The Essential Films: “Alien” (1979)

A series of writings on films that I feel are essential for film lovers, coupled with films that are important to me. Spoilers for those who haven't seen

There's just something about Alien. It's the atmosphere, the vibe. Yes, Aliens is often considered the better movie. And yes, Aliens is one the best movies of its kind, a textbook for any aspiring action filmmaker. But Alien is on a whole other level in its visual design, acting and suggestive power. It was partly born out of director Ridley Scott's depression after seeing what George accomplished technically with Star Wars. Scott had made his first film, The Duellists, and was planning on doing Tristan and Isolde next but Star Wars gave him the urge to make a science fiction. It's funny. Star Wars appears so quaint now, which is fine and appropriate given Lucas's old fashioned influences, but Alien still the power to startle its audience. And while Star Wars is seen as the creative vision of one man, Alien acts as a debunking of the "auteur theory." The film isn't just indebted to Scott but also to screenwriters Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett and artist H.R Giger. 

Scott viewed Star Wars as the flipside of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and in turn Alien was the flipside of Star Wars. Both films, however, influenced the visual look of the film. In a Deadline interview on the influence of Star Wars, director Guillermo Del Toro elegantly summed up the influence of Lucas's and Kubrick's visions   

If you think about Ridley Scott and 'Alien,' the idea of truckers in space, which Ridley Scott does beautifully, and the way he made certain parts of the bowels of the ship feel worn and used and dingy. That is the crossbreeding of '2001' with 'Star Wars.' Ridley Scott is in the direct lineage of Lucas and Kubrick. His is a very different tone but he is as precise with his lensing. The areas of the ship that are pristine are very Kubrick-ian in a way, but there are parts of the ship where you can see the direct influence of 'Star Wars.

The other film apart from Star Wars and 2001 I can draw a comparison to is Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. Both Alien and Psycho take their time getting to their most iconic moments, the shower scene and the chestburster. Marion Crane steals money to set up a life with her boyfriend, veering off course to spend a night at the Bates Motel. The crew of the freighter vessel the Nostromo are woken up out of cryosleep, supposedly because they're near earth, but like Marion they are taken off course to pick up a distress signal. From their titles, we know they're going to be a "psycho" and an Alien. But when are they going to show up. All through Marion's car journey, to her meeting with Norman, tension and unease mounts. The crew find a derelict ship with alien eggs on them. Kane (John Hurt) gets a facehugger to, well, the face. Quarantine is broken by scientist officer Ash (Ian Holm). And then there's the whole bleeding acid thing. Norman is a friendly but strange man with an unhealthy relationship with his mother. The facehugger falls, off and the crew can finally go home. Marion decides to return the money and takes a shower. The crew sit down to eat. Them it happens/ Marion is killed by a knife-wielding maniac and an alien bursts out of Kane's chest.

Both these moments take place in safe, benign settings- a shower, a meal room. The violence is shocking because every thing has returned to calm. These moments also push forward the narratives in to the second half of their stories. Psycho starts out as a crime drama, Alien starts out as a sci-fi mystery, and they both organically take us through the events as they become more horrific. It's all about structure. Alien is a perfectly structured film, with immaculate pacing. Some may find it slow. I get that but again I think the pacing is masterful.    

A big part of why the horror of Alien is so effective is its sense of realism. The film takes this sci-fi premise and grounds it in a lived-in workaday reality. Making the characters "truckers in space" was a great way to make these people relatable and normal. It also takes the glamour of the idea of space travel. These aren't explorers, there's no sense of awe and wonder in what they do. You even have tow characters, Parker (Yaphet Kotto) and Brent (Harry Dean Stanton) who are only focused on getting their fair share. There's a documentary-like quality to the performances, with Scott creating a detached, unsentimental vibe to the proceedings. He creates a breathing room for the performances and the atmosphere. 

The film's sense of realism is also indebted to Michael Seymour's immersive production designed. The Nostromo feels like an actual space vessel that people would live on. The derelict spacecraft has this ominous vibe, one of mystery and unease. The ship, and the moment they find the "Space Jockey" suggests a mysthic grandeur that contrasts with the more claustrophobic interiors of the Nostromo

I mentioned this film's "suggestive power" earlier. I want to explain what I mean. Without the characters having to discuss it philosophically, the film conveys its deeper meanings through its actions. The facehugger and chestburster represent the themes of sexual assault. The film is often talkin about as taking the fears of women and placing them on a man. There's also what I just mentioned about the Space Jockey, a sense of mystery of what species are out there. Then there's the themes of distrust towards authority, with the company the truckers work for treating them as expendable in the face of retrieving the "xenomorph." This was the 70s. There was a whole nihilistic streak to the films of this error, The difference between 70s and 80s cinema is best exemplified in the contrast between Alien and Aliens. Alien is a bleak, unsentimental horror film while Aliens is a Reagan-era pumped up action movie with one-liners and Spielbergian sentiment, including a happy ending for its surviving characters. Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) barely survives this film and the ending is more low-key than strictly happy.  

The dichotomy between Alien and Aliens can also be found in The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (funnily enough, both Terminator films are directed by Aliens helmer James Cameron). The originals are stripped down horror thrillers while the sequels are bigger action blockbusters. There's a bad robot in the first, a good robot in the second who the female lead has to learn to trust. There's the mother/child relationship, and an ending that seemingly puts to bed any need for sequels.  

You know what makes Alien scary? More than the xenomorph? It's Ash. We know there's something up with Ash. However, the film constantly draws our attention away and never reveals too much. When it his head is bashed off by Parker, revealing him to be android, it's one of the film's creepiest images. Then there's that smirk from the disembodied head and the slightly electronic voice, telling the remaining crew members that he has his sympathies. I don't think this film is as unsettling if it's just the alien. That somebody else is "alien" amongst the crew, seemingly friendly but slightly creepy, working against them, makes the film even starker. He acts as the face of the company "Weyland-Yutani," which gets a human face for the sequels but remains in the shadows here, which I like better. For the company these people are expendable. And they'll alone in the coldness of space. The film's famous tagline is "In space no one can hear you scream" which I think just sums up the bleakness of this film and this era of film so well. 

Then there's Ripley.  Weaver wasn't a star when the film was released and Ripley wasn't the iconic character she is now so it wasn't a guarantee that she would live initially. Weaver has such a unique presence as a an actress, a strong no-nonsense physical presence while also being a capable dramatic actress, believable in her vulnerability and strength to survive.  And okay, you're either going to get why she goes back for the cat or not. I would probably go back for the cat. It just makes her more human. 

Alien could've just been as cash-in on the sci-fi craze like the James Bond film Moonraker, also released the same year. But it stands up as a genuine classic in the genre. Scott may have been depressed when he saw Lucas accomplished but he helped make something that could also cause the same level of depression in an aspiring filmmaker. And even Kubrick wanted to know how the chestburster scene was done. Alien is the greatest sci-fi horror film of all time, smart and sophisticated, while never carrying itself with pretension. Just an all around immaculately made movie.  

