Alien: Covenant (second-pass / SPOILERS! Also, LANGUAGE!)
Cert: 15 / 122 mins / Dir. Ridley Scott / Trailer
You see, I did enjoy Alien: Covenant the second time around (first and spoiler-free, here), it's just that…
• The two producers credited on-screen at the same time are David Giler and Walter Hill. Am I alone in wondering if this is related to the two synthetic characters in the film being called David and Walter? Like they got to name characters as part of a Kickstarter-perk, or somesuch?
• Jed Kurzel did the score for Covenant, and while I've no strong feelings on it either way, it seems a bit odd that in the opening scene, he's credited as David begins playing Wagner's Das Rheingold on the piano. That's quite a slap in the face from editor Pietro Scalia there, to be credited for the film's music the moment someone else's work is playing. Unless those are Kurzel's hands of course, because the framing of that sequence certainly suggests that Fassbender can't play the piano.
• Now I know everyone else is asleep, but why does the ship's computer, MU/TH/ER, bark on at Walter to deploy the recharge-sails? All he does is presses a button, which then begins an electronic sequence of automatically deploying the recharge-sails. Fairly certain the computer could have done that by itself?
• And while I'm on, why does the same computer harp on at Walter about retracting the sails because there's an incoming neutrino-burst instead of, oh I don't know, not wasting those precious seconds waiting for another button to be pressed and just retracting the sails?
• So, if the neutrino-bursts are pretty much unpredictable and unavoidable, and if one of those will damage the deployed hardware, then this weakness has been deliberately built into the ship, yes? Knowing it could happen and knowing the effects of it happening, Weyland/Yutani seem to have done nothing to build in dampers or surge-protectors. Well done, guys.
• Acting-captain Oram has a pop at Walter about the unpredictable nature of these natural phenomena damaging the ship, yet six minutes later he's sitting in a landing craft (which is essentially a big box of computers and sensitive electronic equipment, with seats and an engine) and telling the pilot to drive right through a fucking electrical storm, just because he's nosey.
• Even if the crew of the lander didn't clock the massive ship parked on a mountain which is sending out the beacon-signal on their way down, they land 8km away from it then decide to walk, over forests and mountain-sides. Why not get back in the lander and cruise over to the signal? That's what the craft was actually designed for. Transportation.
• And after David pops out of the night and is like "follow me!", they walk to the desolate city he's made home. This crew have landed on a planet - from space, up above - literally within walking distance of a city and not noticed it.
• When the two synthetics are discussing programming upgrades, I like that Walter's observation is that David's model was thought to be "too human". Given that the latter bore a deep-seated grudge against a parent, went mad after isolation on a long-haul flight, killed the entire crew through idle curiosity, committed planetary genocide, developed biological weapons then betrayed and killed the only person who still liked him, I'd say David was very human, yes. And indeed too much, so. To the point where you really can't blame his artificial side at all, to be fair.
• So watching Daniels and Walter scrapping, there's the moment where she drives that nail under his chin. Ah! I thought, I hadn't noticed the significance of that first time round. As well as the scripted giveaway later in the cryo-tube scene, she'll be looking up at the synth she thought was Walter, see the scar and realise it's actually David! So, I kept my eye open for that when the film's denouement arrived, and… no. Not there, mate. In the film's final moments there are at least two clear shots of the underside of David's chin, and there's not a scratch to be seen, despite the wound having been sustained at the same time as the ones on his face, which are still patched/healing. So either that android's got super-fucking-healing around his lower jaw only, or David transferred his consciousness into Walter's already-handless body (why bother, when they look alike and he's got to lose the arm anyway?), or it really is Walter after all and he's just turned into a massive space-bastard.
Who sets up a huge callback then forgets all about it? Answers on a postcard, please…
But that's not what's really got under my skin. No, for that I'll need to skip the bullet-points…
…why is this film so determined to reboot the history it has no real right interfering with? All credit (and deservedly so) to Ridley Scott for directing one of the finest genre-redefining movies of the 1970s, if not all time. But for the pedestal he's put upon, you'd be forgiven for thinking he wrote the story/script (Dan O'Bannon & Ron Shuster) and designed the creatures (HR Giger, as we all know). Now obviously as director he's still at the sharp edge of the creative team, but that's what it was, a team effort.
And while the 1979 original laid the groundwork for everything to come, the universe didn't really expand until seven years later with Aliens, where we learned of the creatures queen/hive system. The species further adaptability was explored in Alien³ and Alien: Resurrection, and notably in around twenty years' worth of novels, comics and video games. The life-cycle of queen/egg/facehugger/chestburster/drone has been given biological resonance by comparing the species to bees or ants, not to create any sympathy for the xenomorphs, but to add a layer of practical believability (and, therefore, danger). And the many, many authors and artists involved in this narrative evolution all used O'Bannon's story as a seed, but they added to the story, they didn't re-write it.
