Death Wish II (1982)

By

-

2015-10-26

"I should be at home sipping cocoa..." — “I should be at home sipping cocoa…”

Twitter Plot Summary: Paul Kersey’s daughter is killed by thugs and he sets off on a quest for revenge. Just like the first Death Wish.

Paul Kersey must be the unluckiest man in the world. After the events of the first Death Wish, in which his wife was murdered and his daughter horribly raped by a gang of hoodlums, almost the same thing happens again a few years later. His daughter, traumatised from her past terrors, doesn’t speak. Kersey meanwhile has managed to move on and is engaged in a relationship with his daughter’s psychologist, played by Charles Bronson’s real life wife Jill Ireland. After a brief encounter with a street gang his daughter is kidnapped and dies in a somewhat ludicrous fashion, and his housekeeper raped and left for dead. On recovering from the assault against him he then sets out on a quest for revenge against those who are responsible.

And so events play out much as they did in the original film, except this time the vigilante Kersey targets those specifically responsible for the death of his daughter and housekeeper rather than any criminal he happens to meet. There’s no young Jeff Goldblum this time, but instead we have a young Laurence Fishburne to keep us entertained. There’s also the little matter of the police unofficially endorsing his efforts to clean up the streets rather than making every effort to track him down. A different narrative path to travel down and something new and a little different to keep things interesting and more than a rehash of the first film.

The revenge template is a well worn one, but thankfully in this instance there is sufficient variation on the theme to keep the plot moving along. Kersey targets the hoodlums one by one in a variety of situations, no longer the inexperienced and generally inefficient vigilante of old. Now he knows precisely what he’s doing and how he’s going to do it.

You shouldn’t take too much from the fact this was produced by the infamous Cannon Films, the notorious film production company that gave us mostly terrible direct to video nonsense, like Cyborg. In its own way Death Wish II is of a similar ilk, but is surprisingly entertaining despite the fact you have an increasingly elderly Charles Bronson beating up a group of men that are a lot younger than him. How does he manage it? Vitamin supplements, no doubt.

Michael Winner’s direction isn’t the best it’s ever been, but it’s competent enough in the circumstances. Perhaps more could have been done to make the action more dramatic, however he seems more at home in directing the more emotional sequences around Kersey and his relationships with his daughter, initially, and throughout with Ireland’s Geri Nichols. Her involvement gives Kersey something to bounce off, an indication of what he stands to lose if he continues down the vigilante path he has chosen.

That proves to be the heart of this story, although it also offers catharsis as Kersey manages to track down the perps one by one and dispenses justice in a number of inventive ways. If you needed proof, Death Wish II shows that age shouldn’t be a barrier to anything, whether it’s vigilante justice or something more mundane like getting out of the house and having a walk around the park now and again.

Score: 3/5

Cyborg 2: Glass Shadow (1993)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-10-22

0

Destined for far greater things. For now, she is just a walking pout.

Twitter Plot Summary Ignore the name, it’s nothing to do with Van Damme’s almost equally awful film. Angelina Jolie is a cyborg, Elias Koteas is the man who loves her. Billy Drago is awful.

If you needed any indication about the intended audience for Cyborg 2, please note that it opens with a scene where a number of executives watch a cyborg man and woman have sex until they literally explode. The cyborgs, that is, not the executives. Although that could have been fun to watch.

As if to emphasise the point, one of the executives snaps his pencil at the precise moment when… you know, things happen. So then, this is either a late night weekend film on a channel hidden somewhere high up on the EPG, or one of those 18-rated direct to video productions designed to titillate whilst offering a token sci-fi storyline. If you needed any further evidence as to its direct to video qualities, the cast include Elias Koteas (who, to be fair, is always reliable no matter the material handed to him) and Billy Drago, the latter a perennial presence in this sort of tosh. Even Jack Palance gets in on the action, no doubt at the “I don’t care” stage of his career. He probably literally did this for a dollar. Maybe two.