Death, Taxes, and Franchise Longevity: "Alien 3" and "Alien Resurrection" as Franchise Extensions and Parallel Versions of "Alien" and "Aliens"

Spoilers for the Alien series below

When Charlton Heston blew up the planet of the apes at the end of Beneath the Planet of the Apes, it was thought by Heston- who came up with the idea- that this would prevent any more sequels being made. But, this didn't stop 20th Century Fox from making Escape From The Planet of the Apes shortly after. James Bond is dead but we'll see a new Bond...sometime in the future. Avengers: Endgame felt like, well, the endgame of the MCU. The thing is, a franchise will always find a way to extend its life, even when it probably should end (though I guess there were several loose ends at the end of Endgame).  The question is, how do you continue on a story after it's logical end point. "Rebooting" is always the easy option but there was a time where you didn't really wipe the slate clean- you just continued on with new characters or a new actor as Batman or Bond. When it comes to clear-cut endings, James Cameron's Aliens gives Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) a pretty neat ending-

having overcome the trauma from the original Ridley Scott Alien, and gaining a surrogate daughter and possible love interest. But of course, a third film had to be made. After having difficulty nailing down a story, and even without a finished script, Alien 3 was made, helmed by first time director David Fincher. Alien 3 gives an even more definitive end to Ripley's story- having her commit suicide but, again, a sequel had to be made, and Ripley was brought back as a clone for Alien Resurrection, this time directed by French auteur Jean Pierre Jeunet. Neither Alien 3 or Resurrection are beloved as the first two films but in this piece I want to talk about how they operate, not only as franchise extensions, but also largely as parallel versions of the first two films. 

If Aliens is one of the quintessential Hollywood blockbusters, incredibly audience friendly- filled with one liners and an almost Spielbergian sentiment, then Alien 3 is perhaps the bleakest, nihilistic and audience-unfriendly film of any franchise. It essentially tells its audience "Hey, remember that cute little girl and the cool Colonial marine you loved so much from Aliens? Yeah they're dead, and our supporting cast is now of group of ex-convicts guilty of rape, murder and child molestation. And, oh yeah, Ripley has an alien growing inside of her and wants to kill herself." I've heard Alien 3 compared to a Michael Haeneke film and yeah, the tone of the film does feel like you're watching a depressing European art-house film rather than the 3rd film in a popular film franchise. But that's what I kind of love and appreciate about it. I can't think of another franchise installment that gut punches its audience the way this one does (though I understand many had the same experience with The Last Jedi).

It's pitiless and remorseless, in stark contrast to the sentiment of Aliens.

If Cameron makes very audience friendly films with a certain kind of sentiment, than Fincher often really puts the audience through it, not really giving them easy joy or comfort. I can't really see Cameron ever doing anything as bleak as the ending of Seven. This isn't a judgement call on Cameron as a filmmaker, just an observation. What I love about the original 4 movie cycle is that each film stands out as distinct vision. Aliens could've been the template for all the Alien sequels afterwards, similar to how Terminator 2 became the basis for pretty much every Terminator sequel afterwards. Alien 3, on the other hand, feels increasingly radical as a sequel as the years pass since it stops the story of Aliens in its natural path, saying we're not going to Earth or continuing on the family story of Ripley, Hicks and Newt.  We're not doing a bigger scale film but something small, intimate and sad. 

Alien 3 takes a back to basics approach, limiting itself to one alien, and removing guns from the equation. As with the original, the characters have to get creative in how they'll kill the xenomorph. As franchises go on, there's usually a tendency to keep going bigger with the set-pieces and more of what people liked before. However Alien 3 is pretty minimalist as far as sequels go, surprisingly somber and understated. The setting- a former prison colony now overseen as a lead factory by its former inmates who've found religion- also gets back to the original's gothic atmosphere. Star Wars' lived in universe aesthetic influenced Scott when making Alien and its present in Alien 3,  filtered through Fincher's 90s grunge aesthetic. This is perhaps the most visually striking film in the franchise, Alex Thomson's cinematography creating something beautiful out such a bleak setting.

 

The horror of the original Alien was largely based in its theme of sexual assault and death through childbirth. Many have remarked in the past how it subverts the image of sexual assault by having a man raped instead of a woman. . In Alien 3, the fear of sexual assault is placed back on the female character, but this time with the threat of sexual assault coming from the former inmates. If Alien didn't make a big deal of Ripley's gender (I believe Ripley was originally written to be a man) this film positions her as the lone female, the first and only time in the series, with the threat of male violence against her a constant undercurrent. There is an attempted rape by some of the prisoners on Ripley, who's saved by Dillon (Charles S. Dutton). The irony is clear- this is the man who straight out told Ripley he was a "murderer and a rapist of women." Dillon is a man looking for some kind of redemption and he and Ripley become unlikely allies. 

One of the criticisms of the film is its hard to care about killing these men who are guilty of such heinous crimes, which I get. Outside of Ripley, the character we're allowed to feel the most warmth towards is Clemens (Charles Dance), the medical doctor who was once a former prisoner. He there because he got drunk and prescribed an incorrect dose of painkillers on survivors of a fuel plant boiler explosion. Ripley and Clemens become intimate- the only time we actually see a romantic interaction in the four films- but Clemens is killed off pretty early, Psycho-style, leaving the audience with pretty much just the inmates. Again, I actually kind of appreciate how the film doesn't make it easy for the audience. We're not given them easily identifiable or straight out likable characters but I'd argue the film is asking the audience if they're willing to sympathize or at least get on board with these characters. I find something compelling about Ripley and these inmates having to team together to fight the alien. This is essentially a story about people who have either lost everything (Ripley) or had nothing to begin with (Dillon) having to work together against a common enemy. Dillon sums it up pretty well when he tells the inmates that they're all going to die, you just have to decide how you're going to do it. This may sum up the whole franchise- when facing certain death how are you going to do it? 

Returning to the theme of sexual assault, the ultimate irony comes when Ripley realizes she's already been sexually assaulted by a facehugger, with a xenomorph growing within her. In Alien, Ripley fought for her own survival, and in Aliens, for her surrogate daughter. Here, Ripley is fighting the right to end her own life.  largely to stop the alien from getting in to the hands of the Weyland-Yutani corporation who want to use it as a weapon. In his video essay on the film for his "The Unloved" series, Scout Tofoya remarks how rare it is to see a mainstream Hollywood emphasize with a woman's desire to have an abortion. Ripley does ultimately succeed in killing herself.  This  may not be the happy ending people were left with at the end of Aliens, is a sort of final triumph for this character, going out on her own terms.

And for a while, Alien 3 was the conclusion of the story. Of course, the ending didn't stick, with Alien Resurrection coming several years later. Just as Alien 3 parallels Alien, with its gothic setting and bleak tone, Resurrection attempts to ape Aliens' more humorous, fun action movie vibe. We have multiple xenomorphs, the return of guns to the equation and the broader characterizations.  The film's director, Jeunet, is probably best known to people as the director of Amelie though he hadn't directed it at this time, though he had directed The City of Lost Children and Delicatessen. Jeunet is the franchise's most off-beat and out of left field choice, with Resurrection being is the strangest, ickiest, and tonally conflicted of the four films. Screenwriter Joss Whedon has expressed his dissatisfaction with the film, saying it was directed wrong, acted wrong, and cast wrong. Unlike Aliens, which I think balanced its tone pretty well, Resurrection can't completely decide what kind of film it needs to wants to be. It wants to be, I think, a fun action movie in the vein of Aliens, but's it almost too grotesque and weird, and not really as exciting as Cameron's film.  

