Monterey Jack wrote:

AndyDursin wrote:These remasters look very good. I'm guessing Warner is saving them in the US for a 25th Anniversary release at some point this year -- but they've been sitting on them forever. The "new" doc was shot in early 2010, and they've still yet to release it here, keeping the currently available BD's -- which are atrocious -- in print.

One wonders if Mel Gibson's recent publicity snafus have contributed to Warner Bros. sitting on this set for a U.S. release. Plus, his last starring role, Edge Of Darkness, didn't exactly set the box office on fire.

Could well be, though I tend to think that the media cares more about Gibson's publicity snafus than the average person or movie-goer does. It still didn't stop Warner from releasing HAMLET on Blu-Ray, or Summit bringing THE BEAVER out last year. Now, granted, neither that nor EDGE OF DARKNESS were hits of any kind, but I find it odd these things have been released everywhere but here, and they're solid properties that would sell in good numbers on the catalog front you'd imagine.

Traditionally, they always look for a "hook" or some kind of tie-in to bring catalog content out, but I don't see much of anything on the horizon related to Gibson's movies or Lethal Weapon itself unless they want to make a big deal out of the 25th Anniversary of the movie. Guess we'll see.

BTW Warner also has a nice box-set overseas of all the old ELM STREET flicks too which they've so far only released piecemeal (1-3) on Blu-Ray domestically to date.

Andy, from what you know is the eventual US release of the LW set going to be the same as what's available elsewhere? If so I'll gladly shell out $36 to Amazon UK and import the thing.

Mike Skerritt wrote:Andy, from what you know is the eventual US release of the LW set going to be the same as what's available elsewhere? If so I'll gladly shell out $36 to Amazon UK and import the thing.

There's no certainty Mike but based on based experience, I've got to believe what will trickle out here will be the exact same as what's on there. Unless they supplement it with even more content, but I doubt that. It has remastered transfers of 1 and 2 (with DTS MA), 3 and 4 -- every one has deleted scenes and trailers, and I believe commentaries sadly by an elderly (and forgetful) Donner and an uncredited moderator (I only heard parts of the 1st one, and it's painful). The 5th disc is exclusively the new documentary.

They might put more on there BUT given how little interest they've shown in it -- basically squatting on it for over a year already -- I'd go ahead and import it if you're interested. Certainly the price is undoubtedly better now than what Warner would charge for a 4-film release in the U.S. -- about $25 shipped from Amazon UK:

Drive.

A thoroughly unremarkable film, which offers nothing new in either story or visual style. I'd heard it was something of an homage to 1980s movies, but nothing could be further from the truth. Its style is very contemporary, and nothing triggers any reminiscence of that decade -- with the exception of Cliff Martinez's score (which only recalls the very worst synth soundtracks of the 80s).

Some of the characters are interesting (particularly the villains, played to perfection by Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman) but ultimately they are all shallow and two-dimensional. Also the film never really tells us who Ryan Gosling's character is.

There are some well-staged (if infrequent) car chases, but they are not as impressive as anything in Mad Max (which is over 30 years old).

Also, how is it that the police are immediately on the tail of Gosling's car during the nocturnal robbery in the early scenes of the film, yet never respond when -- in broad daylight -- Gosling steals a brand new Mustang, someone is gunned down outside of a store, a reckless car chase ensues on a busy street, or when hit men blow a woman's brains out at a motel?

That's pretty much what I thought too Paul. Gosling's somnobulant posturing (or is that what they call "acting"?) has also worn off on me too. The first 10 minutes were better than the rest of the film...and that ending sucked.

But, some people LOVE it, so it's a matter of taste. Either way, I don't want to rehash the argument from the FSM boards, which gave me a new reason to never bother reading the comments that run under my columns there!

Aliens.

I haven't actually watched this movie since the 80s, and I'd forgotten how outstanding it is. No question, this is one of the best sequels ever made, and James Cameron's masterpiece -- one which he has not equaled since (I suspect Gail Anne Hurd had a more than a little creative input, which is why Cameron's later work hasn't been as satisfying).

Aliens takes the style and suspense of Alien and cubes it, resulting in a film that is first-rate science fiction, visceral horror and adrenal action. That is impressive in itself, but the film spins things even higher with a genuinely touching mother/daughter love story.

