Review and Interview
Review of The Nightmare and Glitch in the Matrix, and an interview with Director Rodney Ascher.
I was introduced to film maker Rodney Ascher several years ago, with Room 237, a study of the conspiracies that have grown up around interpretations of Kubrick’s The Shinning. Since then, he has made two more documentaries, The Nightmare (2015) and Glitch in the Matrix (2021).
Read More
The Fox Sci-Fi Universe
By Julian Darius
Fox owns several venerable sci-fi franchises, most of which have struggled to one extent or another. Fox’s attempt to combine Predator and Aliens produced a couple lackluster movies, which were then contradicted by Ridley Scott’s Alien prequels. In sum, these properties are mostly languishing (to one degree or another), while Fox had problems managing continuity within franchises, let alone in its one attempt to combine two franchises.
The “Fox Sci-Fi Universe”, listed below, is an attempt to combine these Fox franchises anew, along with other Fox material. Fox has an extensive catalogue of classic films and series which would fit well, many of which haven’t gotten the attention they deserve. I think ,erging them into a single continuity would reinvigorate each film or property, making it part of a tapestry that encourages fans to draw connections and to explore material they otherwise might not.
In addition, Disney’s acquisition of Fox would permit Disney to merge some of its own sci-fi films, including franchises that have struggled on their own. Tron might not be successful on its own, but it could now be an interesting segment of a larger universe, with its world and technology available to characters from other stories.
Key to this strategy is to merge as much compatible material as possible, with special attention to quality material and material produced from the 1980s onward (which looks modern enough). Some quality movies are incompatible, for one reason or another. We can reject any movie we want, and the below list is subject to change. But in general, we don’t want to be purists, only incorporating the very best. We want to incorporate the best works, but we also want to be as all-encompassing as possible, so as to produce a grand tapestry spanning centuries of history.
An impressive body of work containing multiple beloved series and characters, the Fox Sci-Fi Universe contains material directed by Steven Spielberg, Joss Whedon, Ridley Scott, James Cameron, David Cronenberg, Guillermo del Toro, and David Fincher.
One key franchise here might not be obvious: The X-Files, which retains a certain cache and which is perfect for such an expansive sci-fi universe because of its expansive scope. If you think about it, there’s no reason why Mulder and Scully couldn’t have investigated the VR world of Tron, the teleportation technology of The Fly, or reports of the murderous alien from Predator.
Chronologically prior to The X-Files, the Indiana Jones franchise fits well. Like The X-Files, it’s episodic and less concerned with a single, coherent version of the supernatural or of extraterrestrials than creating an exciting, all-encompassing world in which fantastic stories can be set.
Moving chronologically into the future, the dominant franchise is Aliens, which has the benefit of rarely depicting Earth, permitting us more freedom in terms of a consistent depiction humanity’s future. Beyond Aliens lies Firefly, which is also largely vague about Earth.
Moving forward, material set in the Fox Sci-Fi Universe can incorporate characters and ideas from other properties. Companies should be connected to one another; for example, Bartok Science Industries (from The Fly) could be purchased by Weyland Corporation (from Aliens), and we could learn that the Bartok teleportation technology was an important predecessors to Weyland’s own technology. Similarly, various government agents can be retroactively seen as predecessors or successors to the X-Files program.
The following is a timeline of the Fox Si-Fi Universe. As previously stated, it’s subject to change; movies can be added or removed relatively freely, at least until new installments explicitly place them in continuity. To help set them apart, TV series appear in red.
This era essentially contains all material set in the past, relative to its actual date of production.
1908-1920: The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (28 episodes across 2 seasons, 1992-1993)
1935: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
1936: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
1938: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
1938: The Rocketeer (1991) – assuming Disney owns the film rights in perpetuity
1957: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
1962: The Shape of Water (2017)
This era contains all material set in the present, relative to its actual date of production.
