There isn't likely to be a single person out there who isn't atleast aware of the Titanic disaster, and there are certainly many who have been touched in some way by the story of the ill-fated liner, whether it be through a personal connection to the sinking or simply by embracing the scale of the tragedy.
2:30am this morning marked the centenary of the sinking, and enthusiasm towards the ship and its story doesn't seem to have dwindled one bit, even after 100 years. Various documentaries and dramatisations are being broadcast across various TV channels - some with lavish production values and others being less adventurous rehashes of previously seen material.
But out of all of these programmes, the one that's impressed me the most is the National Geographic documentary Titanic: Case Closed. Rather than simply regurgitate old ideas or provide a dramatic insight into what 'might' have happened, Titanic investigator and published author Tim Maltin has gathered years of meticulous research and presented his well studied theories to the viewing public. His aim is to establish exactly what happened that fateful night - why did such a marvel of technical shipbuilding with such an experienced crew meet such an unexpected fate? And I have to say, his findings are fascinating.
Tim Maltin examines the Titanic deck plans
Maltin poses a number of questions as the programme opens. Why did the Titanic lookouts fail to see the iceberg until it was so close to the ship, particularly since the conditions that night were apparently so clear, and why did the nearby steamer Californian fail to respond to the Titanic's visual Morse code distress signals across the open ocean? These are questions that have remained unanswered for a hundred years due to insufficient scientific knowledge.
After the sinking of the liner, many supposedly 'incompetent' crewmen were blamed for their failure to avert the disaster, becoming the scapegoats for White Star Line's mistakes as the shipping company faced financial disaster. Captain Stanley Lord of the Leyland Line steamship Californian, for example, had his name disgraced and his career ruined for apparently 'ignoring' the call for aid from the sinking ship. The lookouts on the Titanic, Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee, were disbelieved when they claimed a certain 'haze' had hung over the horizon that night, therefore making the iceberg near impossible to spot until it was nearly within striking distance. They were even accused of not paying proper attention to the sea, and blame was pointed at the officers for failing to equip them with a needed pair of binoculars.
Maltin's documentary boldly suggests that it wasn't human error responsible for the sinking of the ship, as previously believed. He effectively tries to clear the names of all those who've gone down in history as failing to perform their duties. Perhaps this is too late for those particular individuals, but as far as setting the record straight goes, it's a huge achievement.
Maltin visits the famous piece of Titanic's hull looking for clues
Maltin's theory suggests that atmospheric conditions on the night of April 14th/15th 1912 were infact imperceptibly dangerous, despite the calm appearance of things.
"It was very much a killing zone of nature due to atmospheric conditions - extreme high pressure and no moon, calm waters, and most importantly, this thing called a thermal inversion. A mirage, high pressure and darkness just came together."
Trying to illustrate Maltin's theory
Maltin's 'thermal inversion' occurred when the warm air of the Gulf Stream was suddenly cooled when coming into contact with the icy water of the Labrador current flowing south with the ice field, creating a layer of extremely cold air beneath a layer of warm air. Maltin explains that a 'cold water mirage' caused by this meeting of air temperatures would have effectively contorted the view of the horizon by refracting light. These conditions would have caused an array of atmospheric anomalies, many having been described in detail by survivors of the sinking but ignored due to lack of relevant knowledge in years past. It certainly matches up with Fleet and Lee's description of a 'haze' on the horizon. The effect of this mirage would have prevented the lookouts from seeing the iceberg against the night sky, perhaps even with a pair of binoculars, and almost certainly would have caused great confusion for Captain Stanley Lord in trying to identify the profile of the distant Titanic.
Another side effect of the refraction would have been the impression of vividly twinkling stars due to the bending of light in the air as it passed through the two temperate layers - something else which eyewitnesses reported seeing that night. It's no stretch of the imagination to suppose that Captain Lord would have had immense difficulty recognising the flashing of Titanic's morse code signal with both an unclear horizon and the distraction of so many blinking stars.
