Jump to content

Who is the Ellen Ripley / Sarah Connor / Furiosa of the 00's?


denstorebog

Recommended Posts

I enjoy both movies, but I think Aliens is clearly superior.

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.

I think that a lot of what makes Aliens so good is that it has some blend of horror and action that isn't done very much.  The Resident Evil movies try, but they can't hold a candle to Aliens.  So scenes like the marines in the hive holding the motion tracker as it bleeps out it's useless information. 

Hudson: "I've got signals, I've got readings in front and behind!"

Frost (on point): Where man? I don't see shit!

Hicks (in rear):  He's right there's nothing back here. 

 

They use it again later in the movie, where the Aliens are climbing on the ceiling above them to bypass the barricades.  And the image of Newt in the water waiting for Ripley to find her, and the alien reaching up to grab her from behind.  Really all the best scenes involve those beeping motion trackers.  Those things were awesome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear that film is a massive step back from GP.

I thought GP was pretty bad (seriously, almost no Ving Rhames? Fuck you movie), so I hope not :p The reviews for MI:5 are pretty great. Rogerebert.com gave it 4/4, it has a metascore of 75/100 and the youtube reviews I have seen have been favourable (awesometacular by Jahsn, A- by Stuckmann, etc. ). Also, the last time McQuarrie and Cruise worked together we got Edge of Tomorrow, if MI:5 is in that ballpark it will be better than all its predecessors. Most importantly though, this film actually seems to have a decent amount of Ving Rhames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought GP was pretty bad (seriously, almost no Ving Rhames? Fuck you movie), so I hope not :P The reviews for MI:5 are pretty great. Rogerebert.com gave it 4/4, it has a metascore of 75/100 and the youtube reviews I have seen have been favourable (awesometacular by Jahsn, A- by Stuckmann, etc. ). Also, the last time McQuarrie and Cruise worked together we got Edge of Tomorrow, if MI:5 is in that ballpark it will be better than all its predecessors. Most importantly though, this film actually seems to have a decent amount of Ving Rhames.

What the hell do you like so much about Rhames?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 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.


This is the EXACT same way I feel about Terminator and T2: Judgement Day. Terminator is a brilliant horror film. T2 is a good action movie, but also introduced the stupidest fucking thing ever with "liquid metal." A cyborg robot without circuitry? Fuck off movie, now you're asking me to believe in magic out of nowhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the EXACT same way I feel about Terminator and T2: Judgement Day. Terminator is a brilliant horror film. T2 is a good action movie, but also introduced the stupidest fucking thing ever with "liquid metal." A cyborg robot without circuitry? Fuck off movie, now you're asking me to believe in magic out of nowhere.

It probably won't happen in our lifetimes, but if it does I expect you to say that you are eating every single letter of your statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell do you like so much about Rhames?

To make a good MI film you need three simple ingredients. Firstly, you need Tom Cruise performing insane stunts. Secondly, you need the word 'disavowed'. Finally, you need ample amounts of Ving Rhames. If any of these three ingredients is missing, you cannot possibly have a good MI film, ergo Ghost protocol, which had hardly no Ving Rhames is a piece of garbage. It isn't rocket science you know :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make a good MI film you need three simple ingredients. Firstly, you need Tom Cruise performing insane stunts. Secondly, you need the word 'disavowed'. Finally, you need ample amounts of Ving Rhames. If any of these three ingredients is missing, you cannot possibly have a good MI film, ergo Ghost protocol, which had hardly no Ving Rhames is a piece of garbage. It isn't rocket science you know :P

 

You forgot the masks.  People need to rip off those masks and reveal that they are other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make a good MI film you need three simple ingredients. Firstly, you need Tom Cruise performing insane stunts. Secondly, you need the word 'disavowed'. Finally, you need ample amounts of Ving Rhames. If any of these three ingredients is missing, you cannot possibly have a good MI film, ergo Ghost protocol, which had hardly no Ving Rhames is a piece of garbage. It isn't rocket science you know :P

Ghost Protocol was the best after 3. Two had all the things you mentioned and is easily the worst of the bunch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, 2 is the only one that is actually bad (Ghost Protocol splits opinion a lot, mind).


I do like how when the first one came out it was advertised as kind of a less OTT alternative to James Bond but when Bourne came in and changed the game and Bond followed it, the MI series moved the other way and embraced much of the ludicrousness that Bond was shedding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghost Protocol was the best after 3. Two had all the things you mentioned and is easily the worst of the bunch

Meh, I don't think any MI film is that good honestly. I just watch them for the nostalgia trips. And there is no nostalgia without Ving Rhames.

 

 

I'll watch Rogue Nation next week and if it's weaksauce, im burning Leuven to the ground (I am kidding...I think).

Go ahead, the Germans already burned all the good things during the Great War, so it's not that great of a loss :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Rogue Nation is getting a ton of strong ratings, but at the time Ghost Protocol was easily considered the best.

 

I'll watch Rogue Nation next week and if it's weaksauce, im burning Leuven to the ground (I am kidding...I think).

 

I'm quite surprised by that - I'd have said that prior to this, 3 was definitely the best one, probably followed by 2. In large part because they've got the best villains and most structured actual plots, which allows both of them to build tension in a way Ghost Protocol doesn't, as fun as it is.


I can confirm by the way that Ilsa Faust is an absolute badass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm quite surprised by that - I'd have said that prior to this, 3 was definitely the best one, probably followed by 2. In large part because they've got the best villains and most structured actual plots, which allows both of them to build tension in a way Ghost Protocol doesn't, as fun as it is.


I can confirm by the way that Ilsa Faust is an absolute badass.

I suddenly realize why 3 didn't do it for me. If tension is a movie's main calling card, it's not gonna pull me in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...