1982: Tron (1982)
1986: The Fly (1986) – features Bartok Science Industries, which funds Brundle’s research
1987: The Fly II (1989) – set about nine months after the first film, we might want to eliminate this film in favor of an alternate sequel (such as one directed by Cronenberg, which has been discussed over the years and which could now reference other material from this shared universe)
1987: Predator (1987)
1989: The Abyss (1989)
1993-1994: The X-Files, season 1 (24 episodes, 1993-1994)
1994-1995: The X-Files, season 2 (25 episodes, 1994-1995)
1995-1996: The X-Files, season 3 (24 episodes, 1995-1996)
1996-1997: The X-Files, season 4 (24 episodes, 1996-1997) and Millennium, season 1 (22 episodes, 1996-1997)
1997-1998: The X-Files, season 5 (20 episodes, 1997-1998) and Millennium, season 2 (23 episodes, 1997-1998)
1998: The X-Files: Fight the Future (1998) – the first X-Files movie (sometimes simply called The X-Files), set between seasons 5 and 6
1998-1999: The X-Files, season 6 (22 episodes, 1998-1999) and Millennium, season 3 (22 episodes, 1998-1999)
1999-2000: The X-Files, season 7 (22 episodes, 1999-2000) – includes “Millennium,” wrapping up Millennium
2000-2001: The X-Files, season 8 (21 episodes, 2000-2001) and The Lone Gunmen (13 episodes, 2001)
2001-2002: The X-Files, season 9 (20 episodes, 2001-2002) – includes “Jump the Shark,” wrapping up The Lone Gunmen
Uncertain: Tron: Uprising (19 half-hour animated episodes, 2012-2013) – set before Tron: Legacy
2008: The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
2010: Predators (2010) – features a group of humans on a Predator hunting planet and ends with them still stuck there; connected material also includes two 2010 short films, “Moments of Extraction” and “Crucified”
2010: Tron: Legacy (2010)
2016: The X-Files, season 10 (6 episodes, 2016)
2018: The X-Files, season 11 (10 episodes, 2016)
2018: The Predator (2018) – features a battle with Predators in American suburbia
This era takes place in the future, from the late 21st century to the 24th century.
2023: “The Peter Weyland Files: TED Conference, 2023” (2012) – a 7-minute short film in which a young Peter Weyland gives a TED Talk
2079: “The Peter Weyland Files: Happy Birthday, David” (2012) – a 3-minute short film in which David explains what he thinks about and what makes him sad
2089: portions of Prometheus (2012) are set here; specifically, after the opening sequence (in which the Engineers seed life on Earth), archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway discover a star map in Scotland that matches others from several unconnected ancient cultures, which they interpret as an invitation from humanity's forerunners, the "Engineers"; Peter Weyland, the elderly CEO of Weyland Corporation, funds an expedition, aboard the scientific vessel Prometheus, to follow the map to the distant moon LV-223
2089: “The Peter Weyland Files: Quiet Eye, Elizabeth Shaw” (2012) – a 3-minute short film consisting of a video call from Shaw to Weyland, introducing herself and her findings
2091: “The Peter Weyland Files: 'Prometheus' Transmission” (2012) – a 7-minute short collection of pre-mission interviews with the Prometheus crew
Dec 2093: most of Prometheus (2012) takes place here, when the ship arrives at its destination
2094: “Alien: Covenant – Prologue: The Crossing” (2017) – a 3-minute short film in which Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (after the events of Prometheus) repairs David on the abandoned Engineer vessel, as she searches for humanity’s creators
Uncertain: “Alien: Covenant – Meet Walter” (2017) – an in-universe advertisement for Walter, the android from Covenent (and the successor to David from Prometheus); although its place in continuity isn’t clear, it makes sense as an introduction to Walter, and thus should go here
2103: “Alien: Covenant – Phobos” (2017) – a 9-minute short film in which a computer program tests the feelings and reactions of the Covenant crew
2104: “Alien: Covenant – Prologue: Last Supper” (2017) – a 5-minute short film in which the Covenant crew and its android Walter enjoys a final meal before cryosleep on the way to their destination
2104: Alien: Covenant (2017) – sequel to Prometheus
2104: “Alien: Covenant – Advent” (2017) – a 7-minute short film in which David, after the events of Covenant, sends a transmission from the Covenant to Weyland-Yutani on Earth, elaborating upon the genetic experimentation he has been conducting on Planet 4.
