Yesterday I had some time while the Wife and Kiddies were at Granny's.....So I watched Alien 3....( its been along time )

......and you know....its not so bad at all....in fact I like it better than Alien 4. Alien 4 has some good moments and killer one liners but Alien 3 has more feel and more of the ALIEN mood to it. could be just me....but maybe its because they kill off Newt and Hicks that folks can't get over?....I know I hated that whole idea!

I guess we should consider AVP a good PREDATOR movie and not really a 'ALIEN' flick?

I agree with you, it's better than a lot of people give it credit for. David Fincher made the best of an unenviable situation, i.e. a greenlit film with a firm release date and no script. The studio was so confused as to what film they were making they actually released a teaser trailer in which the "tease" was the aliens invading Earth. It's a pity Fincher's comments do not accompany the terrific Alien box set... THAT would have been interesting.

Troy, what version did you watch - the shorter one that played theaters or the new longer one? I agree, it's much better than most people think, but the shorter version does have a few problems. The new longer edit solves those problems, is a better film.

When people talk about what they hate about Alien 3, I usually get the impression they wanted another action-flick just like Aliens...you know, like they wanted Aliens 2 more than they wanted an Alien 3. That, and the movie was so grim it's hard to warm up to - I didn't like it the first time out.

Then the Newt/Hicks thing. The way I see it, the only natural progresssion for Ripley was this particular story, and I agree with David Fincher that to get her there emotionally, she had to lose Newt and Hicks. That works for the story, and as much as I love Jim Cameron's movies, I don't give a fig for his imagined wounds to his ego over it. The integrity of the story comes first.

Carson's right, the extras on the new disc make it clear how much David Fincher accomplished against studio incompetence and sabotage. Detractors of this movie should at least rent it for the extras and find out how the film came to be.

I've slowly come to love this movie, especially now I've seen the longer edit.

Hi Guys,
I was not happy with Alien3 when it first debuted. After watching it many many times I have come to actually like this movie. The feel is Alien, NOT Aliens and I think that was my initial disappointment. Everyone wanted the roller coaster ride that was Aliens but got a more cerebral movie. My newfound taste for this movie was further enhanced with the arrival of Alien Res. I hated it when I saw it at the theater and I still despise it. I always tell people the only thing good about Alien Res was there were Aliens in it! So Alien Res made me see the great movie that Alien3 actually is.

I do believe the hubub at the time of 3 was that the original director either walked or was termed and they brought in a kid that only had directed music videos. Fincher did a great job.

I have not seen the longer version of 3 yet but I will.

I read the novelization for Alien Res and I enjoyed the book a hell of a lot more than the movie. I don't know if it is the fact that I have so many dislikes for that film. From casting all the way to the Newborn. I walked Away from Res thinking, that since the original Alien there have been many movies trying to rip off the Alien and Fox went ahead and Bastardized Giger's hellish vision with that pot bellied, hunched backed, piece of tripe! They did it themselves!

Cheers,
Max Bryant

By the time "Aliens" was released Ellen Ripley had become a cinematic icon. The only way Sigourney Weaver would agree to star in another sequel was if the producers agreed to kill off her character. Alas, killing off an icon is never easy (just ask William Shatner).

I think the problem a lot of people have with "Alien3" stems from the fact that Ripley's alien "impregnation" causes her to lose hope. Unfortunately a hero who gives up -- that is to say a sad-sack, Put-me-out-of-my-misery type hero -- is not particularly interesting. Mind you, I have no problem with cinematic heroes getting killed; it happens all the time. But when you're stuck with a hero who WANTS to die... well, that requires some very adroit screenwriting. It would be nice to say that "Alien3" had its heart in the right place, but heart is the very thing it lacks.

Carson, I'd agree with most of that, all but the final opinion. Of course, that's a very subjective thing. I watched this movie during a bout of semi-severe depression, and very much felt where the heart of the film was. I don't think my objectivity toward the film was clouded by me emotional state, it simply clicked with me as being (so to speak) dead on on all levels - not just Rip but the social/emotional/philosophical state of the prisoners' nihilist society and the Doctor's failure of self-esteem. It's a movie that accurately depicts a lack of heart, but I don't feel it lacks heart itself. Quite the opposite, I think it had great empathy for the condition.

Like I said, though, just subjective personal opinion. And oddly enough, it was actually kinda comforting. Made me feel better.

