aimed firmly at women – with good reason.  It’s a “chick flick”, as are all of the films based off of Sparks’s novels.  So, ladies, if you decide to go see it, bring a female friend – or go with your mom (like I did!).

Daybreakers, 2009, Australia/USA

Set in the near future where most of humanity has turned into vampires, Daybreakers looks at what happens when human blood runs out.  Ed (Ethan Hawke) is working at Bromley Marks trying to find a synthetic blood substitute in order to save the vampires.  The CEO, Charles Bromley (Sam Neill) is anxiously awaiting this substitute because they have less than a months’ supply of blood and starved vampires are turning into creatures known as “subsiders”.  When Ed gets into a car accident, he meets Audrey (Claudia Karvan), a human who asks for his help.  She introduces him to Elvis (Willem Dafoe), who claims to have a cure for vampirism.

The movie was completely silly, but it still works.  It’s a lot of fun to watch.  The movie is essentially an allegory for today’s over consumption.  We’re using natural resources at an astounding rate that is not possible to maintain over the long term.  Humanity needs to discover an alternative to fossil fuels before we come close to running out.  Despite this powerful (and depressing!) allegory, the movie wasn’t preachy in the least.

Admittedly, it was a little gory for my taste.  I was prepared for blood and gore, because one naturally assumes that a vampire movie is going to be violent and bloody.  The violence is very realistic, and the make up effects were very well done.  I just tend to prefer more “cartoonish” gore when I’m watching a violent movie, as it is less likely to turn my stomach.  But, I did find myself fascinated by the make up and props that were used so it helped distract me from all of the squirting blood.

There were weaknesses in the “universe” of the film.  The “cure” in the film was pretty weak, and the “science” behind it was never really explained.  I suppose it is a bit ridiculous to long for any sort of explanation in a film that is science fiction, but that aspect of the film disappointed me a little bit.

I did appreciate the fact that this film is closer to the mythology of vampires than other contemporary vampire films.  Instead of sparkling in the sun, these vampires actually catch on fire!  That being said, I do think pop culture is drenched in vampire stories right now, and I would like to see other classic movie monsters examined.  What about Frankenstein’s Monster, for example?  I also wouldn’t mind seeing another Mummy film far away from the grubby hands of Stephen Sommers.  It would, of course, need to be completely separate from that franchise.

300, 2006, USA

I saw this movie in theatres back when it was first released and really enjoyed it.  However, since then, I’d forgotten pretty much the entire movie and I was curious about how it would hold up, so I decided to rent it.

Admittedly, much of it didn’t hold up very well.  The movie still looks fantastic, as much of it was CGI and gave it the look of a comic book.  It’s really quite beautiful.  But the plot is paper-thin and the characters are even thinner.  That being said, I get that is really not the point of the movie.  It’s an action movie, so it’s more about the fight scenes, and the idea of nobly following your king into battle.

King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) declares war on the Persian army which is led by Xerxes (an unrecognizable Rodrigo Santoro).  Leonidas only has an army of 300 brave and well-trained men, while Xerxes has a slave-army of over 10,000.  The movie chronicles the battle, where, after three days, all 300 Spartan soldiers are killed.

There’s no opportunity to get attached to any of the characters.  It wasn’t because one goes into the movie knowing that they’re all going to die – it was because we don’t really learn much about them.  We’re never given a reason to care.  The big “climax” of the film made me laugh – and I know that scene was not intended to be humorous.

When I was 17, I didn’t quite understand the significance of the storytelling style.  Dilios (David Wenham) is telling the story of the 300 soldiers to a band of soldiers before a battle.  This explains the outlandish monsters, and the over-the-top fighting.  The story is essentially propaganda and told entirely from the perspective of a Spartan soldier.  I did appreciate this aspect of the movie because it explained away the glaring historical inaccuracies in a pretty convenient way.

I must conclude that the movie is a very stylistic excuse to watch women and men wander around in very little clothing.  There is an almost nude female oracle (which is one of the more ridiculous scenes in the movie) and Lena Headey for those interested in female eye candy, and a number of handsome scantily clad men in the Spartan army, including Butler, Michael Fassbender, and Tom Wisdom.  Of course, everyone on screen is in remarkably good shape, and I can’t imagine how hard it must have been to attain the bodies that they did.  But, I suppose the movie is a shame-free way to ogle.  In many of the scenes, the men were so oiled up that it was clear that the audience is intended to notice their perfectly sculpted bodies.  But, frankly, the audience would notice without the oil because they were all in freakin’ speedos for the entire movie.

Ultimately, while the movie looked fantastic, it was a hollow shell.  I feel no desire to experience it again.