Contact
I watched Contact many years ago – possibly even at the cinema – and I read the book, too. I don’t remember the book very clearly, although I do remember thinking it was better than the film (what a surprise). I had fond memories of the movie, so when we decided to watch it again recently, I was a little apprehensive that the Suck Fairy might have visited.
I still really enjoyed it. The opening sequence is still simply marvellous; I utterly adore the perspective given to our Little Blue Dot, of course very appropriate given it was written by Sagan.
Jodie Foster… didn’t do much for me. To be honest I’ve never really understood the hype about her. I’ve never seen any of her early roles, to my knowledge, so maybe I just don’t have the context. But here – well, she’s good, but I certainly don’t see it as a role that no other actress could possibly fill. That said I do really like her character. I love how strong Ellie is, how determined she is to get her science done, that she listens to the radio waves herself rather than leaving it all to the computers. I also really appreciated that there’s really only one character who doesn’t take her seriously as a scientist, and that’s David Drumlin, whom I have called all sorts of rude names because of his treatment of her. His arrogance and sexism are aspects of his characters; they’re not meant to be taken seriously, as reflecting the sensible world. (Also, Tom Skerrit is brilliant.)
The rest of the cast is mostly good. I love William Fichtner: for his cameo in The West Wing as the judge who gets to be Glenn Close’s foil and plays with Toby’s mind, his bit part in The Dark Knight – he’s wonderful. And he’s great as Kent; the being blind is interesting and not over-played, and for me just seemed part of the diversity of characters. Yes, it’s played on to get the “ooh he has super hearing” thing, but it doesn’t feel overdone. David Morse is good in his cameo as Ellie’s dad… and then there’s Matthew McConaughey.
I like Palmer, McConaughey’s character, in theory. I really really like that the religious issue is a fundamental one in the movie, even though I don’t entirely agree with how it was handled; and even though I find it irritating that Palmer, as apparently the President’s go-to man on religion, ignores one of the big moral precepts of Christianity that helps set Christians apart from others in society (that whole no-sex-before-marriage thing). But I think he’s interesting, and I think he provides an interesting contrast to Ellie: for all he’s equally intent, he’s more relaxed than her, and they have some great discussions about evidence and faith. The Palmer character and his interactions with Ellie does, however, provide one of the things which most grieved me about the movie. He admits that he screwed up her chances to do the thing she most wants to do in the entire world not simply for religious reasons (which, actually, I liked – having to make the decision between your lover and your feelings of faithfulness towards the spiritual majority of the world), but for selfish reasons? Seriously? And our heroine still likes him? Pfft.
As a movie, I think it still holds up. The tech etc don’t feel like they’ve dated much, society doesn’t feel like it’s changed that much, and the look of it is still contemporary. Overall I was relieved, and pleased. Contact is still very watchable.
Unstoppable
Unstoppable is close to being the perfect action flick, even though it doesn’t have Bruce Willis in it.
- It’s “inspired” by true events, which gives it a slightly more gripping and horrifying feel than your generic action-adventure.
- There are trains going to high speed.
- There are helicopters getting close to trains going at high speed.
- There’s a little bit of family drama: just enough to give the viewer an investment in the main characters, not enough that I started to fall asleep and/or expected Elijah Wood to turn up.
- It has Denzel Washington to make up for the lack of Bruce Willis.
- There are trains going at high speed.
- There’s a mad dude with a pony tail who drives a red pick-up really, really fast.
- There’s conflict between a (black, female) subordinate and a (fat, white, male) superior.
- It’s a rooky/retiree buddy flick, but the conflict between them is neither overplayed to tragic Greek proportions nor downplayed to non-existence.
- It’s less than 100 minutes in duration.
- It knows when to end.
Seriously, I loved this film. It has highs, it has lows, it has comedic and blood-draining-from-the-face moments. Chris Pine is quite good, and Washington is… Washington. I could watch that man even if he was acting as a football coach. (Oh wait, I have. Numerous times.) It’s no Oscar contender, but for excitement and entertainment it’s a winner.