But I agree that audiences found it impossible to feel any sympathy for a depressed hero who's perceived as giving up. Very good point.

The third movie invalidated the second one for me (kid dead, love interest dead, android character pulped), so I hated it on that basis.

Having said that, I do have to admit that Fincher made it very stylish and AL-MOST rewatchable (not surprising in retrospect, since Se7en turned out to be my favorite movie of the 90s.)

Se7en made me realise that the neausia I felt at the end of Alien3 was intentional.

Coby....if your gonna spew...spew into this ok?.... Party on! :freak:

Even when I didn't like ALIEN III I always thought that it was a good SCI-FI movie.

In Alien 4 .....I do like Ripleys charactor....very cool! and the basketball scene is still the best! too bad hers was the only charactor developed.

Just like in Alien when they decided not to put in the Dallas "kill me" cacoon scene....they should have done the same with Ripleys lab distruction rampage....sure it made her a bit more human and I could understand it and all but it slowed it down and was just plain gross!

David Fincher is a talented yet sadistic filmmaker. He genuinely likes to piss off his audience for the sake of pissing them off. He wants to "shake things up" for an audience he imagines to be leading a life of quiet desperation -- a worthy goal for any artist. Problem is, he's always been an angry young rich kid with nothing much to be angry about, and it shows in his films. The term "intellectually and emotionally vapid" comes to mind.

Fincher hasn't made a film since 9/11. It'll be interesting to see what the hopfully-still-angry-but-no-longer-so-young man comes up with.

I do believe the hubub at the time of 3 was that the original director either walked or was termed
Vincent Ward was turfed along with the audacious conceit of a bunch of monks living in wooden planet.
..and they brought in a kid that only had directed music videos.
.. and TV commercials, during production a concerned 20th exec disparaged him as a shoe (Nike) salesman.

David Fincher is a talented yet sadistic filmmaker. He genuinely likes to piss off his audience for the sake of pissing them off. He wants to "shake things up" for an audience he imagines to be leading a life of quiet desperation -- a worthy goal for any artist.
Agreed. Fincher reminds me of the young Paul Schrader in this respect.

David Fincher is a talented yet sadistic filmmaker. He genuinely likes to piss off his audience for the sake of pissing them off. He wants to "shake things up" for an audience he imagines to be leading a life of quiet desperation...
Definitely merit in that, though you're much harsher on him than Panic Room deserves. My defense of his job on Alien 3 is by no means a strong vote of confidence in the director himself.

Alien 3, the man was flown to England and told basically to "do it NOW!" with someone else's story and no script. I have great admiration for how much he accomplished with nothing much more than a great set, a handful of actors, and some talented technicians and artists. Not all of his ideas were good ones: the autopsy of Newt, when the rough cut was played for the studio, was much longer, far too graphic and brutal. Grown men were leaving the room. Fincher liked it that way, with no respect for the audience's feelings over such brutality - he wanted to unnerve people early in the film.

Se7en was I think an excellent film for what it was, a deliberately disturbing shocker. I don't hold it as high as Silence of the Lambs, as Se7en came off to me...too gimmicky, too manipulative in a way I found unconvincing, stagy...it's difficult to put my finger on quite how, as others feel the same about Silence, except that to me Silence was more naturalisitic while Se7en could have been a stage play.

The Game was just that, an elaborate screen game of trying to keep everyone guessing, and I feel that one truly had no heart, soul, or point.

Fight Club is probably his most celebrated film, but I'm not sold on it. I do admire it's audacity, am not ready to commend Fincher on it's ideas until I've read the novel by Chuck Pahlaniuk (sp?), but in the aftermath I found it dishonest in it's supposed "moral lesson". This one fits the description you give of Fincher pretty well.

Panic Room, otoh, was a movie not lacking in empathy or intelligence. A slam dunk, IMO, that I'd recommend to anyone.

The problem here is that he tends to tackle extreme psychologies or extreme situations with more than a little objectivity, which can be good but is tricky to pull off without feeling entirely cold. Yes, he can be sadistic, but that's not the entirety of his makeup as an artist. The same accusations made of him here have plagued Cronenberg throughout his career, for similar reasons. The darker terrain of the human psyche makes for uncomfortable film viewing.