 

We almost had a deeper connection to Aliens with Whedon's original idea of cloning Newt, making her the lead of the film. 20th Century Fox however didn't want a story without Weaver. I feel Newt had potential as the lead of the franchise, if they had cast a strong actress in the role (Carrie Henn quit acting after Aliens, her only film). The idea of cloning Ripley was actually a joke producer David Giler made to Weaver when Alien 3 premiered. Resurrection definitely feels like the textbook definition of a franchise jumping the shark, or maybe we should say xenomorph, in an attempt to extend its life cycle, though the film does do funny and bold things with the idea of Ripley being a clone, though she's not just a clone, she's an alien human hybrid. In interviews Whedon said he thought Weaver wouldn't want to play Ripley in such a weird way but he was surprised she told him to push things further. Like in Aliens, Ripley is a mother figure, having been the bearer of the xenomorph embryo, a queen which gives birth to a human/xenomorph baby- yeah, it's very weird. Ripley was attempting to save her surrogate daughter before whereas now as he she has to kill her literal offspring. 

Another parallel with Aliens, and something I think is integral to Ripley's story, is the continuation of the "Rip Van Winkle" thing with Ripley waking up years in the future. Ripley was in cryosleep for 57 years between the first two movies, now it's 200 years in the future. Ripley becomes more and more of an isolated character as the sequels go on- with the Resurrection positioning her as not even being completely human or even the same Ellen Ripley. When we arrive on Earth at the film's end, the android Call (Winona Ryder) asks what's next, to which Ripley replies that she's a stranger there herself. While I get why killing Newt off is seen as an unforgivable sin by many, I think Ripley works better as a loner, a ultimately a tragic figure. Sure, a big part of me wonders what alternate universe version of Alien 3 looks like but I love that the Alien 3 we got makes you feel the pain of triumph snatched away, that sickening irony. Each sequel does undo the victory of the previous film's ending, though I guess that's just the horror genre- it doesn't matter how many times you kill Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, they'll be back for the sequel. I think it's best to look a the Alien quadrilogy as variations on a theme, with each director approaching their film as a stand alone film rather than as a Marvel-esque serialized piece of storytelling.

I never know how to end these things so I'll hand it over to you. What are your thoughts on the two latter Alien sequels. Are you a fan or do yo find them huge disappointments. Comment and let me know. 

 

 

                             

 

11 Great Films That Were Not Nominated For The Best Picture Oscar

Spoilers Below

The history of the Oscars tell their own narrative regarding the greatest films in the history of the medium. While what we consider great is subjective, the Oscars, I would argue, provide a limited view of cinematic greatness. Genre films are often left out, actors of color ignored, great actors and directors never won. But specifically, I wanted to take a moment and look at 11 films that were not nominated for Best Picture, films which have lived on longer some winners. Some may surprise you, but I think it's important to understand why certain films were not appreciated in their moment, that it took time for them to attain classic stature. So, let's get started. These aren't in specific order, but I will be starting with three by a director who never got his due from Oscar.

1. Rear Window  (1954)

Alfred Hitchcock is defined by his dark and twisted portrayals of human nature in the guise of entertaining Hollywood thrillers. One of the most purely entertaining of films, Rear Window isn't just about whether a man has killed his wife, it's about a peeping tom, kind of a pervert, and the human desire to watch. The film is essentially  a meta commentary on cinema in general, on the need for excitement in our ordinary lives. 

We're watching L.B "Jeff" Jefferies, a photographer who's in a cast, stuck in his apartment (after being injured taking a picture of a race car crash) watch his neighbours in the courtyard of apartments, everyone with a story, an entire universe in and of itself. He needs these stories the same way we need films, which give us the ability to view other peoples' lives (albeit fictional). When Jeff suspects businessman Lars Thorwold (Raymond Burr) of killing his invalid wife, his obsession with proving his guilt gives him the ultimate reprieve from boredom, even bringing him closer to his socialite girlfriend Lisa Friedmont (Grace Kelly). But as much as the film deals with the investigation of Thorwold, the other apartment dwellers are just as important. All these people become as familiar to us as they are to Jeff. 

Hitchcock would get a Best Director nomination for the technical brilliance on display ( the whole film is shot on a set, with Hitchcock giving directions via earpiece to his actors), as well as nominations for Best Writing- Screenplay, Color Cinematography, and Best Sound Recording, but oddly not Best Picture. The five nominees were On the Waterfront, The Caine Mutiny, Seven Wives For Seven Brothers, The Country Girl (for which Kelly won Best Actress), and Three Coins in the Fountain. On the Waterfront was the winner, with its director, Elia Kazan, winning Best Director. For me, I would split the two, giving Hitchcock Director and On the Waterfront Picture. 

2. Psycho (1960)

Hitchcock once again received a Best Director nomination (his last) for this proto-slasher film, but without the film getting in to Best Picture. And like Rear Window, it also received four nominations (Hitchcock, Best Supporting Actress for Janet Leigh, B&W Cinematography, and Best Art Direction-Set Decoration (B&W). 

While the film can be argued to be the first modern slasher film, pre-dating Black Christmas and Halloween by nearly 20 years, it starts out as a film noir about real-estate Marion secretary Crane (Janet Leigh) stealing a client's money so she can start a new life with her boyfriend. She winds up at the Bates Motel, where the whole dynamic shifts with the introduction of proprietor Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). The film seems to have- like Marion- taken a detour as we spend a lengthy conversation between the two over supper. Norman is a sad and lonely man who's only relationship is with his invalid mother. 

When Marion is killed in the infamous shower scene it's the film's first interjection of horror, upsetting the narrative we thought we were watching. The sequence is still startling in its violence and impressive in its filmmaking. George Tomasini's sharp editing reflects the knife going in to Marion's body and Bernard Herrmann's screeching score has become synonymous with 'crazy.' The film has spent so much time with Marion that the sudden burst of violence unsettles. There's only 2 murder scenes in the film- this and the murder of Private Investigator Arboghast (Martin Balsam) bu the film relies more on atmosphere and build-up to create a sense of subtle horror in the audiences' mind. 

It's revealed Norman killed his mother and her lover and took on a split personality- he and his mother. The film was never about the money or Marion, it was about Norman's psychosis, with every thing else being a distraction from the truth about Norman  Perkins' performance is so convincing that he could never escape the role. Perkins is deeply sympathetic as Norman; I never view him as the film's villain but as a tragic character, despite the horrible crimes he commits. 

Hitchcock's direction displays his mastery of visual storytelling and his ability to place us n the minds of both Marion and Norman, two people who are closer in spirit than either of them realizes, two people who are tragically torn apart by "mother."  

The Best Picture Nominees that year were The Apartment, The Alamo, Elmer Gantry, Sons and Lovers, and The Sundowners. The winner was The Apartment, which, like On the Waterfront, is one my favourite Best Picture winners. Again, I would give Hitchcock the directing Oscar (Billy Wilder won), while giving Best Picture to The Apartment.

