The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry, Benedict Cumberbach

This is the big conclusion to The Hobbit trilogy and they obviously wanted to end the trilogy with a big bang, so of course, The Battle of the Five Armies ended up being like the ‘Return of the Jedi’ of the Hobbit movies, which is to say, the biggest and baddest of them all. It’s as if all the action that was missing from the previous entries was taken out of those and put into this one, one film to rule them all. The good news is you probably won’t doze off during this one! The action is never ending, right from the get go the film starts off with Smaug the Dragon destroying Lake town, and that’s a real spectacle to watch. Now, I’m a huge fan of Dragons in films, and I have to say that this is one of the best depictions of a dragon, ever. I say one of the best because my favorite dragon is still and apparently will always be ‘Vermithrax Pejorative’, the dragon from Mathew Robbins’ Dragonslayer (1981). Still to this day, I haven’t seen a better movie about dragons than that one, but the dragon in The Battle of Five Armies? Pretty freaking impressive.

In this the final chapter of The Hobbit saga we find the people of Lake Town picking up their remains after in a fit of anger, Smaug the dragon destroys their town. Good news is that after Smaug is slayed, the Lonely Mountain is up for grabs, and if you remember correctly, there’s a huge treasure of gold inside of that mountain! Since this legendary treasure is common knowledge to everyone around, and  there isn’t a fire breathing dragon to protect it anymore, now everybody wants it! The elves, the dwarves, the humans and the orcs! Everybody wants a piece of that treasure! But the dwarves are not willing to give it up! This all leads up to an amazing battle that takes up practically half of the film, which is why I say, this film is none stop action so strap yourselves on tight for this one. It’s not a bore fest! 

The only thing I criticize about these Hobbit movies is that I feel they stretched them out for too long. Yes, I have read the book, and I feel that the whole story could have been told in one, maybe two movies tops. But of course, we can blame Hollywood for wanting to stretch franchises for a few movies more, it’s the new trend in Hollywood. They’ll stretch “the final chapter” into various films. They did it with the Twilight films; they divided the last film into two, Breaking Dawn Part I and II…which creates a small confusion because how can it be part I if this is the fourth film? Oh cause its part one of the “finale” which they’ve now stretched into two films, simply to make a few extra millions. You see Hollywood knows the fans can’t miss a single chapter, because they know audiences are hooked on a feeling, like a junkie looking for the next fix. They also did this with The Hunger Games, “Mocking Jay Part I and II”. The thing is that you feel it, you feel that some of it is just filler, padding to fill running time. They did it with this Hobbit trilogy as well, which if you ask me went on for one movie too long, but whatever, this final film is like all kinds of awesome because it’s monsters and wizards and dragons fighting for almost the entire duration of the film! It’s a fantasy film fans wet dream!

Imagine how much action this film has that it feels like it doesn't have much substance to it. Good thing is that it still manages to pack a wallop emotionally; it has one or two moments which “got to me” because you've known these characters for three movies know, so you kind of grow fond of some of them. I like that in spite of being a huge onslaught of action and special effects, The Battle of Five Armies still manages to tweak your emotion chip, which is something that Peter Jackson has always infused these Lord of the Rings movies with: emotion; sometimes a little too much, but on this one? Just the right amount of schmaltz.

Final words: if you are a fan of fantasy films and love to see Wizards and Witches engaging in magic battles, fire breathing dragons destroying entire towns, and monsters going to war, then The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies won’t disappoint. I still wonder what these movies would have been like had Guillermo del Toro directed them, at least he still gets some credit in the writing department. I’m willing to bet that it was the studios who gave Guillermo del Toro de shaft because they wanted that weight of saying that these three films were directed by the same Peter Jackson who made the previous Lord of the Rings films. That’s a huge selling point right there and I’m sure they didn’t want to let that go, so they axed del Toro, even after he’d given various years of his life in pre-production for these three Hobbit films. Del Toro’s take on it was that he left because he couldn’t commit to these films for six years of his life, especially when he has so many projects going on with many different studios, which is of course entirely true. Still, Peter Jackson pulled it off nicely and who better to these then the director who made the previous three Lord of the Rings films right? I can’t help but wonder what he’ll do next now that he’s leaving Middle Earth behind, I hope it’s something every bit as spectacular. And to think Jackson’s career started with the low budget indie flick Bad Taste (1987), a movie about aliens looking for human flesh to sell in their own fast food chain! It’s funny, but even in his earlier films; Jackson  always displayed a tendency to go over the top with his ideas, a tendency to shock as much as he possibly could. If he was going to do a puppet movie then it would be the grossest puppet movie you’ll ever see (Meet the Feebles (1989)) If he was going to make a zombie, the it was going to be the bloodiest zombie movie ever (Dead Alive (1989)) and if he does a fantasy film, then he’ll make you jizz your pants with an overdose of monsters and wizardry. Can’t wait to see what he’ll go over the top with next.

