Temporary Insanity:
You hear about people pleading temporary insanity from time to time. News reports of the events surrounding such crimes often start something like this:
"Earlier this month a local woman [1] shot and killed five people while . . ."
Of course, while you don't actually hear about the plead of temporary insanity until months and months later, you start to hear speculation about it long before.
Bob: Hey, did you hear about that woman who killed all those people at Wal-Mart [2] last week?
Charles: Yeah, I bet she pleads temporary insanity and gets away with it too.
I suspect that that idea crosses the mind of most people when they hear about someone taking such a plea. Surely temporary insanity is just their way of trying to "get away" with something. Right? Because honestly, temporary insanity? You really want us to believe that you aren't normally crazy. It was just this one time?
Officer Carl: You're under arrest for the murder of five people.
Suspect: No no officer. You don't need to arrest me.
Officer Carl: But you're crazy. You killed people. You're dangerous!
Suspect: No, I'm over it now. See it was just "temporary" insanity.
Officer Carl: Oh, well no problem then. Have a nice day!
Well, what if I told you there was an experience that would let you see how temporary insanity is possible. It won't necessarily drive you actually crazy [3] but it will bring into stark contrast how even the most "sane" of us could lose it, if only for a short time.
And what is that experience you might ask? Well, I'll tell you. Here it is:
Parenting.
That's right parenting.
Don't get me wrong. Being a parent [4] is wonderful. It's more awesome in more ways than you can fathom. However, there are days when your kids will just drive you insane. When the older child is crying with runners of snot coming down his face because he doesn't like the food that he ate just fine the night before. And then the younger one comes walking into the room carrying the next item in a procession of dangerous items that he seems to be able to summon out of thin air. [5] Of course, taking this item from him will cause him to break down into tears worse than his brother. Speaking of brother, the older one has decided to eat his food after all, but has someone managed to get it all over his face and stomach, as well as the majority of his side of the table. [6] Which in turn somehow causes the younger one to suddenly want the rest of his food, which he will now reach up onto the table for and spill everywhere on the floor. Which causes the older one to start crying again because this spill got a solitary drop of pears on his shoe. [7] And while you go to get a rag, the younger one sees the Halloween candy bag and begins saying "I want a lollipop" over and over and over and over and over. [8] Which causes the older one to declare that he's having candy for a snack. And when you inform him that that won't be true unless he finishes his food, starts the crying [9] going again. Meanwhile the younger one has suddenly discovered that the trash can is once a again a source of wonderful treasures and suddenly you realize . . .
Temporary insanity. Yeah, I can see that.
Temporary insanity: D-
[1] - I'm not being sexist here, it could just as easily be a man.
[2] - I've no specific reason to pick Wal-Mart, but honestly if you need a store to have someone suddenly kill a bunch of their fellow customers, I suspect many Wal-Mart shoppers could step up and do you proud.
[3] - But it might.
[4] - A father in my case, but having talked to the Pook, I can attest that it works the same for the mothers as well.
[5] - Alternately it could be the next in a succession of extremely fragile and expensive things that he like wise seems to be able to summon out of thin air.
[6] - Which you might expect from the two-year-old, but the big one is five now.
[7] - Which evidently is sacred and must remain clean, unlike the front of his shirt.
[8] - and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
[9] - And the snot
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Monday, October 6, 2014
Two Conversations with the Boys
Two Conversations
with the Boys:
Here are two stories about the young ‘uns. The boys are both amazingly awesome, and they
are both so very different from each other.
Since I haven’t mentioned them for the while, and to keep you up to date
here are a few facts.
The Bear, my oldest son, is now five. [1] He’s in Kindergarten and is loving it.
His younger brother, the Bean, is now two and a half. He’s an unintentional force of destruction,
but that’s a story for another day.
Also I need to precursor this first story by saying that
while the Bear is fairly smart for his age, and on any given day we are likely
to have conversations about just about anything, I don’t believe I have ever
talked about this type of thing with him and that I had neither done nor said
anything before this conversation to prompt his comments.
While I was working in the front yard, the bear was riding
his tricycle around. Typically
everything he does comes with a running monologue, so after an unusually long
stretch of silence [2] I looked over to see what was going on.
He had stopped peddling and was sitting with his head
slightly tilted to the side and a far off look in his eyes clearly deep in
thought. The following conversation
ensued.
Me: What’s up, buddy?
Bear: Daddy?
Me: Yes?
Bear: When people don’t want something . . .