It’s also the film that introduced the world to Angelina Jolie. She plays Cash, a cyborg who is designed to go undercover and explode at the appropriate moment in order to take out her target. Yet she defies this plan and goes on the run with Koteas’ Colt. They are then chased by a mixture of robot and human assassins, which makes up most of the plot. It’s rather thin, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Only here for the money and the long spoons.

Not that Jolie was ever going to win many awards for her acting ability, but it’s horribly clear she is at the beginning of her career. For most of the time in Cyborg 2 she’s almost nothing more than a pair of lips followed around by the rest of her, and is almost the worst thing about the film. That is until you get to the teeth gnashingly horrendous love scene between her and Koteas, which is rather strangely intercut with shots of a whimsical Jack Palance. It’s not good, people, it really isn’t. If nothing else it’s a really odd pairing – I’m talking about the love scene contrasting with Palance and not Koteas/Jolie, although the Koteas/Jolie pairing is a little odd. Their relationship has a distinct air of unpleasantness to it, like a much older man kidnapping a teenager but, in a twist that the papers love, they have contacted the media and declared their relationship to be true love. Enough to make you sick.

Going back to the film as a whole, if you didn’t think the awful romance storyline was bad enough – and it’s really, really bad – you have some less than stellar action sequences that are flabby around the edges and badly edited. There’s the odd glimmer of hope, a shot or a location that gives off an appropriate Blade Runner vibe, but they are that infrequent you’d be better off just watching that film instead. Let’s face it, Blade Runner makes Cyborg 2 look like an awful amateur effort in almost every respect. As if the result of that comparison was going to be any different.

Still, you can’t complain much about a film that pairs Jack Palance with a rifle and uttering lines like “If you’re going to dine with the Devil you need a long spoon!” Absolutely bonkers. And, it must be said, absolutely nothing to do with the Van Damme film. A small mercy.

Score 1/5

Bill (2015)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-10-20

0

Twitter Plot Summary: The Horrible Histories gang present Shakespeare: The Early Years.

I’m quite a fan of the comedy troupe that gave us the live action Horrible Histories television series and, more recently, the absolute delight that is Yonderland. Would it come as any surprise to anybody reading this that I would then go and see their feature length comedy about William Shakespeare being embroiled in a Spanish plot to kill Queen Elizabeth I? No, thought not.

That’s almost it as far as the story is concerned. Shakespeare heads off to London to seek his fortune, despite his wife’s misgivings about his lack of direction in life. When we meet him he’s a rather talented guitar player with Mortal Coil, albeit his style is one that jars with the other band members. Meanwhile King Phillip II of Spain is plotting Elizabeth’s demise, and opts to do so under cover of a play being performed in London.

Enter Shakespeare (Matthew Baynton), sort of. And Christopher Marlowe also. The two struggling playwrights must write the One Play to Rule Them All, or something along those lines, lest they be horribly murdered (or worse!) by either Phillip, Queen Elizabeth or possibly some Russian mobsters.

Fans of the aforementioned Horrible Histories show will likely get the most from this in the long run, its ghastly interpretation of the Virgin Queen and Marlowe’s role in the playwriting world of the period are given fact-based twists. It’s a delightfully insane collection of characters that play to each of the core cast’s strengths.

Francis Rickard threatens to steal the show as Sir Francis Walsingham, master of disguise and prone to appearing suddenly from various angles without notice. A brief, amusing cameo from Damian Lewis in the opening moments adds star power yet leaves you wondering how much value his name in the cast adds given that he isn’t used all that much.

"You like what you see, eh?" — “You like what you see, eh?”

It’s amiable enough and the Monty Python-esque insistence of the cast playing multiple roles apiece is one that sits well with this reviewer. The only place it struggles is in providing female characters with useful things to do. Martha Howe-Douglas has multiple roles, sure, but two of them are carbon copies- court hand maids, essentially – and her more substantial role of Shakespeare’s wife Anne is limited almost entirely to admonishing him for not having a proper job. Queen Elizabeth (Helen McCrory) meanwhile, has a few amusing moments but is again limited in what she contributes to the plot. This isn’t a Judi Dench/Shakespeare in Love style role by any stretch of the imagination.