Episode 21 of Galactic Suburbia
You can get us from iTunes, or download from Galactic Suburbia.
In which we work, play, shake up our format a little (gasp!) and cover the life & death of magazines, the changing face of the industry, respect for non fiction, sexual harassment, rants, reboots and as usual, books, books and more books. Also a few sneaky clues about what Twelfth Planet Press is publishing next year!
News
Realms of Fantasy is back, again…
Escape Pod expands: “We have been pushing to expand what Escape Pod does, adding an SF blog and distributing our stories via magazine format. We’re also becoming a pro market, and hope to keep paying our authors pro rates well into 2011 if the donations make it possible.”
Cheryl Morgan talks about paying for reviews as semipro.
On the Cooks Source scandal and seeing stuff on the internet as ‘public domain’.
Jim C Hines on reporting sexual harassment in SF/F.
Old men complaining? When you get old, do you by consequence lose your sense of wonder? Just simply because you’ve read everything? And is/should all SF be aimed/written for the 60 year old man? And Jason Sanford responds
New Buffy Reboot
New Friend of the Podcast: The Writer & the Critic (Mondy & Kirstyn).
Chat, rants and backpedalling…
What Culture have we Consumed?
Alex: Blameless, Gail Carriger; “The Devil in Mr Pussy,” Paul Haines; Women of Other Worlds, ed. Helen Merrick and Tess Williams; Bold as Love, Gwyneth Jones; Day of the Triffids (2009 BBC production)
Alisa: works too hard, and also Fringe.
Tansy: To Write Like a Woman, Joanna Russ; Marianne, the Magus & the Manticore by Sheri S Tepper; Sourdough & Other Stories, Angela Slatter; China Mountain Zhang, Maureen McHugh, Mists of Avalon movie
Please send feedback to us at galacticsuburbia@gmail.com, follow us on Twitter at @galacticsuburbs, check out Galactic Suburbia on Facebook and don’t forget to leave a review on iTunes if you love us!
The Evolution of Ellen Ripley, take 2
I have no idea what happened last time I tried to post this – only half my post appeared! So hopefully my memory is good enough to remember what I wrote…
I love Aliens. I love the action, the characters, and the look. We recently bought the the Alien Anthology, complete with 3D facehugger:
Gross, eh?
So, we watched Alien, and J is convinced he’s never seen it before. Side note here (with spoiler): we met a guy in the UK who had a friend working as Ridley Scott’s PA while this was being shot. Apparently, That Scene where the alien bursts out of Hurt’s chest? No one knew that was going to happen. And I mean no one: not the cameramen, not the actors, not even Hurt himself apparently. They were all told that if they stuffed it up, they’d be looking for new jobs…
Anyway. We re-watched Aliens, and then skipped to Alien Resurrection, having seen Alien3 not so long ago on TV. And it got me thinking about Ripley.
I’d forgotten that, in the first movie, she’s nothing special. That is, she’s a competent third officer, and although Parker and Brett give her crap they still do what she says. But there’s nothing about her that stands out, and watching the movie for the first time I reckon you’d be hard pressed to guess who might survive (except for Lambert. No way was she going to live).
I love Ripley in Aliens the most, perhaps because I’ve seen it so often. She’s a complete wreck at the start, and the loss of her daughter is gut-wrenching. But she hardens up out of compassion for the colonists, and a conviction that she has to destroy the alien, and goes back to the source of her nightmares. There, of course, she adopts Newt, a daughter-substitute, and discovers the alien queen, having children of her own. I don’t remember where, but I read a really interesting analysis once talking about visions of motherhood in this movie – and the fact that Ripley becomes a monstrous mother, like the queen, in defending her daughter-substitute. She becomes a technological monster – a cyborg – so it’s something of a culture/nature clash. She ends the movie having found some semblance of peace, and you’re left believing that perhaps she can have something of a life, now.