Rating: 5 out of 5      

eXistenZ (1999)

Title: eXistenZ (1999)

Director: David Cronenberg

Cast: Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law, Willem Dafoe, Ian Holm

eXistenZ comes to us from David Cronenberg a director who loves to swim in the waters of the philosophical, the psychosexual, the violent and the just plain horrifying. Cronenberg explores the most basic parts of human nature: violence and sex. If we look through most of Cronenberg’s films, they all deal with many of these same themes. Take for example The Fly (1986); a very sexual film about a scientist who embraces his aggressive side once he starts turning into the monstrous Fly; everything ends rather violently on that one. The Brood (1979) is about a woman who externalizes all her worst feelings by giving birth to these violent, murderous little kids. Scanners (1981) is all about the power of the mind! And the abuse of that power! Again, on Scanners humans embrace their violent side, the end result is a confrontation between two powerful Scanners and the end result is not a happy one. A History of Violence (2005), well, the title says it all, but again, a very violent and sexual film.

Videodrome (1983) is a good example as well; aside from the themes Cronenberg usually addresses in his films, Videodrome is a film that explores the media and humanities obsession with it. Why do we love television so much? Why are we so obsessed with what we see? “The television screen is the retina of the mind’s eye” Cronenberg goes on to explore our obsession with all the sex and violence shown on television. It seems Cronenberg is making a case for humanity; as if he wants us to live in the real world rather than spending our time sitting in front of a television, obsessed with porn and graphic violence. The image of a television gobbling up James Woods lets us know exactly what Cronenberg was concerned with while making Videodrome; television is consuming us! It’s no wonder that at some point a character yells “death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!”  It’s as if Cronenberg’s characters had a personal battle against television screens, a battle between freedom of the mind vs. a mind enslaved by television programming; a battle that I’m sad to say humanity has lost. Many take for granted whatever is spewed out of the television screen.

What eXistenZ does is play with these themes presented in Videodrome, but from the point of view of video games. Same as television, videogames offer an escape. In fact, if we get right down to it, video games are a much more immersive experience. You essentially get to live a ‘second life’; you control an alter ego through imaginary worlds. In these games you live or die by the decisions you make, in this way, videogames serve as an allegory for real life. You make the right choices; you just might make it to the end. Modern society is just as obsessed with videogames because they offer an escape not unlike the virtual reality worlds that appear in films like Johnny Mnemonic (1995) or The Matrix (1999). You plug yourself in and you’re in another world for hours on end if you like. But, at what point does the videogame world become more interesting than the real world?

In eXistenZ we meet Allegra Geller, a video game programmer who is trying out her new game with a test audience, just to see how they like it and to work out any kinks. In a way, eXistenZ reminded me of Total Recall (1989) because in eXistenZ, once you plug into the virtual reality world of the game, things start to get bat shit insane, which of course is where the fun starts. The thing about eXistenZ is that same as as in Videodrome, there’s people out there fighting to disconnect humans from the fakeness of the game world, fighting for humans to live out their real lives instead of their virtual ones. So we have these guerilla groups who are out to kill videogame programmers, which is what the film is mostly about. Allegra Geller and her bodyguard Ted Pikul running from these anti-gaming terrorist organizations.

Many things make this one extremely watchable, first of all is that feeling of ‘what the hell is going on here’ you’ll feel throughout the whole film. The feeling that you know something’s wrong, but you can’t quite put your finger on what it is. Are we in the game? Or are we in the real world? Then we have Willem Defoe playing a character called ‘Gas’; really freaky type of character. Then there’s the body horror element, in the form of the actual gaming system. The best way I can describe it is imagine if your gaming system was a living being that you had to take care of and that you plug directly into your spinal cord whenever you want to play? Like in many Cronenberg films, there’s some really gory scenes, overall, exactly the type of thing you’d expect from Cronenberg. So yeah, this is one of those movies with a real weird vibe to it, similar in someways to Cronenberg’s own Videodrome and films like Tron (1982) or The Matrix (1999), where most of the film takes place in a virtual reality world; only this virtual reality world comes from the twisted mind of David Cronenberg, which is a-okay in my book.  