Uncertain: “David’s Lab: Last Signs of Life” (2019) – a 12-minute short film, produced for Alien’s 40th anniversary, and set sometime after Alien: Covenant, in which an astronaut examines David’s lab and is attacked by a facehugger
2122: Alien (1979) – the main Alien sequence begins
Unknown: “Alien: Alone” (2019) – a 12-minute short film, produced for Alien’s 40th anniversary
Unknown: “Alien: Containment” (2019) – a 10-minute short film, produced for Alien’s 40th anniversary
Unknown: “Alien: Harvest” (2019) – a 9-minute short film, produced for Alien’s 40th anniversary
Unknown: “Alien: Night Shift” (2019) – a 9-minute short film, produced for Alien’s 40th anniversary
Unknown: “Alien: Ore” (2019) – an 11-minute short film, produced for Alien’s 40th anniversary
Unknown: “Alien: Specimen” (2019) – a 10-minute short film, produced for Alien’s 40th anniversary
2137: Alien: Isolation (7 episodes, 2019) – a mini-series, set 15 years after Alien, starring Ripley’s daughter Amanda and based on the video game of the same name; episodes were 8-14 minutes long
2179: Aliens (1986) – Ripley is revived after 57 years in status on one of the Nostromo’s escape shuttles
2179: Alien 3 (1992) – begins shortly after Aliens and ends with Ripley’s death
Unclear: Black Hole (1979) – this classic Disney film features no date and is difficult to fit into our timeline, since it features a space station monitoring a black hole, something arguably too advanced for the Alien franchise, yet also features robots less advanced than those in the Alien franchise
2381: Alien Resurrection (1997) – stars a clone of Ellen Ripley, more than 200 years after her death; ends with the clone arriving at Earth
This era takes place further in the future – specifically, in the 26th century.
2517: Firefly (14 episodes, 2002)
2517: Serenity (2005) – a continuation of Firefly
The two Alien Vs. Predator movies (2004 and 2007) aren’t very good and are incompatible with the Alien prequel movies.
Predator 2 (1990) has been excluded for a few reasons. First, it is set in 1997 and guesses at future technology in a way that’s incompatible with the real world. Second, it features a Predator in Los Angeles and doesn’t limit those who are aware of its alien origins. Third, it briefly features an Alien skull on board a Predator ship, which is incompatible with the origin of the Alien species in the Alien prequel movies. Finally, Predator 2 isn’t great and is widely regarded as a weak film.
Material depicting public encounters with extraterrestrials in the (then) present must be excluded as incompatible with the rest of our material. This excludes material such as The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) and Independence Day (1996). Although a closer call, Flight of the Navigator (1986) has been excluded for the same reason.
Other material is excluded because it presents a future that is incompatible with that of Alien. For example, Planet of the Apes could not be included for this reason (even if that franchise did not include copious incompatible material set in the present day). Post-apocalyptic material such as Zardoz (1974) must similarly be excluded (even if we were inclined to ignore that film’s tonal inconsistencies).
Other material is excluded because it’s incompatible with the rest of the material’s depiction of Earth’s state of technology. This is a subjective criterion, because The X-Files has plenty of technology and knowledge that isn’t referenced later, and this can be used to justify the inclusion of material such as Tron (1982) or The Fly (1986). However, it would be hard to reconcile the miniaturization technology in Fantastic Voyage (1966) with the rest of our timeline. Similarly, Tomorrowland (2015) features advanced androids that are incompatible with later development of androids as depicted in the Alien prequels.
Other material is excluded due to incompatible tone, another admittedly subjective criterion. It’s one thing to include The X-Files in the same universe as Alien, but it’s another to include Buckaroo Banzai (1984) or Idiocracy (2006). While Indiana Jones and The X-Files contain supernatural elements, the tone of Buffy the Vampire Slayer makes it incompatible, in my view. Similarly, the Kingsman franchise feels incompatible with the tone of The X-Files. The exclusion of some older films, such as 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) or the original The Fly (1958), may also be attributed to their tone.
Some material isn’t included but might be. For example, I’m not sure if James Cameron’s company doesn’t co-own Avatar (2009), and its sequels (in production) might contradict our timeline. Were Avatar to be cleared for inclusion, it would be set between Alien and Aliens. Similarly, because The Martian (2015) is an adaptation of a novel, it’s not clear that Fox retains all rights in perpetuity.