So then Prometheus comes along and goes, 'actually they're a bio-weapon, mate'. Which is a little disconcerting, but basically fine. ThenCovenant comes along and goes 'no really mate, the aliens you know won't even be invented until 2104 by a crazy synthetic living in a cave. All the proper 'Aliens' films take place after that anyway, but all those 'Predator' tie-ins? They can go fuck themselves into a cocked hat. Xenomorphs start now, with David. Alright?'
And it seems a bit… well, disrespectful, frankly. As if Scott and the Covenant writing-team of Jack Paglen, Michael Green, John Logan and Dante Harper had invented the sandpit, rather than just being invited to play in it. And that's where the sentiment creeps in of 'oh, but it's Ridley Scott, it's all his'. Not really, see above. He helped, fair play. It's bad enough that the highly-anticipated (and now apparently aborted) Alien 5 movie from Neil Blomkamp was going to re-route the series own timeline*1, without this one sticking two fingers up at everyone who's coloured within the lines for so long. I just get the impression nobody at 20th Century Fox really has any direction for this series and they're hoping it'll freewheel into something cohesive.
None of this would even matter if Scott's grand vision for a clean-slate universe wasn't so smugly oblique. First there were going to be three films in this pre-Alien cycle, now it's looking like four. Although Scott's mentioned six, and said the next movie 'might' be set before Covenant*2, even though the audience now knows what happened to a) Elizabeth Shaw, b) David the synthetic, and c) The Engineers. And there's still no sign of LV-246, despite both prequels so far deliberately framing shots to match the curved ship from Alien. It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if the final prequel answers precisely no questions on the run-up to the Nostromo's fateful encounter. All I want is a cinematic universe where there's the possibility of the Yautja walking around the corner at any moment. Fat chance.
Level 2: This film stars that Demián Bichir, and he was in that Hateful Eight along with Sam 'Windu' Jackson.
*1 Okay, Resurrection's not great by any stretch of the imagination, but you stick by your past endeavours, Fox. Think of the problematic areas as potential ret-cons, not narrative black sheep to be airbrushed out of the family photos. If the film was good enough to release and promote in 1997, at least have the courage of your convictions when it comes to retrospective appreciation. If I as a Star Wars fan can stomach the Holiday Special, I'm fairly certain Alien 4 should be workable. And I'm not even going to apologise for David Fincher's Alien³, it's a good movie. [ BACK ]
*2 Although Scott also went on record as saying there'd be no Xenomorphs in his Prometheus sequel and that it was going to be called Paradise Lost. In terms of sticking to his word, it's not dissimilar to David standing next to four facehugger-eggs and saying "Yep, totally safe mate. Come on, have a gander. No, seriously!"[ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Alien: Covenant (first-pass / spoilers in the footnotes)
Cert: 15 / 122 mins / Dir. Ridley Scott / Trailer
Taking place around ten years after the events of Prometheus*1, the crew of the Weyland Corporation vessel Covenant are transporting two thousand colonists across deep space to their new home, when they're brought out of cryo-sleep by a power surge which damages the ship. During the repair cycle, the onboard comms system intercepts a transmission coming from an unknown planet. Naturally, they go to investigate; naturally, I don't have to tell you what's coming next...
So Covenant is far more a sequel to Prometheus than a lead-in to Alien (which is fine), and it's interesting to see which of the 2011 threads Ridley Scott has picked back up to weave further, and which he's happy to basically abandon. The film also tackles its predecessor's somewhat cavalier approach to biological continuity more directly, still not answering all of its questions, but at least asking far fewer, this time*2.
Second best line in the film:
"There's so much here that doesn't make sense..." ~ Katherine Waterston's Daniels, around 45 minutes after everyone woke up and things started making little or no sense.*3 On a performance level, the Covenant cast mostly deliver pretty much what's needed and what's expected. Katherine Waterston does well though, bringing enough of herself to a role which could easily have been Cardboard Cutout Heroine. But the talking point of the film will be Michael Fassbender, of course. With his performance here ranging from theatrical to pantomime, this really is his spin on 'Legend'*4. And as a result, Covenant is every bit as bold, complex and problematic as that implies.