Rating: 4 out of 5

Naked Lunch (1991)

Title: Naked Lunch (1991)

Director: David Cronenberg

Writer: David Cronenberg (script) and William S. Burroughs (novel)

Cast: Peter Weller, Judy Davis, Ian Holm, Julian Sands, Roy Scheider, Joseph Scoren, Monique Mercure

Review:

Naked Lunch is a film that many consider to be incomprehensible, the kind of film that some will watch and inevitably reach a point where they’ll think “what the hell is going on here?” I can understand anyone who ends up feeling this way while watching Naked Lunch because it certainly has various levels of bizarreness going for it, but in my opinion the film is not the unintelligible mess that some make it out to be. Personally I think you can watch Naked Lunch as a comment on drug addiction and nothing more and you’ll be fine, but you’d understand the movie on a whole other level if you go in knowing and understanding the films background, where it’s coming from and how it came to be. So with this review my dear readers I offer you a small glimpse of the tale that comes before the movie, so it’ll help you understand it just a little better. But going into Naked Lunch what you must first keep in mind is that it’s a film about writers and writing. It’s a film that explores that whole world of literary guys and gals who live, breath and die for writing. As one of the characters says in the film: "It's a literary high, a Kafka high" 

Naked Lunch the film, is based on William S. Burroughs novel of the same name. Now Naked Lunch isn’t any old novel, it was written by Burroughs in 1959 and it is based on Burroughs own experiences with various forms of drug addiction. Upon it’s first release the book was considered highly controversial, it was banned in many states and countries because it was considered too vulgar.  Burroughs was a Junkie in the worst sense of the word. He was not only addicted to Heroin, he also dabbled in all sorts of drugs. He got into all sorts of legal troubles throughout his life because of his drug addiction, he even did some jail time. In a way, I’d compare him with Hunter S. Thompson; both of their writings where based on their own personal experiences with drugs. It’s like they went into this crazy drug addled trip and then came back and reported everything they saw in their hallucinatory states. This is why in the film; the main character takes a drug that takes him to an “alternate universe” called ‘Interzone’. Being “in the zone” is a term often times used to refer to being under the influence, so in the film, whenever the main character says he’s in Interzone, he’s in a drug trip. In the same way that Dorothy visited the magical Land of Oz when she got hit in the head, William Lee, the films main character visits Interzone when he takes the drug called ‘Black Meat’. So you have to pay attention to the moments when we are in Interzone, and the moments when we are in the real world.

I saw Interzone as Burroughs own literary fantasy land, where everyone is a writer, everyone has their own living typewriters; that’s right, on Interzone typewriters are alive (actually they resemble giant insects!) and they also speak. The typewriters in Interzone are sexually excited when they like what you type into them. Of course, this is a metaphor for a writers own desire to write things that are worth a damn. In Interzone, if your writing is good, maybe your typewriter will have an orgasm. The theme of writing and the things that writers care about permeates the whole film. In this film characters talk about things like the validity of stream of consciousness writing vs. a more coherent form of writing. They talk about writing what comes out of your brain, vs. constant rewriting and so forth. So if you’re not into writing, then don’t bother with this film! If on the other hand you like to explore the nature of writing, and the crazy world of writers, then indulge, this movie was made for you.

Now something that we need to keep in mind when watching Naked Lunch is that it’s more of a Cronenberg film then an actual adaptation of William Burrough’s novel, so don’t expect a literal translation of the book. Cronenberg himself has gone down as saying that this film functions more as an amalgamation of many of Burroughs novels, including Junkie, which is also one of his most famous ones. Cronenberg explains that Naked Lunch the film, captures a lot of who Burrough’s was as a human being, it tries to capture the kind of life he lived, which is probably why the film dives deep into the life of a man who struggles with his own homosexual desires. Other similarities with Burroughs life include, same as the main character in the film, working as an exterminator, being addicted to various drugs and accidentally killing his wife, an event that marked Burrough’s life and writing till the end of his days. In fact, he said on one occasion that it was her death that pushed him to become an accomplished writer. So do not expect an exact literal translation of the book, rather, expect a mix up of events and elements from Burroughs life, elements from various Burroughs novels and Cronenberg’s own visual perks as a director and storyteller, for example, the insect typewriters are all Cronenberg, who admits to having something of an obsession with insects, what can you expect from the guy who directed The Fly (1986)? In my opinion, this melding of two genius minds makes for an extremely interesting and unique film, one that you won’t soon forget.