Troy, you liked What Dreams May Come, right? Look for a movie called The Navigator (not the Disney movie!).

Same director, Vincent Ward. His best movie, I think. A fantasy about a spiritual quest to save a Dark Ages village from the plague turns into a time-travel adventure.

As noted above, Ward was the guy who abandoned his turn as director of Alien 3 when he and the studio couldn't see eye to eye. His concept was pure Ward, and would have made a great fantasy film as only he could do it. I don't think it would have been accepted as an Alien movie, though.

There's a group of monks living on a "wooden planet" (!!). Actually, it's a space station (think Death Star but much smaller). Just enough metal superstructure and workings to make it viable, but all done up in very gothic wood stylings, with primitive facilities. The core of the "planet" is a huge labyrinthine furnace room (the symbolism is obvious). The planet has a breathable atmosphere, but so shallow that you can stand up on the surface and your head is outside the atmoshere, in outer space (alarm bells ringing yet on this movie's science and credibility?)

Ripley crashes into a lake on the surface (!), is recued and becomes the focus of much discontent among the monks who are upset by the presence of an outsider, and a female one at that. Once the alien shows up, they assume it's the Devil come to punish them for contaminating their own presence with her. After escaping imprisonment, she has to battle the critter with the help of the one monk who trusts her.

Imagine that done by Vincent Ward. Very bad as science, could be great possibilties for a Ward-styled fantasy, he'd make it something quite beautiful...if only he'd reconfigure it as a non-Alien film. Don't know about you, but I would bever buy that as part of the series.

The Navigator was a very good film.

I have to agree with everyone who's given the film a second look and thus a revised opinion. When I got the big Alien boxed set (a gift from my students - they're paying attention!!!), I looked through everything BUT Alien 3. Then one rainy Sunday afternoon, I thought "what the heck" Popped it and was surprised at how much more I got out of it. I also have to agree with the poster who said that A3 is more like A1 than A2 is. I also found the original cuts and choices to be very mature and unnerving - and my preference of the two. One of my problems with A2 was that if felt like a "hollywood" movie leaning a bit too much on cliche characters and situations. A1 & A3 have a european rawness, almost obscenity, that tells the story with more truth.

John O.

"The Navigator" is one of those wonderful little gems... the kind of under-the-radar fantasy film you wish there were more of. No big FX, but very big on imagination. If you haven't seen it you're in for a treat.

Vincet Ward has a great eye, and a nice touch with actors. Pity he doesn't work more, but from what I've heard he's far too nice a person to survive within the studio system. David Fincher, on the other hand, was born to make films within the studio system.

Speaking of Fincher; just out of morbid curiosity, I watched "Se7en" again recently. I'd forgotten how funny Brad Pitt is as the world's stupidest detective. Honestly, he makes Inspector Clouseau look like Sherlock Holmes's smarter brother.

The problem with "Se7en" is that it wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, it's striving for a bleak "Chinatown" ending where the hero is tricked into thinking he can make a difference only to discover he's actually made things worse; Jake Giddes = chump. On the other hand, "Se7en" wants the sort of ending where Morgan Freeman can tell us that in spite of all the evidence to the contrary (e.g. Gwenneth Paltrow's head in a box), he still thinks the "good fight" is one he can win, and yes, don't worry, he'll be back at the office bright and chipper come Monday morning.

What a load of rubbish. In its heart of hearts the audience knows that in the world of "Se7en" hope simply does not exist. The film's protagonists are in hell, and nothing they do is going to change that. For Morgan Freeman to go against the film's thematic grain and talk about going back to work after all he's been through -- and remember, he'd had one foot out the door when the movie began... well, it's a false note that makes his character seem like an idiot (instead of just a chump).

The problem with "Se7en" is that it wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, it's striving for a bleak "Chinatown" ending where the hero is tricked into thinking he can make a difference only to discover he's actually made things worse; Jake Giddes = chump. On the other hand, "Se7en" wants the sort of ending where Morgan Freeman can tell us that in spite of all the evidence to the contrary (e.g. Gwenneth Paltrow's head in a box), he still thinks the "good fight" is one he can win, and yes, don't worry, he'll be back at the office bright and chipper come Monday morning.