Five most underrated Sequels:
Some films are so good and so iconic that any sequels that come after struggles to get out of the shadow of the original. This usually means that any sequels are tarred with a notion that they are inferior or just plain bad. In many cases, this is a fair assessment. However, there are examples of sequels that stand out as something special and should be revisited as excellent films in their own right. I should state, I’m not saying these films are superior to the originals, only that they are very good and should be reconsidered.
1. Exorcist 3: Legion (1990) – Exorcist 2 is a shambles. It’s incoherent and badly made. It was never going to damage the reputation of the original 1974 classic, but it looked like the end of the road for any possible future sequels. That was until the author of the original Novel, William Peter Blatty, wrote his own sequel novel, Legion. The book was a success and Blatty was given the green light to translate it to the screen.
The story is linked to the original through characters alone, leaving the demonic element behind. Detective Kinderman, who investigated the killing of a character in The Exorcist, is investigating a series of murders that are exactly the same as those committed by an executed serial killer from 15 years ago, The Gemini Killer.
As he digs, he finds links to Patient X being held in a local hospital. X has the face of Father Dyer, who had sacrificed his life to save Regan, the possessed girl from 73, but claims to be The Gemini killer.
As Patient X keeps ranting, people are still dying. Is the killer able to possess people and use them to commit new murders, or is Kinderman going mad?
Legion is a dark supernatural thriller with outstanding performances from George C. Scott as Kinderman and Brad Dourif as The Gemini Killer. The dialogue is snappy, pitted with humour and tension. It keeps an almost perfect balance of the two for most of the film, before pushing the viewer into full horror for the finale.
This is one of the best under-seen films ever, and I recommend it to everyone who would listen.
2. Psycho 2 (1983) – Hitchcock’s Psycho is pretty close to being a perfect movie. It was left alone for 23 years, but then a sequel came along and few knew what to make of it. In 1983, while people were aware of Psycho, I’m not sure many were clamouring for a follow up.
The risk with a Horror sequel, especially one linked to the birth of the slasher during the height of the slasher craze, would be to lean into the gore and have Norman fall back into his killer ways, stacking up the bodies. Luckily, Tom Holland didn’t go down this path. The film follows Norman after he is released and declared sane. He Returns home and tries to lead a quiet life with a job at a local diner while restoring the motel. However, he starts to receive notes and phone calls from his ‘Mother’. The Question is, is Norman crazy or is someone playing him?
The best part of this film is Anthony Perkins. His Norman Bates is a sympathetic victim who is desperately trying to get away from his past. Watching his fear and unravelling is truly tragic. The finale of the film provides a number of twists that keeps the viewer guessing. It is also directed and shot really well. Yes it does ape Hitchcock is several places, the shots could be considered homage or a maintaining of tone, but a couple are a little clumsy
Psycho 2 continues a story that you may not need to know, but is done so well that you will care about it and thrill in the horror.
3. Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995) – The first Die Hard changed the action genre. The 80’s were fuelled by muscle bound action stars, but Bruce Willis and Die Hard introduced the everyman action star back into the genre. He was a new kind of one-man army. So much so, that the pitch “Die Hard in a…” became a common phase.
By the third film in the series the it was the right choice to move away from the One-man army, to the buddy cop dynamic. It should also be noted that while Die Hard 1 and 2 were both based on novels, Die Hard 3 is actually a spec script. This is a script that was written (Called “Simon Says”) and then adjusted to fit the Die Hard series.
Die Hard 2 is a simple re-tread of the first film in tone and action, Vengeance however tries for something different. It introduces consequences for the events of the first film and provides a much bigger environment, as John McClane dashes around New York City. This puts the star back in his home turf and in his element.
It also puts him at odds with a partner in the shape of pitch perfect Samuel L Jackson as a citizen pulled into the action. It echoes elements of previous buddy movies but these two have such good chemistry that it feels fresh.
As well as the dynamic, the action is solid with different locations providing escalating incidents; from a gun fight in an elevator to a truck chase in a newly built tunnel, to a car chase through Central Park. This film is top notch, pulse pounding action delivered with a great cast and some spot on action visuals. While Die Hard is the best in the series, Vengeance is definitely the second best in the series.