There are many more elements that are genuinely funny but to say anything about them here would be to potentially spoil the film. It’s apparent that everyone involved enjoyed making it. More surprisingly, this is not an indication that the final product isn’t very good. Far from it, in fact. The jokes are amusing on the whole, even if there is perhaps a deficit in the type of full-on belly laughs that Yonderland often provides. With that said, there’s not much funnier than having King Phillip II of Spain calling a British spy a bum hole.

Score: 3.5/5

Babylon AD (2008)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-10-19

0

He realised far too late that saying yes to this film was a bad career move.

Twitter Plot Summary: Some guff happens with Vin Diesel. None of it is interesting.

Vin Diesel plays Toorop, a mercenary who agrees to transport a young girl, Aurora (Melanie Thierry), and her watcher Sister Rebeka (Michelle Yeoh) across Russia and into the United States. If there’s one thing that Vin Diesel does best, is pretend to be a delivery boy. Not. He actually does very little of that, in the grand scheme of things.

Shot in that high contrast style that was quite popular in the noughties, Babylon AD isn’t a great film by any stretch but it does have its moments. This is a world in which paper maps have interactive displays on them – if it wasn’t for the fact that the world has gone to pot and it’s all gone a bit dystopian then it would be a world I would want to live in. Then again, seeing as the world really has started falling apart as a result of global warming, it might very well end up being a reality sooner rather than later.

Mark Strong, complete with fashionable bleach blonde hair, rocks up for a little while, but as it’s an appearance that pre-dates his villainous turn in Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes bigger things were still on the horizon. Michelle Yeoh has a meaty role but her stern performance does nothing to add levity to a film that is sorely lacking in cheesy one liners or, indeed, any genuine sense of fun. The po-faced seriousness threatens to turn over the cart on more than one occasion. Possibly another film that suffered as a result of the post-9/11 insistence on darker narratives.

"If anyone says you were in Babylon AD, you tell them they are mistaken." — “If anyone says you were in Babylon AD, you tell them they are mistaken.”

Efforts are made to turn events into a high octane action film, but the reality is that it’s just not good enough. The direction and cinematography are mostly lazy and there’s little sense of dramatic tension when things are supposedly ramped up a gear. The story struggles to make any ground, getting bogged down by providing confusing character beats for Aurora and not developing her knowledge and powers to an appropriate level.

It’s easy to understand why the final product has a few issues bearing in mind the troubles that afflicted the production behind the scenes. If the disagreements between the director Mathieu Kassovitz and the studio are true, it was never going to be anything more than a mid-range piece of entertainment. And that is precisely what it has turned out to be. Pity, because there’s a half decent film lurking in there somewhere. But then, it does itself no favours by casting the bulbous form of Gerard Depardieu. That’s just asking for trouble.

What did I take away from this mess? That studio interference is a bad thing; that dystopian science fiction doesn’t always work despite the inherent possibilities the genre holds; that mashing together a few cool scenes does not a good film make; that, on the whole, none of this made much sense. I was left somewhat baffled by almost every decision the story made, and not in an Inception kind of way. It was more like having indigestion but lacking the medication to adequately reduce its symptoms.

Score: 2/5

The Heroes of Telemark (1965)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-10-16

0

"I swear, say one more thing about my chin and I'll punch you." — “I swear, say one more thing about my chin and I’ll punch you.”

Twitter Plot Summary: The daring raid on a heavy water plant in Norway, as depicted by Richard Harris, Kirk Douglas and his chin dimple.

It’s a little peculiar watching the likes of Richard Harris and Kirk Douglas acting in their youth. Not because they are odd or peculiar in any way, but because of the incredibly striking similarities between them and their sons, Jared Harris and Michael Douglas respectively, who would later join the profession. In any case, what we have here is Richard Harris, Kirk Douglas and Kirk Douglas’s chin all starring in The Heroes of Telemark, based on the true story where during World War 2 a small Allied force destroyed the heavy water plant in Rjukan, Norway. Success would derail the Nazi plans for building an atomic bomb and potentially swing the direction of the war in the Allies’ favour. So not much pressure then.

