Movie Appraisal: Alien (1979)

So, I'm back and ready to review! I'm almost sorry to review Alien though. It's a movie I've avoided watching for a very long time. I think it was mostly because I didn't want to be disappointed. I'm such a huge fan of space horror as a genre, and Alien is really the granddaddy of all modern space horror. I mean, Event Horizon, Pandorum, and Sunshine are some of my favorite films of all time. No, they're not just some of my favorite horror films of all time, but some of my favorite movies period... of all time. That's quite the accomplishment, especially when I'm pretty finicky about movies in general. I know how much influence the Alien movies and especially this one have had on this weird and niche subgenre of sci-fi horror.

So, for the first time ever I checked out Alien. I usually am very fond of Ridley Scott. I usually like movies that have this kind of premise. I think you know where I'm going with this. I found Alien to be pretty mediocre. And there were large tracts of the movie that I didn't like at all. The story was pretty good. But the characters felt so weak in response. Okay, let me elaborate. I found the story to be very standard for a movie of this type, certainly derivative of some earlier sci-fi films like Planet of the Vampires and Forbidden Planet, but with a much more serious tone and a horror focus. And that's fine. Honestly, that's a good thing. I like the early sci-fi movies, but I have to admit to loving the more serious efforts of the 1970s and 1980s. The problem with this movie wasn't its derivative story or the quality of that story, rather it's really the lack of a focus on characters. I mean, I felt nothing for any of the characters. None of them had a well-developed story or anything interesting about them. I felt that I couldn't relate to any one of them whether they were male or female. There simply wasn't enough to establish the characters as actual humans. Instead every last one of them felt so generic and boring that their deaths were meaningless to me. The whole movie was basically meaningless for me.

A lot of the issues that I saw in Alien were fixed in other later space horror movies. You look at a movie like Event Horizon and you can clearly see the improvements from this baser movie. At the same time, despite the characters having literally no depth at all, the acting is fairly well put together. I'd put a lot more blame on the script and the pacing than I would on the actors. And the thing is... this is an absolutely all-star cast. Maybe they weren't all-star then, but nowadays you hear the names of Ian Holm, Sigourney Weaver, John Hurt, Tom Skerritt, and Harry Dean Stanton all being in the same movie, you'd definitely be interested in the movie. Hell, Ian Holm in a movie is enough to get me interested in it. So the acting is solid, but I have to say that the performances of Ian Holm, John Hurt, and Sigourney Weaver should have a special mention. Each really tried to bring a life to their respective character. John Hurt, although he has limited screen time because of... well...

...uh... yeah...

...let's say reasons and leave it at that. He really does a great job with the time he is on screen, really making Kane one of the only characters that has any memorable qualities at all. Ian Holm was also quite good, and his characterizations actually made a lot of sense. He also happened to be my favorite character for much of the movie, but that's less about the character of Ash, I suppose, and much more about how much I like Ian Holm. Sigourney Weaver and her Ripley is obviously the famous character, but I honestly can't see much of the character in this movie. Sure, she's tough and survives, but all-in-all she comes across as more of a generic female heroine than the icon she would eventually become. Now, this might be because I'm watching it over thirty years after this movie came out, and it was groundbreaking in its time and just hasn't aged as well as I would have liked. That's fair. And I can't argue that as much or as effectively as I'd like to argue the point. I doubt that there were too many female heroes of Ripley's calibre back in 1979, and it stands as a testament to the movie that it was a huge movie that happened to have a female lead. I respect it for that, but I still have trouble liking it.