4. Blade Runner 2049 (2017) – The original Blade Runner was a cinematic flop. It gradually became a cult hit, with each different version being released. So it’s no surprise that something similar happened with the sequel. Which is tragic as I think 2049 is one of the best sci-fi movies of the last 10 years; this is because of director Denis Villeneuve.
The film is visually stunning it expands on a world that is only hinted at in the first film. Its scope and depth is beautiful. The story is a continuation of the original world, providing more information without taking away any of the mystery or debate over certain areas. It’s one of the few sequels that builds on it without exploiting what has gone before.
In addition to looking great, the cast are spot on. Ryan Gosling has a similar noir air to him that Harrison Ford had in 1982. As he moves through the story and gets more and more of a beating, despite us knowing he’s a replicant, we want to see him succeed and live.
2049 is an example of how a sequel can pick up a baton 30 years later.
5. Rocky Balboa (2006) – The 1976 Rocky is an Oscar winning classic. It set up Stallone as a bankable star and able to take control of his career going forward. The first raft of sequels all offer something of note. I stand by the notion that the first three films form one of the best modern trilogies. Four is amazing pulp propaganda and 5 is an odd love letter to the characters origins. However, Stallone was not done with Rocky Balboa.
In recent years, everyone talks about the Original, or the spin off Creed films. However, the 2006 middle movie Rocky Balboa often is forgotten. ‘76 Rocky addresses the fear of missing your chance and becoming bitter, or taking an opportunity and going the distance. Rocky Balboa is about remaining relevant and how the past effects the present. It carries a sombre tone, noting everything that has passed since the last film. It asks the question of what happens when you’re over the hill? Could you still cut it with the new crop of stars? Rocky Balboa very much mirrors Stallone’s career at the time, wanting to remain a viable action star. It’s a relevant story of middle age and the changing face of Hollywood.
The cast are also solid and Stallone writes and directs the hell out of this. It has a hugely quotable script and the end match is incredibly well done. I remember when I saw this in the cinema for the first time. By the end of the film my heart was pounding and my fist was pumping. It echoes so much of the original and is a great end for the Rocky saga, before Creed starts.
REVIEW: Asylum (1972) Special Edition
Film:
One day I will get round to doing a podcast episode on the British film Studio, Amicus. They were the small studio that competed with Hammer, but are often forgotten when talking about the history of Horror Cinema. While Hammer focused on the Gothic horror with established characters Dracula, Frankenstein and the wolf man, Amicus tried something different. They entered the market with a series of Anthology or Portmanteau movies. Asylum, released in 1972, is my favourite of Amicus anthology horrors.
The story centres around a young doctor (Robert Powell) attending an interview at a secluded Asylum. As part of the interview he is challenged by the interviewing Doctor (Patrick Magee) to identify the former lead doctor of the facility, Doctor Byron, from the patients, as he lost his mind and is now incarcerated. He visits three patients and they recount the reason they are there, each one a story in the anthology.
As is the case with all anthologies, the stories vary in quality. While I enjoy them all I’m appreciate that elements of them haven’t aged particularly well. While macabre the opening story “frozen fear” hinges on the viewer accepting a concept that can be perceived as creepy or ridiculous. It’s a fast paced opener but not the strongest. The following two stories are much stronger and play out today just as well as they would have done in 1972. “Weird Taylor” has the excellent Peter Cushing in and is wonderfully atmospheric with a suitably weird end. The third of the three is less supernatural, the story of a young woman and her disturbed ‘best friend’. While the ending is predictable today it still has a great punch.
The final part of the film that really makes this a winner for me is that inclusion of the wrap around segments becoming part of the horror. The cast throughout take the horror seriously and are fantastic. I’m invested in each of the stories and the solid performances help me get passed the slightly sillier story points and special effects that haven’t aged well.
In addition to this, the film looks great. The Blu ray upgrade is crisp without loosing the 70s graininess. The colour and details pop, giving the film new life. Asylum is never going to get a 4K scan so this is the best it’s going to look, and it’s excellent.
It’s a great film and a fantastic example of the best of Amicus and British Horror of the 70s.
Special features:
The special features provide an interesting glimpse of the making of the film, and the history of Amicus.