But that is a separate point to what is on the whole a thoroughly enjoyable World War 2 action romp. We’ll ignore the fact that we have Brits, Americans et al playing Norwegians using their normal accents rather than attempting to simulate the Norwegian way of speaking, mostly because it’s a good thing they haven’t pandered to the accent brigade. My viewing of this came shortly after watching the rather good drama The Saboteurs which looked at the same daring raid. There are obvious differences between the two versions, most notably Kirk Douglas’s epic chin almost deserving its own trailer on the set. This is a big budget, Hollywood interpretation of the facts so there are liberties taken with the original tale in the name of entertainment. The recent television series is a much more appropriate and accurate version of events, but in any case it’s interesting to see the differences played out between the two and considering the trends and entertainment requirements of both eras. Back then it was all about providing a big, epic adventure rather than adhering strictly to reality. Whilst it shows, that’s not to say it isn’t a thoroughly enjoyable romp.

Richard Harris. Debonaire. Effervescent. Irish.

There are a number of factual inaccuracies littered through the story, but it pays decent homage to the efforts of the small team who took out the heavy water factory whilst offering a mostly rip-roaring action adventure at the same time. It doesn’t quite hit the high marks of tension and surprise as the likes of Where Eagles Dare, but that should not act as a disservice to what The Heroes of Telemark provides on its own merits. It’s respectful without oversimplifying the difficult situation faced by both sides at this point in the war, but it doesn’t go so far as to make the Nazis out to be the comic book stereotypes that is the norm for this sort of thing. Meanwhile, both Douglas and Harris engage in acts of heroic derring do, constantly trying to stay ahead of the Nazis whilst also doing their level best to avoid ripping each other’s heads off.

Sadly, and very much indicative of the era, there is an attempt to shoehorn a female presence into the story in the form of Ulla Jacobsson as Anna – who ends up romantically entwined with Douglas and/or his chin (it’s hard to tell sometimes where the chin ends and Douglas begins). She doesn’t get any strong characterisation which I’m pleased to say was rectified in the more recent television series.

If I could change anything it would be the budget version of the film that we have on DVD. It might not be the most well known war film from that era, but it’s deserving of a far better transfer than the one provided by ITV’s DVD department. Otherwise, provided you can see beyond the factual inaccuracies, this is a solid and enjoyable 60s war film.

Score: 3.5/5

Goal 3: Taking On The World (2009)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-10-15

0

This is almost all we see of Santiago after first billing status in the first two. Not that those films were any good, but what a waste.

Twitter Plot Summary: Santiago Munez is relegated to third tier status in this absolutely horrendous football film.

If you, like me, have seen the first two entries in the Goal series, my first thought is to offer my congratulations for sitting through some really rather terrible football films. You must be made of seriously harder stuff to endure not only Santiago Munez’s less than engaging personal life, but the fact he was benched for this third entry and reduced to what is little more than a guest starring role. If you made it through all three films without stopping halfway through or dry-wretching because of the cliché emotional moments and terrible stories, then you have my everlasting respect.

The missteps in Goal 3 are plenty and numerous. The most notable of these is that reduction of Kuno Becker’s role as Santiago. At the end of Goal 2 we were left with a hanging plot thread where his Geordie girlfriend Rob (Anna Friel) was pregnant while he went off in search of fame and glory. Picking up sometime later, Goal 3 gives Santiago a full head of hair and third fiddle status to two England international stars, played by JJ Feild and Leo Gregory. Ironically, the entire film could have been much more interesting had they simply changed their character names to Santiago and Gavin (Santiago’s best mate from the first two films, played by Alessandro Nivola). It would have been a far more satisfying end to the series had it been these characters that were given centre stage. Feild’s storyline revolving around a daughter he didn’t know he had would have been perfect for Santiago following the conclusion of the second film. Instead he gets one meaningful scene and a broken arm for his troubles.

