kissdbyfire Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 They are so different in tone that I don't think they should really be compared. The first is a great Horror flick, the second is a great Action flick. Most likely you're going to side with the genre that you prefer. That's a great point. I much prefer horror over action, and even though I love both, I prefer Alien to Aliens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 While I managed to stay awake throughout Alien, I agree with the general sentiment. Alien hasn't aged that well imo. As a horror film it just isn't very scary anymore. At least I never felt scared watching it. It has some great scenes though. Aliens on the other hand is still an insanely good action movie. I think that film loses a ton on the small screen. I still maintain that the setting is simply perfect when applied to Horror. Just that sterile, antiseptic environment with the crappy flourescent type lighting. Even the tagline was genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Hmm. I prefer Alien, but I think that has to do with my preference for Horror over Action overall. I'd have to imagine that Aliens would appear on most folks Top Ten lists for Action flicks. I'd put it up there with the best. I'm aware that this is one of my more eccentric opinions but yeah, it wouldn't nearly get in my top 10. Part of my problem with it mind is that I think the Xenomorph itself is suited to the horror in a way it isn't to action. The needs of an action movie take away from the effectiveness of the monster at what it does best, and I love a good creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I'm aware that this is one of my more eccentric opinions but yeah, it wouldn't nearly get in my top 10. Part of my problem with it mind is that I think the Xenomorph itself is suited to the horror in a way it isn't to action. The needs of an action movie take away from the effectiveness of the monster at what it does best, and I love a good creature. Now see, I thought the creature worked well in both circumstances, they just had to change the numbers when the setting/scenario changed. If you put a Colonial Space Marine on the Nostromo, that movie is over in 5 minutes. (Assuming you could safely fire one of those assault rifles onboard a cargo ship) Put 100 aliens on a larger base, and now you have a viable challenge for a squad of Colonial Marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 For me, it's not just about the plausibility of the physical threat of the Xeno; sure, in logical terms it works. But in narrative terms its strengths lie in the shadows, in the implied threat and all of that, and in the recoursefulness and cleverness needed to stay alive. Making it into an equation about who's got more brute strength took some of that away. There's lots that is absolutely brilliant about Aliens- quotable lines up the wazoo, some great characters (Newt is perhaps the least annoying child characters in this sort of film ever). But I felt the whole concept was a slightly awkward fit for something of that scale and (perhaps as a result) I also found the action itself a bit flat. Like, nothing I remember from the film comes from the action. Which is weird, for a great action film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 For me, it's not just about the plausibility of the physical threat of the Xeno; sure, in logical terms it works. But in narrative terms its strengths lie in the shadows, in the implied threat and all of that, and in the recoursefulness and cleverness needed to stay alive. Making it into an equation about who's got more brute strength took some of that away. There's lots that is absolutely brilliant about Aliens- quotable lines up the wazoo, some great characters (Newt is perhaps the least annoying child characters in this sort of film ever). But I felt the whole concept was a slightly awkward fit for something of that scale and (perhaps as a result) I also found the action itself a bit flat. Like, nothing I remember from the film comes from the action. Which is weird, for a great action film. Yeah, I'd agree that the Alien of the first movie feels like a bigger threat, seems nastier, etc, but I think that mostly comes about due to the environment and circumstance. You're in this confined space, trapped with it. There's very little onboard in terms of weaponry, and you're a member of a small crew of a commercial vessel. No military experience really. Oh yeah, and probably the most physically capable member of your crew is actively working against you. The Nostromo crew was fucked from the jump.The Alien of the first flick should feel bad for having lost, really. All that being said, I thought there were some great action moments in the 2nd flick. The scene with the loose facehuggers scrambling around that abandoned lab, with Ripley and Newt locked in with them. The point where the Marines are trying to get back to their barricaded hardpoint and Bill Paxton has that motion detector/scanner thingie and he's calling out proximity until they realize the fucking things are in the walls. (GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER!) The mad dash through the ventilation ducts to get to their pickup point. Ripley in the Mecha-Loader versus the Queen at the