What a load of rubbish. In its heart of hearts the audience knows that in the world of "Se7en" hope simply does not exist. The film's protagonists are in hell, and nothing they do is going to change that. For Morgan Freeman to go against the film's thematic grain and talk about going back to work after all he's been through -- and remember, he'd had one foot out the door when the movie began... well, it's a false note that makes his character seem like an idiot (instead of just a chump).
Completely agree. The same can be said particularly for Schrader's "Hardcore" and "The Comfort of Strangers". I like dark subject matter. I love "Chinatown" But you come away from these films with the feeling that the director has set you up in a pretty sophisticated way - then taken you by the back of the neck and rubbed your face in sh#t. It's nihilism with a tiny dab of saccharine sprinkled on it and it's manipulative of the audience in a very false way.*

*Sorry to get off on the Schrader tangent but I think the comparison is apt.

The difference between a "visual stylist" like David Fincher and an "auteur" like Paul Schrader is that Fincher doesn't know he's selling out unless someone points it out to him. Schrader is smart enough to know he's full of crap, and I suspect he knows some of us know it too.

So few people have seen "The Navigator" that it's been hard for me to ever comment on it. Glad to hear some of you have seen it - I love that move.

As for ALIEN 3 - I've never warmed up to the theatrical version. The new edit that's on the latest DVD set made for a far better film. I do think that some of the earlier ideas of that movie would've made for a decent story too.

Fight Club is probably his most celebrated film, but I'm not sold on it. I do admire it's audacity, am not ready to commend Fincher on it's ideas until I've read the novel by Chuck Pahlaniuk (sp?), but in the aftermath I found it dishonest in it's supposed "moral lesson".

The film of Fight Club is IMHO the best filmed version of a novel.
If you don't like the film you are not likely to enjoy the book.

I think se7en is overated
IMHO Alien 3 and Fight Club are Finchers best work.(so far)
He seems to have a realy dark world view, but his stuff is heavily accented with very black humour.

He seems to be a very funny guy. If you get over the 'dark and depressing' veneer his films are comedies.

Jim

Se7en made me realise that the neausia I felt at the end of Alien3 was intentional.

Did the nausea induce dyslexia as well?

"The Navigator" is one of those wonderful little gems... the kind of under-the-radar fantasy film you wish there were more of. No big FX, but very big on imagination. If you haven't seen it you're in for a treat.

Vincet Ward has a great eye, and a nice touch with actors. Pity he doesn't work more, but from what I've heard he's far too nice a person to survive within the studio system. David Fincher, on the other hand, was born to make films within the studio system.

Speaking of Fincher; just out of morbid curiosity, I watched "Se7en" again recently. I'd forgotten how funny Brad Pitt is as the world's stupidest detective. Honestly, he makes Inspector Clouseau look like Sherlock Holmes's smarter brother.

The problem with "Se7en" is that it wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, it's striving for a bleak "Chinatown" ending where the hero is tricked into thinking he can make a difference only to discover he's actually made things worse; Jake Giddes = chump. On the other hand, "Se7en" wants the sort of ending where Morgan Freeman can tell us that in spite of all the evidence to the contrary (e.g. Gwenneth Paltrow's head in a box), he still thinks the "good fight" is one he can win, and yes, don't worry, he'll be back at the office bright and chipper come Monday morning.

What a load of rubbish. In its heart of hearts the audience knows that in the world of "Se7en" hope simply does not exist. The film's protagonists are in hell, and nothing they do is going to change that. For Morgan Freeman to go against the film's thematic grain and talk about going back to work after all he's been through -- and remember, he'd had one foot out the door when the movie began... well, it's a false note that makes his character seem like an idiot (instead of just a chump).

So you don't see the world of Se7en as being our world then? I do. Even though it is often shit, there is still sporadic hope that comes up, so Freeman's conclusion, while perhaps a little on-the-nose/movielike, really is validation, and absolutely correct given what has come before. I dont' think Fincher will ever approach that level again, unless he has a REALLY good collaboration with Andrew Kevin Walker, the screenwriter. I think he has become obsessed with technique in the last couple of films, almost like he started out as Orson Welles and somehow flatlined into Hitchcock (later Hitchcock, not the SHADOW OF A DOUBT Hitch.) I watch Se7en at least half dozen times a year, and unlike films like SALVADOR (which is a good film, but too tough to watch, especially given its true life basis), I come out feeling better afterward, like I've been in an art gallery. I wish he could do it again, but i doubt it.

