NightCrawler said:You can boil down every Alien sequel as a remake of the original in the vision of its director (progressively getting worse with each iteration).
NightCrawler said:Resurrection is abysmal, but its cooky sci-fi frenchness is somewhat endearing. I haven't seen it in a decade or more, but i can safely say that it has a vision.
NightCrawler said:Even Prometheus had an almost clear vision, eventually diluted by the Alien lore.
NightCrawler said:If you remove what was good in Covenant (a rehash of the themes in Prometheus, with almost nothing new added), you're left with a by-the-numbers 90's b-movie Alien clone, with terrible cgi.
NightCrawler said:It confuses the Alien timeline even more, retcons so much shit, i don't even care what's canon or not. The worst offense is how boring it was. Not suspense, no tension, you're just yawning the whole way, waiting for it to finally end.
NightCrawler said:I haven't seen Predators or AvP:R, but my ranking would be pretty similar to yours: A, As, P, A3, Pth, P2, A:R, A:C, the rest.
Griffith said:Anyway, despite all that, it's impossible for me to believe Ridley Scott could do worse than these or anything after Alien: Resurrection. Just no fucking way even on his worst day it'd be more worthwhile just to look at. So, with that said, here's my Alien/Predator movie rankings off the top of my head, feel free to disagree, and if you think this is a waste of time, I actually sat through all this shit save for Covenant:
Alien
Aliens
Predator
Alien 3
Prometheus
Covenant
Predator 2
Predators
Alien: Resurrection
AvP
AvPR
There's a few that I'd accept are basically interchangeable on here, like Alien 3 and Prometheus, the lesser two Predator movies, and AvP and Resurrection could be switched (AvP isn't crazy bad, but by the same token at least Resurrection has crazy going for it). So, without seeing it, by my estimation Covenant can be no worse than the 5th "best" Alien movie, and 6th including the full A/P canon.
Griffith said:Anyway, despite all that, it's impossible for me to believe Ridley Scott could do worse than these or anything after Alien: Resurrection. Just no fucking way even on his worst day it'd be more worthwhile just to look at.
Oburi said:I'd agree with this ranking (haven't seen Covenant), except for maybe putting Resurrection above Predators, just because of what was mentioned before about it having some uniqueness in its vision (the frenchness), whereas Predators really had nothing, just an adolescent remake of the original (with a samurai!). I mean seriously, shoving a predator/samurai fight scene in that movie is like having Yoda whip out his tiny green light saber in Attack of the Clones. One person thinks it's cool and forces it into the movie no matter how much it doesn't belong. But anyway ranking anything after Predator 2 is like figuring out which turd is least offensive.
Oburi said:It's interesting to think about. He's a competent filmmaker who's made unquestionable classics. You know he's got it in him to make something truly great, and that's what's so frustrating when you look at his filmography and see some just plain bad movies or even worse, the almost good ones with the baffling choices that end up ruining the movie. You're right that from a visual standpoint, even his worst movies look great (Prometheus included). A lot of the time the real bad stuff comes from a few simple decisions that just unwind the whole thing, sometimes it's in the script and other times it's something done in post production. To me it's a real mystery. How can a man who puts so much work into something and make it look so great be so seemingly foolish to let a few no brainers bring the whole movie down?
Another example of Scott's frustrating skill as a filmmaker to make a movie look amazing, but be so terrible because of a few simple bafflingly bad decisions is Kingdom of Heaven. I actually wrote several paragraphs on why I think that movie is so strangely close to being great while at the same time so far... but I don't want to clog up this thread with it. I mean, unless you really want me too I guess I could post it I suppose.
Griffith said:Go on. I thought the extended cut supposedly fixed it?
Griffith said:That's actually more threadbare than I thought it would be. The truth is Scott's not some auteur, he's a great director and a producer, but obviously not a writer, so he cedes a lot of creative control over the quality of his stories, which explains why there's such irregularities there. Since he's in his writers' hands, if they don't have the goods the best he can do is polish a turd.
Oburi said:The Directors Cut of Kingdom of Heaven is another example in the same way as Prometheus in that it's a massive letdown because all the work that went into the movie can't save it from the few glaringly obvious bad decisions. On the one hand this is a movie I really want to enjoy because it's a historical epic about the crusades that looks fantastic, has a great cast and if you're like me and enjoy long movies like the Godfather or Apocalypse Now, Kingdom of Heaven is four hours long and made in the classic Hollywood tradition containing an overture and an intermission. Scott could have a masterpiece on his hands here, even with the liberties taken with the actual history. But despite how much I want to like this movie I have no desire to ever sit through it again (although I did sit through it many times out of fascination). For the average person, once is enough, like Prometheus.
Oburi said:I'm guessing you haven't seen it?