"Yeah. I've no idea why I'm here either." — “Yeah. I’ve no idea why I’m here either.”

Then there are slightly more minor issues, such as the recurring appearance of a bunch of Newcastle United football fans. While I have nothing against Newcastle or its football fans (I visit the city and its sports bars on a regular basis), their inclusion here – alongside a Mike Ashley cameo – add nothing to proceedings. More so when they turn up at a funeral in the final third of the film. Why are they there? Because the script demanded it, that’s all. It’s a jumble of bad ideas linked by equally bad green-screened footballers being digitally inserted into real Euro 2006 footage, or by footballers trying to break into acting by appearing in a low budget European horror film, one where all of the performers are literally bursting at the seams in their revealing outfits.

So we end up with what amounts to a huge number of missed chances, much like the England team’s track record in penalty shoot-outs. The previous two films weren’t exactly pinnacles of cinema, but they did a far better job of it than this. Had they not tied it into the same world as the previous films then it might have been moderately tolerable. Instead it’s like watching a despondent goalkeeper who, after keeping a clean sheet for the entire game, makes a mistake in the final minute that gifts the opposite team a goal and then has to pluck the ball from his own net. In other words, it’s likely to be either a source of much amusement or a source of much heartbreak depending on which team you support.

Score: 1/5

Cyborg (1989)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-10-14

0

"My special power is growling. That's it." — “My special power is growling. That’s it.”

Twitter Plot Summary: Van Damme is an action man protecting a cyborg who has information that could save humanity.

When a film is created from the ashes of two other, potentially better projects, the result is always likely to be something disappointing. Lo and behold, such is the case with Cyborg. Much of the costumes and production cost had previously been spent on what was originally intended to be a sequel to 1987’s He-Man movie, Masters of the Universe and, bizarrely, a Spider-Man movie. All of this was financed by Cannon Films, so those in the know will be aware that this company were notorious for their terrible films. There are a few documentaries flying around about them at the moment, but try and catch Electric Boogaloo if you have the chance. There are some decent efforts lost in the quagmire of awfulness that was their output.

Jean-Claude Van Damme gets top billing as a man tortured by his past – or, more importantly, tortured by the attack on his family many years ago by a bad guy who has funky eyes. It’s worth pointing out that his character’s name is Gibson Rickenbacker – clearly a creation of someone who likes guitars. Many years after these events he encounters a cyborg called Pearl (Dayle Haddon) who holds within her memory a cure for the plague that has decimated humanity. Unfortunately she’s stalked by a group of pirates who look like Mad Max rejects. Step up Mr Van Damme and his funky martial arts expertise.

Every element of the production looks typical for a Cannon picture. Cliches abound and, whilst the HD transfer looks pretty decent and clearly a fair amount of money was spent on the costumes and sets (for those other planned productions of course), there is still a very strong whiff of cheapness to everything else. It gives the impression that everything was done in a hurry, without much thought or pre-planning, and they basically just winged it at every turn. I’m fairly certain that was actually the case.

This might be a Christ allegory. I'm not sure. (Sarcasm mode enabled) — This might be a Christ allegory. I’m not sure. (Sarcasm mode enabled)

The bad guy, Fender (Vincent Klyn), another guitar based name I might add, is clad in chainmail for most of the story, then foolishly removes it for his final showdown with Gibson. Even Bennett in Commando never removed his chainmail vest, and he still ended up losing as a result of a nasty steam pipe chest injury. Here, Fender removes his vest and spends the next ten minutes growling a bit. Hardly a classic fight to the death, not even by 80s action movie standards.

Van Damme is the only notable name here, but he was still a relatively unknown quantity at the time of release. By his standards his performance isn’t great, so that should tell you all you need to know. The supporting cast aren’t much better.

What Cyborg can offer is a few half decent action sequences, even if they feel rushed and may have resulted in one of the actors being blinded. Whilst this was an unfortunate incident, it’s more of a shame that it didn’t happen during the filming of a more worthwhile production.

