Pandorum (2009; Christian Alvart)

My life is once again filled with classes and stress, so the intervals between reviews will increase. On the bright side, however, a few friends and myself decided to sit down and make a pact between us. During the year 2010, we will all watch three hundred films we've never seen and no less. This also gives us motive enough to do the other thing we wanted which is to try and be a little more fair. We've always neglected certain areas of cinema and skipped releases we "knew" were going to be awful, so this is our chance to turn that around. So while watching all these films will give me even less free time, what time I have I should be able to squeeze out a review or two because lord knows I'll have enough material to write about.


The earth is suffering extreme overcrowding, resources are low, and all that boring stuff. The solution? A shuttle sent out into space found a planet almost identical to ours and so a plan is set in action to have people shipped over there to make more room. Shit breaks, stuff goes wrong, and everything is dark and metallic.

To be absolutely counter intuitive, this isn't a film I was actually planning on skipping. When it first released I had no idea what it was and more or less just let it sail past me, but recent talks around me got me interested and so I thought I would check it out for myself.

First thing that caught my metaphorical eye was the soundtrack. While somewhat modern, it also felt like it had a tinge from the horror of old. While by no means fantastic or inspiring, it was a step above just throwing tense ambient sounds into the mix.

Second thing, the lighting. I understand a lot of the criticism of sci-fi horror, because visually many of them do look alike. The fact of that matter is, though, that how else would you design a tense atmosphere in a spaceship? The structure is reasonable considering the direction technology is going, and having the dank, dark steel corridor sort of triggers your reaction by itself now.

The most important part of this film to me, though, was the structure of it all. This film could have derailed itself in all sorts of ways, but it managed to keep itself tight throughout most of its playtime. I think the perfect comparison would be Neil Marshall's The Descent. Much like Marshall's work, Pandorum relies heavily on the mystery and darkness to propel fear, but after everything begins to clear up little by little, the film picks up the pace into more of an action setting. It all goes back to my belief that the less you see, the more you are afraid. The over exposure usually kills the tension in a horror film, but if you shift the whole film with the exposure, it all flows much easier with much more effect.

As far as the weaknesses go, while the characterization of each of the survivors was clear, they felt a little cliche. I don't want to delve too much into the story so you are able to go in as blind as I did, but one character in particular had an action sequence which, while it could have been effective in another film, just felt out of place in the reasonable reality that was already constructed so carefully. However, that being said, I would not be lying if I said that had someone wanted to shoot Alien now instead of so long ago, knowing the conventions of popular cinema today, it probably would have come out something like this.

Score: 4/5

Notes: Think The Descent with an Alien twist to it all.

They Live (1988; John Carpenter)

When I am asked to sum up my opinion of cinema from the 1980's I always use the same two word answer. While it is a very biased answer, many people still agree with me that it seems to fit the mood of the genres it touched. Those words?

John Carpenter

A drifter finds his way into work and a temporary home while, well, drifting. While there he notices some mysterious activity that leads him into a whole new world of truth.

They Live continues a tradition that many other horror directors started years before. The political commentary in it is so obvious, yet unlike Romero, it never feels too forced or pushed down our throats. It very much feels natural with the flow of the rest of the film and our attention never waivers from the action at hand.

They Live also marks the end of Carpenter's fantastic eighties career and in a way feels like an appropriate summary of his previous works before falling into his downhill slide in the nineties (with the exception of In the Mouth of Madness). However, after all of this introduction, where does it leave the film itself?

The character Carpenter places before us are absurd. We focus around a drifter whom we know nothing about who is thrust into a terrifying situation and instead of panicking he pulls out some guns and some cheesy one-liners. He meets friends by beating them or holding guns to them. The point I am trying to make here is that this film is awesome. This movie continues the enjoyment we all had when we first watched Escape From New York years earlier.

If you have never seen Escape From New York, then there really is no way to convince you that the description above is more than just ridiculous garbage. I am not a proponent of saying that trash cinema is actually high quality in disguise, but with Carpenter's works it really is. Everything was sculpted to their degrees on purpose. It is obvious with pieces such as The Thing and Halloween that Carpenter is no stranger to serious cinema and this idea helps solidify that he wanted these movies to look this way for a reason.

