Alien

Going in to Alien I was fully prepared for one of the greatest thriller/horror films ever, and it did not disappoint. Despite being a little bit slow starting, when it gets going it is an edge of the seat, fast-paced film with twists and turns where you never thought they’d be. There will be spoilers in this review, so be advised to stop reading if you haven’t seen it and want to.

The film follows the crew of a ship that are being stalked by an alien bent on killing all of them. It follows the pattern for many other horror films at the time, but given it was released in 1979, if anything it sets the pattern for other horror films. Considering how old it is, the visual effects are wonderful and the design of the alien is fantastic. Also, the cast is full of actors who go on to bigger and better things, largely as a result of this film. The success of this film can be measured in terms of the franchise around it. There is a vast range of comic books, novels, video games and sequels and prequels to the film. With three sequels and three prequels, Alien is one of the all-time great horror movies.

Sigourney Weaver, who becomes the focal point for the sequel films, is the famous Officer Ripley, who manages to escape the ship, blow it up, and then fight the alien one last time. She contributes an awful lot to the success of the films, and does a very good job in this role. Also making an appearance are Tom Skerritt (from MASH and Top Gun), John Hurt (from The Elephant Man, and Ollivander in Harry Potter), Ian Holm (Bilbo Baggins in the Lord of the Rings films), and Yaphet Kotto (the main villain from Live and Let Die). None of the actors particularly excel in the film, but they all add to the dynamic of the early scenes/

One of the main things that Alien is famed for is that it is more realistic than other films. This may seem like an odd statement, I mean, an alien attacking a commercial spaceship isn’t particularly realistic. However, before filming started the director, Ridley Scott, wrote the all the characters a backstory to help them prepare for their roles. Also, the cast didn't all get on which each other, and this translates into the film. Therefore, when the characters get annoyed with one another it looks so real mainly because it is. This is good and I like to think that instead of the happy, jokey image of a film set the actors were on edge with each other. Another thing is that during the chestbuster scene (if you have seen it then you will know) the actors knew what was going to happen but they didn't know how. That means that their shock and surprise when blood spurts out is genuine. To make them unaware of this is such a brilliant idea, and the sense of realism around the film has to be another prominent factor in its success.

One of the most difficult things to do in filmmaking is to build genuine tension in the audience and when I was watching Alien I was genuinely tense. There is something about the way that you rarely see the Alien and the idea of its presence is scarier than actually seeing it. The first very tense scene is when John Hurt’s face is encapsulated by the Alien. It is difficult to know what to expect, and when I first saw Alien I didn't know what the plot was at all. This scene is a horrible one, and the ‘egg’ that has attached itself to his face is fantastically designed. However, it is the design of the alien that makes the film so tense. It is easy to design a monster with big teeth and claws that could kill you as soon as you could blink, but the idea of having a mouth which houses another mouth is fantastic, and makes the alien much more imposing. Also, rather like some films these days which introduce the villain straight away, Alien leaves it a good while before showing you the alien. The use of ‘other measures’ of showing the threat posed by the alien is brilliant as well. Instead of seeing a fast-moving alien stalking Dallas in the ventilation shaft, all you see is a dotted line moving closer and closer to him.

The best thing about Alien though is the plots within the plots. One of the crew members is revealed to be an android which wanted to bring the alien back to study it. However the crew discover this and ‘kill’ him. Normally you’d have a film about an alien and what not, but here you have a film with sub-plots. It was a twist that I didn't see coming and that is what Alien does so well. It surprises you just past the point where you think everything is okay again. At the end of the film for example I thought the alien would probably be in the escape pod with her, but this wasn't revealed for so long that I had dismissed the idea and therefore wasn't expecting it to happen when it eventually did.

The legacy of Alien will live on for a while, and having seen the film it is easy to understand why. From the timeless tagline ‘In Space No One Can Hear You Scream’ to the incredible graphics and the genuinely tense storyline, Alien is a film that sets the standard for many horror films to come. It is a thrilling film, and is definitely one to watch.

Gladiator

Gladiator is another historical drama epic film based on fiction. It sees Russell Crowe playing a fictional Roman general attempting to avenge the murder of his Emperor, wife and son. As Maximus Decimus Meridius he threatens the power of the new Emperor by his success in the gladiatorial arena. It’s another Ridley Scott film, but unlike Robin Hood, it cements itself as a historical classic through its plot and cast.

The film basically starts by showing how successful and popular Maximus is as the general of the Roman armies of the North. He is loved by the Emperor as a son, and this prompts his actual son to get jealous. When Commodus murders the Emperor, Maximus is outlawed because he would be too dangerous a threat to Commodus. Maximus survives the attempt on his life and discovers that his wife and son have been killed by the new Emperor and is captured by Proximus to be entered as a Gladiator in a series of competitions. He fights his way through these contests and up to the Colosseum where he wins the hearts of the Roman public and eventually kills the Emperor, dying shortly afterwards.

The plot is very good. While it’s not full of twists and shocking moments, it’s not predictable and this is good. Additionally, in terms of CGI, it’s very good. The creation of Ancient Rome is wonderful and makes this portion of the film completely believable. The script is well written and the cast is well chosen. However, as with many historical films there are some problems. Granted, cinematic license is a consideration, and changing the way that Marucs Aurelius died (from plague to murder) just sets up the story. However it’s the simple things that give rise to my issues. The name ‘Maximus Decimus Meridius’ does not reflect Roman names at the time. Some changes are made for cinematic license, yes, but in some cases, directors need to listen to their researchers and reflect the times that the film is set in. However, it is a deserving Academy Award winner for Best Picture beating some fantastic films.