Cold water mirage effect caught on camera
There are many other theories and scientific explanations presented, including the idea that the heart of the 'killing zone' where Titanic foundered could have been a pocket of atmospheric pressure higher than anywhere else in the northern hemisphere at the time, with dramatically lower temperatures than normal. Weather records from ships travelling the Atlantic shipping lanes during 1912 seem to support this theory, with temperatures abruptly dropping from around 13 degrees Celsius to as low as minus 1 while crossing the Titanic disaster site - the same drastic drop in temperature that Titanic passengers themselves experienced not long before the ship struck the iceberg. The clash of warm and cold fronts at that particular time and location had created the perfect conditions for the disaster to occur, and it's possible than any number of bizarre atmospheric phenomenon could have been witnessed that night.
It is important to remember that these are all just theories, but what Maltin gets crucially right is showing evidence of these 'phenomenon' in action, aswell as lots of supporting texts including historical documents and overlooked statements from the survivors themselves. The findings are incredible, and by the time the credits rolled, I had no doubt they were as accurate as they could be considering the years that have passed. My immediate reaction to all the information presented was, how on Earth hasn't this come to light before? It will entirely change popular perception of what happened that night in 1912. No more blame to be laid upon crew members or apparent flawed shipbuilding. The Titanic was purely unlucky that night, meeting an entirely unforeseen side effect of the unpredictable environment, and sinking in possibly the worst icy conditions imaginable.
I highly recommend disregarding my overly simplistic explanation of these theories and checking the documentary out yourself, especially if you're remotely interested in Titanic. It's the first piece of television in many years - or any entertainment format for that matter - that's deeply affected my opinion of what happened that night. And unlike the barrage of overly familiar material that hits our screens on important occasions like this, it does what a good documentary should do. It teaches us new things.
In the space of the next few (?) paragraphs, I'm going to convince you to shell out between £3 and 5 and buy Red Faction: Guerilla on Xbox 360 or Playstation 3, even if you've owned it before.
This is the only game I've ever bought twice. Come to think of it, I can't remember why I got rid of it in the first place (probably to fund some new and disappointing Xbox release). But I've been craving some Red Faction action ever since, and with the hefty price tag of £3 preowned attached to it at my local CEX store, I took a leap and bought the game again.
It feels like forever since I first played through Guerrilla, but in reality it's only been two and a half years, so take the term 'retrospective' in the title lightly. Guerrilla is still a current gen game and it's largely competitive with anything in the game charts. Graphically, it's still above average and it's one of the most technologically innovative games available, even when squared up against the current competition. This game is incredible, and having only great memories of it on the first playthrough, picking it up a second time was a no brainer.
Open World
This is a sandbox game, but unlike other such games the map's not overly large and there's always some degree of story oriented guidance to keep you focused and prevent you from getting bored. There's not much of a reason to stray from the beaten path anyway (unless you want to smash things, which is ridiculously enjoyable), as most of the open terrain is dusty, rocky and generally red. It's the barren surface of Mars, but that's part of the charm. As the sun pans across the sky in an accelerated day/night cycle, real-time shadows shift across the terrain, and at night shooting stars travel from horizon to horizon. This is an open world sci-fi game, and in that sense it's something of a rarity. Small outposts and colonial structures clutter the landscape, and buggies, trucks and military vehicles populate the roadways while EDF gunships patrol the skies. The map is divided into sectors of control which must be fought for, and once your influence in a particular sector has become significant enough, Red Faction soldiers will come to your aid during combat. When you get into a combat situation in this game, a combination of hilarious vehicle physics and low gravity can lead to quite the memorable set piece. But essentially, it's the environment and its ridiculous levels of destruction that make Guerrilla so much fun.