3. Vertigo  

Yes, another Hitchcock, but probably the biggest one to be left out of Best Picture. Not surprisingly, since Vertigo took many years to earn the critical acclaim it now enjoys. The film which was voted the greatest of all time by Sight & Sound back in 2012, and holds at # 2 in 2023, only got two Oscar nominations, for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration and Best Sound. Bernard Herrmann's swooningly melancholic and romantic score, James Stewart and Kim Novak's layered performances, Hitchcock's visionary direction, all ignored. And I get it, I get in 1958 why this was seen as a misfire, why it takes a rewatch or two to really appreciate this film. It took me a second viewing to begin to embrace it. It's probably Hitchcock's most purely artistic and audacious film, one whose D.N.A can be found in other films like David Lynch's Mulholland Drive, George Sluizer's The Vanishing, and Brian De Palma's Obsession. But despite being the influence behind several films, the story remains fresh and unique in the way it moves from ghost story to romance and finally, to obsession. 

It's the story of an acrophobic detective, Scottie Ferguson (Stewart). hired by a old college friend, Gavin Elster, (Tom Helmor)  to follow his wife, Madeleine (Novak), whom he believes has been possessed by the ghost of her great-grandmother. Scottie falls in love with Madeleine but fails to stop his suicide. Afterwards meets another woman named Judy (Novak), who looks like Madeleine, whom he tries to make over in to the image of his dead love. 

Vertigo has an hypnotic power that brings me back time and again, and time is a big theme in the film. Scottie didn't get to Madeleine in time, the past is coming back to haunt Madeleine and then Scottie, near the film's end Scottie says he needs to do one thing to be free of the past.        

The nominees that year were Gigi, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Auntie Mame, The Defiant Ones, and Separate Tables, with Gigi being the winner (its director Vincente Minnelli won Best Director), which I've still have yet to see.

4. The Searchers

John Ford had already won 4 Oscars for directing by the time he did the The Searchers, and a fifth one wouldn't have been out of the question, except Ford and the film were completely shut out at the Oscars (Ford did get a DGA nomination, however), which now seems inexplicable considering The Searchers stature as an American classic. It's a difficult film to reconcile, a story dealing with racism that also still has some racist leanings, but it nonetheless a great film, though I still prefer Stagecoach. John Wayne plays Ethan Edwards, a confederate soldier returning to his brothers' home after the Civil War. When his brother Aaron, and Aaron's wife are murdered by Comanche Native Americans,, Edwards, along with his adopted nephew Martin (Jeffrey Hunter) go off in pursuit of Ethan's kidnapped nieces. 

The film, courtesy of Ford cinematographer of Winton C. Hoch, has some of the striking visuals of any western, capturing what director John Milius said felt to him what the real American west was like. And even with the many revisionist westerns that followed, The Searchers still feels like the most realistic western of its time, especially in terms of its violence, which is still unsettling. The most disturbing aspect of the film is the notion that Ethan will kill one of his nieces Debby (Natalie Wood) after she's "gone native" living with the Comanches for several films (the other, Lucy (Pippa Scott) was killed). 

Wayne plays his most complex role in a performance that, as Martin Scorsese said, makes you hate him but still love him when he returns Debbie home by film's end. And of course, there's that great closing shot of him walking away, as a door closes, bookending the opening door at the beginning. It's wistful and, honourable and poetic. 

The nominees that year where Around the World in 80 Days, Giant, Friendly Persuasion, The King & I, and The Ten Commandments. Around the World in 80 Days, directed by Michael Anderson and produced by Elizabeth Taylor's then husband Mike Todd, who would die a year later in a plane crash. The extravagant film is probably one of the weaker Best Picture winners but is still worth seeing for the sheer scale of it, it's a fascinating time capsule. 

5. Days of Heaven

After establishing his esoteric sensibilities in Badlands (1973), Terrence Malick came back with his voice and style fully formed with Days of Heaven, one of the most ravishing films of all time. It won the Oscar for Best Cinematography- given to Nestor Almendros, though Haxell Wexler took over after after Almendros had to fulfill his commitment to shooting Francois Trauffaut's The Man Who Loved Women.

Taking what 20 years earlier what would've been a 3 hour plus epic, Malick strips down the story of a Chicago steelworker, Bill (Richard Gere) on the run after killing his boss, his sister Linda (Linda Manz), his girlfriend Abby (Brooke Adams), and the dying farmer (Sam Shepherd) Abby marries, in a compact 90 minutes, showing us the fragments of a story through an impressionistic visual style that favours mood and setting over complex characterization.  

The nominees that year were The Deer Hunter, Coming Home, Heaven Can Wait, Midnight Express, and An Unmarried Woman. The Deer Hunter won, which I'm ashamed to say I still haven't seen.

6. Alien 

Ridley Scott's Alien has only gotten better in age, a genuine masterpiece of horror sci fi. The story is so simple but what it's doing is difficult, essentially blending the slow pace of 2001, the lived in junky feel of Star Wars, and the grisliness of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, all while updating a 50s sci-fi creature and placing it in an symbolic haunted house. The alien could've looked goofy, the setting cheap, the pace too slow, but this didn't happen. The pace is slow but with a great sense of dread. The alien is kept in the shadows so we only get glimpses of it and the production design is immaculate, making us believe in the film's unglamorous vision of the future.

A brilliant choice by the film's screenplay- by Dan O'Bannon, with a story by Ronald Shusett-  is conceiving the ensemble of characters as "truckers in space" rather than explorers or scientists.  The characters have a lived-in-ness, a believability as blue collar workers. Them being truckers is also why the Nostromo is so junky- this isn't supposed to be the Enterprise. Michael Seymour's production design and Derek Vanlint's cinematography make the Nostromo one of the most atmospheric settings in horror cinema. 

Like the shower scene in Psycho, the chestburster sequence hasn't lost its shocking impact. Both scenes happen just when things feel like they're getting better, in moments of peace. When Captain Dallas (Tom Skerritt) is killed, it really feels like things are at their worst. And then Ash (Ian Holm) is revealed as an android who has been working against them, leaving only Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), Parker (Yaphet Khotto) and Lambert (Veronica Cartwright), the feeling of claustrophobia is palpable. 

Weaver became a star for her performance as Ripley, giving her assertiveness, sternness but also vulnerability. Her fear during the final stretch of the film feels authentic and her decision to go back and save the cat is a relatable human moment  Her ultimate survival is almost surprising, given this was the decade of the downer ending but it's not completely triumphant either. She's lost her ship and crew, and has found out she was viewed as expendable by the company for which she works. Still, there is a sense of peace for Ripley at the film's end, as she goes back in to cryosleep, going back in to a dream after a nightmare

The nominees that year were Apocalypse Now, Kramer vs. Kramer, All That Jazz, Breaking Away, and Norma Rae. I personally would go with All That Jazz.

7. The Innocents

Completely shut out of the Oscars, though nominated for the Palme d'Or, this is the spookiest film ever made, as well as the best haunted house movie. Governess Miss Giddens? (Deborah Kerr, in a performance that should've earned her an Oscar nomination) is sent to look after two orphaned children , Miles and Flora, whose uncle has no use for them. After learning about the influence of the late Peter Quint and Miss Jessel on the children, Miss Giddens begins to see apparitions that match their descriptions. She soon comes to the conclusion these ghosts are controlling the children. 

