The Bagdad's unlucky Friday the 13th

Horror fans were treated to a bit of bad luck last night, if they attended The Bagdad Theater's screening of Friday the 13th, Part 3 in 3D. A combination of poor staffing and a subpar presentation was enough to give even the most forgiving audience member a bit of a headache.

For starts, the film started 45 minutes late. So, if you bought your ticket early, grabbed your snacks and got in your seat before the movie was scheduled to begin, you could have spent over one hour waiting for the lights to dim and the movie to start. All you could do was wait, talk with your friends (unless you attended the screening alone) and watch the endless ads for various McMenamin locations and events.

It wasn't a problem with the staff that caused the delay, but rather, the lack of people working in the theater. Tickets could not be purchased in advance, so you had to wait until the doors opened at 7:30 pm to be admitted. The front of house staff consisted of one ticket taker, one guy handing out glasses and three overworked snack bar attendants. The second bar for beer and snacks was closed. And the line was stretched around the block.

Perhaps they weren't expecting such a crowd, but it was 8 pm on Friday the 13th, and this is a movie celebrating the day. And anyone with any familiarity with the genre offerings around Portland should know that we'll turn out en masse for just about anything. So someone at The Bagdad underestimated the crowd, yet it looked like the second bar had recently closed. It would have made more sense to keep the second bar open until everyone was in their seats, rather than assume no one would turn up for this film. Bad move on the part of The Bagdad management team, but the people working were great, so don't blame them!

The second problem was more with the film itself. Or, the digital presentation of the film. We all know theaters are moving to digital projection, as most studios are foregoing 35mm presentations and moving into the digital age. And I'm not going to complain about that. It's going to happen, whether I like it or not, so better to enjoy the screenings of obscure genre films in any format. But for 80s 3D movies, this is a big problem.

I'm not a tech geek, so here's a VERY brief summation of the process. In the 80s 3D revival, only one camera was used to process a 3D image. In the 50s, 3D images were created using two cameras, and two projectors were needed to show the images. Any misalignment, whether from the projectors or an audience's members head positioning, lead to "ghosting" or multiple images "appearing" on screen.

The single camera process reduced that shadowing. By capturing the two images needed for 3D imaging in one camera, it allowed one projector (with the proper lens) to present the image to the audience. Using cheap polarized lens glasses, the audience was treated to a crisper, cleaner 3D experience. Maybe not as good as the digital images presented in theaters now, but much better than the experience through the red and green lens glasses.

But the single camera image (known as over/under) can not be translated to digital imagery. But red/green 3D can, so when I saw the screen flash a Blu-ray mode signal, I knew this presentation would be nothing like the version I was back in 1982.

And it wasn't. Hell, I could could have stayed home and watched the DVD version of the film.

Look, I don't care what the staff at McMenamins might say. I was there in '82 and the 35mm version is far superior to the digital copies. And somewhere, in all the publicity, the audience should have been told this would be a digital presentation.

I know it won't matter for some. But we should be told all the facts about the movie we're seeing, especially if it's a film made prior to the digital age. If you plan to show a digital copy, that's fine. But some of us might prefer a 35mm print, and we have the right to know what we're going to see before we buy our ticket and sit down in the theater. And we might surprise you, and show up anyway.

But we deserve to know in advance, especially in Portland. Any city that wants it's food labelled non-GMO deserves to have revival films labeled "non-35mm."

As for films starting 45 minutes late, well, you really need to work on that.

Goodbye, Ray Bradbury

Hey all. I will have your horror calendar to you tomorrow, if all goes well, but today I have to share some sad news. Ray Bradbury, died yesterday at the age of 91.

I'm sure many of you are aware of this, as it's been over the Internet since this morning. Yet many of the news articles flooding the web are rather short sighted. Calling Bradbury as science fiction or fantasy writer might be the only way a news organization can identify him, but the man's work was so much more than simply fantastic tales. Bradbury was an artist, his works creating a world for the reader to explore. His writing allowed one to see the Martian landscape, smell the smoke from burning books or indulge in a deep drink of dandelion wine.