EDIT ADD ON: I interviewed Fincher about FIGHT CLUB, and that is in part the basis for my view of his overfocus on technique. I admire the idea of previz and boarding for the sake of economics and for structuring a visual dynamic, but I think it has been taken to extremes these days by a lot of CG-savvy folks, to the detriment of some films.

For the most part I enjoyed Alien III. The only problem I have with it is they never explain how the eggs got on the Sulaco in the first place.

For the most part I enjoyed Alien III. The only problem I have with it is they never explain how the eggs got on the Sulaco in the first place.

The queen deposited them before revealing herself at the climax of "Aliens" after stowing aboard the dropship. Least I think so....

She was in the landing well. The egg is shown in a brief glimpse in the credits, IIRC, hard to make out it's location.

Could she release eggs without the eggsac?

I have to agree with John F, that's the one thing that doesn't work. Oh well, ya just have to go with it.

So you don't see the world of Se7en as being our world then? I do. Even though it is often shit, there is still sporadic hope that comes up, so Freeman's conclusion, while perhaps a little on-the-nose/movielike, really is validation, and absolutely correct given what has come before.


"Se7en" states its theme very clearly. Indeed, it beats the audience mercilessly over the head with it: the world sucks, God is cruel, and we are powerless to shape our destinies. A depressingly nihilistic theme? Maybe, but at least there is one (in case you haven't noticed, a lot of movies these days have done away with themes all together).

My problem with "Se7en" is that it cops out at the end. It puts us through two hours of hell to make its point, then invalidates that point by inserting a forced character arc for Morgan Freeman. What could have been an interesting bit of pop commentary became a big budget exploitation film. Did this suger-coated resolution improve the film's chances at the B.O.? Of course it did, and I've no doubt that from the studio's P.O.V. they made the right decision.

As for the moments of "sporadic hope" you speak of, I'd love to know what you're refering to. Show me ONE INSTANCE in "Se7en" where Morgan Freeman is given any reason to believe he can make a difference... ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE that good can triumph over evil... ONE MITIGATING FACTOR to motivate his conclusion at the end that the "good fight" is one worth fighting.

I look forward to your response. And for the record, if I thought I was living in the world of "Se7en" I'd hire someone to put my head in a box.

P.S.

If Fincher didn't focus on technique he wouldn't have anything left.

The "sporadic hope" I mentioned was the hope I MYSELF have with respect to the real world, and I find Freeman's comment in the film -- his ability to make it at that point in the story -- to be a true affirmation of the resiliency of the human heart. But if you need an example in the film of something undeniably good, then I'd say the bunch hanging out after hours in the library -- I'd like to spend an evening with them myself. That's like the moment in STAND BY ME when Wheaton encounters the deer -- it just is a moment unto itself. People like those friends of his are worth fighting the good fight for. Unlike family, you CHOOSE your friends, which makes them extremely important to me.

Something else here about Se7en -- for me, I find it is the rarest of films, in that (with the exception of the lawyer, who isn't a principal character) the main characters are ALL folks I can relate to, both superficially and in-depth. Doe's reference to vomiting over somebody trying to talk to him on the subway is in its own way just as human as Pitt wrestling with the dogs, or Freeman going to pieces with laughter over the incredible vibrating home, while Paltrow's passionate hatred for the city is totally understandable given her character. Usually at least the bad guy (or in the case of franchise films, the good guy) gets short shrift in character dept, but Se7en seems extraordinarly rich in that area -- probably needs it too, to avoid the Ridley Scott syndrome of having visuals overpower story and character.)

She was in the landing well. The egg is shown in a brief glimpse in the credits, IIRC, hard to make out it's location.

Could she release eggs without the eggsac?

I have to agree with John F, that's the one thing that doesn't work. Oh well, ya just have to go with it.

I don't remember an egg, it might have been there, I just don't remember it. But I do know if you wait till the credits are finished on "Aliens" you hear the unmistakable sound of a facehugger skittering across a floor, I read that was the out James Cameron gave himself in case there was an "Alien 3" .

"Mothers disifered some of it...it looks like a warning...."

"They mostly come out at night.....mostly...."

"Thats great! why don'tya put her in charge!"

"Let me see if I've got this straight, Lieutenant: it's an 8-foot creature, some kind with acid for blood, kills on sight, and is generally unpleasant"

"This thing is really pissed off!"