On the disc there’s a new informative commentary from the director, camera operator and film historian Marcus Hearn. As well as several other new featurettes focusing on the films production and wider place in Amicus history. The two that stand out are ‘inside the fear factory’ a collection of interviews from those involved in the history of Amicus. These are accompanied by a featurettes from the 70s on set. This gives an interesting insight into the film and how films were presented in the early 70s.
In addition to these the Blu Ray comes with a 36 page booklet, containing stills from the movies as well as a selection of promotional posters. However, the primary content is three essays.
“Nothing to loose but your mind” a chronicling the final years of Amicus studios (a essay about the earliest years of the studio comes with second sights other recent Amicus release, The House that dripped blood). “Robert Bloch and Asylum” how the writer came to write the film and his relationship with Amicus studios. “Amicus productions and the rise of portmanteau in horror Cinema”, the title pretty much says it all.
The insight and information from the disc and booklet content round this release out. It’s an excellent presentation of the film with details and discussion on the film and its place in Amicus history.
Packaging:
I’m a sucker for a special edition and this is a beautiful edition. The slipcase is well made and the new art is beautiful. It captures the tone and madness of the film and the likenesses are spot on. It’s made better by the fact that the edition comes with a two sided poster including the new art the original poster art. This is also replicated on the reversible cover.
Overall it’s an Awesome edition of one of my favourite 70s British Horror movies. Second Sight have nailed it once again.
I recently had the pleasure of being invited to the Madame Tussauds Blackpool Marvel Experience opening night. It was a fun evening and I left feeling impressed with the quality of the experience and all the exhibits.
Being a podcast about 20th Century Pop Culture this kind of thing is perfect for me. I got to get a photo with Sid Rotten, Freddie Mercury and the Two Ronnie’s. I was a happy little nerd to begin with. So to top it off with the main reason I was there was awesome.
The exhibit is split into four areas each focused on different parts of the comic experience. The first is a faux comic book shop displaying a wide array of modern Marvel comics, many of which I have read. However the thought struck me that this was a missed opportunity. The racks could have been used to demonstrate the evolution of the Marvel universe from its Birth in the early 60’s to the Modern Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), which the exhibits focus on. Although this may be filled differently when open to the public.
Moving past this you enter the second zone with a smouldering Hemsworth Thor. The statue is excellent, not only is the face spot on the Thor Avengers movie costume is perfect. Set up like an ice cave you also get to see if you are worthy by trying to lift the Asgardian war hammer Mjolnir.
Beyond this is zone 3, an open area with several excellent Marvel Heroes and photo opportunities. The goliath Hulk looks incredible (see what I did there!). He is accompanied by the meanest mother fu… er, greatest spy master Sam Jackson’s Nick Fury and your friendly waxwork Spider-man.
In my opinion, the best is saved for last where you will have the chance to have a picture with a full size Groot. It looks stunning and who doesn’t want to join the Guardians of the Galaxy.
It’s not the largest exhibit but it is an excellent celebration on the modern Marvel Universe. All the displays are great with (mostly) life like statues and loads of interactive elements. They are a slice of British pop culture heritage and to have this joined by some of the most iconic characters in modern pop culture is wonderful.
I congratulate the team that worked on this for capturing the essence of wonder and imagination that Marvel and the MCU inspires. It’s a well worth a visit for anyone holidaying in Blackpool.
Excelsior!
When you’re a kid you are taught basic black and white rules of morality. Don’t steal, don’t lie and of course don’t kill. As you get older you start to understand that there are moral grey areas. Situations when these steadfast rules of right and wrong are called into question. When certain wrongs could be right. This can start an interesting debate about how best to react to a situation. What is the best moral stance?
Action movies often (if not always) throw these ethics out the window and hope that you, as viewer, are happy to just go along with the ride. You are given a protagonist who is thrown into a situation and must fight for their life or save someone. Simple.
Ok so let’s talk Die Hard. John McClane is trapped in a building with armed men, willing to kill to get what they want. They put him and others under threat. Throughout the film McClane responds with deadly force. In this situation we can accept that killing is inevitable and in this case acceptable, as it is his only way of survival.
In both Rambo First Blood (1982) and Terminator 2 (1991) we get a direct response to the need to kill. In First Blood Rambo uses brutal but non-lethal methods to take down the police. Rambo is highly skilled and able to use those skills to prevent the killing and lets the Sheriff know that it could have been different. This is a change from the book and makes Rambo a smarter and more dangerous character. The holding back displays a humanity that I think is missing from some actions heroes.