But we will always have his books. What the world lost yesterday was a teacher who reminded us that, no matter how adult the world forces us to behave, one must still find time to allow us a moment of childlike wonder, whether through a book, a movie, or the rustling of autumn leaves on a dark October evening. To deny ourselves that sense of bewilderment, joy or fright, we allow our world to become drab and lifeless.

So I bid farewell to a man I never met, yet he taught me to find a place in my life for dinosaurs, aliens and creatures of the night, even as an adult. RIP, Ray Bradbury. You leave the world a little duller, but taught us all how to keep it bright and colorful. For that, I can not thank you enough.

Skip Burton’s Frankenweenie remake and watch ParaNorman instead

Fans will have the chance to see two horror themed stop-motion features later this year. And you won’t have to choose between them, as the films will be released about two months apart. But, if you’re only willing to see one family stop motion film this summer, I suggest you skip the remake and take a chance on the newcomer.

Let’s talk about Frankenweenie first. Scheduled for an October 5 release, this is director Tim Burton’s remake of his 1984 short film. As if you couldn’t guess that by the trailer.

It’s disappointing, as Frankenweenie looks like every other movie Burton has released in the past several years. Is the hero rather pale and pasty looking? Check. Bunch of Burton’s favorite actors lending their voices? Check. Did Danny Elfman compose the music? Check! Does the film have a gothic atmosphere? Double check! The only thing missing are the voices of Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, though I’m sure there’s time to fit them in before October.

Look, I’m not saying Frankenweenie will be a bad film. But Burton’s been playing it safe since Mars Attacks! and Planet of the Apes bombed. He’s had a few flashes of brilliance since, but most of his films look and feel similar, with a plot depicting a pale faced, misunderstood protagonist and his struggle to be accepted by the “normal” world. The only difference here is that Burton seems to have given up any pretensions of originality and is content on remaking his previous work, rather than trying to jam the same tired story into another franchise.

So, if you plan to see just one stop-motion feature this year, consider buying a ticket to ParaNorman instead. The second feature from Laika, the stop-motion studio behind Coraline, is scheduled for release on August 17 and the trailer looks great.

Okay, we’ve got the misunderstood protagonist, but at least he’s not pasty looking. And we have a fair share of bathroom humor, standard to any modern family feature. And lessons on tolerance, acceptance and being true to one’s self will be learned. But the film also delivers ghosts, witches and zombies! Oh my!!

The film looks like it’s trying to be scary. The zombies appear to be biting people, and the trailer includes a decapitated zombie head, a zombie losing an ear, along with some very spooky moments. In case you’ve forgotten, Coraline had some very frightening moments as well, with images some people considered more appropriate for a PG-13 rated feature.

But ParaNorman also has a sense of humor aimed at horror fans of all ages. Norman’s ringtone, the scene of a hockey-masked figure amongst billowing laundry and the Abbott and Costello meets Frankenstein-like approach (in which the monsters are scary while the people’s reactions are funny) all points to a few genre fans being involved with the production. This looks like the perfect film for the modern horror family, no matter how old you might be.

Judging a film by the trailer is perilous, but I suggest you check out ParaNorman. No reason you can’t see both, but if you end up missing Frankenweenie, don’t worry. I’m sure Burton’s got another film coming out soon that’s just like it.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Caught The Hunger Games last night, and though I know it's not horror, just had to post a few thoughts on this world wide phenomenon.

Oh, maybe not world wide, as it appears Wrath of the Titans cleaned up outside of the domestic market. I won't say I'm surprised, because while The Hunger Games is quite good, it's just not that good. The film has some serious flaws and feels about 20-30 minutes too long.

Now, I'm not going to compare the film to Battle Royale, as other sites have made the comparisons. Nor am I getting into the visions of The Running Man that flashed through my head during one of the more listless moments in the film. Come on, an innocent person, thrown into a game to the death, inspires the flames of revolution is an oft told story. This version simply didn't have over the top hunters and the presence of Arnold.

And I'm dispensing with a plot summery, as I suspect anyone reading my blog probably knows it by now. But I will issue a spoiler alert, as I will discuss some things not in the trailer, so be warned. And please, don't tell me about the book, as I haven't read it. I'm just talking about the movie, so any complaints that reference to the book I will have to ignore. I just saw the movie and that's what I'm writing about.