The ambiguity surrounding whether Miss Giddens is actually seeing the ghosts or imagining them is what keeps The Innocents so fascinating 60 years after it premiered. Cinematographer Freddie Francis' Widescreen black and white compositions are immaculate and director Jack Clayton captures a certain Victorian-era Britishness in the performances and characters. The film's chilly atmosphere also makes it-like Stanley Kubrick's The Shining- a perfect alternative Christmas film.

The nominees that year were West Side Story, The Hustler, Fanny, The Guns of Navarone, and Judgement at Nuremberg, with West Side Story winning, along with nine other wins. I prefer Spielberg's new West Side Story (My thoughts here :Davies in the Dark: Tonight, Tonight: "West Side Story" (thenoirzone.blogspot.com) and if I were picking from these nominees I would go with The Hustler (which I wrote about here: Davies in the Dark: Search results for the hustler (thenoirzone.blogspot.com)

8. Carrie

Brian De Palma's masterpiece is also the first Stephen King adaptation and one of the best. A hallucinatory film, but one that has moments of sweetness that only make the tragedy of its climax hit even harder.

 Carrie may be the best film about teenage isolation ever made. Despite being incredibly stylized the film finds emotional truth through Sissy Spacek's nominated performance as Carrie White.  What stood out watching it this time is how Spacek makes Carrie both incredibly unusual but also very sweet and nice. We see her coming out of her shell as things being to go- and then when she's humiliated she really comes out of her shell as she unleashes her telekinetic powers against her tormenters. 

The whole prom sequence and how it leads to the pig blood pouring over Carrie is virtuoso filmmaking. In De Palma fashion it feels like he's showing off but you don't mind because it's so impressive. Then there's Carrie's return home and her final confrontation with her religious zealot mother, Margaret (Piper Laurie, in the film's other nominated perfomances), another amazing stretch of filmmaking. This is one of those films you could watch on mute and still understand what's happening.  The emotions and story are all communicated through the visuals. 

Mario Tosi's cinematography gives the film a hazy dreamlike quality that turns in to a nightmare during the prom sequence- and Carrie covered in blood is one cinema's indelible images.  

The nominees that year were Rocky, Taxi Driver, All The President's Men, Network, and Bound For Glory. Bound for Glory is the only one I haven't see but it's a pretty strong line-up overall. 

9. Close Encounters of the Third Kind

My second favourite Spielberg, right behind Jaws. This is also the ultimate Spielberg film, made a couple of years after Jaws, with his voice fully formed. He received his first Best Director nomination (the only time he and pal George Lucas were nominated alongside each other- Lucas was nominated for Star Wars). The film was beat out in most categories by Star Wars, though it won Best Cinematography for Vilmos Zsigmond's stellar work on the film and won a special award for sound effect editing.

It's a darker film then you may remember, with Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) becoming obsessed with U.F.Os after a close encounter with one and alienating his family. But it's also awe-inspiring and wonderous, encapsulating what Spielberg does better than anyone else. It's hard to imagine a blockbuster movie like this getting made now, given it doesn't have a big action climax, but a climax involving the attempt to communicate with an alien mothership. Denis Villenueve's Arrival is the only equivalent I can think of.

Dreyfuss won for The Goodbye Girl (which I haven't seen) but I also would argue he could've been nominated for this instead, making Roy a relatable and likable character even as he becomes more unhinged.

The nominees that year were Annie Hall, Star Wars, The Turning Point, Julia, and The Goodbye Girl. Annie Hall was the winner, with Woody Allen winning for direction and screenplay. The film has plenty of baggage attached to it, but it's a very fine winner overall 

10. 2001: A Space Odyssey

Maybe the greatest film not to be nominated for Best Picture, and the best film about contact with alien beings, mostly because we never see them. Stanley Kubrick (who was nominated for Best Director) keeps them mysterious and kind of spooky. The film is a visual marvel (it won Best Visual Effects and it still feels ahead of its time, even as we've long since passed the year in which it takes place. The nominees that year were Oliver!, The Lion in Winter, Funny Girl, Rachel, Rachel, and Romeo & Juliet. Oliver! was the winner, with Carol Reed winning Best Director. I feel Reed should've won for The Third Man instead. Oliver! is okay but I think I would go with The Lion in Winter or Romeo & Juliet

11. Singin' in the Rain

The greatest movie musical of all, and a great film about Hollywood, Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly's Singin' in the Rain is superior to the previous year's Best Picture winner, another Kelly musical, An American in Paris. The film is about Hollywood's transition from silent films to talkies, with movie star Don Lockwood falling in love with chorus girl Kathy Selden (Debby Reynolds), while his screen partner Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen in an Oscar nominated performance), whose shrill voice doesn't make the cut when it comes to talkies, becomes jealous. Donald O'Connor lends support as Don's friend Cosmo Brown, a performance that also should've garnered a Oscar nomination. 

The dancing is off the charts great, the songs funny and poignant, Kelly is at his most charismatic, Hagen is hilarious, and Reynolds becomes a star right before our eyes. It's a truly joyous film, technically brilliant and with a lot of heart. A great example of Hollywood studio filmmaking done right.

The nominees that year were The Quiet Man, The Greatest Show on Earth, High Noon, Ivanoe, and Moulin Rouge. The Greatest Show on Earth won, with John Ford winning for The Quiet Man (his fourth Oscar). The film is usually considered one of the worst- if not the worst film to win Best Picture, though I haven't seen it. For me, I would go with The Quiet Man, maybe my favourite of Ford's films, along with Stagecoach.

So, what films do you think should've been nominated for Best Picture? Comment and let me know.

How I Wonder What You Are: "Prometheus"

Mild Spoilers Ahead

Prometheus has been one of the biggest question marks in terms of big studio releases for quite some time. This is director Ridley's Scott return to science fiction- the genre in which he made two classic films, Alien and Blade Runner, which are also the two films which have defined his career. But what made the idea of  Scott returning to science fiction even more intriguing is that Prometheus is a prequel to Alien. The big question mark of the film that I mentioned earlier was how much of an Alien prequel this would be. Early on it seemed we'd be getting a straight up Alien prequel and then it seemed Scott wanted to make a standalone film, with the title of the film being called Prometheus instead of something with Alien in the title. And then we heard rumblings from the cast that the film would have connections to Alien. And from then on, it's been interesting to ponder how the movie would blend it's own story with elements from the first Alien film.

Essentially, while I feel Prometheus is a good philosophical sci-fi horror film, the things it's doing don't all click together. On the one hand, it's asking big questions regarding the dawn of the human race, who created us and why, what it means to be human, darwinism versus creationism. It's also trying to provide some good old fashioned sci-fi horror scares- while at the same time trying to take the first Alien and put it in the context of these big philosophical ideas. As I said, not everything clicks but I admire Scott for putting all these elements in the same film and I feel he has created an bizarrely fascinating take on the whole idea of making a prequel. It also feels this is the most ambitious and go-for-broke Scott has been in quite some time.

