HHoffman-2 Reviews

Alien 3 (1992)

The third act in the Alien series brings nothing new to it.

[4/10 · 15 February 2007]

Alien^3 is a textbook example of how too much studio control can destroy a potentially decent film. After the massive success of Aliens, the studio wanted yet another film to bring in more profit. That makes perfect sense to me. If you have a good thing going then why not milk it? But here's the problem: Aliens ended with very little wiggle room in which to make another film. For all intents and purposes, it was the end of the story. As Alien^3 went through various drafts, the numerous writers attempted to bring new things into the story regarding the aliens. For example, William Gibson's screenplay had the idea of the aliens having an alternate means of reproduction via spores. A very neat idea, mind you, and the descriptions of the transformations in the script would've made for very horrific imagery on film.

Unfortunately, Alien^3 decided to throw any good ideas out the window and magically place an alien egg aboard our heroes' ship, despite the fact that in the previous film we are shown that the Queen has left her eggs at the hive.

And I'm just getting warmed up.

Another common gripe about Alien^3 is the death of the characters Newt and Hicks. Many fans of the film felt that it was necessary and that it helped eliminate the "happy ending" of Aliens. I personally don't think it was a bad idea to kill off the characters, except that it was executed poorly on screen. Their deaths carried no meaning other than to forcefully make Ripley a fish out of water again. Not only that, but Newt and Hicks (who were engaging characters) are replaced by uninteresting stock characters who serve no other purpose than to be cannon fodder. Now the previous two films had their share of cannon fodder, but they at least left you wondering who exactly was going to die. Example: few suspected that Ripley would be the sole survivor of Alien.

Lastly, people complain that Alien^3 was nothing more than a retread of the original film. That's very true. Except that, unlike Alien, this film didn't work. Instead we are treated to a rather formulaic slasher-like storyline. The ending is one of the few parts that truly work and it serves as an excellent bookend to the series.

Director David Fincher, who was unfortunately reduced to the level of studio puppet, does manage to save the film with his talent in creating a moody atmosphere. One can only wonder how much better this film might have been had he been given a greater amount of control.

Alien^3 could best be described as "the great sequel that never was". Given a more interesting script and more control on the director's part, this film could've been at least as good as it's predecessors. Fortunately, Fox took a step in the right direction with Alien Resurrection by having entertaining characters and a more original story.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

A film lacking in stimulation, but nevertheless groundbreaking for SF and cinema in general.

[6/10 · 10 January 2007]

2001: A Space Odyssey is a difficult film to review due to the fact that (even now) it's an unconventional piece of cinema.

The script, written by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, features little to no dialog (all of which is superfluous) and provides virtually no exposition for the audience. And while the companion novel by Arthur C. Clarke provides more depth and stimulation into the story, the film itself suffers from lacking these things on its own.

The acting is standard fare, if only because the focus of the story is on the odyssey rather than the characters. Douglas Rain stands out as providing the voice of HAL 9000, a chilling supercomputer supervising the progress of the mission.

Where the film gets most of its acclaim is in the visuals, and deservedly so. From the monolith to the starport to the transformation into starchild, the film is stunning. And it is for this reason that masterpieces such as the Star Wars saga and Blade Runner have come to existence. Coincidentally, Douglas Trumbull provided his special effects talent to all three of these films.

The biggest complaint given to 2001: A Space Odyssey is its lethargic pace. Again, this is deservedly so. But to Stanley Kubrick's credit, it was his intent to make the audience truly *use* their senses to appreciate the film. Not on a superficial level, but to truly invest one's self in the film's atmosphere.

In the end, it's perhaps best to classify 2001 in a league of its own. That is, a film that experiments with the laws of cinema and its relationship to the audience.

Dracula (1974 TV Movie)

A gem in the history of horror cinema

[7/10 · 10 November 2006]

Before Francis Ford Coppola brought us the lush colors and atmospheric music of his film, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Dark Shadows' creator, Dan Curtis, treated us to his own film of the same title.

Based moderately close to the novel from which its based, Bram Stoker's Dracula stars the late Jack Palance as the vampire count. Having a very Slavic-looking physique and powerful presence, Palance fits the role of a Romanian aristocrat perfectly. His mixture of emotions are acted appropriately, without much overacting (though he cringes a little too much).

The acting in general, however, is only standard fare; nothing phenomenal. Nigel Davenport's performance as Van Helsing is nowhere near as distinct as the acting of Peter Cushing, Anthony Hopkins, or Edward Van Sloan.

The production values reflect the quality of the film a great deal, and I'm happy to say that this film has quality. The sets look appropriate, rivaling that of Hammer Studios'. Robert Cobert's score effectively highlights the anguish of Dracula as well as showing the horror of vampirism and its effect on other characters.