The movie was incredibly slow-paced at times, but they were all the wrong times. When the movie should have been slower, to establish characters or the titular alien, it moved quickly and without remorse, and when it should have moved more quickly in action intense scenes or hectic times, I felt it dragged on and on, often focusing on character faces and such for long periods of time while more interesting things should have been focused on. I'm certain it was an artistic decision... or maybe one to remove copious amounts of gore from the movie, but it seemed really awkward throughout. Having an intense moment with a character who is about to die only to have them die off-screen while another character is focused upon became incredibly frustrating. I couldn't enjoy the movie if it literally shielded me from the scarier moments like I was a baby. It felt terrible. I hated that feeling of the movie literally not letting me feel tension or not letting me feel fear... I go into these horror movies wanting to be creeped out, but with this movie I only found myself annoyed at the lack of actual horror. Kane is the only character truly shown to die. The rest are either off-screen or their faces are so focused upon when they die that you have absolutely no idea what's going on. Dallas, played by Tom Skerritt, and Brett, played by Harry Dean Stanton, completely die or are taken or whatever offscreen. Nothing is shown of their fates (yes, there are deleted scenes, but that's not what I mean) and they basically just disappear from the movie without any establishing character moments, without any heroics, without even showing their deaths or really even reacting to them. I found it so badly done that I seriously thought that I had missed a scene or the DVD had skipped or something. The same thing is true for Parker, played by Yaphet Kotto, and Lambert, played by Veronica Cartwright. They kind of get killed by the alien, I guess, but I have no idea because the scene flew by with quick shots of their faces that I had literally no idea they were dead until Ripley saw them and was like, "Oh they're dead." without even checking them to see if they were dead. I guess they must have been very obviously dead, but I couldn't tell.

I guess that all comes down to the script and the editing. And I have to say that the editing was really not my style. It was, in my opinion, really badly done, to the point where I literally could not tell what was going on for large portions of time. That should not happen. I should know what's going on in a pretty simple movie that I already know the premise of. Instead I was more confused than anything else, finding flaws all over the place in the editing of this film that should have been scary and should have been good, but instead came off as fundamentally flawed.

I will say that the set designs were well done though, as were the actual artistic assets done by H. R. Giger. The man can certainly create an alien image that looks creepy on a fundamental level.

One way or another, you look at the alien there and you feel slightly unsettled. I think the designs were incredibly well done for the time, and it was easily the most compelling part of the entire movie... although there were times that I found the alien unintentionally hilarious and kind of awkward looking, but that might just be because I'm a jerk whose really hard to scare.

Anyway, for the most part I was very lukewarm on this movie. It had great designs, good acting, decent direction by Ridley Scott, and an interesting story that should have worked for me, but the editing of the movie, the script, and the lack of characterizations really hurt this movie on the most basic of levels, so much so that I can't even recommend this movie. It wasn't fun for me to watch. Hell, I enjoyed watching Nightflyers and The Dark Side of the Moon a ton more than this FAMOUS POP CULTURE MOVIE. Eh, well, I'm not changing my opinion. The movie didn't suck, but its flaws outweighed any good feelings I could have about it.

Movie Appraisal: Dead Air (2009)

"People get the government they deserve, so fuck your people."

Dead Air is yet another radiohost-centered zombie film. It shares a few similarities with Pontypool, but for the most part the movies are completely different, with both different styles and different feels. While Pontypool is an incredibly good movie with a few small issues, Dead Air is rougher all the way around. It is the worse movie of the two, so before you choose which of these two movies you should watch (It should be Pontypool.) realize that this is just not as good of a movie.

That being said, it's not a bad movie either. Most of the movie is both suspenseful and tense, although there is very little horror here. Hell, barely any gore either. You did get the barest bit of nudity with a single bare breast showing before and after a woman gets turned into a zombie, but it easily done much more for the art than to be a sexual thing. And that's fine, but it seems both out of place and a little odd. But I digress.

As much as I'd like to call this a zombie horror film, it really isn't. It's very much a zombie thriller, something I've never really seen before. The horror is so downplayed and kind of pushed aside that it never really feels all that scary. The scariest element in the movie is the human element, and that really leads me into saying it's much more of a thriller than a horror film.

There's also a ton of stock footage in this movie and... well, I rolled my eyes a ton. I hate stock footage in films, and seeing both basketball and riot stock footage basically made me have a dislike for the movie from the get go. I didn't dislike this movie after it was over though. Rather I found it somewhat effective, often kind of amusing, and generally fun to watch. It does have its problems, but for the most part it is a fun zombie flick to watch, even if it isn't even close to the best around. Corbin Bernsen (I know him as the father on Psych, so maybe you will too.) directs an all around competent horror film. If Pontypool hadn't come out around the same time and been all around better I might be giving this film a better pass, but... I guess that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes.