Let's start off with what worked. First off, Jennifer Lawrence was amazing. I don't think the film could be a strong as it was without her. Also, her more seasoned costars (Banks, Sutherland, Tucci) were outstanding as well. Her romantic interests, well, not as good, but they and the rest of the young cast did a fine job.

Second, director Gary Ross did some outstanding work. His use of silence during several scenes was amazing, and he gave Lawrence to opportunity to deliver an emotion gut punch during those scenes. And I really enjoyed how Ross let the action tell the story, rather than relying on worthless exposition to tell the audience what it should know by the character's behavior. And I will be forever grateful for not being exposed to a soundtrack designed to sell CDs/downloads/whatever, rather than tracks suitable for the film.

But the movie was a bit too long, as a few moments could have been trimmed down or excised. For example, unless the subplot about Katniss' father comes back in a later movie, the scenes surrounding his death seemed underdeveloped and more like filler than a driving force in the narrative. Additionally, some of the moments when Katniss and Peeta are exposed to the good life before the game could have been shortened without losing anything but running time.

Had that been the only problem, I might have enjoyed the film more. But the fact that the basic premise made no sense was a big stumbling block to me. Yes, I understand that the Hunger Games was enacted as punishment for the 12 districts revolting against the main government. Still, after 70 something years of feeding their children into a gladiator game, the idea that no one thought about open revolt until now is unrealistic. One would expect some kind of resistance force to form after such a long history of oppression, even if their attempts failed.

Also, the film tries so hard to keep Katniss from becoming a killer that I started to wonder why I should be rooting for her. I know the story had a fine line to walk, as the plot involves kids becoming killers for sport, but it goes to absurd lengths to show that Katniss isn't evil, it dilutes the concept of her as a hero. The most glaring moment (SPOILER ALERT) is at the end of the film, when Cato is about to snap Peeta's neck. Instead of putting an arrow in his face (which would be fine, as Cato is presented as the villain of the Games and he's going to kill Peeta to spite her), she shots him in the hand, allowing Peeta to free himself and push Cato into the pack of mutant dogs below them.

Okay, first off, shooting Cato in the hand would only serve to present him and Peeta as toothpicked sausages to the dogs, as her arrow would pass through Cato's hand, Peeta's neck and into Cato's chest. Second, given the skill Katniss displays with a bow, a simple head shot would have been easy and achieved the same results. By trying to keep Katniss from outright killing someone, the script made her weaker as a hero. Cato not only had to die, he deserved to die and if Katniss isn't willing to step up and take action against the bad guy, I don't give the rebel forces I suspect she will lead in the sequels much of a chance. And, don't get me wrong, I deplore when films let male heroes not kill off the bad guy as well (don't get me started on Road House). When it's obvious the villain needs to die, yet the hero is reluctant to do it just to remind us they are not evil, the screenwriters have let the character down.

And let's talk about Peeta's rock make up. Good stuff, but I want to know how he was able to apply it with no materials and no mirror. Yes, the moment was set up earlier in the film (and the script made it obvious his skills would show up later in the film), but it's doubtful he could have done such work in the woods, without supplies, and while dealing with a massive sword wound, no less.

It's obvious why American audiences are taken with The Hunger Games. It's the us against them film of the decade, the elite verse the working class, the 1% against the 99%, and people really want to see the top tier fall. But despite some shining moments, the glaring plot holes, unexplored subplots and a very weak climax hobbled the film. And while I'm curious to see where the story goes from here, I just hope the filmmakers do right by Katniss in the sequel.

Horror fans need to stop whining and go see The Cabin in the Woods and Piranha 3DD

If you can’t tell by the headline, I’m tired of my fellow horror fans bitching about the sorry state of the genre. Over the past decade, boards have been filled with criticisms about the state of horror, most of it directed at the terrible remakes of classic horror films, and the heavy use by studios of the PG-13 rating. And while exceptions exist (the American version of The Ring was pretty damn scary), I agree that most current horror films are timid, rather stupid, and tend to destroy iconic characters in a misguided attempt to modernize genre classics.

Yet, when a film Piranha 3D delivers everything horror fans claim to want, the film tanks. We could debate the reasons why, but it doesn’t matter. As studios and theater owners are looking to make money, both will be reluctant to try another genre film with an R rating if others underperform when PG-13 horror keeps drawing a bigger audience.