They reflect the absurdity of the political ideas that the films are commenting on. The genius behind such a tool is that not only does it further drive the commentary home, it also gives what would have been a more "normal" piece a life of its own.

I suppose I should briefly touch on the more concrete elements. The camera is well instrumented here and the black & white actually adds to the feeling that we are trying to be controlled as if our artistic minds are being suppressed by the lack of color. The score is typical of eighties Carpenter with very simple melodies being effectively used. The drawbacks are that while it is an undeniably strong film, you can't help but feel some of his spark fade on all aspects of the piece. It is like asking a landscape artist to do a portrait. The portrait will look good, yes, but it will still lack some of the genius that pushes his landscapes past the point of good.

Score: 4.5/5

Notes: Obey this review. Consume Carpenter's products.

From Beyond (1986; Stuart Gordon)

I must say, this review is going to be ridiculously biased. Not for the sake of Jeffrey Combs. Not for the sake of Stuart Gordon. Simply for it being inspired by Lovecraft. I have been a avid fan of Lovecraft for quite a few years, so I always welcome anything that is tied to his works.


I am glad that (while other people may disagree) there is a semi-competent director (in the form of Gordon) who is frequently giving us his visions of what he thinks is truly going on in Lovecraft's worlds. The beauty of it is that another director can come along, create another film on the same short story, and come up with completely different creatures that dwell in the other dimensions and worlds.

(Keeping it fresh again) two scientists set up a device that activates a certain resonance, causing a gland in our brain to grow, allowing us to see into another dimension, and in return, seeing that dimensions inhabitants see us. To bring the idea to another level of realism (at least to a degree) the film makes a connection between schizophrenia and the size of that certain gland. I thought it was a clever idea, at least.

I am not quite sure as most of the surprisingly few Gordon films I have seen are fuzzy in my memory, but it appears he has a very intimate fondness with still camera angles. While that can make films come off as stale (due to moving cameras representing progression, movement, etc) it worked surprisingly well as we felt our characters trapped in a certain space. The camera was further complemented with a wonderful color palette in many of the shots.

As for the score, it is adequate but altogether not too exciting or memorable. Jeffrey Combs puts on a wonderfully enjoyable performance (again). All in all this film has the feel of a Lovecraft title, but it lacks the depth required to truly delve into his beautifully constructed world. While that obviously can not be held against any single film, maybe it is something Gordon might want to work upon. A series of Lovecraft films that fit together besides the small hints to locations that reoccur.

Score: 3/5

Notes: Tentacle Rape (Fuck Yes)

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007; Colin Strause & Greg Strause)

Round Two: Let's see if these guys can do a better job.


Same story, different people. Moving on...

I am going to start by addressing my two main issues with the first AVP. The Predator (singular now) has no emotions this time around. It is using any means necessary to make sure nothing knows what is going on. This leads to the Predator killing as many humans as Aliens. That is good.

The second issue was the gore. This problem was also addressed with the sequel. Heads were getting blown off all over the place, and it was glorious. They could have done more, but what they had was sufficient enough to satisfy most fans... including me.

Now, even with those problems fixed, a whole new slew of problems arose. This one takes place in a town, which leads to them adding a whole mix of stereotyped humans. These people are found to be an extreme annoyance. A fair amount of our precious time is spent getting us invested in each person, but they are so bland and two dimensional it just feeds your irritation.

Some small complaints are as follows. The Predator is not the hunter it once was. While it is back to being a bad ass, it loses it's hunter instinct. It simply walks right into the Alien hot spots and starts blasting away. There is a political message that is not only felt throughout the movie, they felt the need to drive it home with awkwardly placed dialogue to spell it all out just in case it wasn't obvious enough.

There is one quick positive I want to brush up on before I finish. This film brought a few nice additions to the mythologies of both of the races without adding anything new that might make explaining why it wasn't used in previous films very difficult. There is also a nice touch with the original Predator soundtrack placed briefly in certain spots to add a little something to make us feel comfortable.