In Terminator 2 it is established that the T800 has detailed files on human anatomy to make it a more efficient killer. However, when given a directive that it should not kill it is able to do so, again using non-lethal (if sill crippling) force.
We can take from this that being skilled in killing means that the hero should be less likely to kill. They need to demonstrate a restrain and have an ability to disarm and stop an attacker, rather than just kill them. Going back to John McClane, we can see that being a New York cop in a desperate situation and not a skilled one-man army the killing is an act of survival rather than attack. Morally, McClane is in a different situation.
You then have the satire of the situation. Robocop is programmed to be a skilled one-man army machine. It is demonstrated in the film that he can disarm a perp without killing when the woman is held at gun point. He has pinpoint accuracy. Plus, he is mostly bullet proof, which reduces the threat level. So, when he walks into a dug den and starts wantonly killing everyone in sight I have ask whether this is satire or if Robocop is failing as a hero.
Taking this to the extreme we get to Batman or as Tim Burton would have us see him, Murderman. In the 1989 Batman film he blows up a chemical factory that we have just seen is manned by goons and quite possibly unwitting factory workers. Not to mention the fact that he has just released god know what into the environment to affect anyone living in the area around the factory. Later he opens fire on a parade with a level of accuracy that would make a Storm Trooper proud. Bullets and shrapnel flying everywhere. Don’t tell me people weren’t hurt after that! In Batman Returns (1992) he has taken it to the next level when he just drops sticks of dynamite down some baddies trousers. This is supposed to be the most skilled martial artist in the world yet he can’t resist a bit of killing.
Ok, I know that Batman is more fantasy but the principle stands. If John Rambo and the Terminator can take the moral high ground over you, you’re in trouble. Spiderman has it right, with great power comes great responsibility. If you are skilled killer, then you should be skilled enough not to kill. I really do think that falling back on just killing in action films is a fault of the writers. The best and most interesting heroes are not just machines they know that lives matter.
I’m not saying I want the cheesy white bread characters of the early 20th century. What I am saying is that we have moved past the killing and destruction without consequence of the 80’s and 90’s. In this day and age, it is more important than ever before for the heroes that are being presented to the world to be shown to consider their actions and the consequences they will have.
I am really looking forward to seeing The Shape of Water when it released in Feb in the UK. It’s an original film from a fantastically creative film maker and it looks amazing. I must confess though, I am more excited for The Predator, Deadpool 2 and Avengers: Infinity War.
This year there are more than 30 sequels coming out at the cinema and I am sure that I will watch a good portion of them. Although, the way sequels are treated is funny. Fans and movie goers in general, myself included, lament the lack of original movies coming out but we love to see the on-going adventures of characters we know and love. The trick to making a sequel successful is to make it interesting and fresh while not affecting what has gone before or changing what is at the core of the character.
If we look at a couple of movie series that have multiple sequels we can see where some have succeeded and others have failed, at least in my opinion. Now I am going to discount any series based on books (Harry Potter, Hunger Games etc) as they have a template to work from.
To end on a positive note let’s start with two film series that I mostly enjoy but have followed a very similar path and as a result are at a low point. The Terminator and Alien.
They both start with a small sci-fi horror concept, one a haunted house the other a slasher film. Each gained attention and success by creating a complete world and just dropping the viewer in them. The follow ups take that concept and instead of treading the same ground, up the ante. Aliens and T2 are examples of perfect sequels being great movies in their own right, while building on what was established in the first films. James Cameron being the director and creative force behind each is a testament to his talent.
Unfortunately, after that is where its starts to fall apart. In both cases the third film in the franchise tries to do something new, without really respecting the characters that have been established. Both T3 and Alien 3 have uneven tones and do not feel like extensions of the stories that have already been told. In my opinion Alien 3 is a better film that T3. This could have just been a wobble overall but the issues continue.
The fourth instalments in each series (Terminator: Salvation and Alien: Resurrection) are jumps forward in time and force story telling conceits to keep certain characters in play. Both ignore key elements of the past films in favour of trying to standalone. They are shallow and forced. I would even go as far as to say that both have a negative effect on the films that have come before by taking characters in a poor direction.