So this summer, I suggest horror fans take the opportunity to assure studios and theater owners that R-rated genre films can be profitable. It’s not hard to do. Just get off your couch, go to your local cinema, pay for a ticket, and see both The Cabin in the Woods and Piranha 3DD on opening weekend. Yes, both of them. It might be our best chance to get R-rated horror back into theaters.

First, let’s talk about sending a message to the studios. Your PAID admission will cast a vote for future R-rated horror flicks. Hollywood only pays attention to films that make money and as most horror films don’t require a huge budget, a modest audience can generate a healthy profit for the studios. But just watching the film isn’t enough if you don’t pay the studios to see it. Hollywood executives don’t care what you watch from Redbox or other rental outlets, as you are not fattening their wallet. And we all know what they think of illegal downloading.

Of course, once a few films are successful, the market will be flooded with R-rated horror films, resulting in a decrease in quality and a case of bad movie burnout. This will lead to decreasing revenues and prompt studios moving on to the next hot trend. It happened to slasher genre back in the 80s, as it will happen to the current YA craze. But having R-rated horror films premiering on a regular basis will be fun while it lasts, and might produce some new classics for us to savor during the dry years.

But studio owners aren’t the only ones that will pay attention to a surge in the R-rated horror audience. Theater owners continue to suffer terrific losses as attendance continues to drop. And many are wary of studio promises, as the 3D craze has started to wane, leaving theaters shouldering expensive upgrades for decreasing returns. A larger audience for R-rated horror could generate more money for theater owners and lead to an increased willingness to screen more genre fare.

To see how this could work, we need to discuss how a theater makes money during a film’s theatrical run. Ticket revenue is split between the studio and the theater, but like Vegas, always favors the studio. According to a 2002 report by CNN.com, studios receives 70 to 80% of total admission revenue during the first weeks of a film’s release, though other articles place the figure as high as 90%. That’s why visiting the concession stand feels like highway robbery, as those snacks account for most of a theater’s income.

Theater owners do get a bigger slice of ticket revenues the longer a film stays in the screen, which fuels the desire for blockbuster films. A big opening weekend increases a studio’s odds of recouping the cost of a film, while theater owners benefit from a film that will continue to draw a crowd weeks after the initial release, when their split of ticket revenues increases.

This sliding scale is the reason the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) is rallying against the idea of early VOD and home market release dates. The sooner a family can see a film from their couch, the less likely they are to visit a theater after a film opens. And, as reported during last year’s Cinemacon, tensions are high between NATO and studios concerning this point. Though theater owners have won several skirmishes, the eventual outcome doesn’t look good for their side.

Also, the split is the reason films don’t get the time to build an audience through word of mouth. Theater owners need to keep the audience coming and are thus unwilling to risk screening a movie that underperforms. And I suspect it’s why major blockbusters occupy several screens in a multiplex on opening weekend, as theater owners are trying to ensure long lines at the concession stand, their main source of revenue.

But Cabin and Piranha 3DD might generate more money for theater owners, as their share of opening week ticket revenue might be higher. While the studios control the sliding scale, I suspect theater owners will get more revenue for several reasons.

First, the studios have less invested in a low budget film. To give you some perspective, the combined budgets for Piranha 3DD and Cabin is about one-fifth the estimated budget for The Avengers. And that doesn’t include advertising or other promotional costs, where I suspect both films have been outspent by a large margin. With less money on the line, the studios don’t need a massive opening weekend, so it’s not unreasonable to expect that theaters get a larger cut of the ticket revenue.

Second, no one has expectations to bring in a large audience. Neither film contains actors with box office drawing power or a build in audience. Okay, Piranha 3DD is a sequel, but to an underperforming film that barely made back its budget. And while Cabin has Joss Whedon’s name behind it, no one really knows if his fan base will go see an R-rated horror film. Studios might use a larger share of the revenues as enticement for theater owners to screen the films.