Alien3 is, therefore, a gut-wrenchingly awful movie. That they killed Newt (and Hicks! poor Hicks!), and that Ripley then had to an autopsy – so destructive to Ripley’s soul. I enjoyed it enough when I saw it, but listening to Grant’s Bad Film Diaries made me appreciate it all the more; he devoted an entire episode to the movie. It was interesting that in this movie Ripley got to have a ‘love interest’ (she came close, I think, with Hicks, since she was basically Sarah Connor and he Kyle Reese). Not that it’s exactly a loveydovey romance; it’s mutually beneficial, and mutually agreed on, as a comfort. So she’s never distracted from the main task at hand. And then she’s called on to make that ultimate sacrifice, going out in a rather Terminator-esque blaze of glory… and it makes sense; it almost feels right that this should be the culmination of Ripley’s journey.
Except, of course, that it’s not. And bizarrely, the creation that is Ripley in Alien Resurrection feels even more right, in a twisted sort of way. She becomes part of what she fears and hates most, with the memories of that fear and hate. Perhaps the most poignant and chilling moment in the whole film is when she identifies herself as the monster’s mother: after the angst of losing one and saving another, she ‘gives birth’ to a final, loathsome daughter. Ripley herself has actually become a monster, unwillingly, unlike when she took on cyborg monstrosity for just a limited time in Aliens. But ultimately she uses that monstrosity for good… well, we hope so, anyway. I don’t really know what to think about the end of this film. Staring out over the ruins of Paris with Call doesn’t feel like a satisfying conclusion to Ripley’s saga.
The one thing I think could have made the development of Ripley as a character more interesting would have been an ongoing relationship, that adapts and changes with Ripley’s development as a person. I guess she sort of has this with the androids: working well with Ash and then getting shafted by him; fearing Bishop and then appreciating him, before getting shafted by Bishop#2, and then finally making peace with Call. But it’s not the same as watching one relationship change over time. And I don’t count Ripley’s relationship with the aliens here, either, because that’s really always based on hate.
So. I like Ripley. I like that we get the story of a woman in four films, over 18 years. I like that she changes and develops and evolves, that she was one of the early role models of kick-ass women that seem to have proliferated recently (maybe someone should write a comparative essay on Ripley, Sarah Connor, and River Tam? Probably it’s been done). I really like that although in the popular consciousness she might be defined by the action – and especially “get away from her you bitch” – there is more depth to her than that.
She is so very awesome.
Pitch Black
I’m fairly sure that we watched Chronicles of Riddick at the movies one summer when it was unbearably hot outside. It looked exactly like our sort of thing: futuristic sets, awesome action/fighting sequences… excellent. Then we discovered that Riddick had had a previous outing, so of course it was a no-brainer: we had to find Pitch Black.
They are, of course, remarkably different movies. Pitch Black was made on a very tight budget, with a limited amount of time, in the Australian outback, and falls squarely into the SF/horror bracket. Chronicles had way more money and time – Diesel was a much bigger name three years later – and it is a much more lavish, grandiose film, that’s far more mainstream SF. And you can watch Chronicles without the benefit of Pitch Black, which is a remarkable achievement in a sequel.
But I’m not here to talk about Chronicles; that can wait. We re-watched Pitch Black a couple of days ago, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to muse on a couple of points.
Spoilers ahoy!
I love the anti-hero, and Riddick is close to the ultimate anti-hero. You really don’t know whether he’ll help the other survivors; the only reason I didn’t think he’d go for Johns’ plan is because he loathes Johns more than anyone else. I like that he is just human – frighteningly fast, strong, and quick-thinking, but he has no superpowers. Diesel sure knows how to deliver a line, too, which is one of the things that stops this film being way too grim for my liking.
