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. 

 

 

                             

 

The Oddities: "Legend" (1985)

   

I'd argue there's two Ridley Scotts. There's the Hollywood workhorse who has delivered crowd-pleasing fare like Thelma & Louise (1991), The Martian (2015) and Gladiator (2000). And then we have the avant-garde Ridley Scott, who made The Counselor (2013) Blade Runner (1982), and the film I'll be talking about here, 1985's dark fantasy, Legend. Legend was not a box-office or critical hit but became a cult classic over time, especially with its director's cut,  which is the only version I've seen and which will be my focus for this. Legend is a flawed but beautiful film, remarkable in its imagery and visual storytelling. It represents a completely approach to today's cinematic fantasy storytelling. It's timeless but also very much of the 1980s.   

Legend originated back when Scott was directing his first film, The Duellists (1977). It was the abandoned project Tristan and Isolde which inspired Scott's interest in directing a mythological story. But Scott knew that like The Duellists the film he envisioned wouldn't attract a huge audience. So instead he decided to direct a more sure-fire box office success, Alien, which made Scott's career. Scott then returned to the idea of making a fantasy film, reading many of the classic fairy tales. 

He decided that the film needed to be a original story, saying "It was far easier to design a story to fit the medium of cinema than bend the medium for an established story" (Cinefantastique Magazine, Vol 15, No. 5). Scott then discovered the books of William Hjortsberg, Upon meeting Hjortsberg Scott  showed him Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast (1946) and their shared love of the film was the foundation for their collaboration. Before filming began on Blade Runner (1982) Scott and Hjortsberg worked out what the story was going to be. When the script was finished the story had gone through 15 revisions.

Befitting its fairy-tale foundation, Legend is very minimalist in its story, characters and setting. We're never told what the setting is. This could a entirely separate world or it could ours in some distant past. The villain is simply called The Lord of Darkness (Tim Curry\) and he wants to place the world in eternal, well, darkness. Darkness sends his goblin minion Blix (Alice Playton) kill the unicorns who protect the light and bring him their horns, ensuring there will never be another dawn.

Our protagonists are Princess Lili (Mia Sara) and her friend named Jack (Tom Cruise) who lives in the forest. When Jack shows Lili the unicorns, her desire to touch them allows a distraction for Blix to shoot one with a dart. When the unicorns flee Blix is able to take one of their horns. This brings a snow storm upon the world, with Lili and Jack ending up on separate journeys to make things right.

While I understand why so much of Legend is rooted in fairy-tale archetypes  I do wish Lili and Jack's relationship hit a little deeper. I think the problem is Sara and Cruise don't have great chemistry, though I love Sara in this film- she feels like an actual fairy-tale princess. While she's most associated with Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) this was her film debut and her performance reflects she understands what kind of movie this is. This was Cruise after he became famous in Risky Business (1983) but before his onscreen persona was solidified in Top Gun (directed by Scott's brother Tony) and The Color of Money (both released in 1986.) Cruise is a little bit lost here. He's known for his intense charisma but role needed a different kind of charisma. Sara was still only 16 when filming took place and Cruise was 22. I think a teenage actor would've matched better with Sara.   

In regard to casting Tim Curry is the standout for many people. Scott cast him because he believed he could be melodramatic while still threatening. Curry crafts something ominous through his voice and I love how we don't see him through most of the film, only his voice. At the film's beginning when Darkness is talking he feels like an entity rather a physical  being. He's almost god-like, paralleling the unicorn's god-like nature. When we finally see Darkness late in to the face his appearance invokes a devil-like creature with hoofs and horns. I'll add that Rob Bottin and Peter Robb-King's Oscar-nominated make-up still holds up. Curry is unrecognizable but is able to give an genuine performance through the make-up.  

So, we have the angelic unicorns and the devil. It's not subtle but its clear visual paralleling. The unicorns represent innocence. On the commentary Scott says while Lili is innocent, she is also manipulating Jack, which leads to him showing her the unicorns. Scott says she was originally supposed to turn in to a cat creature as a result of her manipulative nature, having even tempted Darkness. She also tempts one the unicorns, which Scott likens to tempting a god. I would say by engaging in these gods' worlds hell is brought upon the world as punishment.

Legend is best approached as a mood piece, similar to Blade Runner. Both have a dream-like, almost hypnotic quality to them, with an authentic strangeness permeating through the story. This is a film I'd argue you could watch this film on mute and still mostly understand the story. On an aesthetic level the world Legend genuinely feels like fairy tale/fantasy world. The film was all shot on soundstages, which Scott believed could end up looking fake. He hired production designer Assheton Gorton- whom he wanted to work on Alien and Blade Runner- because Gorton understood how to navigate these problems. Scott said, "We both knew that whatever we did would never look absolutely real, but would very quickly gain its own reality and dispense with any feeling of theatricality" (Cinefantastique).  

When it comes to theatricality there are certain scenes I feel have a Shakespearean quality. The opening scene, for example, with Darkness and Blix, feels reminiscent of the dynamic between a Shakespearean villain and his minion: 

Darkness: Ah, Blix come closer.

Blix: You summoned me, lordship.

Darkness: Are you not the most loathsome of my goblins?

