I like Alien a lot, but I've never found it scary, to be honest. Invigorating, perhaps... And, as much as the production design of Alien was revolutionary, the film has an almost nauseatingly 70s look to it. That aspect of it has not aged well, at all.

Aliens, conversely, I really, really love. I just found the Colonial Marines to be a lot more interesting than the Nostromo crew. Hudson is one of my all-time favourite film characters, and I don't think Paul Reiser gets near enough credit for his work as Burke, unquestionably one of the slimiest, most despicable, "villains" I can recall. In some ways, he's a rather simplistic metaphor for 80s corporate greed, but, wow, he drives so much of the film, and you just want to, in Battlestar Galactica parlance, "airlock" him at the first chance.

Warrior 4 Jesus, I'm not sure if I agree that the Director's Cut is better. Seeing what happened to Newt's family (actually, seeing any of the scenes of the colony prior to the initial incident) really demystifies things, and not in a good way. When we see Newt in the theatrical cut, we know something horrible has happened to her, and to her society, but we don't know what, obviously. It sort of "medicates" the tension to have those gaps filled in.

I absolutely hated Alien³, and I haven't seen any of the others, as a result. I read a quote from James Cameron, saying that he had offered to write Alien³, if the producers would get Ridley Scott to direct it. How great would THAT have been?

I absolutely hated Alien³, and I haven't seen any of the others, as a result. I read a quote from James Cameron, saying that he had offered to write Alien³, if the producers would get Ridley Scott to direct it. How great would THAT have been?

Steerforth, my friend, where have you been hiding? Long time no see! Is this really true? A Cameron/Scott Alien 3 would have been a stellar team-up, and you know that with Cameron involved...

I agree that Aliens is definitely the best of the bunch, but I'm of the opinion that Alien is right behind it. It's funny when one thinks about it, the two films star the same heroine, the same bad guy, and the same corrupt Company, and yet they're almost two totally different films style-wise. And Hudson was definitely icing on the cake for the 2nd film. He absolutely cracked me up. I, myself, love the extended edition, particularly for the inclusion of the two scenes involving the remote sentry guns in action.

Steerforth, yes, not seeing what happens to Newt's family is more horrifying and mysterious but I'm not talking about that part. I just love how Aliens: The Director's Cut adds more layers of character development. The cinema release feels a bit hollow in comparison.
Alien does reflect a very 70's mentality, especially in hair and clothing and 'technology' but I still think it holds up well, just because it's so well done. Granted the aliens in 2 look better but the original had a certain lethality that is lost in the sequel.
I would've much preferred Alien 3 if it was written by James Cameron and directed by Ridley Scott. What a fantastic pairing that would've been!

That "70s" quality you mention Steerforth, is an almost cinema-verite quasi documentary look (an approach taken by the new BSG). Whether you like the hair or clothing, this gave it a far greater sense of realism. Sure the Aliens get even sleeker looking as the series continues, but I'm with W4J, the film still holds up well today, and remains the scariest of the bunch.

In Aliens, the terror is largely gone, because now the humans aren't defenseless. They know what they are dealing with and they are prepared with weaponry. Humans and Aliens are on a more equal footing, making it an Action movie instead of Horror. Now I don't really care to be Terrified in films, so even though I might give the first film the edge artistically, the lesser anxiety in the second film makes up for it--hence I like the first two fairly equally.

Given that the third one was a return to the Horror genre, I think bringing back Scott, teamed up with Cameron might have improved it a bit, but I don't think they would have had to change much to bring it up to the level of the first two. The campiness really doesn't set in till Resurrection.

Of the AvP crossovers, I prefer the first one. It has some of the campy popcorn fun of Resurrection (characters and dialogue), but it also had some exceptional Action. The combination of Camp and Action make it much closer in tone to the Predator series. The second one was entertaining but the setting diminishes the franchises from Epic to Provincial.

GB

I agree that Aliens wasn't as scary as Alien, but there were some moments I found terrifying - of course the face-hugger scene (creepiest creatures ever) and when they encounter the Queen and everything goes up in flames.

I got to watch Ride with the Devil last night- well, most of it. Still have around 40 minutes, which I'm going to finish tonight. What I have seen of it is good. Except all of the guys desperately need hair cuts. It does have some really good lines, but I can't find them online and I don't remember precisely how they go.

SnowAngel

... and Judi Dench played Mrs. de Bourgh?! She plays historical roles all the time and yet she's never convincing in those roles. The only thing I liked her in was the Britcom "As Time Goes By." Every other time, Dench is the same.