Destruction
Guerrilla has the best destruction system I've ever seen in a game, courtesy of the Geomod 2.0 engine. As you smash your way through walls with the franchise's iconic sledgehammer, it feels like they're coming apart brick by brick. Setting explosive charges and demolishing a building by destabilising its centre of gravity never gets old, watching it crumble like a real world demolition as pieces of the construct topple down in ever more interesting ways. Destabilising a huge industrial chimney and watching it fall through the roof of the next door building to crush your foes is particularly incredible. Nothing is scripted - it's just the unpredictable physics of the game at work. Optional hostage rescue missions, which are usually a chore in any other game, are a particular highlight. Go in all guns blazing, snipe captors from afar, or my particular favourite - ram a dumper truck through the walls and bring half the building down, pick up the hostages and drive off. Child's play. And rather than let your enthusiasm for these amazing physics dwindle over time, destruction has been implemented as a fundamental mechanic of the game. Toppled structures deposit chunks of scrap metal that must be collected in order to upgrade and purchase weapons at a Red Faction headquarters. Smashing things becomes compulsively addictive as you strive to unlock the biggest gun to smash through more buildings. Destruction is such a pivotal feature of the game that a turn based 'wrecking crew' mode can be accessed from the main menu, which challenges you to smash up as much of a particular scene as possible within an allotted time limit.
Drive thru
It makes me feel like a badass
This game is not easy, especially if you ramp the difficulty up to the higher levels. But regardless of the odd game rage inducing moment where several AI controlled EDF vehicles decide to steamroll your corpse until you are dead, it's escapist fun. Weapons are powerful and varied, so blasting your way through hordes of enemies is addictive. Manning turrets on armoured cars (some of which look strikingly like the APC from James Cameron's Aliens) is thoroughly satisfying. When your vehicle gets damaged, simply eliminate the crew of the next one and commandeer another. The low gravity comes into play here, allowing you to take lunging aerial leaps and come down on top of a vehicle, or even on an unsuspecting foe's head with your sledgehammer. And there's a cover system, which isn't nearly as advanced as the one featured in the Gears of War franchise for example, but considering the entirely destructible nature of Guerrilla's battlefield, I'm impressed it works as well as it does. The explosive charges deployed to bring down structures can be thrown and attached to just about anything, including enemy infantry (just like the original Red Faction). Nothing revolutionary here, but the game certainly knows how to let you be creative with your killing. Then there's the jet pack, which allows you to launch yourself skyward for a good 3-4 seconds before coming down in an advantageous location. It's certainly not possible to fly around the map (although the jet pack on the multiplayer modes allows a little more air time), but these minor restrictions feel like they were always supposed to be part of the game design, rather than being shoehorned into the final product to aid with player vs. AI balancing. Mention must also be made of the walkers, both industrial and military. These are mechanical suits, similar in nature to the famous powerloader from James Cameron's Aliens (the influences of popular film on this game are obvious). Usable as vehicles in Guerrilla, they allow you to run, punch, smash and shoot your way through just about every inanimate and hostile object in the game. Using them makes you feel like a badass.
Building + Propane tank + rifle fire = flying man
'Get your ass to Mars'
Yes it's true that Red Faction is as close to 'Total Recall: The Videogame' as we're likely to get. And just to clarify, I'm talking about the 1990 version of Total Recall, where he actually goes to Mars. Red Faction: Guerrilla gives you the red planet and the rebelling force of miners and civilians versus the oppression of a larger military force. It gives you the quaint little bubble cars and Martian vistas. It gives you the lone protagonist and the means to lay waste to everything, Schwarzenegger style. It highlights and utilises a lot of the points that made that film great, but it does it without a movie licence hanging over it, which inevitably seems to ruin everything video game related.
Paul Verhoeven's Mars in Total Recall, 1990
The multiplayer is good aswell
With a lengthy campaign including plenty of side missions to see you through to 100% completion, and a full expansion pack to further extend your solo playtime, Guerrilla is quite a substantial single player experience. But despite this, there's a multiplayer offering too, and it certainly hasn't been tacked on as an afterthought. There are the typical game modes such as deathmatch and capture the flag style matches, but there are also destruction based modes where you must raze your opponent's base to the ground. In turn, your enemy have a 'reconstructor' device they can use to rebuild their structures while trying to destroy yours. It's important to mention that this game mode is very fun, and very unique to this game and its destruction engine. Also featured are different 'backpacks' for different player classes, each offering a specific powerup including the ability to run faster, fly for a short period of time, burst through walls, or send out a damaging shockwave. Playing matches awards the player points which count towards a basic, but effective unlock system.
