_Avatar_, directed by James Cameron

x-post

argh that was supposed to read:

(which for some reason has been the version they show on tv for years now)

Aliens is a masterpiece. But even in the theatrical version, keep an eye on the clock: there's a ton of exposition and set-up before we even meet the Marines. 45 minutes? And then after the first attack there's another huge hunk of time - another 20 minutes, maybe more? - before the next fight. Of course, it's a testament to Cameron's talents that even the "boring" stuff is not boring, but it's amazing how slow this "non-stop action" flick is compared to contemporary non-stop action flicks. Plus, the end of Aliens is indeed so much non-stop action that you quickly forget about all the inaction.

Then again, maybe it's been a while since I saw the theatrical version.

x-posts. couldn't get past the shocking script/acting/story, so the fact it might have looked quite nice was lost on me. the moment i realised it was pocahontas it dragged and i lost interest.

it's a slow build-up to a couple of big climaxes, i don't think that's nightmarish so much as... actual GOOD pacing

what was wrong with the acting? aside from Worthington (debatable) everyone was pretty good

t2 is a dope film but made lesser by the terminator trying to get in touch with his feelings and generally any scene where edward furlong is trying to teach him about the ways of sullen teens.

OTOH: milk carton

worthington is boooooooring compared to anyone else who has ever starred in a JC movie

well part of that is because his character is a sullen cipher and the other part is because Worthington is actually a wooden marionette

i generally like worthington but i won't necessarily go to bat for him in this... it's hard to tell if the character's underwritten or if he was wrong for the part or idk what

I said it upthread but the vlog where he is all weary and sad because they are going to bulldoze his pretty pretty princess is kind of great

x-post I guess it's just splitting hairs, but in "Aliens," it's not a slow *suspenseful* build-up. Both battles happen pretty suddenly. There's just an awful lot of talk, is all, by action movie standards. Nothing wrong with that. I like talk. But I bet that movie (as is) could not have been released today. For long stretches it's practically an art film, pacing-wise.

I mean, compare it to, say, Ebert's (positive) contemporaneous take:

The movie is so intense that it creates a problem for me as a reviewer: Do I praise its craftsmanship, or do I tell you it left me feeling wrung out and unhappy? It has been a week since I saw it, so the emotions have faded a little, leaving with me an appreciation of the movie's technical qualities. But when I walked out of the theater, there were knots in my stomach from the film's roller-coaster ride of violence. This is not the kind of movie where it means anything to say you "enjoyed" it.

That reads like a review of "Irreversible."

does taking time to establish characters, relationships and setting really make something an art film

ebert's weird sometimes. i dunno, i think a palpable sense of dread is built up throughout the film and the genius of the film really is in the structure. i think some films would have a quick minor battle up front and then everyone would load up and get ready for the big one, but this one has this terrifying epic massacre of 3/4ths of the marines and then everyone else is trapped and just waiting for the other shoe to drop and not knowing how, when, or where it's going to happen.

like that art film jaws

ebert's weird sometimes. i dunno, i think a palpable sense of dread is built up throughout the film and the genius of the film really is in the structure. i think some films would have a quick minor battle up front and then everyone would load up and get ready for the big one, but this one has this terrifying epic massacre of 3/4ths of the marines and then everyone else is trapped and just waiting for the other shoe to drop and not knowing how, when, or where it's going to happen.

― omar little, Monday, December 6, 2010 4:48 PM (33 seconds ago) Bookmark

i think "alien 1" is the "battle up front" - the advantage of the sequel

yeah but even accounting for that i think most filmmakers would maybe just build the film in a more predictable manner, i think one of the strengths of aliens is that what happens to the marines at the beginning is kind of unpredictable maybe.

x-post For sure. Like I said, it's a masterpiece. But I think its deviation from form, including its (at times) leisurely pace, is what makes it so memorable/intense. It's like a classic stuck in a foxhole on the front war film. "Slow" is not a pejorative in this case. Maybe "deliberate pacing" is a better description? It's certainly in no hurry.

There's really no comparing Jaws and Aliens, other than to say both are great. But I'd argue Jaws is a perfectly, almost classically-so, structured film.

but you said it was a NIGHTMARE isnt that pejorative

I love nightmares

oh wait no I don't, nightmares are terrible

Dude, that was hyperbole. Just on paper, and in practice, there's an awful lot of inaction for an action movie is all. Like, conspicuously so.

But I wasn't all OMG ALIENS WAS SO SLOW IT GAVE ME NIGHTMARES!

The pacing in Aliens is masterful. And Ripley's hallucination near the beginning is actually 10x scarier than the chest-burst in the first one.

Aliens is a structural mess, a pacing nightmare, yet somehow successful despite it.

hard to see how anyone could take this as a face-value negative criticism of the movie

i take issue with the idea that it is a mess, instead of just unconventionally structured

Yes, mess is too strong. Subtract points from my tally.

YES! BOOYA!!!!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6Hb1xxSjffs/S6mSj3eXZiI/AAAAAAAAQxs/hPpkSIsoBR8/s400/NBA-Boomshakalaka.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdCrZfTkG1c

http://www9l.incredimail.com/scache/im//gallery/collections/200902031023/content_13086_prev.gif

http://www.horrordvds.com/reviews/a-m/aliens/aliens_shot5l.jpg

(l-r: josh in chicago, me)

Ha, doesn't that make me Ripley?

(Gloating made you sloppy!)

aliens is just so good, it's basically the most ideal sequel i can think of in terms of being a standalone film while also playing off familiarity with first film in some awesome ways.

omar and I are the Tommy Lee Jones and Kevin Bacon of ILX film crits.

Is that a JFK reference??

Ha, doesn't that make me Ripley?

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, December 6, 2010 5:29 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

(Gloating made you sloppy!)

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, December 6, 2010 5:29 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

uh... um.... i was taking the long view, what with the whole events in alien 3

http://www.jfk-online.com/jones.jpg

so has anyone here seen the new Aliens blu-ray? supposedly it looks great!

i have
it does

and you're our aliens checkin cuz

nice.

anyway i watched the avatar blu the same night as the last airbender and despite my mixed-to-negative feelings about this movie, holy shit does every single moment of it blow that stinker out of the water, not even teh same league

at the time were you thinking "goddammit i will watch something called avatar: the last airbender even if i have to put it together myself!!"

haha i actually used that as the peg for my column that week

shymalan just seems incapable of making a film with any forward momentum whatsoever

cameron works better when his villains are not people

stunning insight i know

that's a true lie

i never saw that! the villain was an old telephone, right?

this movie and the Lost finale are my two "never forgive, never forget" media experiences of recent memory. hype hype hype and then soul-crushingly bad writing.