If the studios increase the revenues theaters receive from opening ticket sales, a sizable audience for Cabin and Piranha 3DD could generate more money for theater owners than a massive blockbuster, especially if concession sales are taken into account. With enough such successes, theater owners might be more willing to screen R-rated horror films, which could open up a market for independent horror films as well. As many of these films are made on a small budget, owners could see increased revenues for opening weekend sales and, if the audience continues to be large enough, theaters might open up more screens for these smaller releases.

So get off the couch and cast a vote for R-rated horror films by seeing The Cabin in the Woods and Piranha 3DD at the theater this summer. Who knows, you might actually enjoy them. But if you stay at home and wait for the torrent file to show up online, or spend money on a VOD source, I don’t want to hear you gripe about the state of horror ever again.

Trailer Review: Dark Shadows

Okay, as most of you know, the trailer for the latest Tim Burton/Johnny Depp film, Dark Shadows, premiered last weekend. And, if you read yesterday's post, you know I'm not that thrilled with it. Okay, I'm rather pissed off, but before we get into why I'm so angry, here's the trailer.

I hope fans of the original series weren't expecting a serious treatment of the story, like the TV revival in the late 80s, because you won't be getting that. Instead, it appears Burton and Depp are intent on driving a stake through our hearts this summer.

Okay, for the first few minutes, the film looks pretty good. As Barnabas Collins explains how he was cursed by a jealous witch and become a vampire, the trailer delivers a great Gothic setting and some slightly overblown moments keeping with the campy feel of the original. Imprisoned in a coffin for two hundred years, Barnabas is eventually unearthed, prompting his deceased fiancee (now a ghost) to begin chanting, "He's coming."

I must admit, the Haunted Mansion look of the apparition should have triggered a warning. But it's the moment when Barnabas springs out of his coffin and spreads his arms that things started going wrong.

And the trailer keeps getting worse.

Oh, where do I begin? Is it the horrid soundtrack, including Superfly and Bang a Gong?!? Just what was Burton thinking?!?!?!? Or maybe it was the disco ball hanging in Collinwood, or Angelique reveling her ageless cleavage as part of her master plan to seduce Barnabas. And let's not get into the horrid CGI chains wrapping around Barnabas before he's entombed, while Angelique drops her panties over his face. Arrgh!

Okay, have to stop or else my brain will explode.

I guess portraying Barnabas as a fish out of water might be good for a few laughs, and one suspects the filmmakers were trying to capture some of the humor from The Addams Family films. But it appears Burton and company forgot one small factor that made Barry Sonnenfeld's films work, which was never to mock the characters or the source material.

The Addams Family films worked because the humor didn't come at the expense of the Addams, but from their eccentricities and their interactions with the mundane world. Dark Shadows, on the other hand, seems to be aiming for a spoof on the caliber of The Naked Gun series. Which would be fine if the film was based upon original characters and situations, rather than a show still treasured by fans. The trailer makes Burton's treatment akin to a prolonged, two hour taunting from an obnoxious bully. And I'm sure most horror fans dealt with enough of that in our youths, so we don't need Burton mocking us once again.

As for setting his film in the 70s, the only reason seems to be a desire to have Barnabas host a disco party at Collinwood. That, and to use music from the decade. How much do you want to bet that the soundtrack cue will be Disco Inferno when Angelique mutters, "Burn, baby, burn," as she torches the Collins Canning Factory?

As for Depp, I expected to see him slathered in pale makeup once again (it must be in the contract anytime he works with Burton). But, as his work in Sweeney Todd indicates, Depp could have pulled off a brooding, angry Barnabas Collins, no matter the amount of pale pancake applied to his face. Yet, he's falling back into his Captain Jack Sparrow act once again, complete with buffoonish reactions and line delivery. "I must admit, they have not aged a day," is not what Barnabas would say to the witch who turned him into a vampire and imprisoned him for centuries, no matter how eternal her bosom may appear.

This film will isolate the fan base expecting a serious treatment, though I suspect it will make a ton of money. Some of the comments on the web indicate that people aren't familiar with the original Dark Shadows and assume the campy attitude is a direct reflection of the show. That help the film find an audience, but Dan Curtis and his team didn't set out to make a camp classic. The show feels campy because of the soap opera format and the pressures of making a half hour show every day of the week (the original 5 year run contains 1,225 episodes, more than Doctor Who or the complete Star Trek franchise). And, to be honest, four decades have passed since the show left the air, and what might have taken seriously in the 60s could seem dated and campy to a modern audience.