The supporting cast is largely enjoyable. I love Claudia Black, so I’m always sad when she dies way too early. Radha Mitchell is nicely complex as the navigator trying to redeem herself, and it’s totally gutting that she doesn’t get to leave. Riddick’s one human moment comes with that stricken “not for me”. Paris P. Ogilvie is hilarious, and allows for a nice lightening of the mood; the Imam is an interesting choice for moral compass/unintimidated person. I wonder if he was only possible before the Sept 11 attacks? Perhaps becoming more feasible now…. I love Johns’ character because he alone has any real development – from apparent hero through to junkie bounty hunter, willing to sacrifice companions to save his own sorry butt. Plus, Cole Hauser is cool. And Jack – well, the kid certainly adds an interesting twist when he’s revealed to be a she. The implication that it’s bad enough that a boy would shave his head and enthuse about being a killer, but that for a girl to do so is that much more troubling, is fascinating.
I enjoy the cinematography and setting every time I watch it. There are just enough weird-ass camera shots that it has a less-than-mainstream feel to it, but not enough that I actually feel queasy. And the lighting is immensely effective. It’s overdone, but I think that’s part of its effectiveness. It’s so other, so alien, that the three suns thing feels like it fits right in. The whole eclipse-every-22-years thing? Totally terrifying. And I don’t know how many times I’ve seen this movie, but those damned monsters manage to scare me every single time: I forget when they’re going to appear, and then BAM – shriek! They’re utterly absurd, but they’re very clever.
Pitch Black remains a movie I will always enjoy re-watching.
I [heart] disaster movies
I avoided 2012 when it was at the cinema, because I figured it wasn’t going to be worth wasting my money on it there. However, if you saw it at the cinema and haven’t bothered to rewatch, let me suggest that you get the DVD and watch the special features, especially the one about the ‘science’ behind the movie: it is so, so worth it.
The scare-quotes around ‘science’ in that last sentence ought to tell you a bit about what I thought of this movie.
I have gradually come to the realisation that I am a total sucker for disaster movies. Natural or manmade, it’s all good: from Poseidon Adventure to Dante’s Peak, Inferno to Core, I just love them. Consequently, I really enjoyed 2012. But there’s no way I’m going to pretend that it was actually a good movie.
Some spoilers ahead!
For a start, I really enjoyed Chiwetel Ejiofor. I liked having a smart black man as a lead character, I liked having a sensible geography geek as a lead character, and I always enjoy a good moral scientist v immoral politician stoush. On which note, Oliver Platt was excellent as the politician, and his development from fairly sensible if somewhat (and necessarily) ruthless through to being entirely obsessed with his plan was very well played.
From my memory of the ads, I had thought that John Cusack was the main character, so I was surprised that Ejiofor’s character got quite so much play. I quite like Cusack as an actor, although this role was very different for him – and the whole SF-author-as-character thing generally has me rolling my eyes. His relationship with his family developed in somewhat unexpected ways, for which i was grateful; I had been anticipating a typical overblown Hollywood family – the reason why I won’t watch Deep Impact again, but watch Armageddon frequently. There was a bit of the divorced-parents stereotype playing out with the kids, but actually I thought the son in particular was quite a complex little character, with his angst towards the dad and love of the step-dad and wanting his dad to actually like the step-dad. I figured that someone would end up being sacrificed, one of the men, and I honestly wasn’t quite sure which it would be – and I was a little disappointed when it was step-dad. It would have been a much more interesting movie if they’d allowed step-dad to stay with the family, and also made it much more poignant that Ejiofor had brought Cusack’s book with him. But, you know, they didn’t. (Of course the much edgier version would have seen the two blokes get it on, but that was never going to happen.)
The plot… yeh. It actually had one, which was fun. I thought that the time jumps needed to be done a bit more obviously, because I was confused when they were talking about having prepared for this over years when it was only 10 minutes ago! I liked the split between national response and family response – I thought it was a pretty good split, time-wise. Having read Stephen Baxter’s Flood, when they first started talking about arks I was expecting spaceships, which would have been very, very interesting – and much more complex about how many people they could save. When I finally (eventually, much later than I ought to have) realised they were talking about floating ships… well, ok. It meant they could save more people, which was all nice and touchy-feely. And I had had several thoughts about how the movie could end, and managed to be a little surprised by the conclusion. It was something of a cop-out – especially Our Hero’s dad still being alive on the resort ship – but it was a nice (if admittedly tacky) touch to have them go back to Africa.