"What makes you think they're gonna care about a bunch of lifers who found God at the a_ _ end of space?"

The "sporadic hope" I mentioned was the hope I MYSELF have with respect to the real world, and I find Freeman's comment in the film -- his ability to make it at that point in the story -- to be a true affirmation of the resiliency of the human heart.)

More like an untrue affirmation. Not to beat a dead horse, but the fact that you have hope for the "real world" doesn't absolve "Se7en" of its dramatic shortcomings. Given the thematic context of the film, Freeman's choice at the end is unmotivated in the extreme. It is simply not credible.

As for Ridley Scott, the worst thing I can say about him is that he's already forgotten more about good filmmaking than David Fincher will ever know.

Hey man, I answered you. There's plenty to justify his hope, just from those folks in the library.

As for Scott, he SHOULD know how to do certain things by now, since he keeps repeating them verbatim film after film. Scott is such a Kubrick wannabe, it is hard for me to take him seriously, even when he rides a good script. Of course, he is the maestro compared to his brother, but his brother, for all his lack of artistry, seems to make a greater percentage of rewatchable movies.

Scott is such a Kubrick wannabe, it is hard for me to take him seriously, even when he rides a good script.


I find it amusing that you should refer to Scott as a Kubrick wannabe since I've always regarded Fincher as a Scott wannabe. I suppose the difference is Scott comes closer to the mark. In any case, the man who made "The Duelists", "Alien", and "Blade Runner" doesn't need me to defend him; the latter two films have had an impact on Western popular culture that reverberates to this day. Even if Scott never makes another important film his legacy as a filmmaker is secure. Unlike David Fincher, he has nothing to prove.

Of course, he is the maestro compared to his brother, but his brother, for all his lack of artistry, seems to make a greater percentage of rewatchable movies.
Hmmmm. Only "True Romance" would be rewatchable for me, and that's due largely to Tarentino's script. "Alien", "Bladerunner" and "Gladiator" on the other hand, are films I will watch again and again until I die. "The Dualists" and "Thelma and Louise" ain't bad movies either (I've never been able to make it through "Legend" even once, however). And I don't really get how Scott is a Kubrick wannabe. Care to expand?

Hmmmm. Only "True Romance" would be rewatchable for me


Zorro:

Don't know if you've seen "Crimson Tide" but it's my favorite Tony Scott film. By no means a great movie, but a lot of fun -- particularly if you're a fan of the Submarine genre.

Zorro:

Don't know if you've seen "Crimson Tide" but it's my favorite Tony Scott film. By no means a great movie, but a lot of fun -- particularly if you're a fan of the Submarine genre.
I forgot about "Crimson Tide" and it's been a number of years since I've seen it. I do remember thoroughly enjoying it. And lest you think there is an echo in here, I must have posted my previous response about 20 seconds after you posted yours.

For me it would be Crimson Tide and Enemy of the State as his rewatchables, along withTrue Romance, though it isn't my cup of tea. Surprised the hell out of me when he actully started using decent scripts, after so many empty movies.

Ridley Scott: The Duelists, Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down...that's just his top tier. Some would list Thelma and louise and Matchstick Men (the latter I haven't seenyet). Some of the others are pretty watchable, too, even though they are lesser films (like Zorro, I could never get into Legend).


Fincher: Alien 3 and panic Room. His resume isn't long yet, I'm waiting to see where he goes before I pass judgement on him.

Not only would I rate FIGHT CLUB as rewatchable, it actually needs to be rewatched several times. The second time I saw, I was amazed that I was watching a completely different movie. And it is one of the few surprise twists in the last few years that actually surprised me.

As for CRIMSON TIDE, when I saw it I was convinced that Tony Scott had gotten a talent transfusion from his brother. Same with ENEMY OF THE STATE. But I still haven't forgiven him for THE HUNGER.

Zorro:

Don't know if you've seen "Crimson Tide" but it's my favorite Tony Scott film. By no means a great movie, but a lot of fun -- particularly if you're a fan of the Submarine genre.

I will just about agree with you there. I really enjoy his LAST BOY SCOUT and TRUE ROMANCE and ENEMY OF THE STATE, though TR I think I enjoy more to the script than the filming. I do think the Hopper/Walken seen is a true classic (and that's saying alot, since when I watched that movie for the first time, I got a call that my niece had been shot in the head, which kind of put a curse on the film for a long time for me.)

