 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Alien sequels were generally terrible. I would actually cut some slack for Alien 3, even though it is most hated.
I hated it because of the overseriously and excessively cumbersome tone, the downright bad dialog, the early CGI, the similarities with the first film's story, ... even the design of sets didn't convince me.
I was quite surprised that I was able to enjoy the fourth one the last time I watched it. I remember hating it with a vengeance when it first came out.
I know many prefer Aliens over Alien but to me Cameron's take feels too much like a dated blockbuster ride. The thrills have past their expiration date. At least Alien has the benefit of being a perfectly presented work of art. Just watching it is enough to get me high.
I know I'm beginning to sound like a Ridley Scott fanboy but I only love his first three movies.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 13, 2013 - 9:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
The Alien sequels were generally terrible. I would actually cut some slack for Alien 3, even though it is most hated.
I hated it because of the overseriously and excessively cumbersome tone, the downright bad dialog, the early CGI, the similarities with the first film's story, ... even the design of sets didn't convince me.
I was quite surprised that I was able to enjoy the fourth one the last time I watched it. I remember hating it with a vengeance when it first came out.
I know many prefer Aliens over Alien but to me Cameron's take feels too much like a dated blockbuster ride. The thrills have past their expiration date. At least Alien has the benefit of being a perfectly presented work of art. Just watching it is enough to get me high.
I know I'm beginning to sound like a Ridley Scott fanboy but I only love his first three movies.
Alex
Totally agree Alex, the apex of Ridley Scott was Duellists, Bladerunner and Alien. Aliens, a nice ride picture, is much too explicit and gory for me, too much trying to impress me. But Cameron is that kind of guy in his pictures, always working for a more self-concious "you are watching a movie" point of view, whereas Ridley Scott works from a "you are in this world" point of view that I like more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 15, 2013 - 5:01 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
About age you are when you see something:
Gentlemen: I was 31 years old when "Alien" was released and it was absolutely MESMERIZING to me.
I did not need to be in the throes of adolescence to find it wonderful.
I was 29 years old when "Star Wars" was released and I was blown away by it.
It was the "new" technology...the different way of presenting special effects and "integrating" them into the film's story that made them unique (which they still are).
SFX for the sake of SFX do not a good movie make.
And age has NOTHING to do with it.
Unless of course you fixated on a film in your younger days and you still find it magical even though most adults found it dreary when it was new.
Ron, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a late bloomer. 
Regarding the age factor, I think in the case of Alien which I did see when I was 14-15 (I think) and didn't like it back then (special effects looked tacky and it was too slow), I did grow to appreciate it more as I got older and started to see it was so much more than a monster in space movie. That said, Aliens was a home run in the trauma department for me at around the same age and seeing it today it still has an impact.
I saw Prometheus last year (still being 29 sigh) and it also impressed me and freaked me out (the surgery bit).
Related to this, I saw "the conjuring" last weekend and while I acknowledge it is a good horror movie, it wasn't a total homerun for me mainly because it has so many familiar elements from the genre (which Mark Kermode also pointed out in his review) and like him, I wonder if having seen so many (horror) movies, will I still be able to be as impressed by them as I did when I was younger and still had to discover the genre? In that sense I do think age factors in;
I also saw Oblivion and was appalled at the lifts of not just ideas and designs but also shot setups from other (and better) sci-fi movies; I'm sure had Oblivion been the first movie I'd ever seen, I'd loved it, but knowing all the material it rips off (including Star Wars which we've all seen), I can't help but think it's total shit.
What was so great about big movies like Alien, Aliens, Star Wars .. back in the day was that they did show 'new' and 'original' ideas, design, concepts, cinematography aside from the special effects and the makers pride themselves on pushing the envelope. You could tell that from watching the movie. That is what is missing today in movie making IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 15, 2013 - 7:33 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
jackfu
(Member)
|
I sometimes wish there was a way we could temporarily wipe our memories and (re)experience things such as our favorite films for the first time, again. I have to wonder though, as intense as visual effects can be nowadays if, as a first-time experience Alien has as much impact it did back in its day.
I still believe Goldmith’s score is the best fit, hands down. I had the lp before I saw Alien in ’79 so, likely that affected my experience, as I found Scott’s version distracting, especially the Freud cues even with their slight similarities to the Alien score. In particular, Goldsmith’s air shaft cue fits Dallas’ isolation and claustrophobic experience much better. The Freud cue works fairly well for the scene, especially the panic of the crew as the creature's and Dallas’ paths converge, but the original seems to build the suspense better. Hanson’s music is excerpted to accommodate the climactic, fiery demise of the alien which for me takes his work out of context, even though the music is absolutely beautiful. I still prefer Goldsmith’s end title. That soft start with its slow build to climax provides plenty of relief and reflects perfectly the optimism for Ripley’s homeward(?) voyage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I can't help thinking what Tangerine Dream (or even Jean-Michel Jarre) would have done if they had scored it. Would have been magic! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 15, 2013 - 9:17 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ron Pulliam
(Member)
|
Aliens was a home run in the trauma department for me at around the same age and seeing it today it still has an impact.
What was so great about big movies like Alien, Aliens, Star Wars .. back in the day was that they did show 'new' and 'original' ideas, design, concepts, cinematography aside from the special effects and the makers pride themselves on pushing the envelope. You could tell that from watching the movie. That is what is missing today in movie making IMO.
"Aliens" had me by the throat and on the edge of my seat. My pulse actually pounded. GREAT movie.
And to slightly go off-kilter (because I'm in the definite minority on this), this "missing originality" is precisely what draws me toward M. Night Shyamalan's films. Whether it's a hit or a miss, it's nearly always original in approach, if not in form.
His first three films ("The Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable" and "Signs"), for me, are masterpieces. Hey! Even Hitchcock had lulls!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I can't help thinking what Tangerine Dream (or even Jean-Michel Jarre) would have done if they had scored it. Would have been magic!
Thank the space gods that's something that never came to pass.
First Breath, you may be interested to know that the original choice for scoring ALIEN was Isao Tomita*.
*I can't believe that I'm the first smartass in this thread to point that out.
Yes, I knew that, but I had forgotten about it. A Tomita score had been very interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alien is a better film than Blade Runner.
Blade Runner is a better score than Alien.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Huh? Why is Alien a better film than Blade Runner?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Huh? Why is Alien a better film than Blade Runner?
I think it is. I actually found Blade Runner quite overrated when I saw it about 5 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In what way is Blade Runner a mess? I don't experience it that way at all.
I love Alien, in fact, it's one of my favorite movies, but in the end, it's just a thriller while Blade Runner is more of a cerebral film, a bottomless pit of themes and ideas which create a vast array of thoughts and emotions. You can almost project any notion onto it and the film seems to respond. There is so much going on at the same time and this forms a kind of ambiguity that is more enduring and satisfying to me than the rather passive, more straightforward entertainment of Alien.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