Naked Lunch cost something from 16 to 18 million dollars, but only made about 2.6 in theaters, something to be expected from a film that’s so offbeat. I sometimes wonder how David Cronenberg continues to make movies! Sure he has a hit every now and then, like The Fly (1986) and A History of Violence (2005), but a lot of his films don’t make their budget back or don’t make enough to be considered a success, so how does he do it? He makes flops yet always finds someone to finance his next one. Take for example Cosmopolis (2012), a film that cost 20 million to make yet only made 6! It flopped because it was so dense, so stale, 90% of the film takes place inside of a limo! I’m not saying I didn’t like Cosmopolis (I actually enjoyed the themes) but I will say that it’s not an easy film to see on one sitting because everything happens inside of a car and there comes a point where you can’t avoid thinking it’s monotonous; a fact that ensured its failure even though it starred current ‘it’ boy Robert Pattinson. And yet there’s Cronenberg, slated to direct yet another film called Maps to the Stars (2014). But who cares if they make money or not as long as he keeps making his movies. I’ve always admired Cronenberg as a director, in my opinion, he has never sold out. He refuses to make stupid cinema, and for that I respect the guy immensely. Cronenberg caters to those that like brainy films, films with meat to them, this of course does not sit well with the masses who love only explosions and special effects. Cronenberg aims to feed your mind, his films always have a philosophical angle to them, which is what attracts me to them.

Cronenberg (right) next to Burroughs

     

Naked Lunch is a film that speaks in symbolisms, so when you see something terribly strange like a person who kills bugs with his breath, well, you just gotta ask yourself what the filmmakers are trying to say with these visuals. Same goes for all the bizarre things you’ll see in this movie which range from giant half caterpillar, half human creatures, to alien like beings known as ‘Mugwumps’. But when we look at it from a Cronenberg perspective, and the kind of films that Cronenberg makes, all this weirdness fits in perfectly, after all, we’re talking here about the guy who made films like Videodrome (1983) and eXistenZ (1999)! Bottom line with this movie is that you must strap yourself tight for one bizarre trip. It’s not a film for everyone. This is a film for those who have a resistance to the bizarre, the dark, the depressive, if you can take a trip to the dark side of the moon, then go for it. Otherwise you’ll just be weirded out.

Rating: 5 out of 5

The Hobbit (2012)

Title: The Hobbit (2012)

Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Andy Serkis

Review:

It’s been almost a decade since I last visited J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth with The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003), but boy, going back to Middle Earth with The Hobbitt: An Unexpected Journey, felt like I’d never left. That familiar feeling you’ll get when you watch The Hobbitt: An Unexpected Journey comes as a direct result of having the same filmmaking team behind the cameras. Same producers, same writers and yes, same director; Peter Jackson returns to Middle Earth after having directed the first Lord of the Rings trilogy, the trilogy of films that won him numerous Academy Awards and made him a house hold name. This film does have an added bonus to it though: Guillermo del Toro also helped write it and conceptualize it, so it’s got a bit of another great fantasist in it. Unfortunately, del Toro had to bow out of directorial duties, sad in a way because I would have loved to see a Lord of the Rings film directed by del Toro, but as fate would have it, Jackson retook the reins of the new trilogy, which is perfectly fine by me, the guy made the previous three, he is the most qualified for the job. So did Jackson lose any steam? Or are his directorial abilities still in tip top shape?

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a prequel to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001). It tells the story of a younger Bilbo Baggins and his first encounter with “the one ring”. But it all starts rather small, with a visit from Gandalf the sorcerer who asks Bilbo to join him on an adventure to find a gold treasure that’s hidden within the abandoned Kingdom of Erebor. But this might prove to be harder than it sounds; the treasure and the abandoned city are both zealously protected by a giant fire breathing dragon named ‘Smaug’. If Bilbo accepts to join the adventure, he will be accompanied by 13 dwarfs and Gandalf himself. Will Bilbo accept to break with his pleasurable, peaceful life in order to help the dwarves regain their long lost kingdom and destroy the fire breathing dragon that took it from them?