The big philosophical question at the heart of the film is "What if God is an alien?" Two archaeologists, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a star map in various caves belonging to ancient civilizations. These civilizations have no connections to each other, leading them to believe they were left there by beings from outer space and are invitations to come find them. A few years later, Shaw and Holloway are on board the ship Prometheus, heading towards the planet these "engineers" are believed to have originated from. The ship lands near an ancient structure, which the crew plans to investigate.

Performance wise, I think the movie is pretty solid. Swedish actress Rapace, who was the orginal Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, is a slightly unconventional choice for the lead role. That's why I think it works. She brings a certain texture to her performance that I think would be missing with another actress. Elizabeth and Charlie are in a romantic relationship and their relationship is presented rather nicely. They do seem authentically in love. Charlize Theron plays Martha Vickers, who works for Weyland Industries(sound familar?) Theron plays Vickers as cold and detached and as the film goes along and we learn about her relationship to Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), founder of Weyland Indutries, a bitterness and sense of entitlement. I would have liked a little more development with her and her relationship to Weyland. Idris Elba, as Janek, the captain of Prometheus, has some good character moments as well. Overall, the character development is solid but I wish there were a few more character beats for Theron and Elba.

Michael Fassbender as the robot David was my favourite performance and character. I think one of the hardest things for an actor do to is play a robot without coming across as...well, robotic and boring. Fassbender makes David both charismatic and mysterious. What are his motives? How human is he? You feel a tiny bit of Blade Runner- and also 2001 seeping in regarding. I wish the film had pushed these questions about David's humanit and nature a little further, particularly sincce they do link to the idea of creation in the film. I love how David draws inspiration from Lawrence of Arabia- essentially Fassbender is doing a riff on Peter O'Toole. He quotes a line from the film and when asked where's it from, he replies rather sincerely, "from a film I like." I liked that moment a lot.

A conversation with Holloway draws comparisons between the "engineers" and humans. David asks Charlie why he was made by humans. Charlie tells him it's probably because they could. David then asks Charlie how'd he feel if the "engineers" told him the same thing. What if the creation of human existence was as simple as that? It implies that if we were made just because it was possible, also means we are expendable, which becomes the major threat of the film in the third act.

I do love the idea of aliens creating humans. It's a bizarre and almost awe-inspiring idea, especially since, and others have brought this up, if aliens created us, who created them? Elizabeth is a woman of faith and it's interesting she accepts this notion that aliens could have created us. She's accepting of a re-interpretation of God or at least another element in God's design.

As the film moves along it's hard to get Alien out from the back of your head. I hung to every image that was reminescent of Alien and every reference that seemed to tie in to its mythology but I always wanted more from that universe even though I knew I wouldn't get to see the Xenomorph. I don't think it's a flaw in the film so much as it's a result of the unshakable perception that this is a prequel to a great science fiction horror and one wants to see as many connections as possible. At the same time, I found it hard to reconcile all the film I was seeing with the film and mythology it was tying in to.

I think if the script, by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof had reconciled these elements in to a straight line or a more cohesive whole, I feel I could have settled in to it a bit easier. I feel the main problem with the script is that it's not always clear on certain aspects of the "engineers" or how they relate to the origins of the Xenomorph. The final moments of the film are kind of awesome but there's also that feeling "Okay...that was weird." Now, I wouldn't want the film to literally explain every detail but I would have liked to have had a clearer sense "Okay, that's how everything fits together." The ending of the film also can't shake the whole "setting for a sequel" feeling. I wish the film had a more definitive ending that felt that it connected smoothly with the events of the first film. That would be the more satisying ending but it seems we'll have to wait for a sequel to reach that point.

One thing Scott does in this film that I like is how he creates a different feeling towards space travel in this film than in Alien.  In Alien, space travel had this feeling of banality. They were truckers in space, just doing a job. Even when they fine the alien ship, it's more creepy and mysterious than awe-inspiring. In Prometheus, it's more about the thrill of discovery, of what's out there. When things turn darker, it's a good seg-way to what Alien is about- the possibility that what's out there has the possibility to destroy us. In Alien, the robot Ash says the Xenomorph has no delusions of morality and one could draw the same conclusions about the "engineers."

Scott has put his very lean horror film on a mythological scale. Looking back at the Alien series, I felt after the second film the series didn't move the story or mythology forward enough. This seems like the first Alien related film in some time that truly feels like it wants to do something different with the mythology. Scott had to go back and a little to the side to give us a fresh take...but he did it.

In Space...: Revisiting the "Alien" Franchise

I wanted to revisit the Alien series because Prometheus, Ridley Scott's new film which is supposed to be a prequel of sorts to his orginal film, is coming out soon- and also because I really wanted to see them again-especially on Blu-ray! What I like about the four Alien films- the ones starring Sigourney Weaver- is that each of them, helmed by a different director, is it's own thing. The ingredients are pretty much the same but the directors all bring their own style, even if the film isn't very good.


What's remarkable about the first film in the series, Alien, is that, on a plot and character level, it's essentially a B movie, a haunted house movie set aboard a spaceship with an Alien. What makes it an A movie is Ridley's Scott direction, which slowly builds up tension, then giving us a great payoff that never feels just like a jump scare- but he never really relieves us of the tension. The film is also benefited by strong performances from the cast. While the characters are not super complex, the actors make them feel like real people. Who come to sympathize with them and all their deaths really hurt- especially when the captain of the Nostromo, Dallas (Tom Skeritt) is taken by the alien. Once that happens you feel the rock of the film is gone. What also elevates the film in to A film level status is how terrifying the Alien is. Based off designs by H.R. Giger, the alien is never cheesy or lame. And like the shark in Jaws, only a few years prior, Scott doesn't show the alien all at once but slowly shows us more as the film goes along. The fact that we don't always see the alien adds to the terror of the film- by hardly ever seeing it, we feel it can just jump out of nowhere.

The dread in this film just keeps escalating as we realize nothing can stop this monster. What also enhances the dread is that the real villain of the film is never seen. It's the corporation that sent out the ship and which views the crew as expendable- all that matters is getting the alien back to Earth. It's a theme that's present through all the alien films. The alien is a killing machine but what really causes the trouble is Weyland-Yutani. I think that's what makes this film so disturbing. The faceless villain that has doomed the entire ship.

After Dallas is gone, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) emerges as the main character of the film. At the time I believe people believed Dallas was going to be the hero of the film. What's also interesting is that supposedly Ripley was the only character written specifically to be a man- but with Weaver in the role, the film takes on feminist undertones. What I like though is that Ripley never really becomes a traditional hero in this film. At the end, left alone, she's scared shitless as she tries to blow up the ship and escape in the hatch pod. They don't make her "tough"- that comes later. She's strong though, scared, but strong.

Aliens, the second film, does what most sequels never have the leisure to do. Most sequels are the same genre of the previous film. Aliens, despite still having the ingredients of a horror film, is actually more of an action film than horror. James Cameron, who had made his name with the first Terminator film, didn't want to remake the first film so he essentially made his own riff on the concept. But while Aliens is very different from Alien, Cameron does a great job of expanding upon the universe Scott created in the first film. In the first film, it was a lone alien in the shadows, stalking the crew. This time, it's war, as the film's tagline declared. Things are no longer just contained to a spaceship, and it's not just one alien.