[Long dramatic pause as he finished gathering and organizing
his thoughts]
Bear: . . . it costs less.
I have to admit that in the pause in his statement, I was
wondering (and hoping) that he was about to make a comment along these
lines. I also have to admit that I was
amazingly proud. [3]
I tried to ask him a few follow up questions to understand
what had prompted the statement, but he wouldn’t really answer them and instead
he just said he was “just thinking about it”.
I admit that we do occasionally talk about the price of
things, but only in the usual small child context of him wanting me to buy him
something and me explaining that it’s too expensive. And of course he hasn’t said anything else
along those lines since. [4]
On the flip side there is the Bean. Since the Bear now goes to Kindergarten,
morning trips to day care are just me and the Bean now. Sometimes we listen to music [5], sometimes
we sing our own songs [6], sometimes we look for things out in the world [7]
and sometimes we have discussions of our own.
Of course, during these conversations, I occasionally have
no idea what it is he’s talking about. I
understand the words he’s saying, it’s just that he’s not the best at providing
context [8]. While this isn’t strictly a conversation, the following is a good
example.
As is probably the norm for parents of small children, the
back seat of my car tends to end up a hodge podge of toys, books, half eaten
snack bits and other random detritus of childhood/parenthood.
Bean: I want that one.[9]
Me: What do you want?
Bean: That one.
Me: What is it?
Bean: That one. I
want it.
Me: What does it look like?
Bean: That one.
Me: [silence]
Bean [more emphatically]: Daddy, I want that one.
Me: And I want you to have it. But you have to tell me more. What is it that you want?
Bean: That one.
And so it goes, until finally I begin a list of random
guesses of what I can remember being in the back seat.
Me: Do you want the pencil?
Bean: No.
Me: Your cup?
Bean: No.
Me: The lion pillow?
Bean: No.
Me: What do you want then?
Bean: That one.
Me: What color is it? [10]
Bean: That one.
Me [stealing a quick glance into the floorboard behind the
passenger seat]: Is it the book?
Bean: No.
Me [stealing another look]: Is it the Froot Loop [11]
Bean: No
Me [relieved]: Is it the bracelet?
Bean: Okay!
He never says yes.
It’s always ‘okay’ and he always says it in the happiest most agreeable
tone ever. And it’s not like he doesn’t
know all of the names for all of the other things I’ve guessed. He just never says them. I can only assume that it is just that for
him this is how this conversation goes. [12]
I’ve tried lots of variations on this conversation, many
gambits to help determine what it is he so desperately needs. But they all end up the same way.
In truth lately when I ask something like, “can you tell me
what it looks like?” there is a short period of “um, uh, er” coming from the
back seat in which I start to think that we might actually be having a
breakthrough and I might get some kind of helpful detail, but, so far my hopes
have been dashed every time on the rocky shore of the inevitable next response:
‘That one’.
Two Conversations
with the Boys:
The Bear: A+
The Bean: A+ [13]
[1] – He would want me to tell you that he is actually five
and a half.
[2] – Ten seconds would be unusually long, but in this case
it was longer.
[3] – I guess Economics runs in the blood.
[4] – So I’ve held off for now on notifying the committee
for the Nobel prize on Economics.
[5] - This is usually because a demanding voice from the
back seat starts saying, “I want songs” over and over.
[6] – The ABC’s are at the top of the charts right now. Bingo was there for a long time, which while
repetitive in the extreme is worth it for the extreme cuteness of “Bingo was
his nay-no.”
[7] – Letters, numbers and shapes most often.
[8] – Or nouns for that matter.
[9] - This unhelpfully will come with no pointing at
all. Not that I could really tell what
he is pointing at anyway, since I’m usually busy driving during these
exchanges. And if the car should be stopped, any request for him to point
results in some comments, but ultimately no pointing.
[10] – This is truly an act of desperation as the Bean isn’t
so good with his colors yet. The only
one he consistently gets is pink. There
are a handful of others he is about 50% on and the rest are completely a toss
up. Thus even if he should say a color,
it doesn’t really mean that the item in question is that color.
[11] – Please don’t let it be the Froot Loop, that one
single lone Froot Loop that has probably been back there for months and bears
more in common with styrofoam than cereal at this point.
[12] – And I don’t think that he really enjoys these
conversations either, at least that’s the feeling I get based on the sound of
frustration in his voice.
[13] - Yes, these conversations can be frustrating, but I
wouldn’t trade them for anything.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Cereal Combinations
Cereal Combinations:
If you've been reading this blog for a while [1] you are aware that I have more than a passing fancy with cereal.