I love what Jackson does with these movies, he brings Tolkien’s worlds to life in a way that makes me want to live in them. Yes sir, I wouldn’t mind living in ‘the Shire’ amongst happy Hobbits planning their next party. I’d love to live in those little Hobbit cabins filled with “all the comforts of home”. I mean, I love those warm looking little huts that the Hobbits live in. It seems like the Hobbits live extremely peaceful lives, jolly most of the time, planning parties with friends, sharing warmth and good food. What’s not to like about that life? Of course, The Shire might be a beautiful, peaceful place to live in, but around it, evil lurks, searching to disrupt peace and happiness. This is part of the theme of the film, how Bilbo has to break from his comfort zone and venture out into the world. He is an unlikely, reluctant hero, but will he think of others? Will he learn empathy? It’s the age old idea that when we break out of our comfort zone, that’s when things start happening, that’s when we start living our lives, that’s when the real adventure begins.

What makes this unexpected journey so pleasurable to watch is its characters and the world they inhabit.  I loved the 13 dwarves and their humor and their appetite and their singing, these dwarves are a very entertaining bunch of characters that bring the film to life. By the way this film reminded me a lot of Ron Howard’s Willow (1988) a film that borrowed heavily from Tolkien’s books;  you know, the kind of film where a bunch of characters are traveling down a strange and dangerous land, filled with unexpected perils, creatures and monsters galore. Orcs, giant rock creatures, giant wolves and spiders, and monsters that defy definition await Bilbo and the dwarves as they travel through Middle Earth. This is one of the things that I always love about fantasy films, the creatures we meet on the journey across the strange land. In that sense, this film is not so different from Ridley Scott’s Legend (1985) either, or any other fantasy film for that matter. This is a monster filled journey. 

As far as faithfulness to the book goes, I’d say that yeah, it’s faithful to the source material, but the filmmakers also throw in a lot of things that are not in the book because they want to tie in plot points from the previous films and bring in new plot points that will appear in future films, by the way, don’t know if you guys know it but two more films have already been filmed The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smug which will be released summer 2013 and The Hobbit: There and Back Again which will be released shortly thereafter. So this is the reason why on An Unexpected Journey, you will see characters talk about future perils and dangers on the horizon, alluding to, yet not really telling us what we can expect in future films. Some characters are introduced briefly, obviously meant to have bigger roles in future films.  I read The Hobbit and felt like they took some moments, placed them in this film, switched them around and put them in the second or third, it was quite obvious that this isn’t a chronologically accurate translation of the book. The filmmaker have switched events around to suit their storytelling, and added new characters so as to have a cohesiveness with the older films. But in the world of Hollywood, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. Very rarely do filmmakers translate a book onto film word for word; poetic license is common practice in film land. So if you’re expecting a word for word adaptation of the book, wake up from that dream. But fret not, the most important key moments are all there. You will see Bilbo solve riddles with Gollum, Bilbo getting the ring for the first time, the 13 dwarves arriving at Bilbo’s home and so forth…the key moments are there. If you ask me, you won’t feel disappointed if you’re a Lord of the Rings fan.

Ultimately I enjoyed this film very much. It feels like it belongs right there with the previous films. It was realized in such a similar fashion that you do feel like you’re visiting that same Middle Earth we visited years ago with the first three films and the film is entertaining because of its cast of lively characters. The visual effects are as perfect as they could be; I am personally amazed at what these filmmakers can achieve with computer effects, when done well. The expressions they can achieve on some of these characters are astonishing; Gollum is a wonder of animation in my book, he seems so alive in the film, yet he only exists within the confines of a computer! I guess the only down side to the film is how long it is, you might feel like they are padding things out, stretching that story so as to make three movies out of one book and make three times as much money, but then again epic length is almost a pre-requisite with these Lord of the Rings films, it’s almost become something we can expect from them. So, with very few bad things to say about it I say An Unexpected Journey was a satisfying and entertaining film with visual effects and storytelling of the highest caliber, without a doubt one of the best of 2012.