To sum up...
Now I've told you how amazing it is, I have to be fair and say this game isn't perfect. Some may criticise it for being ugly at times. The Martian vistas can look anywhere from beautiful, to lazy and empty. The visuals themselves can look a little messy in places, like too much has been crammed into one space (the PC version is supposedly superior in this respect). But these are flaws that can easily be overlooked where I'm concerned, as the game is just too much fun to deny. Getting killed by the rampant AI can be irritating sometimes, but I can never be angry with it for long. The destruction system and physics are something to behold, and I'm still surprised that Geomod 2.0 hasn't been used in more game titles since Guerilla's 2009 release. There is ofcourse the sequel to consider - Red Faction: Armageddon - but the linearity of that newer title is somewhat offputting. The destruction of Geomod is so much more entertaining when employed in a open world/sandbox environment.
So really, if you like the idea of smashing things apart, driving around Mars in various vehicles inspired by popular sc-fi movie culture to the vibe of Total Recall (1990), then you can't go wrong. Especially for under £5.
The original title of this article was 'Most Hated Sequel' - a status that Alien 3 has held onto since the first time I saw it. I remember my unpleasant reaction to the film clearly, and my subsequent decision to forget I'd ever seen it. But many years have passed, and having purchased the Alien Anthology on Bluray, I decided to revisit the Special Edition (Assembly Cut) of Alien 3 and see if time has altered my opinion of the film.
What The Film Got Right
David Fincher's Alien 3 isn't universally hated. There are many who would defend it to the bitter end, and I will admit that it does have redeeming features - particularly in the Assembly Cut, which is far superior to the theatrical version of the film.
Visually the film is quite striking - possibly the best looking film in the series - and the music score by composer Elliot Goldenthal is highly under-appreciated, perhaps being the most genuinely moving and memorable element of the movie. The film itself can feel very emotionally inaccessible (or overwhelming for some), and Goldenthal's music is the element that elevates it to another level and emphasises those key emotional beats. In fact, it fits the film like a glove, and while I can't motivate myself to sit through the gruelling experience of Alien 3 on anything but the rarest of occasions, I listen to the music frequently. Odd.
Music by Elliot Goldenthal written for the film's finale
Another thing that Alien 3 at least attempted to get right was taking the franchise back to basics by including a lone alien antagonist. It's still a bit formulaic and not quite different enough from its predecessors, but at least it avoided pitting an army of aliens against an army of marines, which most assumed would be the inevitable amplification of the series after James Cameron's Aliens. Admittedly, an all out battle between aliens and marines sounds like a good idea until you realise the franchise would have been quickly watered down into an action cliche with monsters in it (I guess that sort of happened in 1997 anyway with Alien Resurrection). The Alien series isn't supposed to be about 'fighting aliens,' and Alien 3 did well to steer clear of depicting an all out alien war, which was most definitely considered as an option during the film's planning.
While taking the opposite approach, Alien 3 went too far in its exploration of the darker tones of the series, and the result is an unbearably dystopian sci-fi film that all but invalidates everything that happened in the previous movie. But more on that later.
There are also some interesting concepts in the film, such as Ripley being 'violated' and impregnated by the alien facehugger and then finding herself surrounded by rapists and murderers on Furia 161. These inmates have the opportunity to redeem themselves in her eyes and show their inner decency, and this concept is carried for a little while, but ultimately wasted.
Also nice is the use of religious iconography. The prisoners have accepted God in an attempt to put their shady pasts behind them. Ripley is the female temptation in their midst, and Dillon is their preacher. The alien represents evil in the shape of a demon, and they are lambs to the slaughter (the choir in Goldenthal's score sings 'Agnus Dei' which in latin means lamb of God). Inmate Golic even begins to worship the alien like some kind of religious figure, freeing it from containment in the Assembly Cut and asking what it wants of him. These are all interesting ideas.