And I don't really get how Scott is a Kubrick wannabe. Care to expand?

I wrote something nearly essay sized on this at trekbbs or some other sf site a couple years back (if I had the link I'd provide it), so I'm not going to go at length again, but the Scott/Kubrick issue relates in a lot of ways to pace of storytelling and redundancy of technique. Thing is, when Kubrick reuses a shooting style, it is because it is the right choice (FULL METAL JACKET echoing PATHS OF GLORY, 30 years later), whereas with Scott, it just seems like 'it worked before, trot it out again' (the statue blindly observing the murder in GLADIATOR virtually DUPLICATING the owl witnessing Tyrell's demise in BLADE RUNNER is the classic example.)

Scott's stated fear of treading on Kubrick territory in ALIEN (deleting Hill's computer in favor of an android due to HAL) suggested to me that he already knew he was too far along in Kubrick worship, since he actually hurt the film IMO. HE deviates from Kubrick when it comes to commercial thinking (hence the sound in space rumblings) though.

I think the best version of ALIEN would have been the Hill/Giler script, with Hill directing. Scott gave it something stylish, but Hill would have made a better movie. Instead he did THE WARRIORS, which is even more stylized, but in a different fashion.

To give Scott his due, I think the mac commercial is awesome.

I find it amusing that you should refer to Scott as a Kubrick wannabe since I've always regarded Fincher as a Scott wannabe. I suppose the difference is Scott comes closer to the mark. In any case, the man who made "The Duelists", "Alien", and "Blade Runner" doesn't need me to defend him; the latter two films have had an impact on Western popular culture that reverberates to this day. Even if Scott never makes another important film his legacy as a filmmaker is secure. Unlike David Fincher, he has nothing to prove.

Impacting western popular culture may or may not be a good thing; I'd happily exchange the existence of the STAR WARS franchise as a whole (even the first couple 'good' movies) for a couple literate adaptatations of CHILDHOOD'S END and YESTERDAY'S CHILDREN.

I don't deny the impact of those early Scott films, I just ain't all that impressed by them. ALIEN just never grabbed me, and while I watched BR several times, I found it increasingly empty, getting less interesting and thought-provoking, not more.

Not only would I rate FIGHT CLUB as rewatchable, it actually needs to be rewatched several times. The second time I saw, I was amazed that I was watching a completely different movie. And it is one of the few surprise twists in the last few years that actually surprised me.
I didn't list Fight Club or Se7en as matters of personal taste. I give Se7en high marks as a thriller for being one of the few to genuinely creep me out. Still, it hit a number of false notes beyond the character turn that Carson deplores, and in the end left me turned off. Have not wanted to have to experience that again, what Zorro pretty accurately describes as "having your face rubbed in it".

As for Fight Club...I'm still collating, actually. It's clear that it would be a different movie seen again with foreknowledge of the twist, but I fear it ends up in the same place either way, one I found wholly dishonest (after admittedly only the one viewing). It left me wanting to take a shower...but I'm still trying to sort out my thoughts on it - without having to see it again. If it comes to that, I'll read the novel first.

It's not possible to discuss that movie without the use of spoilers. What I've been hoping for is to read - not participate in - a discussion from BBers on their thoughts about Fight Club, pro and con.

But let me ask, isn't it bothersome that the protagonist who supposedly comes to deplore the means in this story is all too willing to benefit from them? What really is this movie's moral stance? it seems to me we are meant to take away one lesson while the film's heart lies along the other path. Is it just too convenient that the buildings have no-one in them, or is it too thorough a reflection of the film that every facade is empty?

Fincher loses a ton of points, from moi, for the oh-so-precious spelling of Se7en which I presume is pronounced se-'se-ven-en.

But let me ask, isn't it bothersome that the protagonist who supposedly comes to deplore the means in this story is all too willing to benefit from them? What really is this movie's moral stance? it seems to me we are meant to take away one lesson while the film's heart lies along the other path. Is it just too convenient that the buildings have no-one in them, or is it too thorough a reflection of the film that every facade is empty?

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to when you say he benefits from the means he deplores.

As for the moral stance, I see the central theme of the movie as this: Men are violent, destructive creatures. Modern society makes the mistake of denying these impulses or trying to suppress them. If we don't find an outlet for them, they will surface as random destruction or fascism.