Rating: 5 out of 5 

Alien (1979)

Title: Alien (1979)

Director: Ridley Scott 

Cast: Sigourney Weaver, John Hurt, Tom Skerritt, Harry Dean Stanton, Ian Holm, Veronica Cartwright, Yaphet Kotto

Review: 

Alien is what this Film Connoisseur calls a perfect film, not a single thing is wrong with it, every single moment, frame, shot, performance, effect is top notch perfect. Without a doubt, one of the greatest science fiction films ever made which is why I am excited as hell for Ridley Scott's Prometheus (2012). Why am I excited for Prometheus? Well, let me count the ways. First off, Prometheus marks Ridley Scott's return to science fiction, a genre he hasn't revisited since he made Blade Runner (1982) all those years ago. The thing about Ridley Scott is that he's the kind of director who likes jumping from genre to genre. He'll do a sci-fi, he'll do a sword and sandal, he'll do a chick flick, he'll do a period film, a war film...you name it, and Scott has visited that genre. One of the few genres he hasn't done is a western, but I bet if he did a western, he'd do the best damn western you'll ever see. And thats the thing about Scott, whatever the genre he is tackling, you can rest assure that he will do it justice. You can rest assured that the film he is working on will be a good representation of the kind of film he is making. For example, look at Legend (1985) Scotts foray into the realm of fantasy films. Without a doubt, one of the best fantasy films ever made. So yeah, of course I am jizzing in my pants over Prometheus premiering next week. The previews let me see that I wont be dissapointed. It just looks like it will blow my mind, I hope that it will. Scratch that, I'm damn near sure it will, it's a rare occassion when Ridley Scott dissapoints with a film. So all things considered, I thought it would be a good idea to revisit Alien, the film that started the highly successful Alien franchise, and the film that directly connects to Prometheus. 

Prometheus will finally shine some light on this dead aliens origins

Alien is all about these space miners traveling back home on their spaceship 'The Nostromo'.  They are ready to kick back, relax and take that ten month journey to earth. Who knows, maybe they'll even get a bonus. Unfortunately, along their treck home they come across a beacon from a nearby planet. What could it be? Is it a distress signal? Where is it coming from? Wayland Yutani, the corporate monster that pays these space miners, sends them to investigate the alien planet with the insentive that they'll get a share of whatever they find. Could it be an alien spaceship? Could this be humanities first encounter with a lifeform other than themselves? 

Weaver plays Ripley, the heroine of these films

This film has many good things going for it. I love it because I am enamored of films that take place in the deep recesses of space. I've always loved this setting for a film because it alienates the human from its home planet, it creates an isolated environment which is the perfect mix for a horror film. And yes, make no mistake, Alien is a horror film, which makes it all the more interesting because I believe it's the one and only horror film that Ridley Scott has ever made, and again, it's a damn good one. Its a damn perfect horror film actually. How perfect is it? Well, I've seen this movie many, many times over and there are these moments in the film that still get me no matter how many times I've seen it. The suspense can be cut with a knife. Ridley Scott really knew how to orchestrate a film that would scare the pants off off anyone who saw it; which is why I'm also looking forward to Prometheus. Scott has gone down saying that all he wants to do is scare the pants off his audience and I'm looking forward to that! Especially when it's such a masterful director doing it. 

Ridley Scott was 40 when he made Alien

But what elements make Alien such a perfect blend of science fiction and horror? Well, the talent behind this film is astonishing to say the least. The people involved in it were some of the best writers, artists and filmmakers the world had to offer. First up, Dan O'Bannon wrote the film. Dan O Bannon wasn't just any old writer, this was a guy who knew the horror genre, he knew science fiction films in and out. He was a geek supreme; he knew what was cool, what worked. For example, one of Dan O Bannon's first forays into filmmaking was a little indy sci-fi film called Dark Star (1974). Don't know how many of you guys out there have seen Dark Star, but it was John Carpenter's first full length film. It's not the best film ever made, but it showed promise. Is the film horrifying? Is it trying to be funny? I still dont know exactly how to define it. To me Dark Star was simply a group of hungry, yet extremely creative people testing their filmmaking skills for the first time, trying out this filmmaking thing. The results are amusing, but obviously very low brow, very low budget. The monster on that film was a beach ball for christ sake! You have to see it to understand what I'm talking about. Ultimately, Dan O Bannon wasn't too satisfied with the resulting film, but this was a good thing, because it's what propelled him to write and have a burning desire to make a serious, more threatening science fiction film. He was going to make sure that the creature on his next science fiction film was not a beach ball. This burning desire to make a more convincing and horrifying villain is probably what gave birth to one of the greatest monsters in all of filmdom: the alien. The result of O'Bannon's frustrations was a screenplay called 'Star Beast', ultimately, O'Bannon himself changed it to 'Alien' because of how many times the word Alien appeared on the script. And so, the first steps towards getting Alien made had been taken. 