This picture sums up Alien 3 nicely
The film is in some regards quite stylistically unique. From beginning to end, it's steeped in a feeling of sheer hopelessness (perhaps embodying the feelings of director and crew during the film's troubled production) that no other film has quite managed to capture, which is at once both an incredible achievement and its ultimate undoing. If you want to be utterly emotionally exhausted by a film, Alien 3 is a fine choice, but your average cinema-goer doesn't want that kind of experience, especially when the film is deciding the fate of characters they've already invested themselves in. The viewer is bombarded with one depressing revelation after another, and after a while it becomes a little too much. The only redemption to be had in Alien 3 is by the act of self sacrifice.
Where Did The Alien Come From?
The alien in this movie comes from a lazy place known as 'plot convenience.' In the opening sequence, we find an alien egg is stowed away in the interior of the Sulaco. 'What?' you say. 'But the only way that egg could have gotten there is if the Alien Queen left it during the final confrontation in Aliens. But according to that movie, the Queen herself doesn't lay the eggs, they come from a giant ovipositor that she nests with. She certainly wasn't carrying that in her pocket when she boarded the Sulaco.' Yes, this means there's no logical explanation for the egg at the beginning of Alien 3, right?
How did you get in here?
According to the two previous films in the Alien series, a facehugger lays one infant alien in its host, then falls off and dies.
As for the theatrical release of Alien 3, the facehugger attaches itself to Ripley and impregnates her with an infant Alien Queen, then goes on to lay another in the dog on planet Fiorina
In the far superior Assembly Cut, we are told that a 'Queen Facehugger' lays the embryo in Ripley and then in an Ox on 'Fury' 161, sort of justfying its questionable ability to infect more than one host. But if you look very closely in this version there are now two distinctly different facehuggers involved - a regular one on the Sulaco, and the Queen Facehugger in the scene with the Ox. Now how do you suppose two Alien eggs got aboard? This clearly demonstrates the lack of coherency at this point in the production - the explanation we are given conflicts directly with what we see onscreen. The flawed opening act opposes the established concepts of the series in favour of a forced and convenient way to propel the third film forward. Even if you accept the explanations given, it's still all very vague and...convenient.
The blame for these oversights can't be directed at anyone in particular. Almost every Alien 3 script penned by various writers between 1988 and 1992 forcefully introduces the concept of an egg hidden away on the Sulaco, and each and every one of those scripts fails to give a rational explanation for it being there. Fox's desperation to get a sequel produced is evident, even at the expense of basic continuity.
Killing Major Characters During The Opening Credits
Within the first ten minutes of Alien 3, Newt is dead. The little girl that Ripley risked everything to save in the previous movie is gone, and the entire third act of Aliens becomes redundant. The audience is alienated as major characters are eliminated from the story to conveniently turn the focus back to Ripley, whom the producers deem to be the indispensable element of the franchise. Later in the film, we even see Newt being dissected on an autopsy table, as if killing her wasn't enough to disgust fans. Even now, watching this and already knowing what happens, the opening scenes are still pretty harsh to watch if you're a fan of the first two entries in the series.
Newt's drowned body in the EEV, very briefly seen during the theatrical cut
Oh and Hicks, the marine who outlasted his entire platoon in Aliens? The only glimpse we get of him is of his mangled corpse in the escape craft wreckage. His head was pulverised by a falling 'safety beam.' I can just envision the conversation that took place now.
Producer: Hicks is not in the script. He died. At least that's one less actor's salary we have to pay. Prop Artist: But surely he needs to be dead in the escape vehicle at the beginning, otherwise people will wonder where he went? Producer: We'll smash his head off then, so we don't have to pay Michael Biehn for the use of his likeness.
The insulting thing is, Michael Biehn wasn't even invited to reprise his role. He was simply informed that he wasn't wanted for the sequel. This revelation was 'heartbreaking' to the actor as he'd just assumed that such well developed characters as Hicks and Newt would return.
'It's a slap in the face for fans and myself,' said James Cameron when he learned of the demise of the characters that he had lovingly written and directed for Aliens. Sci-fi novelist Alan Dean Foster - who also novelised Alien and Aliens - was so enraged by the deaths of these characters that he attempted to 'adjust' the course of events in the novelisation, but was subsequently forbidden from doing so by Fox.