Since it is unlikely that you have ventured into the realm as much as I, here are some combinations involving cereal that you might not have thought to try:
1) Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch: This combination occur earlier today because of two factors. First, I wanted to finish off the box of Froot Loops that had been in the pantry forever and secondly because the Bear ate half the bowl that was left. [2]
Turns out it isn't that bad. Actually, I would call it an improvement on both of the base cereals. A problem with Froot Loops is that the flavor is overpowering. With the Cap'n Crunch in their the flavor was diluted and quite enjoyable. A problem with Cap'n Crunch is that it can tear up the roof of your mouth. The presence of the Froot Loops eliminated this.
I suspect to get the best out of this combo you should mix the two cereals together first.
The resulting combo wasn't anything amazing and will likely be forgotten never to be eaten again, but there's one less box in the pantry and I enjoyed consuming it.
Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch: B
2) Cocoa Krispies and Honey Smacks: Unlike the first entry, this is actually a combination that I intentionally eat from time to time. It tastes best when you do not mix the two cereals but have a bottom layer of one and a top layer of the other.
In truth, I've had this enough times that I've come to realize that it actually matters which one is on the bottom and which is on top. Unfortunately, I can never remember which goes where. Right now my gut instinct [3] is telling me that the Krispies go on bottom and the Smacks on top.
You can also sub out the Honey Smacks for Golden Crisp. Though Golden Crisp is a bit too sugary sweet for me and I don't prefer it. And you can sub out the Cocoa Krispies for Cocoa Pebbles. That swap gets you a slightly different taste that is just as good, but does subject you to the problem of Pebbles which is that they quickly turn to mushy paste in the bowl. [4]
The resulting combo is really good and different enough from the originals that it stand on its own.
Cocoa Krispies and Honey Smacks: A-
3) Frosted Flakes and any type Ice Cream: It's possible you've ventured into the "cereal on top of ice cream" genre. You almost [5] can't go wrong. But in my vast experience, the king of ice cream toppers is Frosted Flakes. Any variety of Frosted Flakes will do, but as previously stated, I prefer the Aldi brand. [6]
Granted I technically haven't put them on every type of ice cream in the world, so I can't testify that they will do much to help out your Pistachio Nut, [7] but they are solid additions to the many varieties we frequently buy.
Frosted Flakes and any type of Ice Cream: A+
4) Grape-nuts combined with anything: Grape Nuts are guaranteed to completely have no effect when paired with anything else. That is, as long as you leave the Grape Nuts off and just eat the other thing. Because let's face it, as previously stated Grape Nuts are disgusting.
They might slightly improved the taste of a bowl full of cold poison, but I'll never know for sure.
Grape Nuts combined with Anything: F
[1] - Or for just the last seven posts.
[2] - It is also the inspiration for this post.
[3] - Ha!
[4] - The solution is either eat really fast or eat half a bowl at a time.
[5] - Note the "almost".
[6] - Here is why.
[7] - But then I suspect nothing will.
If you've been reading this blog for a while [1] you are aware that I have more than a passing fancy with cereal.
Since it is unlikely that you have ventured into the realm as much as I, here are some combinations involving cereal that you might not have thought to try:
1) Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch: This combination occur earlier today because of two factors. First, I wanted to finish off the box of Froot Loops that had been in the pantry forever and secondly because the Bear ate half the bowl that was left. [2]
Turns out it isn't that bad. Actually, I would call it an improvement on both of the base cereals. A problem with Froot Loops is that the flavor is overpowering. With the Cap'n Crunch in their the flavor was diluted and quite enjoyable. A problem with Cap'n Crunch is that it can tear up the roof of your mouth. The presence of the Froot Loops eliminated this.
I suspect to get the best out of this combo you should mix the two cereals together first.
The resulting combo wasn't anything amazing and will likely be forgotten never to be eaten again, but there's one less box in the pantry and I enjoyed consuming it.
Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch: B
2) Cocoa Krispies and Honey Smacks: Unlike the first entry, this is actually a combination that I intentionally eat from time to time. It tastes best when you do not mix the two cereals but have a bottom layer of one and a top layer of the other.
In truth, I've had this enough times that I've come to realize that it actually matters which one is on the bottom and which is on top. Unfortunately, I can never remember which goes where. Right now my gut instinct [3] is telling me that the Krispies go on bottom and the Smacks on top.