H.R. Giger's 'Necrom IV' the painting that decided how the titular alien was going to look 

But it wasnt just Dan O'Bannon's excelent script that made Alien a winner. The conceptual artists behind the film where some of the best science fiction/fantasy artists to ever walk the face of the earth. I'm talking about Jean Giraud a.k.a. 'Moebius' and the always excentric and down right creepy fantasy artists known as H.R. Giger. Ridley Scott was worried about how the alien would look, it was one of the few things that truly worried him during pre-production for the film, but once he saw H.R. Giger's painting known as ' Necrom IV', he knew his worries were over. He immediately contacted Giger and asked him to work directly in the design of the Alien, the results where nothing short of memorable. Giger even designed the interiors of the alien spaceship! While Giger worked on the creature designs, Giraud contributed with the look of other elements onthe film. Giraud's style is present on the Nostromo's many hallways and the spacesuits that the miners use. Giraud was a great asset to this films set designs and art direction. Moebius was a true visionary, he never stopped drawing fantasy and science fiction. He contributed on many film projects; for example, he was responsible for the look of Luc Besson's The Fifth Element (1997), the look of the glowing suits in TRON (1982). He worked a bit on Masters of the Universe (1987) a film that looks a whole lot better than it should thanks to Giraud's contributions. Point is, whatever film he was working on, you could rest assured that it was going to look that much more unique and interesting, he was going to make it a better film simply because of his involvement. Sadly, this hero of mine recently died on March 10, 2012. He left a lasting mark on the art world, and on many of the films he helped create. Just remember, whenever you see those cool looking suits and spaceships on Alien, that's Jean Giraud's contributions to the film. The mechanical creatures built to bring the alien to life where constructed by the legendary Carlo Rambaldi, the guy behind such creations as E.T. The Extraterrestrial (1982) and the giant sandworms of Dune (1984). So I think it's safe to say we had a powerhouse creative crew behind this film. Topple that with the fact that Ridley Scott was behind the camera and you got yourselves a masterpiece my friends. 

Jean Giraud contributed largely to the look of the film

So yeah, we had an incredible group of creative geniuses behind this film. Whenever any film gathers such an amazing group of individuals, you can be sure that the film is going to be something special. And Alien turned out to be just that. It was a huge financial success, it spawned three direct sequels and two spin off films which pitted the Aliens vs. the Predators from the Predator films. Comic books, video games, toys have all been made based on the film, and lets not forget the many rip offs that this film spawned! Dont believe me? Well, heres a couple of films influenced by Alien, check them out and tell me if I'm not right: Leviathan (1989), Galaxy of Terror (1981), Outland (1981), Inseminoid (1981), Creature (1985), Star Crystal (1986) and the Italian Rip Offs (we couldn't leave those out now could we?) Contamination (1980) and Alien 2: On Earth (1980). And that's just the tip of the iceberg, Alien influenced many more films then the ones I've just mentioned. Whenever a film impacts the film world in this world, it means it's made an impression on people, it means that it's not just any film, but a special film, and this my friends is what Alien is, a special film that still manages to spook and amaze with it's pitch perfect suspense and astounding visuals. Ridley Scott amassed this amazing amount of talent for this film because he himself is an artist, a visionary. Many of the shots on this film could be paintings, you could just freeze frame these and put them on your wall, which makes Alien not just a sci-fi/horror film, but a work of art. Each film in the Alien franchise is special for its own different reasons, different directors have brought their unique visions of this universe, the result is an interesting bunch of films, but with Prometheus, Scott is returning to the universe he helped create which is why I'm so looking forward to seeing it. Look forward for my review of Prometheus in the coming weeks, hopefully it will be another genre defining film, from a director who loves wowing us, and as far as I'm concerned still has the capacity and creativity to do it. 

Rating: 5 out of 5

This moment still gets me ever single time I watch the film!