Score: 2/5

The Guest (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-10-13

0

Don't trust him, even if he is that chap from Downton. — Don’t trust him, even if he is that chap from Downton.

Twitter Plot Summary: A mysterious strange entwines himself into the life of a grieving family. Then everything goes seriously crazy.

The Petersen family are fractured following the death of their eldest son/brother in combat. Turning up on their doorstep completely out of the blue, Dan Stevens’ David very quickly ingratiates himself to the whole family, explaining that he was friends with the deceased soldier. He wears them all down individually – the mother allows him to stay as he provides a final link to her son; the father allows him to stay a few days longer because he finds himself able to talk about his financial issues over a few beers and a game of American Football; other son Luke is drawn in by David showing him how to deal with some bullies; and daughter Anna is lured in by his cool side and willingness to let her smoke and drink without her parents finding out. Before you can say “Think about it” he’s almost fully integrated into the family unit as if he’d always been a part of it.

So far, so ordinary. Yet David has a dark side to him, one moment all smiles and then seconds later the darkness descends. Dan Stephens is a revelation as David, a far cry from his role on Downton Abbey and clearly enjoying playing himself in the role. His method of twisting the family round to accepting him are nothing short of genius, exploiting their weaknesses and using them for his own personal gain. His versatility as an actor is defined in this one film, and marks him as one to look out for in the future.

The patient buildup is worth it, as everything hits the fan once David’s story starts to wear thin and the body count, from nowhere, starts to rack up. It’s a superb effort, great performances combined with a riot of a script that finds the perfect balance between darkness and light – much like David. Once the government get involved, things really start to get out of control, more so when you realise that even they are near powerless to take David on.

I'd be more concerned about the pumpkin headed witch. — I’d be more concerned about the pumpkin headed witch.

All of this comes via Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett who gave us the excellent genre mashup that was You’re Next. What is great about their films is that they effectively balance comedy with scares, humour with terror. They seem to have an understanding of how genre works and which mashups work the best. On first glance there may not be much originality to both The Guest and You’re Next, but in both cases they prove to be much more than the sum of their parts, and again carried by the performances of all involved.

As an homage to (or even a pastiche of) 80s action and horror, The Guest is thoroughly enjoyable tale from start to finish, especially when the patient build-up gives way to absolute craziness and a knowing nudge nudge, wink wink in the audience’s direction. We know precisely where this is going, yet are more than happy to go along for the ride. Would a sequel be too much to ask for?

Score: 4/5

A Little Chaos (2015)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-10-12

0

Twitter Plot Summary: Romance and gardening are easy bedfellows, it seems. Hans Gruber directs.

Alan Rickman takes the director’s chair for only the second time in his career (and a mere 17 years after his debut with The Winter Guest in 1997) with A Little Chaos, a tale set in 19th century France and the court of King Louis XIV in Paris. The King is a fan of horticultural exploits, and decides to hire a landscaper to design a garden at Versailles that is fit for a king.

Sadly the titular chaos isn’t really explored in the film itself, the story being as uncomplicated as it is. Kate Winslet is Dabine De Barra, a female landscaper who must constantly fight against the attitudes of the era in which she lives. Then there is Matthias Schoenaarts as Andre Le Notre, the man responsible for hiring her onto the project. Both of them have their personal demons and regrets, which makes it abundantly obvious that they will end up together in some capacity. Their game of relationship cat and mouse is the core of the film, avoiding over-sentimental nonsense thanks to the solid work from both Winslet and Schoenaarts. Weaved into this is jealousy from Schoenaart’s wife, Helen McCrory’s Madame Le Notre, who is apparently happy to sleep around yet doesn’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

Surprisingly enough, it’s Rickman who threatens to steal the whole show as King Louis XIV, a man who weaves in and out of the story where required. He has emotional damage of his own to contend with, which is wonderfully realised in a scene where Winslet’s character doesn’t realise that he is the king. In a close second place is Stanley Tucci as his brother, a flamboyant and hugely enjoyable performance that takes some of its cues from his role as Caesar in the Hunger Games series. In both cases they aren’t in the film nearly enough and, while the focus by necessity is on Winslet and Schoenaarts, it would have been nice if their roles had been expanded a little, even if it was just an extra minute of screen time.