end. Tons of great action scenes in that flick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 As much as I like her, the snarling sneer gets old. Perhaps she is just typecast and limited by direction but so far she seems to need other actors with greater range alongside her. She always plays a lone wolf hero, often a martyr. A franchise hero needs more complexity to be compelling or at least some charm. I think the specific requirement in the OP of a movie character is too limiting here. As others have said, Angelina Jolie as a movie actress crushes this, and she effectively played the same character many times in different guises. Was Jane Smith really that different from Lara Croft? And her character in Hackers could have been the (relatively) awkward teenage precursor of either. And in TV, the Buffy character definitely fits the profile and had more seasons than any movie franchise. There are several one-off movie examples, often with the same actress in different roles. Why does it need to be a multi-installment franchise of movies? And remember, Sarah Connor was originally a damsel in distress who only got tough in the last 15 minutes of the first movie. Her iconic appearance as a resourceful hero was in the second movie. That's not on the same level of Ripley's three movies. That only makes her more interesting. You know, something called "character development"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePrunesThatWasPromised Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Sorry but Kill Bill was contrived as hell and a campy copy of Jen Yu from Crouching Tiger- and you're still talking superpowers and stuff which are unbelievable out of hand by comparison to the heroines in the OP. Pam Landy (Bourne) is a believable heroine. Eowyn Can't run up the trunks of trees, but get the job done. Not iconic, really. Slim pickings. Shoshanna from Basterds is an infinitely better Tarantino heroine in an infinitely better Tarantino movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Sorry but Kill Bill was contrived as hell and a campy copy of Jen Yu from Crouching Tiger- and you're still talking superpowers and stuff which are unbelievable out of hand by comparison to the heroines in the OP. Shoshanna from Basterds is an infinitely better Tarantino heroine in an infinitely better Tarantino movie. Eh, depends on your preference. One is a loveletter to cheesy, Hong Kong style martial arts movies, the other to cheesy, Dirty Dozen style WWII flicks. I loved them both, but I would give Kill Bill a slight edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Kill Bill gets the edge because of that brilliant second volume :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Kill Bill gets the edge because of that brilliant second volume :)Hmm...I honestly would be hard pressed to pick which volume I prefer. I love them both. The first has the epic showdown with O-Ren, but the second has Michael Madsen (who I'm a big fan of). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Igziabeher Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Both are great, as they should be considered different parts of the same film. The O'Ren background Anima was awesome, as was Pai Mei. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Yeah it's one movie for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Both are great, as they should be considered different parts of the same film. The O'Ren background Anima was awesome, as was Pai Mei. Those movies are chock full of amazing characters. Each of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad was awesome. Pai Mei, Hattori Hanzo, Gogo Yubari, the Crazy 88's, etc, etc. It's a well written loveletter for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Both are great, as they should be considered different parts of the same film. Nah, not for me. The first part was pure Hong-Kong kung fu movie tribute, the second was a Western with swords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 I want to see the whole bloody affair :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Nah, not for me. The first part was pure Hong-Kong kung fu movie tribute, the second was a Western with swords. But you have to admit there is sort of a second-cousin, twice removed sort of relationship between those two genres. They kind of belong together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 But you have to admit there is sort of a second-cousin, twice removed sort of relationship between those two genres. They kind of belong together. Oh absolutely. I'm just saying I don't think they're one film split in two like a lot of people say they are - I don't think it would quite work if you mashed them together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 It appears the new Mission Impossible might have another contender for the title. If so, Tom Cruise's films are doing a pretty good job with Emily Blunt in EoT and Rebecca Fergusson in MI:5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 It appears the new Mission Impossible might have another contender for the title. If so, Tom Cruise's films are doing a pretty good job with Emily Blunt in EoT and Rebecca Fergusson in MI:5. I hear that film is a massive step back from GP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.