Fight Club is as close to a perfect film as I have ever seen in my life. Very entertaining AND educational.

Scott's stated fear of treading on Kubrick territory in ALIEN (deleting Hill's computer in favor of an android due to HAL) suggested to me that he already knew he was too far along in Kubrick worship, since he actually hurt the film IMO.

A number of contemporary filmmakers are in awe of Stanley Kubrick, and the reasons are fairly obvious: Kubrick was, and for many remains, The Master. The fact that guys like Ridley Scott, Michael Mann, and David Fincher occasionally “tread on Kubrick territory” shouldn’t he held against them; after all, where would Kubrick be if he hadn’t trod through territory previously traversed by the likes of Orson Welles and Federico Fellini? To paraphrase Woody Allen’s reference to God in “Manhattan”: “Ya gotta model yourself after somebody.”

As for your comment about Scott deleting the computer in “Alien”, I think you need to take another look at the film; the computer in question is referred to as “Mother”, and her coldly dispassionate, HAL-like delivery is obviously a tip-of-the-cap to Kubrick (for the record, Dan O’Bannon and Ron Shussett came with this “character,” not Walter Hill). Furthermore, the addition of an android to the plot was not the result of Scott trying to avoid the dreaded forbidden zone known as “Kubrick Territory”, but rather the byproduct of some very clever screenwriting on the part of David Giler.

s) I think the best version of ALIEN would have been the Hill/Giler script, with Hill directing.


And who would have had direct “Citizen Kane”… Herman Mankiewicz?

O’bannon… Shusett… Giger… Scott… Hill… Giler… they may not have gotten along, but their collaberation on “Alien" was pure magic.

I'd happily exchange the existence of the STAR WARS franchise as a whole (even the first couple 'good' movies) for a couple literate adaptatations of CHILDHOOD'S END and YESTERDAY'S CHILDREN. .

What would you trade for “The Wizard of Oz” and “Casablanca”?

What would you trade for “The Wizard of Oz” and “Casablanca”?
I wouldn't trade anything for CASABLANCA. Wizard of Oz though ... hmm, well, I've already got RETURN TO OZ, which I like better anyway, so no need to mess there either.

As for your comment about Scott deleting the computer in “Alien”, I think you need to take another look at the film; the computer in question is referred to as “Mother”, and her coldly dispassionate, HAL-like delivery is obviously a tip-of-the-cap to Kubrick (for the record, Dan O’Bannon and Ron Shussett came with this “character,” not Walter Hill). Furthermore, the addition of an android to the plot was not the result of Scott trying to avoid the dreaded forbidden zone known as “Kubrick Territory”, but rather the byproduct of some very clever screenwriting on the part of David Giler.

I assume you've read the fine CINEFANTASTIQUE coverage of ALIEN, which included a significant sampling of the various drafts. The computer 'mother' in Hill's version (hill/giler I guess is more accurate) is the one with 'tude, the one that calls Ripley a 'little cocksucker' as she tries to starve her of air. The computer in the Shussett/O'bannon version is pretty much the STAR TREK computer, not much else. I believe Scott specifically mentions in his interview in that mag his decision to make Ash the android the antagonist instead of the computer BECAUSE of 2001.

I think some of this info is also on the box set laserdisc of ALIEN, and therefore I imagine it is also on the fancier ALIEN dvd sets as well. It'd be nice to see COMPLETE drafts from O'bannon/shussett as well as hill/giler, especially with the rather disgraceful WGA decision to give full credit to Ob/sh (they might as well have just credited AE Van Vogt with writing ALIEN, Obannon copied style as well as plot from IT THE TERROR, which owes to VOYAGE OF THE SPACE BEAGLE.

This is not just a gush for Walter Hill ... although I do find his work up until about 20-22 years ago to be very very good, both writing and directing. However the last couple of decades he has offered very little of interest, except maybe GERONIMO and the SUPERNOVA that might have been, and I find that disappointing. And GIler, though he has some bad credits, has some great ones as well, including a co-credit (with another guy who has a bad rep, Lorenzo Semple) for THE PARALLAX VIEW, which remains for me the quintessential "70s political paranoia" flick (right up there with Kaufman's BODY SNATCHERS remake and TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING and, on a more trivial level, CAPRICORN ONE.)