I forgot about Cranford. I really liked Dench in that. But otherwise, she's the same in so many movies.

So who's seen Ratatouille (2007)? Cause I loved this movie! Plot, setting, script, interesting characters, voices, etc. I would definitely watch it again.

*rudely interrupts the 'Alien' Fan Club conversation*

I don't think I have anything I particularly wanted to catch up on/comment on either, so I think I'll just list and succinctly post my thoughts aboutthe movies I've been watching recently.

For my film class:
• Blade Runner - One of the best sci-fi films I've seen. I'm not sure I understood it, but I definitely liked it, particularly the futuristic reworking of noirish, hard-boiled detective story. The visual look of the film was stunning too, and both Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer gave fine performances. I look forward to seeing this one again, and trying to piece everything together.

• Finding Neverland - I'd seen this one before; in fact, my grandmother took me to see it in theaters. I loved it in, and the cinematography, musical score, and especially the performances are still superb. Kate Winslet seems to be the kind of actress who does just about everything superbly, Freddie Highmore is definitely one of my favorite child actors, and Julie Christie is wonderful as the icy grandmother. Additionally, this is one of the few movies in which I feel Johnny Depp is creating an actual character, rather than doing an impression of someone else. However, while I was caught up by the magic during my first viewings, this time I just found the whole thing a little pointless and depressing in its view of the world.

• Spirited Away - Well, I enjoyed this better than I expected to. The characters still look a bit cartoonish to me, and the movements aren't nearly as clean as in a Disney film, but in general I liked the animation. Some good storytelling too, as well as some of the best dubbing of a foreign language film I've ever seen. (Of course, it helps that it was animated.) In general, though, the world shown in the film just strikes me as bizarre. Of course, the Japanese might say the same about Beauty and the Beast.

On my own:
• Up - In my opinion, the most purely entertaining Pixar film since The Incredibles, although I still don't think it stands up to the standards of their earlier masterpieces. I found it to be pretty predictable, but a wonderful escapist piece all the same. And yes, I came close to crying.

• Excalibur - As a great enthusiast of anything relating to the Arthurian legend, I'd been wanting to see this film for a long time, and despite my expectations I wasn't terribly disappointed. It's definitely the best King Arthur film ever, except perhaps for The Sword and the Stone, although considering the competion, that isn't a terribly great achievement. The adaptation was very strong in sections but floundered in others, and of course there is the very 80sness to deal with. Low point: Nicol Williamson's decision to play Merlin as something out of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. High point: seeing many classic scenes brought to life, such as Excalibur appearing out of the lake, or the barge carrying Arthur away at the end. It was also fun to see so many great British talents at the start of their careers, including Helen Mirren as Morgana, Cherie Lunghi as Guinevere, Gabriel Byrne as Uther, Liam Neeson as Gawain, Ciaran Hinds as Lot, and Patrick Stewart as Leodegrance.

• The Maltese Falcon - A rewatch for me, and one that heightened the virtues of the film greatly in my eyes. This is one classy, fun, perfectly-constructed noir. Now I want to read the book!

• Juno - This is one I would never have watched on my own, and I don't see myself doing so again, but I'm glad I did this once. The content is sometimes a bit much for me (unsurprising for a film about teenage pregnancy) but it did have some interesting things to say. I can see now why everyone was talking so much about Ellen Page a while ago; she has a very ... different screen presence.

• Lifeboat - It's been ages since I last saw this, and I remember little of it other than the basic plot line and a couple isolated scenes. Overall, I wasn't incredibly impressed, and wouldn't rate it high on my list of favorite Hitchcock films. It definitely dragged at times, and seemed a rather self-conscious attempt to make an "artistic war film." The cast was quite good, though - Tallulah Bankhead in one of her rare screen appearances, the versatile Walter Slezak, and the always wonderful Hume Cronyn.

Excalibur is probably my favourite film version of the Arthurian legends too Lysander. It does have an amazing cast, which more than makes up for any weak points.

Did you see the theatrical cut of Bladerunner Lys? If so, you may want to check out the Director's Cut: Final Version. The end is much truer to the original story by Philip K. Dick, and there is a dream sequence cut from the theatrical version (also in the book). Those two elements clarify certain points.

Though it is certainly debatable which version is "better". The theatrical version is more open-ended and thus more appealing. But the Director's Cut, without the voice-over, and with a more unambiguous ending has more gravitas and is actually more thought provoking, but is sadder, and more "artistic".

Which version I watch usually depends on what mood I'm in.