The film works better as an action/survival-horror flick, rather than a morality-thriller*5. That's not to say a film can't be both, just that this can't balance the two evenly. Although I didn't find this entry as instantly satisfying as Prometheus, it's an intriguing film and takes the overall story forward every bit as gleefully. It just also feels deliberately obscure and logic-defying*6, at times. There's definitely the feeling that Scott's enjoying leaving the big questions unanswered.
"Watch me, I'll do the fingering..." ~ Michael Fassbender's android character, playing with himself.
Prometheus, really.
It's certainly more Prometheus than Alien.
Which is as it should be.
Yes, it looks gorgeous.
Although again, try comparing the birthing-scenes in this movie to the 1979 Alien and you'll realise why you won't be watching these movies in narrative-order.
Too early to tell at a first-pass…
Probably not, but there's no shame in that.
No, but I'll want to talk about it at great length either way.
There isn't.
Level 2: Both Danny McBride and James Franco starred in 2011's 'Your Highness' alongside Natalie 'Padmé' Portman, Kiran 'Teedo' Shah and Simon 'Blue Five' Farnaby.
*1 Footnotes contain spoilers: Highlight-to-read…
It's nice to see that USB plugs have evolved by the year 2104, but Jack Daniels bottles are the exact same ones we have now. Presumably they couldn't face the moaning about changing the design again. And I'm not imagining a writers-link between that bottle appearing on-screen, and characters with the names Daniels and Tennessee, am I?[ BACK ]
*2 Of course, if the face-huggers we know and love are the specific result of David's own genetic experimentation between 2093 and 2104, that would rudely de-canonise their usage in the present-day-set Aliens vs Predator movie. I worry about these things. Come on, I can't be the only one who loves the first AVP.[ BACK ]
*3 The Covenant crew have tracked a surprise signal to a previously undiscovered planet, to the point where they land about 8km away, then make the rest of the journey on-foot. Y'know, rather than actually landing where the signal is. Which, incidentally, is a city that their scanning equipment doesn't seem to have picked up. Although at the same time, this is once again a team of apparently professional space-explorers who land and step out of the ship after undertaking the absolute bare minimum of research, then proceed to smoke, spit and piss into an alien eco-system whilst prodding anything which looks unusual. You'd be forgiven for thinking they deserve the misfortune that comes of it all.[ BACK ]
*4 To be honest I rarely see eye-to-eye with Ridley Scott, but he's a director who can control not one, but two of Michael Fassbender's non-native accents. For that, he has my undying respect. I also liked that when David has long hair, he looks a bit like Iggy Pop, but when he's half-way through cutting it, he looks like Joe Elliott. Part of me hopes that's intentional, but god knows what it means if it is.[ BACK ]
*5 What's also interesting that the ersatz captain of the ship raises the matter that his faith is frowned upon by the Weyland Corp, especially odd since they had no problem with bringing Elizabeth Shaw along on the Prometheus mission with a similar philosophy and in such a critical role (even if she wasn't technically crew). Although fair play to the film for showing that poor decisions aren't down to the difference between faith and reason, but just because humans are naive, irrational and stupid.[ BACK ]
*6 So if David drops a hold-full of Alien-sauce capsule bombs (and remember the carnage which can be caused by a couple of drops in vodka and some black goo in a puddle) on a city-full of people, how come the place isn't still crawling with Xenos a decade later? They can't all have been killed in that initial blast, surely? Besides, even David describes it as a biological weapon rather than an explosive one. To be fair, this is why I need to see the film again.[ BACK ]
*7 Thanks for reading all these, though. I appreciate it.[ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Wow. Pre-trailer ads for U-rated kids' films might just be the worst thing humanity has ever invented, whether they're aimed at the impressionable youngsters themselves or their time-poor, guilt-ridden parents. In my day, toy-adverts were used to sell toys, not insurance. This is not what Ian Palitoy had in mind when he invented the action-figure, I assure you.
Anyway, taking as its basis the ridiculously successful casual-gaming phenomenon that is Angry Birds, the movie iteration focuses on the arrival of The Pigs at Bird Island, and their insidious plot to steal all the eggs*2. It's up to the emotionally-unstable feathered friends Red, Chuck, Bomb and Terence to save the day (with a little help, of course), all leading up to a meticulously implemented recreation of the gameplay which made the series such a success.
And happily, the movie is a success, too. It's very sharply scripted for a U-certificate (best line: "I'm tellin ya, something isn't kosher with those pigs..."), and the slapstick and more subtle visual gags will keep audiences of all ages happily occupied. More often than not, the witticisms and asides of the characters work better than the set-gags. Indeed, the consistently chucklesome screenplay serves as an interesting counterpoint to the fact that this is an (albeit belated) marketing tie-in for a video-game, rather than any sort of adaptation-proper.