You can also sub out the Honey Smacks for Golden Crisp. Though Golden Crisp is a bit too sugary sweet for me and I don't prefer it. And you can sub out the Cocoa Krispies for Cocoa Pebbles. That swap gets you a slightly different taste that is just as good, but does subject you to the problem of Pebbles which is that they quickly turn to mushy paste in the bowl. [4]
The resulting combo is really good and different enough from the originals that it stand on its own.
Cocoa Krispies and Honey Smacks: A-
3) Frosted Flakes and any type Ice Cream: It's possible you've ventured into the "cereal on top of ice cream" genre. You almost [5] can't go wrong. But in my vast experience, the king of ice cream toppers is Frosted Flakes. Any variety of Frosted Flakes will do, but as previously stated, I prefer the Aldi brand. [6]
Granted I technically haven't put them on every type of ice cream in the world, so I can't testify that they will do much to help out your Pistachio Nut, [7] but they are solid additions to the many varieties we frequently buy.
Frosted Flakes and any type of Ice Cream: A+
4) Grape-nuts combined with anything: Grape Nuts are guaranteed to completely have no effect when paired with anything else. That is, as long as you leave the Grape Nuts off and just eat the other thing. Because let's face it, as previously stated Grape Nuts are disgusting.
They might slightly improved the taste of a bowl full of cold poison, but I'll never know for sure.
Grape Nuts combined with Anything: F
[1] - Or for just the last seven posts.
[2] - It is also the inspiration for this post.
[3] - Ha!
[4] - The solution is either eat really fast or eat half a bowl at a time.
[5] - Note the "almost".
[6] - Here is why.
[7] - But then I suspect nothing will.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Alien Resurrection (2003 Edition)
Alien Resurrection (2003 Edition):
There were five years between Alien 3 and this film. The special effects took another jump forward. The plot took a huge leap backwards. [1]
The movie is in no way scary. There was not one single time during the entire film that I felt the least twinge of fright. [2]
Honestly, I could go on and on about the things that sucked in this movie, but I'll spare you.
Just trust me.
Fine, you don't trust me. Here are three of the many reasons you should trust me when I tell you this movie is bad.
The actors: we've got Warrick from CSI and Nick Tortelli from Cheers.
The acting [3]: Did I mention Tortelli from cheers?
The plot: Have you ever surfed around the net and found some film made by a second year theater major who wanted to make a movie using the names and ideas from his favorite group of books or movies, but he couldn't because the studio would sue him? So instead he changes all of the names and places and things just enough to avoid getting sued. And as you are watching this film, in whatever backwater of the web you found it in, you think, "Well, it's not so bad given where it's come from."
Well I imagine that is what happened with this movie. Only the studio, instead of suing for copyright infringement, gave them several million for special effects [4]
If you somehow end up watching this movie and you're getting close to the end and you think, "Well, it wasn't that bad." Just wait until you get to see Ripley and the Alien queen's love child. You will regret the choices that brought you there. I do so declare.
The special 2003 edition is not changed from the original theater version. At least that is what the director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, says at the front of the movie. Though he also says that he saw no reason to make a 'directors cut' because the movie shown in the theaters in '97 was the movie he wanted to make. [5] Which given all of the other movies he's directed ought to mean it's gonna be good. But it isn't. [6]
Alien Resurrection: D- [7]
[1] - There is clearly an inverse relationship between quality of spfx and quality of the movie when it comes to the Alien oeuvre.
[2] - Unless you count the disquiet I felt when about a half hour in I realized I was going to have to suffer through the rest of the pic.
[3] - Or should I say the over acting?
[4] - And for Weaver and Ryder.
[5] - Which I take to mean he's proud of it.
[6] - I wonder if he thought it was supposed to be a comedy? Amelie was a great movie.
[7] - Overall, the spfx are pretty good. That's got to count for something? Right?
There were five years between Alien 3 and this film. The special effects took another jump forward. The plot took a huge leap backwards. [1]
The movie is in no way scary. There was not one single time during the entire film that I felt the least twinge of fright. [2]
Honestly, I could go on and on about the things that sucked in this movie, but I'll spare you.
Just trust me.
Fine, you don't trust me. Here are three of the many reasons you should trust me when I tell you this movie is bad.
The actors: we've got Warrick from CSI and Nick Tortelli from Cheers.
The acting [3]: Did I mention Tortelli from cheers?