The soundtrack is hilarious though. I think watching ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ before I saw Gladiator was a mistake, and as soon as it was pointed out to me that Hans Zimmer had written the scores for both films the Gladiator music sounded exactly like the theme to Pirates. Obviously the piece is Hans Zimmer’s production, but he could be a bit more creative than just slightly re-hashing one piece for another set of films.

Now I don’t actually like Russell Crowe in this film. Actually, I can’t stand him as an actor. I only really like him in ‘A Beautiful Mind’, and most of the time I just find him wooden and sullen. In both Robin Hood and Gladiator I think that he struts around in armour, delivering his lines with shocking two-dimensionality and no depth to most of his characters. His character is exceptionally likable in Gladiator, but in my opinion he is not. The classic scene, where he reveals himself to Commodus in the arena, and where he is fighting Commodus at the end, are the only two examples of where I like Russell Crowe’s performance. I’m not sure how Russell Crowe won the Best Actor Academy Award for this role, and can only assume that every other leading actor in this year just didn’t perform at all.

Joaquin Phoenix is a brilliant villain here. He is brilliantly sinister and ever so slightly creepy, and for me is the stand out performance of the film. He manages to portray the twisted, jealous and ambitious Commodus with absolutely precision. Unlike Crowe, his character seems to have layers and different aspects to it. He is a power hungry man who just wants to have Rome under his control. This is perfectly reflected in his stabbing of Maximus before their fight: an underhand move designed to make him succeed in front of all of Rome, quashing their little rebellion against his power.

Gladiator is a classic epic historical film, a deserving Oscar winner and one of those films that everyone should see, preferably before they watch the Pirates of the Caribbean films otherwise the soundtrack will be too distracting. It’s a wonderful and enjoyable film which not even Russell Crowe can ruin.

Robin Hood (2010)

*May contain spoilers*

The time has come. Finally I'm going to write about a film that I did not enjoy. Robin Hood from 2010 has all the makings of an epic action film. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett in starring roles, Ridley Scott directing, and a budget of $200,000,000. The film itself wasn't too bad, but it should not have been called 'Robin Hood'.

The film was so completely unrecognisable from any Robin Hood tale I'd heard before. In a previous post I talk about how the history around Braveheart was written by Hollywood. In this case, the writing takes this on to a whole new level. I can accept a couple of historical inaccuracies for the sake of a good film, but Robin Hood is one mistake after another. There are many mistake involving the different helmet designs and the timings of certain events, and the relationships between different characters. This wasn't a disaster for me though, what ruined the film for me was the relation to the famous Robin Hood tale.

Everyone knows it. Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor. The Sheriff of Nottingham doesn't like him doing this and tries to prevent it. There's a fantastic rivalry between the Sheriff's puppet Guy of Gisbourne and Robin Hood, and Robin eventually falls for the beautiful Maid Marion who is headstrong, independent and becomes part of his little band of merry men who live in Sherwood Forest.

This film completely betrays this myth. The Sheriff of Nottingham (played by the wonderful Matthew Macfayden) appears three, maybe four times, and doesn't speak much. Instead the main antagonist in this film is some guy called Godfrey who seeks to help the French army invade England. The main reason that there is so much turmoil in England at this time is because the King, Richard the Lionheart, is away at the crusades, but in this version, the King is killed and John comes to the throne.

Moving on to the character of Robin. I always thought that Robin Hood was a nobleman (Robin of Loxley) who was stealing from the rich in order to provide for the poor. Not only is he not a nobleman, but he is a common archer who is 'adopted' by Sir Walter Loxley, but he does not ever rob the rich for the poor. The biggest problem with Russell Crowe was his accent. I have absolutely no idea what it was. At one point it sounded Scottish, then Irish. It was awful.

Godfrey's character wasn't particularly believable either. I may have missed this, but I don't think his reason for committing treason was ever explained and he would not have been left to command the armies of the French. Another point is, at the beginning of the film Robin and his comrades are shown to be in France, and desert leaving a strong English army to pillage France. However, despite this, the French are also able to summon an army to attack the English. The fate of the soldiers in France is never explained, and the lack of French concern seems unrealistic.

The character of Marion was quite pleasing. True to the myth she is initially hostile towards Robin, but falls for him eventually. However, in this version, she was initially married to the real Robin of Loxley who is killed, and then is encouraged by Sir Walter to pretend that Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is her actual husband in order to ensure that she does not lose the land. I didn't realise there was any depth to their relationship at all until Robin declares that he loves her, and she goes off to join him and him men in the forest.

Potentially this film was designed as a prequel to a series of films, or even as a prequel to the legend. But the inaccuracies and problem that plague it make it unlikely that a second film would ever be endorsed. I think the script was re-written three times! Not the sign of an historical action masterpiece.

In my eyes, this film was poor. I love the Robin Hood legend, and for me, Prince of Thieves is the best depiction of the tale, but that's all to come. For now, unless you get stuck in chair and have your eyes forced open, try to avoid this film. Every time you think it might finish it doesn't, and when it eventually does finish you'll realise that that's more than two hours of your life you won't get back. In isolation it was an average film, for a 'Robin Hood' film, it was awful.