Score: 2/5

Notes: Battle of the Pregnancies, Predalien (or Aliator)

Alien vs. Predator (2004; Paul Anderson)

Yeah, that's right. I thought I would stick to a theme, so here it is. I barely remember watching this film way back in 2004. All I can remember clearly is hating it, and watching everyone else hate it. So after watching Predator again, I felt that I should give it another go and see if I would become this movie's knight in shining armor.


There isn't much to tell. The Predators brought the Aliens to Earth as part of a game. It was so they could hunt the ultimate prey on a planet that they could destroy in case they lost.

I just want to say, first off, that I loved that idea. It was almost Hollywood's answer to the people who believe that aliens created the Earth and taught humans, etc. I just really enjoyed the Predator's story as the ultimate hunter, and that we just get caught up in the crossfire.

I am going to take this movie for what it was meant to be, a fan boy movie. Paul Anderson made sure this film was loaded with goodies featured in other movies (a lot of similar camera shots, etc...) and for that, I applaud him. To a purely fan boy approach, I believe Anderson did a... decent job.

The humanization of the Predator is what bugs me the most. The ultimate hunter is not one who has emotions. The Predator is a tactically superb, ruthless killer. This movie pisses all over that, making them to be some creature we are suppose to care for. Hell, I get the idea that these aren't Predators that have passed their test, but come on. The Aliens got a little better treatment, as they are the same disgusting, gooey beasts we have always known them to be. The perfect adaption as a survivor.

The second biggest flaw in this fan boy movie is the gore. Why is it a problem? There is none. I mean, sure, there is some space creature blood, but that is it. When I see these movies I want fountains of human blood everywhere. That is just something that he should have understood.

The score is uninteresting. It carries the film, but is ultimately uninspiring. The camera feels the same way. It carries the film the whole way, but really doesn't make good use of the claustrophobic temple that most of the film is shot in. I get the idea that this movie is supposed to make all of us fan's happy, but that doesn't excuse you from being boring and plain.

So with his heart in the right place, but his vision skewed, I leave you with a (somewhat forgiving)...

Score: 2/5

Notes: Aliens, Predators, and No Fucking Blood

P.S. Feels good to have a low score again.

Predator (1987; John McTiernan)

Okay, I have to get this off my chest. This movie is simply the epitome of a man's movie. You have huge explosions. You have men walking through the middle of battlefields without any cover. You have completely unnecessary weapons the size of the men themselves. Witty one-liners while killing people. Every part of this movie screams manly.


Group of hard ass rescue soldiers right out of body builders weekly are called in to rescue a diplomat. The rescue mission goes wrong, and the "forest comes alive".

Everyone who has been consciously aware of life around them pretty much knows this film, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't review it anyway. People who have trouble with the fact that this is a very exaggerated, manly movie might want to just stop reading the review here.

The film, for what the stereotypes are worth, are in fact well acted, and do give personalities to what seem like pretty two dimensional characters. The soundtrack and score are pretty much right on with it's generation. The camera is pretty basic; sitting still with dialogue and sweeping with gun fights. However, it does have a few moments (running in front of one of the men) and due to what the film calls for (pretty much a monster flick), it doesn't need to be anything more then that.

The effects are, while not quite up to date, plenty to carry the story along, and by no means bad enough to distract from the tension and claustrophobia. Speaking of claustrophobia, the films environment is very well constructed. Even though the entire film is shot in a wide open jungle, we can't help but feel trapped with the manly men as they find themselves cornered in the open. They have everywhere to run, but nothing to gain from it.

Score: 4/5

Notes: Big Guns, Manly Men, and Explosions

Gay Niggers from Outerspace (1992; Morten Lindberg)

Yeah, really. That is the name. I am not actually going to write a review, I just thought posting this would make some of you aware that it exists. With something like this, you already know if you are going to like it or not by the time you finish reading the title. It really isn't even worth putting a score up, because the film is just so ludicrous.