The visuals are gorgeously animated as you'd expect, with a full and subtle range of facial expressions and twitches backing up the already-unique character design. That said, I saw this in 3D and the extra dimension seems very under-used, particularly since animated features always show this off the best.
The voice-cast are a pleasant surprise here, too. Given the Jason Sudekis/Josh Gad/Danny McBride level of casting, many of the performances are almost understated, and suit their respective characters well. Peter Dinklage gets to turn it up to 11 as Mighty Eagle, but it suits both the actor and the role, so y'know.
Considering the film industry's track record with game-to-movie conversions, and the disposable nature of this particular game itself, Angry Birds has no right at all to be as thoroughly enjoyable as it is.
But it's gloriously silly, and somewhat ironic that a movie as throwaway as this will stand up to a few repeat viewings, at least (and if you've got padawans in the house, you know that's only a matter of time)...
Oh, and there's nothing at the end of the credits. During and mid, yes. Just not after the names start rolling up. I stayed on, so you don't have to ;)
.
Only if you're after the 3D; you won't lose too much by seeing this at home.
It does, although the film knows its limitations and plays safely around them.
Everyone involved can safely put this on their CV.
Nah.
I didn't hear one, but I'd be amazed if there isn't.
Level 1: This movie features the vocals of Bill BB-8 Hader and is also produced by Catherine Winder, who was Exec Producer on The Clone Wars.
*1 Although the BBFC website lists this as "The Angry Birds Movie", the classification card which comes up before the film says only "Angry Birds". It's the little things like this which wind me up. Where's the consistency, people?
*2 With a more 'studio' movie this could turn out to be a parable on immigration or cultural integration, but Angry Birds doesn't attempt to dig that deeply (and to its credit). I mean, obviously the pigs want to eat the eggs which all have baby birds inside, but that's as awkward as the whole thing gets.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
This Is The End Cert: 15 / 106 mins / Dir. Evan Goldberg & Seth Rogen
Maybe it's a trans-Atlantic thing? The 84% user rating over at Rotten Tomatoes does not correlate with the atmosphere in my local cinema at the end of today's performance, or the subsequent rumblings I've heard (although I've yet to read other reviews).
To call 'This Is The End' a vanity-project, would be to suggest that it was made to raise the profile of the cast, and that it'll be proudly listed on any of their CV's. Sadly, it's unlikely that this 100 minute circle-jerk will fulfil either of those criteria. After a shambling, opening fifteen minutes which establishes a location (if not an actual plot) and sees most of Seth Rogen's non-speed-dial buddies fall into a fiery sinkhole, our intrepid gang (Rogen, Baruchel, Franco, Hill, McBride, Robinson) proceeds to sit in the house and do fuck-not-nothing for an hour and a half. This extended 'mid-section' of the film is so monumentally dull, it's almost the funniest thing in there. Once they realise that there's no plot to resolve, they decide to leave the house and see all the CGI demons that the budget has been saving up. And since no-plot requires no-ending, the Backstreet Boys come on and then there's the credits. Not even kidding.
It seems apparent (indeed evident) that the budget was blown at either end of the film, and I only wish they'd had enough cash left over to employ a script editor. Or a script writer. Or a writer. The fact that the cast are playing exaggerated (I hope) versions of themselves only goes to underline how self-indulgent it all is, and at the point where Jonah Hill takes the piss out of Danny McBride for Your Highness, my eyes rolled so hard I could see my brain. The irony also didn't escape me that in the middle of the dull-stretch, the group use a video camera to make an improvised, zero-budget DIY sequel to Pineapple Express; the bitter truth being that the whole movie is only $32m out from being exactly that anyway. What makes the whole affair worse is that I actually like Rogen, Hill and Robinson. *seethes*
I won't even go into the uncomfortable section with Emma Watson. I'm sure other bloggers/writers will dissect that far more capably than I can. For the most part, I spent my time wishing for the actual apocalypse to arrive, if only so that something would happen. The IMDB page for this says that people who liked 'This Is The End' also liked 'Here Comes The Boom'. I rest my case*1.
TL;DR? 'This Is The End' is shitting awful. Avoid.
I sort of is, yes.
Nope.
Who fucking knows?
Telly. At an absolute push.
Yep.
I will cut my own hands off before I watch this again.
I think I heard one when Jonah Hill was on fire. And even that's nowhere near as interesting as it sounds.
Is this all they have to show for 32 million dollars? No, really? Is this some kind of elaborate tax-loss?
*1 Yep. Snob. What of it? You know this.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