Blix: Truly master

Darkness: And is your heart black, and full of hat

Blix: Black as midnight, black as pitch, blacker than the fouler witch."

And the first scene between Jack and the fairy creatures, led by Honeythorn Gump (David Bennent),  brings to mind something out of A Midsummer Night's Dream:

Jack: I must be dreaming.

Gump: If life is but a dream, better dread you the waking. That's Oona, she likes you.

Jack: (to Oona) Go away!

Gump: Does your blood run so cold Jack?  You'll be a corpse before your time.

Jack: How do you know my name?

Gump: How does a migrating swallow know the way south in winter. Or a falling salmon finds the very source of its birth from the cold black depths of the mysterious sea? I know everything Jack."

Scott mentions that Gump was inspired by Mickey Rooney's performance as Puck from Max Reinhardt's film version of A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935). Reinhardt's film is also akin to Legend in its striking art direction and un-Hollywood like atmosphere. Bennent is a Swiss actor and Scott really loved his accent. However, one of the executives at Universal felt Bennent sounded like a "Nazi." Bennent's voice was dubbed by Blix's actor, Alice Playton.    

Let's get  back to the film's theatrical aspects just briefly. I 'll say he dance waltz-Lili's dance with the black dress that then possesses her- is the film's most theatrical sequence. It's also It's my favourite part of the whole film. I find it truly mesmerizing and am stunned when I watch it. On the commentary Scott says it's like a ballet/opera, and it truly is. But it also feels cinematic. He wonders if the film could be put on stage and I'd say there are aspects which would work on stage, including the waltz. I also agree with Scott that the film takes on its own reality. The theatricality is an organic extension of the film's cinematic reality.  

I now want to talk about how Legend became to exist in different versions. Before Legend was released theatrically Scott cut down the film from 150 minutes to 94 due to poor test screenings with younger audiences who didn't take the film seriously. The American version was edited down even further at Universal Studio President Sid Sheinberg's request because he felt the European version wasn't appealing to younger audiences. Moreover, Jerry Goldsmith's score, which was retained for the European version, was replaced with the German new age band Tangerine Dream's synth score, another way in which to appeal to younger viewers (How the 1985 Fantasy Film 'Legend' Ended Up With 2 Soundtracks - Atlas Obscura)

The eventual DVD release of the film's director's cut (113 minutes) started with unofficial Legend historian Sean Murphy and his Legend FAQ site.  You can find plenty of information on the journey to finally getting the director's cut released here: History Of the LEGEND DVD by Sean Murphy (figmentfly.com)

I want to close this piece by saying I've come to appreciate this film more by writing about it. Despite the story and characters feeling too thin I feel there's real beauty to this film in its imagery and music. So, where does Legend rank amongst Ridley Scott's filmography for you? Which is your preferred version? Comment and let me know. 

Musings on ''Blade Runner 2049''

Making a sequel or prequel to a film some 30 years later is a risky endeavour. Once a film has gained status as a classic it's difficult to make a follow-up that'll live up that status. There's also the possibility you undermine the original by either ret-conning events or having a story which doesn't feel like a natural progression of the original's story.  

Ridley Scott's Blade Runner- starring Harrison Ford hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark- was a divisive film when it was first released in 1982 but has since become heralded as a masterpiece of science fiction cinema. What's most interesting about Blade Runner getting a sequel- entitled Blade Runner 2049 and whose first trailer was released earlier today- is despite it's popularity and acclaim, it's always been somewhat of a challenging film and often easier to admire than to lovingly embrace. It's a completely different animal than Star Wars. 

This makes me intrigued about Blade Runner 2049. Instead of just another sequel to a popular movie, we could be in for a genuinely cerebral science fiction film. Director Denis Villeneuve, inheriting the director's chair from Scott, has shown with this year's Arrival he's up to crafting intelligent and emotional science fiction. And with Roger Deakins as cinematographer, the film will live up to the visual beauty of the original.

So, the trailer. Ideally this would be the only trailer released. It doesn't give anything about the plot other than Ford is back as blade runner Rick Deckard and Ryan Gosling is playing a new blade runner named K. The trailer opens with audio of Deckard from the original, as we see K walking through the ominous street of future L.A, a quintessential Blade Runner image. The released synopsis of the film describes Deckard as having gone missing. So essentially Deckard is the Luke Skywalker of this film, though it looks he'll be in it more than Mark Hamill was in The Force Awakens. When Ford is revealed in the trailer it does feel like you're seeing the older Harrison Ford rather than the older Deckard but it's still a great payoff.

Blade Runner is a film imbued with ambiguity. The big question that still causes debate among fans is whether Deckard is actually a replicant. Villeneuve has stated the film will not necessarily reveal whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant. Since Deckard is in the film, has visibly aged and replicants are supposed to have a short life span, it appears that Deckard would have to be human; unless Deckard is a replicant that lives longer. It would be bold the film to give a definitive answer but part of the appeal of the original film is that lingering question. I think there'll likely be a reference to Rachael (Sean Young), the replicant with whom Deckard fell in love with and would have died nearly 30 years earlier. 

Blade Runner 2049 won't be released until October 2017- and great or not, I think it'll be one of the most talked about blockbusters of 2017. 

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!