I think Cameron's main interest in this film is developing the character of Ripley. Ripley has been in hypersleep for 57 years after escaping from the Nostromo. Weyland-Yutani find her but don't believe her story.  In the special edition of the film, which Cameron says he prefers, there's a scene where she discovers her daughter has died- she sees a picture of her, a grandmother and recalls she promised she'd be back home for her 11th birthday. This scene, cut for the theatrical cut, provides a great deal of subtext and emotional weight to her relationship to Newt (Carrie Henn). She wants the mother-daughter bond she can no longer have with her real daughter- and by protecting Newt, somehow may want to redeem herself. Cameron makes Ripley a woman out of time, with every one she ever knew dead or old. She's also plagued by nightmares every night. Only by confronting the aliens with the marines can she be at peace. I think the arc Ripley goes through in this film is the strongest out all the films.

Aliens, I think, is the warmest of the Alien films, the one in which I'm most attached to what's happening on screen. But while it has it's tender moments, it's not overly sentimental. Cameron deftly combines and switches between tenderness and real terror. This makes the stakes higher as we know this young girl, and Ripley's redemption, lies in the balance. The film also develops the "Alien" universe's fear of American bureacracy, personified here by Paul Reiser's Carter Burke. At first Burke seems like a decent enough guy- but we learn what he'll do in order to get an alien specimen.

Also- on an action movie level, this film is spectacular. Cameron stages intense sequences of action without losing any of the suspense or fear needed in a movie like this. This feels almost non-stop- but it never becomes overbearing.

Alien 3 is where the franchise started to lose its way. It was a troubled production from early on. There was trouble settling on a script and on landing a director. Renny Harlin,was hired on as director but left to direct Die Hard 2 once the production wasn't coming together. Vincent Ward, who has a story credit on the film, was called on to direct but was  fired due to disagreements with producers. Eventually, directing duties fell to David Fincher. At the time, Fincher had never directed a feature film before- only music videos. Fincher, from my understanding, was not treated well by the studio (20th Century Fox) during production- and there were constant re-writes on set. Fincher is one of the things that makes Alien 3 worth watching. Even on his first film, and a troubled one at that, one can see his directorial talent, his eye for great visuals, shining through.

My main problem with Alien 3 is that it feels too much like a franchise movie- and I think this is when the series started to be seen in those terms by the studio. When I say it feels like a franchise film, what I mean is that the script essentially finds a new location to put Ripley in, surrounds her with a bunch of characters to be killed off by the alien, and lets the alien run loose and do its thing. Now to be fair, that description fits the first two Alien films. But with Alien, it was okay to have a straightforward plot and Aliens  had a larger scale and a different emotional centre. Alien 3 seems like it takes the basic ingredients for an Alien movie and puts them on screen. The scale of the film also feels too small after Aliens. While I wouldn't want a sequel to Aliens to just replicate that film, I feel this film should have gone to the alien homeworld or bring the aliens to earth- two ideas which were tossed around in the early development stages on Alien 3. By having Ripley crash land on Fiorina "Fury" 161, the film also feels it has crash landed in a story that's not the one the series needed to tell.

Now, I'm not a hater of this film. I can't say I like it because it is such a cold and distancing film- but I do admire some of its elements. I said it feels like a franchise film but there are elements of the film which make it unique. I like the idea of these prisoners "finding God at the ass-end of space," as Ripley puts it. Redemption is a  big theme in this film and finds an interesting outlet through these prisoners. My favourite sequence in the film is near the end when Ripley and the prisoners have the alien chase them through the tunnels, locking a door at certain check points. I also like the relationship between Ripley and the doctor Clemens (Charles Dance). It's the closest thing the film has to an emotional centre. Unfortunately, the alien kills Clemens pretty early on- particularly in the 2003 Assembly Cut. The Assembly Cut, which was the cut I watched when I was revisiting the series, does feel a little more developed than the theatrical cut- but it does seem to drag a bit. The Assembly Cut does restore an interesting subplot involving one of the prisoners, Golic (Paul McGann), who releases the alien after Ripley and the others have captured it. Golic worships the alien like a God because the alien did not kill him when he encountered it. Golic meets his end at the hands (or mouth) of the alien. Golic's subplot fits well with the theme of religion in the film and it's an fascinatng reaction from a character to the alien.

The main criticism people have of Alien 3 is the killing off of Newt and Hicks (Michael Biehn). While I can see why their presence wouldn't have worked in this film, I do feel killing them off killed off the possibilities to develop them further as characters as well as their relationship to Ripley. There is an unshakable feeling that their deaths makes the emotional arc of Aliens, not so much pointless but pointless to this film- and I feel the film should have continued their story. The android Bishop (Lance Henriksen) also gets the shaft. It's a shame he gets reduced to a pile of scrap metal and gets only about a minute of screentime.

The most important element that raises this film above the franchise film label is Ripley's suicide at the end of the film- she chooses to kill herself and the alien inside her to stop the Weyland-Yutani from getting it. It's an appropriate ending to the film- and at that time-the franchise.

Of course, a franchise like this never stays dead for long. Alien Resurrection is the fourth and last (in the standalone Alien series). It's my least favourite film of the franchise. It feels very soulless and pointless. The only really interesting thing about the film is having Ripley being cloned and having her come back as a human with alien DNA. Can she be trusted? How human is she.  I wish the film had gone a little bit further with these ideas. They seem be there mostly as subtext that's slightly on the surface but it's not taken to the extreme levels it could have reached. There's also no emotional centre for the audience to get attached to. No Newt, no Hicks, not even Clemens. There are a few nice moments between Ripley and Annalee\Call (Winona Ryder), the android who wanted to kill her due to her alien DNA, but it's not developed enough to be something we find ourselves getting involved with. My favourite moment of the film is when the ship enters earth's atmosphere. Call asks Ripley what's going to happen and Ripley says she doesn't know- "I'm a stranger here myself." It's a very poignant moment that acknowleges how epic Ripley's journey has been- it's been 200 years since Alien 3, and 57 years passed between the first two films, making it 257 years since Ripley left earth on the Nostromo.

I also like the scene where Ripley finds the failed Ripley clones and proceeds to destroy them all. If the film had been as haunting and compelling as that scene, it would have been a stronger film. The director of the film is Jean-Pierre Jeunet and like the previous three directors, he has a great visual eye, creating a very good looking film. This is the only film of his that I've seen and I'd see a film where his direction is paired with a stronger script. Joss Whedon wrote the script for this film. In an interview he says in terms of direction and casting, the script wasn't treated that well. I feel even with a different director and cast, the script is where most of the problems lie.

So, those are my thoughts on the Alien series. I should also say that Sigourney Weaver gives consistantly strong performances through the franchise. She and Ridley Scott created a terrific female action hero and it's a testament to the character that we remember her as vividley as the alien.

Favourite Films of 2011 and Looking Ahead to 2012

I think doing top ten lists is probably the most difficult part of a film critic's job, whether professional or aspiring. This is the rough version of my top ten list. I like to think of this as a list of favourites rather than objectively "best" films. There are still films I need to see because I feel there are a number of them which could make this list. Anyway, here's my list!