I enjoyed the effects. Some nice, utterly ridiculous scenes with the cars and the planes escaping from various encroaching disasters – they actually managed to be engrossing! I was gripped! One or two of the waves managed to not be entirely CGI-looking, which is an achievement.
So. 2012. Glad I didn’t see it at the movies, thoroughly enjoyable on a Saturday afternoon.
Galactic Suburbia 14!
The episode is available to download from iTunes, and at Galactic Suburbia for download or streaming.
In which we rise above a chorus of dogs, babies and technological glitches to discuss Grand Conversations, why we have no opinions about Robert Heinlein, and why we’re crazy enough to be part of a project which means reading (almost) ALL the short stories.
News
Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi wins Campbell Award.
Jeff VanderMeer announces the closure of the Best American Fantasy anthology series.
The WSFA shortlist for small press.
Controversy caused by Sarah Hoyt’s Tor article on why all those women who don’t like Heinlein are actually wrong
Hoyt also blogs here similarly, with a bit more revelation as to why she is so pro-Heinlein.
What have we been reading/listening to?
Alisa: Watching – District 9, Caprica, Scott Pilgrim
Reading – The Grand Conversation, Timmi DuChamp
Alex: Permutation City, Greg Egan; Galactic Suburbia, Lisa Yaszek; Shadow Unit; When it Changed, ed. Geoff Ryman; Swords and Dark Magic, ed. Jonathan Strahan
Tansy: Joanna Russ, How to Suppress Women’s Writing; Rosemary & Rue, Seanan McGuire, Clarkesworld, Strange Horizons,
Listening – Angry Robot #2 with Kaaron Warren & Lauren Beukes
Pet Subject
How To Find the Best Short Fiction, and the Not If You Were the Last Short Story On Earth Project (LSS)
Why we LSS
What we learned from LSS
What we’re looking for in a great short story, where to find them, and what we have liked so far this year.
Rich Horton is part of our inspiration.
The Expendables
Short version?
So much potential.
Long version: includes some spoilers.
This movie had so much potential. I mean, seriously: what a cast! Jason Stratham! Sylvester Stallone! Jet Li!! Dolph Lundgren!! And the people not mentioned in the credits but unfortunately shown in the trailer!
This movie should have been the greatest thing I could see all year.
But it wasn’t.
I realised afterwards that I was hoping for Space Cowboys – awesome old dudes still being awesome, with great history and chemistry, and a really fun plot. Expendables did not deliver. Partly, this is a function of character. There were two characters whose names I didn’t even know, by the end of the movie, but they were meant to be part of The Gang. And I just didn’t care very much about them. I didn’t know enough back story, there wasn’t enough character development, to suck me in. And this is from someone who will watch Die Hard over, and over, and over again. I’m not asking for much.
The other main problem was that the story didn’t really know what it was trying to do. I had basically hoped for a movie that acted as a vehicle for the awesome cast: a little vignette for Stallone here, maybe shooting in the jungle; a little vignette of Statham there, maybe in a really great car chase; and of course a couple of magnificent martial arts scenes for Li. I would have been content with an entertaining plot that connected those scenes together – I guess a better version of DOA, with a better cast. But I didn’t get that. I also didn’t get a movie that accepted it had huge names and played them as an ensemble, like the Ocean’s movies. Instead, I think this tried to walk some sort of a middle line, and it failed at both.
Did I mention the plot? It sucked. This is largely, I think, a factor of the middle line I just mentioned. It tried to start as the “let’s be a fun vehicle” style of movie – and the opening scene is really cool. But… it lost its way. It tried to get serious, and it didn’t do it in a clever or original or twisty kind of way. Instead, it just turned into a standard revenge/save the girl/be bad-asses movie, without even much clever dialogue to keep it up to a higher level.