The plot: Have you ever surfed around the net and found some film made by a second year theater major who wanted to make a movie using the names and ideas from his favorite group of books or movies, but he couldn't because the studio would sue him? So instead he changes all of the names and places and things just enough to avoid getting sued. And as you are watching this film, in whatever backwater of the web you found it in, you think, "Well, it's not so bad given where it's come from."
Well I imagine that is what happened with this movie. Only the studio, instead of suing for copyright infringement, gave them several million for special effects [4]
If you somehow end up watching this movie and you're getting close to the end and you think, "Well, it wasn't that bad." Just wait until you get to see Ripley and the Alien queen's love child. You will regret the choices that brought you there. I do so declare.
The special 2003 edition is not changed from the original theater version. At least that is what the director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, says at the front of the movie. Though he also says that he saw no reason to make a 'directors cut' because the movie shown in the theaters in '97 was the movie he wanted to make. [5] Which given all of the other movies he's directed ought to mean it's gonna be good. But it isn't. [6]
Alien Resurrection: D- [7]
[1] - There is clearly an inverse relationship between quality of spfx and quality of the movie when it comes to the Alien oeuvre.
[2] - Unless you count the disquiet I felt when about a half hour in I realized I was going to have to suffer through the rest of the pic.
[3] - Or should I say the over acting?
[4] - And for Weaver and Ryder.
[5] - Which I take to mean he's proud of it.
[6] - I wonder if he thought it was supposed to be a comedy? Amelie was a great movie.
[7] - Overall, the spfx are pretty good. That's got to count for something? Right?
Friday, July 11, 2014
Alien 3 (2003 Directors Cut)
Alien 3 (2003 Directors Cut):
The third movie in the series and a third director. And also a third type of movie.
As previously stated in my posts on Alien and Aliens:
Alien (directed by Ridley Scott) is a sci-fi horror movie.
Aliens (directed by James Cameron) is a sci-fi action adventure/war movie.
Alien 3 (directed by David Fincher) is essentially a sci-fi art flick (with an alien that's trying to kill everyone.) [1]
It is once again noticeable immediately. From the beginning much care is given to how each shot looks. The sets are big and elaborate and rusty. [2] There's rain and steam and fog, which aren't used so much to hide the monster, but to make it all look just so.
We're back down to only one alien, but there's no real attempt to establish the horror aspect of the first movie. And there are zero guns. [3]
There's plenty of running around and dying. The monster is plenty nasty. [4] But the plot and the director are more interested in the morality tale and the well shot visuals than the action or horror.
I remember when this movie came out a lot of people were kind of disappointed in it. A fact born out by the fact that on IMDB.com this film rates a full two points lower than the first two films. And I can understand people's disappointment. This film is not its predecessors, but then the second film wasn't the same as the first.
If you watch it realizing that. If you watch it on its own merits, I think it is just as good as the other two.
For the record, six years had passed since the second movie was made and the spfx have jumped forward again. We once again get to see half an android talking and this time it looks pretty awesome. Not much to say on what the computers and other technology look like, since it takes place on a prison planet and that's pretty much what it looks like.
Alien 3: A-
[1] - But in an arty way.
[2] - Seriously rusty.
[3] - Until the very end when the "rescue" ship shows up.
[4] - Though it now has a sort of bovine aspect to it because of its initial host.
The third movie in the series and a third director. And also a third type of movie.
As previously stated in my posts on Alien and Aliens:
Alien (directed by Ridley Scott) is a sci-fi horror movie.
Aliens (directed by James Cameron) is a sci-fi action adventure/war movie.
Alien 3 (directed by David Fincher) is essentially a sci-fi art flick (with an alien that's trying to kill everyone.) [1]
It is once again noticeable immediately. From the beginning much care is given to how each shot looks. The sets are big and elaborate and rusty. [2] There's rain and steam and fog, which aren't used so much to hide the monster, but to make it all look just so.
We're back down to only one alien, but there's no real attempt to establish the horror aspect of the first movie. And there are zero guns. [3]
There's plenty of running around and dying. The monster is plenty nasty. [4] But the plot and the director are more interested in the morality tale and the well shot visuals than the action or horror.
I remember when this movie came out a lot of people were kind of disappointed in it. A fact born out by the fact that on IMDB.com this film rates a full two points lower than the first two films. And I can understand people's disappointment. This film is not its predecessors, but then the second film wasn't the same as the first.
If you watch it realizing that. If you watch it on its own merits, I think it is just as good as the other two.
For the record, six years had passed since the second movie was made and the spfx have jumped forward again. We once again get to see half an android talking and this time it looks pretty awesome. Not much to say on what the computers and other technology look like, since it takes place on a prison planet and that's pretty much what it looks like.