In both cases this should have been the end. Profits and credibility were low but there was going to be more. In recent years, we have had Prometheus (and Covenant) and Terminator: Genysis which have both tried to rewrite the history of what has come before. I would suggest that that the result is mostly negative and in some ways insulting to fans of the series.
As I say, both are at a low point now but I am sure we will get some form of movie continuation at some point. The only thing I can hope for is that we get a sequel that is honest to what the heart of the franchise is about.
On the flip side is a series of films that have reinvented themselves to become one of the biggest money makers of recent years. Much like Alien and Terminator the Fast and Furious films start with a small and tight concept. It was nothing new but it was fun did better than expected, it was bound to get a sequel. The following two films try different approaches but always keep the core fun, if daft, elements in play … and fast cars, lots and lots of fast cars. The fourth film in the series is the most interesting for me, it goes back to the beginning but starts to grow the focus of the first three. They move from underground racers being involved in crime to crime stories centred on core characters that happen to be excellent race drivers.
This is taken to the next level in 5, with the addition of Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson. 5 through 8 are crazy crime action movies. They have massive set pieces and explosions, and they took a middling franchise into one of the most successful of the 21st century.
Another example of knowing your franchise but keeping it fresh is the Mission Impossible series. Each film since the first in 1996 has had a different director that has brought a different tone and feel but they have kept the similar sense of fun action and big stunts. Doing so they have gone from strength to strength, with the 6th instalment coming in 2018.
I know that these are very different beasts and that the F&F and MI series is are more pulp action nonsense overall. However, there is something very important that the Terminator and Alien franchise can learn from them. People want to see these characters do what they do. It’s why Bond has 25 films, why Rocky never started MMA, it’s also why people get so frustrated with the Hellraiser franchise (that’s a blog for another day).
As movie goers, we cry out for new and fresh concept and characters and stories. These will always excite and intrigue us. However, let’s be honest, as some studios have shown over the decades, if you put time, effort and money into a well thought out sequel you will satisfy fans and bring in new people as well as make a ton of cash.
As we dance and prance towards Christmas day and the break from work and the usual rat race it provides, I know that many of you will be filling your hours with festive traditions. One of the more modern traditions that has taken hold is the watching of Christmas Movies, usually the same few that tap into family appreciation and nostalgia.
We’re no different in my household, I love Christmas movies. Every year my wife marks the start of the festive season by watching ‘Love Actually’. We watch ‘it’s a wonderful life’, ‘Four Christmases’ and ‘Home Alone’ 1 &2 together at some point in the first few weeks of December. My daughter is starting to find her own favourites in ‘Elf’ and ‘Frosty the Snowman’, which we sit and watch with her.
These are all sweet, fun and fill you with the warmth of happiness and the potential of the season. They are great but they all have a Ying to their Yang. I love the sweet but I love savoury as well, like ‘Gremlins’, ‘Batman Returns’ and
So, to celebrate the season I have created a Christmas Day menu of sweet and Savoury Movie treats.
Ladies and Gentleman, what would you like for Dinner?
~ Starters ~
Option 1: A small bowl of spicy Gremlins, accompanied by fresh A Nightmare Before Christmas
Option 2: A Home Alone melt with a New York style sequel for dipping
~ Main Meal ~
*Option 1: Several large slices of The Santa Clause, with roasted Grinch and a baked Bad Santa
*Option 2: Poached Krampus, with a cheeky portion of A Miracle on 34th street and matured National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation
*both served with generous servings of It’s a wonderful life gravy.
~ Dessert ~
Option 1: A scoop of A Muppets Christmas Carol topped with lashings of Elf
Option 2: A slice of Scrooged drizzled with rich dark Batman Returns
~ Coffee ~
Option 1: A smooth cup of Die Hard with a sprinkling of Jingle all the way
Option 2: A hot pot of The Holiday with a choice of creamy computer generated Christmas Carol or a selection of Four Christmases
~ Wine ~
Red: A dark and full bodied Black Christmas
White: A fruity and light White Christmas
~ Beers & Ciders ~
Cider: A dry but fruity bottle of chilled Lethal Weapon
Beer: A Belgian import, a tall glass of In Bruges