Moreover, Aliens holds-up incredibly well today, and is every bit as taut and fast-paced as any recent action picture. In fact there is superior verisimilitude and physical believability to Aliens, which you just don't find in more modern genre pictures that over-rely on green screens.

An extraordinary achievement, and inarguably the best science fiction film of the 80s.

^^ Couldn't agree more. Still the best in the entire series IMO with all due respect to the first film. I love that movie. One of my all time favorites. Everything just "works" in that movie.


I find I say this far too often and for too long when it comes to some of these "big names" but James Cameron couldn't make a well rounded, fun, meaty, and satisfying movie like Aliens now if he tried.

Really. Compare Avatar to that thing.

Exactly.




I'm hoping Prometheus at least sets some ground work to eventually save and salvage the series.

I always said the smartest thing they could do was disregard Alien 3 and Resurrection outright. I don't even mention the AVP movies.

Pull a partial Abrams Trek reboot concept. Most fans of the series would do cartwheels in the street if the studio was serious about saving the series and put out bulletins for a good year or so in advance basically kicking those two POS out of the "canon" and fixing it and moving forward.

Fincher's original plans for Alien 3 had a lot of ambitious promise. Resurrection was always hopeless. As ever, the enemy in this entire story has been and probably still is 20th Century Fox.

Great post Paul. Personally I've always felt that ALIENS is the superior film -- I think ALIEN has always had the edge in terms of its visual design, art direction and Scott's eye for detail, but in terms of a story, character development and dramatic arc, I've always thought ALIENS trumped it. From Weaver's rightly Oscar-nominated performance to the supporting turns and the dynamic action set pieces, it takes -- as you said -- everything that worked in ALIEN, reworked it to a dynamic degree and added an emotional dimension absent from the original film. The first movie is, as we've said, an old Roger Corman B-movie in terms of its plot -- what makes it a classic is the work of Scott and the production team.

I don't think Cameron did any favors for Horner's score -- the Blu-Ray has it isolated and reconstructed in much the same way that they did for Goldsmith's originally intended score -- but otherwise...it's hard to argue against the fact that the picture is a classic. Outside of the material that further establishes the Newt-Ripley Mother-Daughter connection, I do prefer the theatrical version over the Director's Cut as I find the material on LV-426 before Ripley gets there to be superfluous and actually detracts from the mystery that's built up by never having seen the planet before.

Paul are you going through the other films too? I still contend ALIEN3 ranks with the worst-ever sequels, if only because Weaver's own insistence that they kill off everyone from ALIENS so she could maintain the spotlight (something Michael Biehn said a year or two ago!) put an immediately sour turn on the entire story. That, and the fact that there's nothing scary about any of it -- the creature is as foreboding as THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON!

AndyDursin wrote:...if only because Weaver's own insistence that they kill off everyone from ALIENS so she could maintain the spotlight (something Michael Biehn said a year or two ago!) put an immediately sour turn on the entire story.

Wow, I didn't know that. I thought that was one of any number of bad studio decisions.

Then she gets to thank herself for basically ruining the entire series at that rate.

Eric W. wrote:

AndyDursin wrote:...if only because Weaver's own insistence that they kill off everyone from ALIENS so she could maintain the spotlight (something Michael Biehn said a year or two ago!) put an immediately sour turn on the entire story.

Wow, I didn't know that. I thought that was one of any number of bad studio decisions.

Then she gets to thank herself for basically ruining the entire series at that rate.

Actually, I would say that was a good suggestion on her part because she and her relationship to/with the Aliens is the glue that holds the series together for me. Everyone else is expendable, and I loved the birth/death montage and her sacrifice at the end...and everything from the opening credits on. Lol...daggone it, I like that movie!

I think ALIENS is an absolute blast with great performances and a wonderful climax...I still love watching that film whenever I get a chance. I would say ALIENS or THE ABYSS would be my choice for Cameron's best...I don't know what it is about THE ABYSS, but it's just really moving to me. And I like Silvestri's score, MEM and Ed Harris and how it all plays together.

AndyDursin wrote:I don't think Cameron did any favors for Horner's score --

I'll have to view the film with the isolated music. There was considerably more music on the album than was heard in the film, and of course Cameron kept some of the temp music by Goldsmith.