Alien 3: A-
[1] - But in an arty way.
[2] - Seriously rusty.
[3] - Until the very end when the "rescue" ship shows up.
[4] - Though it now has a sort of bovine aspect to it because of its initial host.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Aliens (2003 Director's Cut)
Aliens (2003 Director's Cut):
Aliens originally came out in 1986, which is just seven short years from Alien, the original film, but it might as well have been the fifty-seven years Ripley was asleep because that is how different these two films are.
As I said in the last post, Alien is a horror movie. It's dark and scary and creepy and did I mention scary. Aliens is an action movie. It's got space marines [1] and they have lots and lots of firepower. This isn't seven people stuck on a spaceship trying to hide from the monster. This is a straight up war between the good guys and the bad.
Really everything you need to know can be seen in the two opening titles. In Alien, there is a painstakingly slow crawl across space during which bits of something slowly, oh so slowly appear. Until finally it's all there and you see the title, ALIEN. [2]
In Aliens, there is some fuzzy blue light and then very quickly it resolves in the title, ALIENS. But the whole thing is done in 1/20th the time. [3]
Don't get me wrong, I like this movie a lot. In fact, I've seen it many more times than the first one. Probably in part because they show it on TV much more often, but also because it is more fun to watch. It's not scary, scary boogums. It's guns and explosions.
A big part of the difference in the movies is just the number of aliens. In the first movie there is one alien. You never get to see it clearly. It could be anywhere. It's terrifying. In the second movie, there are hundreds of the aliens. You see them, if not clearly, more clearly. And while they are everywhere, they are just the "bad guys" of the film. They don't really have any more power or coolness then any other nasty from any other us verses them film. [4]
The special effects in the second movie are also worlds better. Many advances were made in the seven years between the two films. The spaceship shots, while still clearly models in some shots, most of the time look great. The computers and technology in the world and on the ships, while still not "modern" looking are much better than the TRS-80's [5] the first movie was using.
Even the painful fake head from the first movie is improved upon. Granted in this movie there is half android [6] but it looks so much better.
In watching this Director's Cut, I could definitely see where things were added. Most of it was fine and I liked the addition. However, the early scenes with the colonists find the space ship and such were really not needed and took away from the whole.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the movie doesn't have its tension but it's just not the horror movie creepiness of the original. Which is fine by me.
Also, while it's way crueler than my statement about leaving the cat behind in Alien. Sorry Newt, but if it was me, there's no way I'm going down into that nest to get you.
Aliens: A
[1] - And that should tell you everything you need to know.
[2] - Just like the movie. There's something out there. What is it? Can you see it? Oh dear god!
[3] - Just like this movie. There's something wrong! It's Aliens. Let's start shooting.
[4] - Don't get me wrong, they still bleed acid and can bite your brain out of your skull, but in the end that's no different than bad soldiers who throw grenades and fire machine guns. Either way you are dead.
[5] - Or is that too obscure a reference?
[6] - Sorry, artificial human.
[7] - I mentioned this in the Alien post, but I didn't see a clean way to talk about it in this one. So here's a long footnote. Aliens was the first rated R movie that I ever saw in the theater. It came out before April in 1986. I know this because I was only 15 when I saw it and I turned 16 in April of that year. I had not yet seen the original and I went with my older brother and a friend of his. I had no idea what to expect. Anyway, the funny part of the story is that we all bought our tickets separately. My older brother, who is six years older got carded to get into the movie. They didn't ask me for ID at all.
Aliens originally came out in 1986, which is just seven short years from Alien, the original film, but it might as well have been the fifty-seven years Ripley was asleep because that is how different these two films are.
As I said in the last post, Alien is a horror movie. It's dark and scary and creepy and did I mention scary. Aliens is an action movie. It's got space marines [1] and they have lots and lots of firepower. This isn't seven people stuck on a spaceship trying to hide from the monster. This is a straight up war between the good guys and the bad.
Really everything you need to know can be seen in the two opening titles. In Alien, there is a painstakingly slow crawl across space during which bits of something slowly, oh so slowly appear. Until finally it's all there and you see the title, ALIEN. [2]
In Aliens, there is some fuzzy blue light and then very quickly it resolves in the title, ALIENS. But the whole thing is done in 1/20th the time. [3]
Don't get me wrong, I like this movie a lot. In fact, I've seen it many more times than the first one. Probably in part because they show it on TV much more often, but also because it is more fun to watch. It's not scary, scary boogums. It's guns and explosions.