The best scene, bar none, for what it managed to do was the one including Stallone, Bruce Willis, and Arnie. Seeing those three guys, together? On the screen? Worth every penny. And the best lines of dialogue, too:
Willis: What’s up his ass? (of Schwarzenegger)
Stallone: He wants to be President.
So much kudos to Arnie for letting them use that! And that, sadly, also epitomised what I wanted the entire movie to be. I wanted Rambo jokes, boxing jokes, I wanted Stallone and Lundgren to shadow-box, I wanted Li to have karate jokes – although his explanation that life was harder because he was shorter was indeed amusing.
Don’t get me wrong, of course: there are some great chase sequences, some awesome explosions, and some witty-enough banter. But none of that was enough to tip this movie into the ‘fun in a bad sort of way’ category. And I think it was unnecessarily MA-rated, too. Yes, some of the gruesome violence had its shock value, and I don’t mind that when I’m expecting it. But the fight sequences? Too long. Boring. If they’d been enlivened with different ways of kicking bad guys’ asses, it would have been different. But they just kept doing the same thing over, and over, and over again. It got dull.
So, in sum: I was disappointed. I am unlikely to get this out of DVD, even in a few years for nostalgia’s sake. And that makes me sad.
Van Helsing: the nth+1 rewatch
Spoilers ahoy!
I don’t, as a general rule, do werewolves. And I don’t do vampires. Unless they are being hunted by Hugh Jackman or Wesley Snipes, or played by Kate Beckinsale or Richard Roxburgh.
I probably don’t have all the necessary background knowledge to fully appreciate the movie Van Helsing as much as I might like, because I’ve never actually read Frankenstein or Dracula, or any of the canonical werewolf stories. I think I know them fairly well, at least enough to get a majority of the references – like the Creature sailing off at the end of the movie – but there are probably some in-jokes that I miss. Still, I love Van Helsing. I’ve watched it countless times: it’s one of my fall-backs, for when I want a good action romp but don’t necessarily want to give it my full attention.
We watched most of it last night, and finished it off this morning, cos toooo tired. And I got a bit reflective.
Van Helsing himself: I like Hugh Jackman. I really do. I think he has a good acting range, and – having watched the blooper reel for the first time – he seems like a nice guy ‘in real life’. But I grow increasingly unconvinced by that hair, in this role. Aside from that… I think the mythology they’re suggesting for Van Helsing in this movie is totally awesome, and a little part of me wishes there could be a sequel, or prequel, to flesh that out some more. One of the my favourite parts of the whole movie is Dracula crooning “Gabriel… oh Gabriel…” because it’s so spooky. The movie, I presume, is suggesting that Van Helsing is the archangel Gabriel, sent to do God’s dirty work in the world, including killing he-who-became-Dracula – who was presumably a Very Naughty Boy even before he made his deal with the devil. The idea that at some point Gabriel had his memory wiped is intriguing, and I really want to know why: did he disobey God? Was it actually God being compassionate, seeking to give him a better life? And if so, did he become the Vatican’s hitman because it is all he knows? So many questions, and yet such fervent hope that they will never be answered, because no film could do it justice.
Dracula: Richard Roxburgh is so awesome. I could make an obvious joke here comparing Dracula with Bob Hawke, but I won’t… unlike with Jackman’s hair, I think the costume department struck the perfect note for Dracula, from head to toe. Not sleazy, as with many vampires, but delightfully understated in a “I am so rich that I don’t need to wear a shirt emblazoned with Armani” kind of way. I think Roxburgh delivers his lines perfectly – he has such great timing – and his angst over his children is held in wonderful tension with the fact that he doesn’t actually feel anything (he says). I really, really like the fact that we never see him as Dracula until the very end, fighting Jackman-as-werewolf.