Still, it's no excuse for this mockery of a movie. While such a treatment might sit well with a younger audience unfamiliar with the original, it's sacrilege to the fans who anticipated a more serious treatment of Dark Shadows on the big screen.

Alien 3 (1992)

It happens to everyone. You dislike a film, then rewatch it years later and discover it wasn’t as bad as you thought. Perhaps you initial response was marred by the events in your life. Or maybe a few years more of life experiences allowed you to see something in the film you missed in your previous viewing.

In the spirit of such misguided opinions, I’m starting a new feature entitled Is It Really That Bad? Each month, I’ll pick a film I disliked/hated/had issues with when I first watched it and see if time has changed my opinion. For my first film, I decided to watch both the theatrical and director’s version of Alien ³, to see if the original wasn’t as bad as I thought, or if the studio mandated re-edits and re-shoots ruined the director’s version.

In truth, neither film is horrid, but both are misguided and show that Hollywood just didn’t know how to handle a strong female lead back in the early 1990s (not that the studios have a clue even now).

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!! Proceed with caution or, better yet, watch the movie first!

The film opens with the survivors of Aliens in suspended animation aboard the Sulaco. The ship’s hull is breached after a facehugger is injured trying to get into one of the pods and the survivors are ejected into an escape pod. The vessel crashes into an ocean on Fiornia ‘Fury’ 161, close to a penal colony/work camp for “double Y chromosome offenders.”

Right away, the two versions significantly differ. In the Theatrical Release, the inmates explore the craft and find Ripley to be the only survivor. Hicks was reduced to hamburger by a falling support beam, Newt appears to have drowned and Bishop suffers more damage in the crash and is tossed into the trash heap. In the Director’s Version, Ripley washes ashore at the feet of Clemans (Charles Dance), the colony medical officer. The escape pod is pulled ashore by a team of ox and the others suffer the same fate as in the Theatrical Cut. This version of the story makes more sense, at least concerning Ripley’s survival. The cover of both Ripley and Newt’s pods were damaged (presumably by the facehugger). And as both pods were submerged after the crash, Ripley would have drowned alongside Newt. But I doubt sensibility was a concern during the reshoot. Instead, it feels like an attempt to link the opening of Alien ³ to the beginning moments of Aliens, only without the use of a robotic arm.

A lot of criticism was leveled at the script for killing off most of the survivors from Cameron’s sequel while they slept. 20^th Century Fox’s response was that too many years had passed and actor Carrie Henn could no longer portray a young Newt. But, in truth, by starting the movie up just moments after the ending of it’s predecessor, the script avoids the problems of re-introducing the xenomorphs and figuring out a way to get the characters involved several years after the events on LV-426. And while the studios were right about Henn’s age being a problem with her continuing in the roll in this instance, I suspect fans would not have minded another age appropriate actress taking up the role, or a replacement actor taking up the role of Hick, had Michael Biehn not wanted to continue in the series. While it’s possible that the studio execs were not willing to be edgy enough to maroon a young girl in a colony of sex offenders, such a move would have re-enforced the family dynamic introduced in the second film.

Though both versions allow the fans to say goodbye to both Hicks and Newt during a rather elaborate cremation, it’s obvious the script was intent on isolating Ripley once again. But one wonders why the script placed her in a male penal colony. It can be argued that she is truly isolated, and the environment adds an element of danger other than the xenomorph. Others might argue the script is punishing Ripley for being a strong women and too much of a hero in the other films (the script does punish Ripley, but we’ll talk about that later). But I think that’s a rather shallow reading of a film so ripe with religious symbolism.

The remaining inmates have created a religious sect and, isolated from the temptations of society (possessions and, most important, women), these men decided to stay on and are celibate followers of Dillon (Charles S. Dutton), who acts as leader and priest. It’s a shame the script doesn’t use this set up to explore the idea of hiding from one’s temptation as a path to salvation. Instead, the script devolves into the expected stereotypical pattern. Of course, a small group attempt to rape Ripley and Dillon intervenes, but the script could have gone deeper. Dillon is adamant that Ripley be taken off the planet, as she’s a threat to his flock’s spiritual wellbeing. So it’s quite possible that he wasn’t saving Ripley, but, rather, his followers. And, though he admits to being a murderer and rapist, Dillon never exhibits signs of inner temptation himself. And it’s never addressed why he doesn’t consider killing Ripley, thus removing the threat to his flock.