Oburi said:This is basically what I've come to believe is the major problem. Even if the issue with the movie isn't necessarily with the actual script, like dialog or specific plot points, it's with general preproduction choices that have major consequences for the film. It's still no excuse though, and I'll use Kingdom of Heaven as an example. Scott may not be a writer, and maybe he's wise for letting others do the writing, but he chooses his projects very carefully and it's still baffling to me as to how he can move forward with the problem decisions. Maybe it's a case hindsight is 20/20. Or maybe that's just how it always is, whether it's Scott, Spielberg, Cameron or Lucas. But honestly, Scott being underrated or overrated as a filmmaker aside, he's just as peculiar as the others when it comes to the trend of tarnishing ones own legacy or staying on the mound too long or however you look at it.
Oburi said:The final MAJOR problem is Ridley Scott made here is casting Orlando Bloom as the lead. He simply cannot carry this movie for it's length. Imagine Jon Snow in the first season of GoTs. Lots of staring, looking confused, not speaking a lot, or speaking slow in a deep gravelly voice. Furrowing of the brow. It's painful to watch and it actually gets worse with multiple viewings. I don't know how Scott could have overlooked this. It destroys his movie.
Oburi said:Spielberg, Scott, Cameron and Lucas. They're all different enough that you can't use the same brush to explain away all the problems that come with all their recent work.
But with the exception of Cameron, they've all revisited their own franchises to try and capture that same magic again, and they all end making the weakest iteration of their own series.
Oburi said:Out of all of them though Scott to me is the most frustrating. Talk about ranking piles of shit, besides the prequels out of all those directors Scott has the most bottom turds.
Johnstantine said:Saw Wonder Woman. Great movie!
Salem said:I see the reviews are stellar. Tell me, feeling so so about MoS, disliking BvS, and refusing to watch Suicide Squad, how was it? Did we finally get over the bad writing and random plot devices?
Eluvei said:I don't get why it's still not common knowledge that all the theatrical cuts are superior (especially Aliens' in my opinion, I think the extended cut turns it into a straight up boring movie).
Eluvei said:Anyway, this atmospheric scene should have made it into the Assembly Cut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXBfQvzRKSE
Griffith said:Updated, spur of the moment Alien film rankings reflecting my mood as of this second:
1. Aliens - Because it's been proven that James Cameron was the only writer/director with a good grasp on this creature, and it's still somewhat quarantined off from the current shit.
2. Alien - How'd the all-time great sci-fi masterwork possibly go down since two weeks ago? Covenant actually made it, and Ridley Scott, retroactively worse! =)
*. Alien: Isolation - If games counted this rates higher than the films below. It respects the original premise and the Alien is terrifyingly unstoppable again. Also, there's only two good Alien movies.
3. Prometheus - Doesn't even have an Alien in it, which is probably best for all. Great cast and visuals, bad writing, some good scenes, but all the movies below make it look grand by comparison.
4. Alien 3 - Great cast, provides continuity and closure, and has its own unique, infamous yet enduring identity and legacy. Remember when a bad Alien movie was a big deal? Now this one's relatively good.
5. Alien: Covenant - 5th as projected, there's half a good movie here about something else, but the Alien part ruins it and vice versa. Time to retire or infuse the series with some new acid blood.
6. Alien: Resurrection - When Alien first went from tragedy to comedy; I can't forgive it. It's weird how similar some of Covenant's ideas are to this one, maybe I should rate it higher... Nah.
7. AvP - Dumb vs.
8. AvP2 - Dumber
Salem said:Griff, is it at the very least worth a watch? I have a guilty pleasure for resurrection. Covenant just sounds more and more like something to avoid.
Johnstantine said:Take it from someone who loved ALL of the Alien/Predator movies: it's awful.
IncantatioN said:While I haven't watched Covenant yet, I'd switch first and second place for my ranking of the films. Totally agree with the points you mention about each film.
Salem said:Griff, is it at the very least worth a watch? I have a guilty pleasure for resurrection. Covenant just sounds more and more like something to avoid.
Johnstantine said:Take it from someone who loved ALL of the Alien/Predator movies: it's awful.
Salem said:Such a bummer!
NightCrawler said:http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/06/13/film-crit-hulk-smash-ridley-scott-cinemas-underrated-weirdo
Aazealh said:I watched John Wick 2 (or "Chapter 2", whatever) and it struck me, just like the first one, as basically an action video game transposed into a movie. In fact I'd make the case John Wick is the first successful "video game movie", even though it's not actually based on a game. But really, the plot is paper thin and it's about a guy who headshots and/or annihilate in hand-to-hand something like 500 people in the course of two hours, where the nameless bad guys never stop coming and never seem to realize that they're obviously up against an impossible task.
Aazealh said:Anyway I enjoyed it. People tend to describe any action flick or blockbuster as a "good, fun, mindless entertainment", but it's rarely the case in my experience. John Wick however really gets as close to mindless as you can get.