GB

I haven't seen Excalibur in years but I remember liking it very much and thought that the musical score was fantastic, as was the casting.

I have mixed emotions on Blade Runner. I've never been really been a fan of dark, gritty styled films of this type. They make me want to invest in lightbulbs and all too often leave me wanting to take a shower. But Blade Runner, by the same token, really pulls off that noir feel...like a 1950's crime drama set in the future. The synthesized soundtrack by Vangelis was pretty good and even the casting was top notch. Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer definitely turned in the best performances for the film, and it strikes me that Hauer plays the psychotic humanoid with uncanny ability. He had this mad glint in his eyes throughout the movie and it was a little unnerving.

I strongly prefer the Theatrical cut and felt that the voiceover narration by Ford really added to the experience. We're strangers in this land of the future and it helps to have someone to sort of guide us through. I also prefer the more "open ended" finale to the film, rather than the bleaker outlook of the Director's Cut. It's one of the few times I'll actually pick the original over the Director's Cut of anything.

Also, Ridley Scott borrowed some of the computer animations from Alien. I couldn't help but throw that in there, Ly.

I used to like Blade Runner but now I just find it hollow.

Last night I watched Return to Oz (1985) for the first time. Mate, it was great! I can't believe I didn't know it existed before Doobie/Clipsie (from NarniaWeb) told me about it several years ago. It would have been great to see it as a child.
This gives Dark Crystal a run for it's money in terms of creepiness.
It's basically a psychological horror/fantasy adventure. I'm 26 and some parts terrified me. Good acting, very good story and a great premise, interesting characters and mostly very creative and well-done special effects.
This is coming from someone who dislikes the original Wizard of Oz with a passion. I can see why it caused so much controversy on release. At times the movie is very dark and quite disturbing and just plain weird. It's not as colourful as the original and is more grounded but also more surreal. It's a lot of fun but creepy. I'm going to give Return to Oz an 8/10.

The version of Blade Runner I watched was whatever was most recently released, supervised directly by Scott. I can't recall whether it's called the Director's Cut or the Final Cut - and I'm told that, in the case of this particular movie, there is a difference. I have seen bits and pieces of the Original, though, and am aware of the differences. I didn't particularly like the theatrical ending; it just came across as cheesy to me, and out of place. I actually think the director's cut is more open-ended. But it all adds up to the same thing, even if the theatrical version is slightly more reassuring. As for the voiceover, I like it in theory, especially since the movie is so confusing in parts, but Ford sounded so unemotional in the clips I saw/heard.

And don't worry, Shadowlander, I do want to see Alien now too!

My latest viewing was a replay of Capra's Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, which definitely numbers among my favorite films of all time. As much as I will always love It's a Wonderful Life, Jimmy Stewart's performance here is easily the best thing he ever did.

Mr Smith is also one of my favorites, for Jimmy Stewart's performance.

Inspired in part by the discussion in the Time Travel thread, I rewatched Deja Vu today. Having seen it before, I was able to watch for the clues being laid near the beginning; the commentary also gives a lot of information about how it was made and influences other films had on it.

The time travel and technology parts were quite well-done, I think. It is rated PG-13 in the US, primarily for intense, violent action scenes.

Trivia: James Caviezel, who plays the villain in this film, played one of the protagonists in another time-travel movie, Frequency. (He also played Christ in Mel Gibson's Passion).

Ah, Deja Vu. I enjoyed that movie quite a bit. I found it to be a very intriguing, fun movie. And yes, of course the time-travel aspect sold me.

Has anyone else thought to devote their movie watching leading up to Halloween to horror films? I thought of it last night, possibly prompted by my memory of former member CaptPendlebury doing the same several years back. I thought it would be a fun opportunity to explore a genre I usually don't go into. Although because I'm fairly sensitive, I'm going to be sticking to the older stuff. And since I haven't yet read the books, I'll be avoiding the like of Dracula and The Invisible Man.

I started things off with 1959's The Bat, starring Agnes Moorehead and Vincent Price. As it turns out, it's not really horror at all, but rather a mystery-thriller with a few horrific touches. The first appearance of The Bat, with his fake claws and covered face, was a little scary, but after that the film was pretty tame, even for me. Everything about it is light; even when character I should have cared about met their dastardly ends, I was completely unmoved. And the murderer is so easy to guess. Overall, a really formulaic, low-budget film, but entertaining enough not to be a total waste. The only reason I really enjoyed it, though, was Agnes Moorehead in one of her rare leading roles. I'd recommend it only to fans of this marvelous actress, no one else.

5/10