The brides: is it just me, or do we never actually find out the brunette’s name is? Anyway, I love the brides. They are very trampy, of course, in their dress, but they’re also vicious killing machines. And they show sisterly solidarity; I’ve seen Big Love, I know how important that is in a polygamous situation. And, the line “hhhello, Anna” is also an awesome one.
Carl: who doesn’t love David Wenham? This is such a hilarious role for him – and, of course, he’s the third Aussie in this cast, which I think is quite remarkable for a Hollywood movie. I love his turn as a medieval Q, and I think he does it delightfully. No Diver Dan and no Faramir; a slightly bumbling monk – sorry, friar – trying to keep his big hulking friend out of trouble. So, much like any other sidekick then. Still, he’s fun.
Anna: ah, Anna. Such ridiculous costuming. Seriously, that corset? And those leggings? Crazy. And who the hell thinks you can run in those boots? Oh right, a male director who wants to appeal to testosterone-crazy boys…. Anyway, I don’t mind Anna. I like that she is mostly self-reliant, that she doesn’t fall for Van Helsing immediately, and that’s she totally impatient with thinking about the situation and just wants to run headlong into it. The one thing that bugs me about her, really – and about the plot as a whole – is that she seems a bit flighty. Seriously, would she really abandon her whole family to Purgatory in an attempt to save her brother, when she doesn’t yet know that Dracula has a cure? Pft.
Igor: I was way more excited than is, perhaps, appropriate when I discovered that Igor was played by the same man as played Benny in The Mummy (“Hey O’Connell, looks like I’ve got all the horses!”). He makes a magnificent henchman, and I really like his delivery, too.
The Creature: eh. I don’t have particularly strong feelings for him either way. He’s obviously meant to come across as noble and self-sacrificing, as opposed to everyone who wants to kill him and thinks that he’s a monster. But sometimes he just comes across as a willing martyr; perhaps that’s when I’m in a particularly cynical mood. I do like the costume, though, with the random green lights.
The plot: oh yeh, I guess there is one. I like the battle with Mr Hyde, even if it is fairly extraneous, except for setting Van Helsing up as a misunderstood soul. First big problem: why did the Vatican wait until only the two Valerius children were left before sending Van Helsing? Particularly when the Cardinal know that there is a link between Van Helsing and the situation there, what the insignia on the scroll and his ring being the same? It makes the Vatican seem unnecessarily selfish. Moving on… I like that the brother became a werewolf, but I think that it could have been done better.
Watching it this time, there are gaping plot holes all over the place, which nearly put a dampener on my enjoyment of the movie. Particularly, that’s an awfully long time between the first and twelfth peels of the bell, when Van Helsing becomes a werewolf. But… I choose to ignore those holes. The characters are interesting enough, and the effects are good enough, that I am happy to put my critical faculties largely on hold and just enjoy it. Because if I can’t do that, then I will never be able to watch a good exploding action movie again, and then my life would be over.
Also, I was reminded on this rewatch how much I like the music in this film. During the carriage race it really adds to the drama, and there are a few bits where Van Helsing’s theme adds delightful atmosphere.
When a franchise just doesn’t know when to die
AvP: Requiem.
Aliens hunt humans. Predator hunts aliens. Lots of humans die.
I was not expecting big things, don’t worry. I was hoping for a straightforward action shoot ’em up. I had hoped for it to make sense, in the alien/predator universe.
Well… it’s a weird movie when the predator is the hero. But there were absolutely no humans that I cared about enough to see them as the hero; not even the pseudo-Ripley figure was particularly engaging. I guess it’s fun to meet new types of aliens (although surely, in five movies, we would have met them all?), and it is always (like, the one time it’s happened before) to see what happens when humans realise the predator is worth keeping on their side.
Seriously though? Not a movie I would receommend even if you are seriously in need of veging. AvP 1, yes; so insanely over the top that I really quite enjoyed it. This one? Being set in a town makes it too cluttered; there are way too many characters to encourage caring about any of them; and there is no reason for most of what happens, except Kill! KILL!!
And I haven’t even finished watching it yet…
Randomly Yours, Alex 