So, there's a Bible quotation in the beginning: "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." -Matthew 6:34. How do I take this? What does it even mean? Well, as a knowledgeable person about Biblical and theological STUFF, I'll tell you. It's talking about anxiety, and the idea that anxiety should be saved for the things that are happening now rather than things that could or might happen. Jesus says it so it must be true.

I kid, but seriously, it's a pretty decent passage to use when talking about terrorism or stuff, but does not really work for the message in the movie, unless the message is don't worry about anything and US government, dudes, you really shouldn't make zombie biological weapons that can be hijacked by Iranian terrorists so easily. I guess that's a pretty valid message though, isn't it?

Moving on, although I did find large chucks of the dialogue in the movie pretty snappy and fun to listen to, I found the actors not very good in general. I mean, Bill Moseley is the best actor there (playing the main character Logan), but even he seems to have a pretty big problem acting effectively. It seems that everybody has the same kind of acting issues, overacting or being more comedic than serious... and it comes off very strangely, kind of like the movie is more comedy than it is serious, which I don't think is the intention. The acting can be pretty hard to watch at times and it's the BIG THING that Pontypool shines in over Dead Air. I have to believe it had to do with the direction rather than every actor suddenly having a ton of issues, but I have no idea. All I know is that it is really odd and takes one right out of the movie. Again, the dialogue is actually pretty good though despite the acting. The cat food discussion in the beginning is comedy genius, and much of the dialogue is quick-paced and enjoyable. I just wish better actors or more effective actors had those lines since mostly they come off as a tad forced. There is stuttering as well and I wonder how much of the dialogue was on and off script. It would be an interesting thing to be able to figure out.

The movie is very tense though. Engaging even for the most part. But then there are these odd moments of comedy sprinkled in, like Logan's ex-wife and producer Lucy (played by Patricia Tallman) putting a small plant up as part of a barricade against a door that opens outward. At least Logan had the same response, word-for-word as I did while I talked to my screen.

I think I was expecting the film to be smarter or more intelligent than it actually ended up being. I was wondering if the zombies were blind because their eyes were bleeding. I was wondering if that would come into play. It didn't. I was expecting some character development, some kind of hero or something to emerge... but it never happened. I was expecting a big fight or some great jump-scare cheesy ending... but no,cit was cheesy and dumb in another way entirely. I mean I though Logan's cough was setting up his change into a zombie, but he never does. I figured Gabbi would murder him in zombie form... or his daughter would... but no, they aren't zombies and Gabbi seems immune for some reason. I just want to sigh and keep sighing at the sappy, overly dramatic ending to a horror movie where no horror really ever happens.

The funny thing is that the movie never disappointed me. It was baffling at times, but came off as a pretty usual and standard horror affair for the most part. I didn't like certain parts of the film, but the suspense was good and the tension worked quite well through the first three-fourths of the movie. Not so well after that though. Then it became awfully ridiculous, but it was good for a little while despite the acting.

The political message here is obvious, and obviously one of my least favorite parts. It's about terrorism, but not really, about the US being terrible, but not really. It has a soft political message that never really says anything and goes around and around itself and I find it kind of dumb and offensive. Why didn't labs notice that a bunch of their created zombie virus had gone missing? I think it was kind of dumb with some inconsistencies, but that's probably me thinking too hard.

I don't really feel the need to recommend this film. Watch Pontypool instead. They are very similar films but Pontypool does everything better. The acting is better. You can relate with the characters. The plot means something more than blanketed political messages. The radio program is much more enjoyable to listen to. It's a much more artistic film. And it has a great deal more gore and fun to it. So, yeah, I won't say to avoid this one at all costs. It's not bad, but I can't really recommend it without saying it's a worse version of Pontypool, and that's not much of a compliment.