A big part of the difference in the movies is just the number of aliens. In the first movie there is one alien. You never get to see it clearly. It could be anywhere. It's terrifying. In the second movie, there are hundreds of the aliens. You see them, if not clearly, more clearly. And while they are everywhere, they are just the "bad guys" of the film. They don't really have any more power or coolness then any other nasty from any other us verses them film. [4]
The special effects in the second movie are also worlds better. Many advances were made in the seven years between the two films. The spaceship shots, while still clearly models in some shots, most of the time look great. The computers and technology in the world and on the ships, while still not "modern" looking are much better than the TRS-80's [5] the first movie was using.
Even the painful fake head from the first movie is improved upon. Granted in this movie there is half android [6] but it looks so much better.
In watching this Director's Cut, I could definitely see where things were added. Most of it was fine and I liked the addition. However, the early scenes with the colonists find the space ship and such were really not needed and took away from the whole.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the movie doesn't have its tension but it's just not the horror movie creepiness of the original. Which is fine by me.
Also, while it's way crueler than my statement about leaving the cat behind in Alien. Sorry Newt, but if it was me, there's no way I'm going down into that nest to get you.
Aliens: A
[1] - And that should tell you everything you need to know.
[2] - Just like the movie. There's something out there. What is it? Can you see it? Oh dear god!
[3] - Just like this movie. There's something wrong! It's Aliens. Let's start shooting.
[4] - Don't get me wrong, they still bleed acid and can bite your brain out of your skull, but in the end that's no different than bad soldiers who throw grenades and fire machine guns. Either way you are dead.
[5] - Or is that too obscure a reference?
[6] - Sorry, artificial human.
[7] - I mentioned this in the Alien post, but I didn't see a clean way to talk about it in this one. So here's a long footnote. Aliens was the first rated R movie that I ever saw in the theater. It came out before April in 1986. I know this because I was only 15 when I saw it and I turned 16 in April of that year. I had not yet seen the original and I went with my older brother and a friend of his. I had no idea what to expect. Anyway, the funny part of the story is that we all bought our tickets separately. My older brother, who is six years older got carded to get into the movie. They didn't ask me for ID at all.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Alien (2003 Director's Cut)
Alien (2003 Director's Cut):
I got the Alien Anthology for Christmas or my birthday a couple of years ago and for one reason or another I haven't had a chance to watch it since then. [1] Well, I finally managed to watch it.
The movie came out in 1979, the directors cut came out in 2003 and it is now 2014. This version starts with Ridley Scott, talking for just a second saying he is proud of the film and that he had added some new footage that had never been seen before and changed a few things that needed fixing.
I never saw the original Alien in the theater, which really isn't surprising as I was nine at the time. In fact I didn't see Alien until after I had seen Aliens. [2] Since then, I would guess that I have seen the original movie maybe three times (not counting today's viewing). I've not seen the film enough times to be considered an expert on it, but I didn't see anything that stuck out as new or substantially different.
The Alien movies are supposedly 'sci-fi' movies, but let's be realistic. The four movies are not all of the same genre. The later three are more of what you would consider a sci-fi action movie. The first one is a straight up horror movie. Sure it's set in space and in the future, but don't kid yourself.
The movie holds up pretty good even though it is now thirty-five years old. The special effects are pretty dated in some places. [3] The computer systems on the ship are laughably low-tech, but I suppose in 1979 they were cutting edge. The shots of the ship flying in space are pretty bad, but the real loser of the spfx is when they reactivate Ash's head so that they can talk to him. The detached head they manipulate and the talking head [4] are not even close to similar. Actually, I can remember thinking the same thing the first time I saw the movie in the late 80's.
The super secret computer interface room that only the captain is allowed to go into is kind of dorky too. It's got eight million blinking lights on the walls that would serve zero purpose. I wish they had just made that room dark and spooky like the rest of the movie. [5]
Anyway, as for the rest of the movie, as previously stated, it's scary. Really scary. Super duper scary. [6]
They do a great job of never really letting you see the alien monster clearly. It's always around a corner, or there's bad lighting or there's steam everywhere. Occasionally you get a clear look at an arm and and it's obvious that it's a man in a suit, but those fleeting moments don't make you feel much better.
As I said, I've seen it enough times to know what happens and it's still a nail biter.