1. The Tree of Life- Terrence Malick has created a film of contradictions- both cosmological and earthbound, distant and moving, odd and mundane, universal and personal, and while it may be Malick's most personal film, it's still very much part of his other work up until now. It's these contradictions which make The Tree of Life such a rich and unique experience. It shows us how an entire universe can be captured in a single household. It shows us how a father can be cruel but its that very cruelty which makes his children want to please him. It shows us the choice being living a path of either nature or grace is a choice between two people, a mother and a father. It also asks whether one can live with the choice they make or if its possible to live only one path. Malick supposedly is working on a six hour cut of the film. It's not too surprsing. Another contradiction of the film is while it feels self contained, it also has the feeling of continuely expanding. It's still developing and asking questions after it ends. That's why it haunts you.



2. Bridesmaids- Like most of Judd Apatow produced films, Bridesmaids has a somewhat messy structure and maybe goes on a little too long but with great performances which balance the comedic and the human, including Kristen Wiig's star solidifying and Melissa McCarthy's star making turns, some very funny set pieces, enjoyable characters, combined with an honest story about friendship, Bridesmaids still worked like gangbusters, or should I say bridebusters.



3. 50/50- 50/50's comedic elements may feel to some like "sugar coating'' the harrowing reality of cancer but it's the film's injection of humour which makes the quieter moments where Joseph Gordon Levitt's Adam has to face the implications of his illness all the more effective.



4. Rango- I had a real giggle (yes giggle) fest when watching this film for the first time recently. Not only is the animation visually beautiful, it's also visually very funny. There are shots where just the sight of Johnny Depp's chameleon Rango and other of the Desert town Dirt's inhabitants is just hilarious. While Rango may pack the emotional punch of films like Toy Story 3 or Wall-E, Rango's eccentric sense of humour and great voice acting elevates it outside its somewhat conventional plot and makes it one of the pleasant surprises of the year.



5. Drive- Film noir at its most brutal and stripped down. While I still have some mixed feelings towards Drive due to its violence and how it's almost too stripped down, not always developing its characters as much as it can, I still have love for a lot that's in this film. Not only is Ryan Gosling  great in the strong silent type role, ala Clint Eastwood or Steve McQueen, but he and director Nicolas Winding Refn create a fascinating deconstruction of this kind of character. At the beginning they show us an efficient, calculated getaway driver, only known as Driver, but as the film progresses, and as soon as Driver beats a man's head in in an elevator, we know there's a much darker, unhinged personality in their. Think of it as Taxi Driver in reverse.

The (Roughly) Next Five:
6. Moneyball
7. Midnight in Paris
8. X-Men: First Class
9: We Need to Talk About Kevin
10. The Skin I Live In

Honourable Mentions: Attack the Block, Captain America, Crazy, Stupid, Love., The Descendants, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Horrible Bosses, Hugo, Insidious J. Edgar, Melancholia, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Super

Still Need to See: A Dangerous Method, The Adventures of Tintin, Albert Nobbs, The Artist, A Seperation, Contagion, Coriolanus, Friends with Benefits, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Help, The Ides of March, The Iron Lady, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, The Muppets, Rampart, Submarine, Super 8, Take Shelter, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Tyrannosaur, Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives, Young Adult, War Horse, We Bought a Zoo



Looking Forward to 2012: My most anticipated film of this year, as I've said before, is The Dark Knight Rises. What I've admired about Christopher Nolan's past two Batman films is how Nolan and his creative team have made Gotham City feel very contemporary. Moreover, I like how through this contemporary prism, the filmmakers are still getting at the issues which have always been central to the character of Batman. I'm excited to see if the film can manage not to feel anti-climatic in comparison to The Dark Knight, which was ambitious and epic, and had Batman and Gotham City pushed to its limits by the Joker. I think Tom Hardy as Bane will be a great successor to Heath Ledger's already iconic portrayal of the Joker and Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle/Catwoman will most likely be more interesting than the Rachel Dawes character. Third movies are tough for any franchise, particularly superhero films- think Spider-Man 3 or X-Men 3. But I think Nolan and his team are committed to this character and the specific interpretation of Gotham City they've established. I think this has a good chance of breaking the super-hero third movie curse.


I'm really mixed about The Amazing Spider-Man. I like Spider-Man and it has a strong cast. It's just that honestly I'm getting a little sick of Emma Stone. Believe me, you don't want me to start with my love/hate relationship with her. I'm also not sure if this film, even if it'll strike a different tone than Sam Raimi's trilogy, will offer anything new to the super-hero genre. There have been so many super-hero films in the last decade that it's arguably become overkill. Returning to Nolan's Batman films, The Dark Knight, as I said, was ambitious. It was this ambition as well as the willingness to go beyond pure escapism, to create something thematically dense and assertive- and psychologically intense, which always stands out when I think about the film. While I don't expect or want every super-hero film to be like The Dark Knight, since it's sometimes too serious and oppressive a film, none of the other superhero film released since The Dark Knight, not even Watchmen, have really grabbed me the same way that film did. Again, while The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't have to be like The Dark Knight, I hope it goes in a direction that really surprises and reaches an emotional high which resonates afterwards. I'm just afraid it'll like more of a set-up movie, where we have to wait until the second installment to get to the really good stuff.


While The Avengers aren't close to my heart the way Batsy and Spidey are, The Avengers is the first of its kind: it's a superhero epic which has been set-up through numerous Marvel produced films, establishing a continiuity similar to that of the Marvel universe and bringing together Iron Man, Captain America, The Hulk and Thor. It's sure to be a spectacle and arguably, if it's a success, it'll have more impact on future superhero films than even The Dark Knight Rises.



My most anticipated film after The Dark Knight Rises is Skyfall, the 23rd James Bond and the third starring Daniel Craig. I love Casino Royale, it's my favourite Bond film, and after seeing Quantum of Solace a few times, despite it being underdeveloped in some areas, I would argue it's one of the more underrated Bond films, economic and brutal. I also think Daniel Craig is perfect for this kind of Bond, cold, rugged, broken hearted and angry. It'll be interesting to see how the filmmakers deal with Bond being Bond after the last two films where about him becoming Bond. I hope he doesn't lose his humanity, that they strike a balance between the darker Bond established in the last two films, and the Bond we're more familiar with, preferably Sean Connery. Q is back! Ben Whishaw is playing the gadget master and I kind of love the idea of having a younger Q in this franchise. Sam Mendes is directing and I think he's bring a elegant visual style to the film, particularly with Roger Deakins as his cinematographer. While the Bond series may seem as overkill as the way I've described super-hero films, as I was saying about The Dark Knight, this new Bond franchise is going in interesting directions, which makes them still worth the audience's time.



Ridley Scott hasn't made a science fiction film since his 1982 classic Blade Runner. Along with 1979's Alien, Scott has made two of the most iconic sci-fi films of the 20th century. His new film this year, Prometheus, started as a prequel to Alien but from what Scott has said, it's won't technically be a prequel but will be part of the same universe, with the same "D.N.A" from the first movie creeping in. I'm facinated to see how it plays out. The prospect of Scott returning to the genre where he's arguably done his best work is exciting, particularly if it brings him back to the franchise he started with Alien.

 This new year brings a lot of exciting films to look forward to. Hopefully they'll live up to the hype!