I do have to say that Horner's score is the weakest link in the film. The more "atmospheric" cues were effective, but I never felt his action cues were quite suited to the material. Apart from being extremely similar to music from his Star Trek scores (the main action motif is basically ST III's Klingon theme with the bass line of the "Khan" theme) it sounded much too "eastern" for the subject/setting. It just seems wrong in its fundamental conception. It doesn't really compromise the film, but I don't think James Horner's strength is gritty action music (thought he is great at heroic action music -- Star Trek II, Krull, Zorro, etc.). And the title music of course draws heavily on Aram Khachaturian's Gayane.

I'm sure Goldsmith wanted no part in another Alien movie, but I'd love to have heard what Elmer Bernstein might have done with Aliens.

Paul are you going through the other films too?

I saw Alien3 in the 90s, and I'm never watching it again! And that's amazing that Weaver wanted the other characters bumped-off. What I hated about Alien3 was that, after what Ripley goes through to rescue Newt, she's killed-off in the film's prologue. I just thought that was sadistic to kill-off a little girl.

Paul, there's tons of music in the expanded ALIENS CD that wasn't used in the film. I think the score was tampered with as much as Goldsmith's if not more so. Almost no cue he wrote was used in the place it was supposed to (sound familiar?). Overall I agree, it's not one of his best, though that climactic cue is a classic (used in countless movie trailers for years to come, not to mention DIE HARD lol).

As far as ALIEN3 goes, I agree -- what a great idea -- let's take all the characters everyone loved in ALIENS, kill them off, and replace them with interchangeable, bald, undeveloped British guys (and Charles S. Dutton).

Can't find the quote but I do remember Biehn saying that about Weaver. There's a really good AICN interview with him from last fall you can find here -- he talks briefly about replacing James Remar and has a few interesting things to say:

The only way I was involved in ALIEN3 was I was shooting another movie in Los Angeles working with a producer named Raffaella De Laurentiis and Raffaella took off during our shoot, went over to England and came back and she said to me jokingly “I saw you over in England” and I said “What do you mean?” She said “I was at Pinewood Studios and I saw you over there.” “What are you talking about?” “Your character, Hicks, I saw him. He was over there.” “What?!? Really?” She said, “Yeah, it’s you…” They had done a face cast on me because they had to do those burns on my face you know… “And it’s you and your chest is burst open and obviously the aliens have come out of your chest.” I’m like “Oh really? I didn’t know anything about that.”

So I called my agent up and he called up Fox and said, “You can’t use Michael’s image.” They said, “Okay, we’ll get back to you.” I got a call from David Fincher saying “Please, can we just… We’d really like to use your character.” And first of all I was like “**** you for not putting me in the movie.”

Yeah, I was pretty pissed off and “**** you for even calling me, so go **** yourself.” Now I wish I hadn’t, because now he’s (laughs)… Now he’s “David Fincher,” but I was upset at the fact that I was not in the new movie. What I said was “**** you for having that happen to my character.” There was no way I would ever let that character have a monster come bursting out of his chest, so you can forget about that happening. Jim wasn’t happy about that either, so they dropped that idea and then they came back and they said “We want to use your picture” and I said “Okay, you can use my picture. It’s going to cost you and it’s going to cost you a lot.”

So they paid me a lot of money to use my picture in that movie. It was really probably the most disappointing moment in my career when I look at like “Jeez, I could have been a part of a franchise that went like four or five deep and made a lot of money and really had been able to…”

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50837

I'd love to see a "retcon" of the last two Alien movies that featured Ripley, Hicks, and a grown-up Newt facing a new xenomorph threat. There have to be a ton of actresses in their late 20's/early 30's who would love to play Newt, and Planet Terror proved that Michael Biehn is still a commanding action hero presence. Considering how many comic book franchises reboot after the second or third movie (or even after the first...witness Ang Lee's Hulk and Bryan Singer's Superman Returns), I bet a lot of fans would gladly sweep Alien 3 and Ressurection under the rug for a genuine sequel to Aliens. Those Dark Horse comic books from the late 80's and early 90's would make for a great template to follow.

I'm with you on that. Have Newt wake up in suspended animation as some hot 20s or 30 something and keep it going -- always wanted Sarah Michelle Gellar at her Buffy-iest to do that. Weird, right? lol.

AndyDursin wrote:I'm with you on that. Have Newt wake up in suspended animation as some hot 20s or 30 something and keep it going -- always wanted Sarah Michelle Gellar at her Buffy-iest to do that. Weird, right? lol.

Just so long as it's not Winona Ryder.