Other things that stand out for me are:
- Awesome cast including: Sigourney Weaver and Yaphet Kotto. [7]
- I like that they bothered to make the alien ship in Prometheus very similar if not identical to the one from this movie. [8]
- I've also always liked how the Alien monster was super drooly. [9]
Finally, let me just say that if I was on a space ship and there was a monster running around killing everyone, the cat better get its own butt into the escape pod, because I will straight up leave its butt behind.
Now excuse me while I go watch something nice and safe. Maybe a musical or a kid's movie.
Alien (2003 Director's Cut): A
[1] - Mainly it's because, if the Bear and the Bean are around there's no chance I'm watching it and the Pook isn't a fan either.
[2] - Which I did see in the theater, but we'll save that for another day.
[3] - Pretty dated is a nice way of saying really old looking.
[4] - Which is just the actor sticking his head through a board.
[5] - There are some other spfx moments that fall short (like the stiff unbending baby alien), but really they are not that bad and again, this was 1979.
[6] - Especially when you are watching it alone because everyone else in the house is in Tennessee.
[7] - He's awesome. Homocide: Life on the Streets anyone?
[8] - Prometheus still sucks in the plot department, but it's a nice bit of continuity.
[9] - Don't ask me why.
I got the Alien Anthology for Christmas or my birthday a couple of years ago and for one reason or another I haven't had a chance to watch it since then. [1] Well, I finally managed to watch it.
The movie came out in 1979, the directors cut came out in 2003 and it is now 2014. This version starts with Ridley Scott, talking for just a second saying he is proud of the film and that he had added some new footage that had never been seen before and changed a few things that needed fixing.
I never saw the original Alien in the theater, which really isn't surprising as I was nine at the time. In fact I didn't see Alien until after I had seen Aliens. [2] Since then, I would guess that I have seen the original movie maybe three times (not counting today's viewing). I've not seen the film enough times to be considered an expert on it, but I didn't see anything that stuck out as new or substantially different.
The Alien movies are supposedly 'sci-fi' movies, but let's be realistic. The four movies are not all of the same genre. The later three are more of what you would consider a sci-fi action movie. The first one is a straight up horror movie. Sure it's set in space and in the future, but don't kid yourself.
The movie holds up pretty good even though it is now thirty-five years old. The special effects are pretty dated in some places. [3] The computer systems on the ship are laughably low-tech, but I suppose in 1979 they were cutting edge. The shots of the ship flying in space are pretty bad, but the real loser of the spfx is when they reactivate Ash's head so that they can talk to him. The detached head they manipulate and the talking head [4] are not even close to similar. Actually, I can remember thinking the same thing the first time I saw the movie in the late 80's.
The super secret computer interface room that only the captain is allowed to go into is kind of dorky too. It's got eight million blinking lights on the walls that would serve zero purpose. I wish they had just made that room dark and spooky like the rest of the movie. [5]
Anyway, as for the rest of the movie, as previously stated, it's scary. Really scary. Super duper scary. [6]
They do a great job of never really letting you see the alien monster clearly. It's always around a corner, or there's bad lighting or there's steam everywhere. Occasionally you get a clear look at an arm and and it's obvious that it's a man in a suit, but those fleeting moments don't make you feel much better.
As I said, I've seen it enough times to know what happens and it's still a nail biter.
Other things that stand out for me are:
- Awesome cast including: Sigourney Weaver and Yaphet Kotto. [7]
- I like that they bothered to make the alien ship in Prometheus very similar if not identical to the one from this movie. [8]
- I've also always liked how the Alien monster was super drooly. [9]
Finally, let me just say that if I was on a space ship and there was a monster running around killing everyone, the cat better get its own butt into the escape pod, because I will straight up leave its butt behind.
Now excuse me while I go watch something nice and safe. Maybe a musical or a kid's movie.
Alien (2003 Director's Cut): A
[1] - Mainly it's because, if the Bear and the Bean are around there's no chance I'm watching it and the Pook isn't a fan either.
[2] - Which I did see in the theater, but we'll save that for another day.
[3] - Pretty dated is a nice way of saying really old looking.
[4] - Which is just the actor sticking his head through a board.
[5] - There are some other spfx moments that fall short (like the stiff unbending baby alien), but really they are not that bad and again, this was 1979.
[6] - Especially when you are watching it alone because everyone else in the house is in Tennessee.
[7] - He's awesome. Homocide: Life on the Streets anyone?
[8] - Prometheus still sucks in the plot department, but it's a nice bit of continuity.
[9] - Don't ask me why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)