There is little more I can say about this film other than it should be viewed for Jack Palance's excellent performance as Count Dracula and the haunting environment that the character inhabits.

Almost Famous (2000)

A film with a lot of heart.

[10/10 · 26 September 2006]

It probably goes without saying that Cameron Crowe is one of the most original and talented screenwriters of the 21st century. Now I normally don't say that about a director whose work I've seen is limited to Jerry Maguire and Almost Famous. Even less frequently do I say this when I don't like one of the two films. Yet somehow this film manages to make me type that first statement of this review. Almost Famous made me a believer.

Cameron Crowe directed and wrote the screenplay and used his own adolescent experiences to bring realism to the film. The dialog is often witty, dramatic, insightful, and many times all three. It's one of the best screenplays written in the last ten years. The main character of William Miller is a quiet, idealistic boy with a passion for writing who happens to make friends with people who are totally the opposite; they are loud, arrogant, foul-mouthed individuals who aren't against lying to preserve their reputation. But Crowe is able to make the audience believe in this friendship. Even more commendable is that he can make us LIKE these people. We feel for them and understand why they are the way they are.

Of course this could also be attributed to the casting of the film. Patrick Fugit, a relatively new performer at the time of production, shows a great deal of acting prowess when playing the film's protagonist. He captures the innocence and fascination of a young man who has fallen in love with music. It's this particular trait that connects him with the characters. Because all of the characters share this love (and realistically), the friendships are that much more tangible. From an avid follower to a frustrated musician to a fellow journalist, we see how William Miller touches their lives and how they touched his.

Kate Hudson plays the aforementioned follower, a "band-aid" called Penny Lane. Her smile and seemingly-innocent disposition serves as a mask for her lonely, yearning, and depressed identity, which slowly starts to fall apart through the course of the film. Hudson, arguably the star of the film, gives a charming and lovable performance, one that should of given her an Oscar. The scene showing a disillusioned William Miller telling Penny, "I have to go home," is countered with the equally-powerful reply, "You are home." The acting is phenomenal. So much so that I could write a review just on the performances alone and it probably wouldn't put a dent in the amount of actors in the film.

The film's subject matter of rock journalism is complimented well by Nancy Wilson's acoustic score and the many different rock songs of the 60's and 70's. It truly captures the heart of many scenes, particularly the well-known bus scene and even the end credits.

Almost Famous is what great film is about; that is, capturing the audience and allowing them to love the characters and want to be with them. And great film is something that is becoming a dying breed.

Equilibrium (2002)

Flawed SF, but worth viewing for what's done right.

[6/10 · 13 September 2006]

Here's the rub: Equilibrium is very much an action film. An action film that tries to be thought-provoking science fiction, but doesn't flesh out its characters enough to allow this to work. So instead of being serious science fiction, it borders on being a "skiffy" film. It's too heavy-handed on its action, which pushes it farther from its ultimate goal.

Equilibrium tells the story of John Preston (Christian Bale), an enforcer for a Utopian society that forbids people to feel. When he temporarily goes off the emotion-suppressing drug, he starts to experience emotions. This leads to problems when regarding his work life. How can a killer have a conscience? The actors in the film, with the exception of Christian Bale and Sean Bean, aren't anything to rave over. There are moments when characters who are supposed to be without emotion are smiling or showing rage. These moments take you out of the film.

Kurt Wimmer, writer and director of this film, draws from many different science fiction sources. Brave New World, Blade Runner, and 1984 are among them. But to say most SF is original would be a lie. Nearly every great science fiction work has taken inspiration from something else. The film's subject matter is interesting enough to keep you following along, as censorship is an issue that is becoming more and more easier to relate to in today's society.

Where Wimmer stumbles is not giving certain characters a reasonable enough dose of screen time to feel anything for them. One such example is the character Mary (Emily Watson). Her character is left undeveloped, leaving us to wonder why Preston has so much motivation after encountering her.

The strongest part (and admittedly, the highlight) of Equilibrium is its fight scenes. The fictional art of Gun Kata provides some cool choreography. If you see Equilibrium for anything, see it for the action.

In the end, Equilibrium proves its place among action films while falling short in the genre of science fiction. Kurt Wimmer has given audiences a taste of his film making potential. One can only hope that his talent will develop into some truly great pieces of cinema.

Dune (1984)

An excellent adaptation of Frank Herbert's literary epic.

[8/10 · 13 September 2006]

Dune is a film that largely divides fans when regarding its level of quality. Regardless of one's personal views on David Lynch's adaptation, most will agree that the director managed to capture the atmosphere that Frank Herbert created. Is the film perfect? No, of course not. Is it a good example of SF as presented through cinema? Definitely.

Story: The story tells of a feud between two noble families, Atreides and Harkonnen. But this description only scratches the surface. Betrayal, prophecy, love, and spiritual calling also run prevalent.