No words necessary. It's Alan Rickman. — No words necessary. It’s Alan Rickman.

Out of necessity and cost it was shot in the UK rather than in France, but you wouldn’t be able to tell from the locations chosen. The stately homes used as locations look amazing, and while you get the sense that the scale of the script has perhaps not been fully realised, it doesn’t distract from the romance story that lies at its centre. It helps that the gardens and horticultural side of the story look rather pleasant too.

It may be little more than a by numbers love story and less than what it perhaps hoped to be, but it does the job without jumping into cloying sentimentality or slapping you round the face with its themes. Instead Rickman directs with a flair that demonstrates an eye for a good shot but without being flashy about it. Furthermore, he manages to pull some great performances from a dependable cast of actors, and it is these elements that pull the overall production above and beyond what could have easily been your average television movie.

Score: 3/5

Alien VS Predator (2004)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-10-05

0

The Predator's "sexy dance" was met with general concern. — The Predator’s “sexy dance” was met with general concern.

Twitter Plot Summary: Aliens meet Predators, and there are people stuck in the middle. Suffice to say, it doesn’t end well. Nor does the film.

Ever since fans spotted an Alien skull in the generally okay Predator 2, fans had been clamouring for a cinematic tete a tete between two of the film world’s most iconic latter day science fiction creations. Of course, comic book fans had experienced many years of Alien VS Predator crossovers via Dark Horse Comics from the late 80s onwards, but in 2004 the pairing finally made it to the big screen. Was it worth it? Kind of.

The first major indication that it might not be the film we were hoping for came with the announcement of Paul WS Anderson as it’s director. A bit harsh you may think, but bear with me on this point. Anderson may not be the most adventurous or talented filmmaker in the world, but he is at least consistent. That is likely the only genuinely good comment that can be made about AvP. Everything else about the production feels too light for the serious tone it is trying to achieve, and despite the occasional darker moment it often feels as if it’s been homogenised to make it 12A rating friendly. Which, as it happens, it is. From a business perspective it makes perfect sense as it almost guarantees more bums on seats in the cinema, but creatively? No, it doesn’t do the final product any favours in the slightest.

Other than those general issues about tone and commercially exploiting the brand name, there are more issues to contend with. The script is hackneyed, to the point where you know that as soon as Ewen Bremner starts talking about his kids you know that he’s not going to survive.

"I've no idea what this means. A party, maybe?" — “I’ve no idea what this means. A party, maybe?”

Meanwhile, Colin Salmon proves to be Anderson’s go to guy for horrific death scenes (sorry to anybody who hasn’t yet seen this), taking on a similar privilege to the one bestowed upon him in 2002’s Resident Evil, also written and directed by Anderson. He gets a good ending at least. Unlike the film itself, a point which I’ll move onto shortly.

There are some good nods to the established canon – Lance Henriksen being cast as the modern day Mr Weyland is by far the best of these, and the way the Aliens and Predators are used is, on the whole, appropriate. The relationship between the apex Predator (sadly, not Randy Orton) and lead character Alexa (Sanaa Lathan) is an interesting development, and does something a little different to the usual “everybody dies” formula.

But then Anderson has chosen to ruin things by paying too many homages to the previous films in its action sequences, and demonstrates that he can’t write a satisfactory finale. There really is no need to finish a story on a cliffhanger, is there? To use it here and there is fine, but in almost every film you make? No, that’s the M Night Shyamalan effect, it grows tiresome through repetition. Likewise with the action sequences, we’ve seen them played out before in the previous films in each series. Why labour on existing templates when you could do something unique and exciting with the property instead?

Score: 2.5/5

SIMONPRIOR.COM