But the script really has no interest in developing such ideas. Instead, all the religious trappings are only used to convert Ripley to a Christ-like figure. She falls from the heavens into a den of sinners, only to be beaten, humiliated and berated by both convicts and authority figures. Yet, despite such mistreatment, she is willing to sacrifice herself to save them and the rest of humanity. In case you haven’t got the message, the script has her assume the position of the crucifix twice in the final act.

David Fincher, making his big budget debut, was besieged with problems during production, including the lack of finished script before production started. It should be no surprise that the religious symbology doesn’t gel into a solid part of the narrative. But at the end of the film, as the fiery furnaces of the lead smelting plant are shut down and a brilliant sunrise graces the surface of the planet, it quite obvious that the filmmakers were aiming to make Ripley a martyr, with her sacrifice closing down the film’s version of Hell and offering humanity a new lease on life by eliminating the xenomorph threat.

But the script’s jumbled mess, while not quite fleshing out Ripley’s role as martyr, also destroys her character arc over the past two films. In Alien ³, she is less of a leader, waiting for the inmates to ask for her help before taking charge. Perhaps it’s connected to the film’s religious tones, where the sinners must ask for salvation. Or maybe she knows they won’t listen to her and bides her time until they ask for her help. Whatever the reason, the script never explains why Ripley, who took control of a group of space Marines in the last film, would decide to fall silent now.

Were that the only flaw in the script’s treatment of the character, one could forgive such a minor transgression. But the screenwriters muck things up further. To start, Ripley pressures Clemans to perform an autopsy on Newt (in a very well done scene) to look for signs of an infectious disease. For some reason, she won’t explain to anyone about the xenomorph, not even Clemans, whom she trusts enough to sleep with the night after Newt and Hicks are cremated.

Okay, Ripley might have been looking for solace in someone’s arms. Or, as Clemans suggests, her affections might have been a way to keep him from asking questions about her suspicious behavior concerning the bodies of Newt and Hicks. But the script doesn’t bother to give us any motivation for her actions, making Ripley’s behavior rather sluttish. After all, she’s just lost her surrogate family, so if she’s going to sleep with some stranger in a male prison colony, the script needs to give her some motivation.

Worse still, after spending most of the film complaining about a sore throat, shortness of breath and chest pains, Ripley is surprised to discover she is carrying an Alien inside her chest (I warned you about spoilers). The creature is discovered after Ripley becomes concern that her symptoms might not be the after affects of suspended animation, but the result of an internal hemorrhage suffered during the crash. Yet she forgets the fact that a snarling Alien was ready to put its extendable jaw through her head, only to back away and let her live. It’s implausible that this woman, who was smart enough to defeat the Alien threat twice, could be so stupid. In fact, it’s only possible if the screenwriters wanted to surprise the audience in the third act and didn’t care if they had to drop their main character’s IQ level by a few dozen points to achieve it.

The Alien itself is another problem, as the creature skips the worm-like chest bursting stage, now emerging from its victims in a near adult state. While one convict comes across a shed skin, the creature’s appearance doesn’t change as dramatically as in the previous films. And though Ripley says it doesn’t move like the others she’s encountered, which suggests that Alien physiology is altered by the organism it gestates within, the end result is too feline to have come from an ox or dog.

On the plus side, the acting is solid and the sequences of the convicts hunting down the Alien are suspenseful. But neither compensate for a directionless script that sends Ripley adrift, subject to the whims of the screenwriters. Had the production waited until the script was finished, the film might have been a solid addition to the series. But, as it stands, Alien ³ is a vivid example that even a talented filmmaker can’t seem to capture the essence of the first two installments. The future doesn’t look good for Prometheus.

My opinion stands: I still don’t like it.

Next month, I tackle a movie that had me shouting in a crowded theater when the final twist is reveled. I haven't seen The Lost Boys since 1987, so let's find out if my anger at the big twist ending has cooled since then.