David Lynch penned the screenplay and should be commended for his fidelity to the source material. Dune is one of the few films (especially at the time of its release) to be a faithful adaptation of its literary counterpart.

That's not to say that there aren't minor alterations made here and there. But most of these changes shouldn't offend the hard-core fans, as some of them (particularly the ending) improve the narrative direction of the film.

Acting: Dune boasts an excellent ensemble cast. Kyle MacLachlan stars as Paul Atreides, the boy fated to be a messiah of the planet Arrakis. He does a good job in showing a growth in maturity as he grows closer to fulfilling his destiny. His sullen expressions truly capture the character's burden of an unknown future.

Kenneth McMillan portrays the vile Baron Harkonnen and plays the role up very well. McMillan also shows the audience the power of minimalistic acting, as evidenced by some of the character's subtle homosexual tendencies.

Other notable actors that stand out in the film are Patrick Stewart, Sean Young, and Jürgen Prochnow. To say that these are the only ones worth noting, however, would be a crime. Dune features one of the greatest casts I've ever seen.

Visual/Special Effects: As previously stated, most fans will admit that the visuals are very true to Frank Herbert's vision. From the set design to the spice-drugged eyes to the sand worms, the production costs really reflect the ambition this film carried.

David Lynch, known for his independent film Eraserhead, continues to impress us with the bizarre imagery that runs prevalent in his films. Dune is no exception. Paul Atreides' spice-induced dreams definitely have psychedelic overtones.

Carlo Rambaldi, who designed the creature effects, did a reasonable job on the sand worms. But, like many films of this genre, they have become dated. Nevertheless, they were impressive for 1984 and should be appreciated for what they were.

Musical Score: I found this aspect of the film to be rather disappointing. The Prophecy theme, while powerful and mysterious, is used one too many times. Toto's score also has moments featuring an electric guitar, which totally destroys the illusion of being in another time and place. A film score must compliment the film, not detract from it. Thankfully, these moments are few.

Conclusion: Dune is a fine example of science fiction cinema. While David Lynch didn't have the amount of creative control he desired, the final product is nothing to complain about. The fact that Frank Herbert was pleased with this production is a testament to its quality.

On a more informal note: when viewing this for the first time, always be sure to watch the theatrical version. The extended cut is a convoluted mess that should only be seen for the knowledge of how horribly studio executives can tamper with a film.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

A good, but flawed, attempt at continuing James Cameron's legacy.

[7/10 · 19 August 2006]

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines is often criticized by fans as being not in the same tone as its predecessors. While I agree with that statement in many ways, I think Jonathan Mostow made an honest effort to bookend the series.

Storyline: The story is probably one of the things I take issue with most. It brings up new questions on the nature of time travel within the Terminator universe, as well as bringing new plot holes (something the previous films also had). Some of these flubs could've been corrected with a little research, but I digress.

The story tends to be a retread of Terminator 2, which hurts it a lot. But Mostow tries to draw attention away from this with some awesome action sequences. The storyline, in this respect, takes it up a notch with scenes such as the restroom fight and crane scene.

Acting: I think the acting is one of the best things in this film. Mostow did an excellent job in casting. Rather than going for actors known for their work in action films, the director instead used performers known for their talent in dramatic roles. Nick Stahl and Claire Danes both portray their characters with depth and humanity. Stahl does an especially good role in showing the paranoia and uncertainty of the future.

And, as always, Arnold Schwarzenegger does a great job as the Terminator. His lack of social interaction provides many humorous moments throughout the film, while also giving him a drill instructor approach when dealing with the John Connor character.

Lastly, there is Kristanna Loken as the T-X. While not as intimidating as the T-1000, I didn't expect this to be the case. Robert Patrick played a character with no face and every face, which can only work once if at all. That being said, Loken does a decent job in the role, providing a very cold performance for an equally cold character.

Visual/Special Effects: The visuals of Terminator 3 are pretty good. The liquid metal effects are still as great as they were in 1991 along with some of the CG animated endoskeletons in the Future War sequence.

My only qualms with the visuals is that there is a lack of blue tint that was prevalent in James Cameron's previous films, but this is more a matter of taste than anything.

Musical Score: Brad Fiedel's dark and mechanical theme is absent from the film until the credits arrive, which is something that bothered me. Not only that, but T3's rendition of the theme isn't as powerful as it is in its predecessors.

However, Marco Beltrami does manage to increase the tension of scenes with his score, though little else. This aspect, like the storyline, could of been improved.

Conclusion: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines wasn't a necessary sequel, but a decent one. I don't believe this installment ruined the series as much as, say, Alien^3. This film will no doubt continue to be one that either fans love or hate.

I happen to love it.