At least Bishop (Lance Henriksen) got to make a cameo appearance, if that's any consolation?
Hey look Bishop made it...sort of
One might assume that it was Fincher or screenwriters David Giler and Walter Hill who were responsible for so insensitively killing off these major characters. But in fact New Zealand filmmaker Vincent Ward, who was director of Alien 3 for a length of time during the post-production stages, had written the first version of the story to outright kill Hicks and Newt. His story was to have taken place on a giant wooden planet inhabited by monks, and while this concept was abandoned, many elements from his story were adopted by the final draft of the screenplay, including the overall story structure and characterisation. The religious inclinations of Ward's monks would also be adopted by the inmates of 'Fury' 161.
"One of the first things I wanted to do was kill her off. She kind of annoyed me" - Vincent Ward speaking of Newt's character, 1990
By the time Giler and Hill took over screenwriting duties and merged the various screenplay ideas together, the core concept of the film was already way into post-production and their ability to mould the story to any great degree was limited. The fates of Hicks and Newt were sealed.
Hicks was quite a major character in the previous film. Honest.
Killing New Major Characters For No Reason
As if the 'slap in the face' of Hicks and Newt's death wasn't enough for you all, the film spends a good while introducing Charles Dance's new character Clemens. Don't worry, Clemens isn't a rapist or murderer like everyone else around these parts. He's just a disgraced doctor - absolutely nothing to worry about there. But despite everything, we start to take a liking to Clemens. He's compassionate about Ripley's predicament, and he's always around to hold her hand or keep a watchful eye over her. There is that awkward and utterly random sex scene between them in the theatrical cut, apparently included because one of the producers suggested it was about time Ripley had a man (idiots). But despite that, Clemens quickly becomes a real character among the mob of indiscernible angry bald men. We even think he may be able to redeem this film to some degree, as he's another potential companion for Ripley (as Hicks was) and he's displaying traits that suggest he's fundamentally good and...oh wait, he's just had his brain splattered up the curtain for no apparent reason whatsoever. Wow, this film is doing a fine job of winning me over.
The other character to get some real screen time is Dillon, played by Charles S. Dutton. He's a rapist apparently, but regardless of this he claims to have found God, and offers Ripley a degree of protection. In the final act, he gets killed too.
There's definitely a clearly defined message in Alien 3 - that being good, honest and just in this universe means certain gory death. The alien becomes a figurative representation of sin, and in facing up to your sins you're squaring yourself up against the alien, which never ends well. Not exactly uplifting material.
If people look this happy in Alien 3, someone is surely about to die
Giving Ripley's Character An Anticlimactic Resolution
Cue the most beautiful music in the Alien series, a vat of bubbling molten metal not unlike that from the conclusion of Terminator 2, and a heroine ready to sacrifice herself for the good of mankind. It's the recipe for the ultimate finale to a turbulent trilogy. So why do I not care?
Well first of all, Ripley's character already had resolution at the end of Aliens, and if I'm honest I really prefer that conclusion to the Alien saga. In that sense, Alien 3 felt like an unnecessary continuation of a story that was already told to its natural finish.
Still, Ripley's sendoff at the end of Alien 3 could have been spectacular, but it seems the writers decided to eliminate all emotional vices from the get-go. Think about it. Ripley is standing over a pot of molten metal. Newt is dead, Hicks is dead, Clemens is dead (perhaps not so important), Bishop is in parts somewhere, she's got nothing on Earth to go back to, the Weyland Yutani guys are there trying to get their grubby hands on the alien which, as it happens, is just about to pop out of her chest. Bishop 2 (or Charles Weyland if you prefer) is telling her she can 'still have a life,' yet as soon as she steps onto the gantry above the vat of metal, her decision is justified when he reveals his motivations are not for her safety. If you add that all up, I think anyone would jump to their death under those circumstances. There's little to no emotional conflict in the scene.
On speaking of his disappointment with the story, author Alan Dean Foster suggested they could have kept Newt alive for the duration of the film - perhaps in stasis or in a limited role - and used her to create conflict in that final scene as Ripley decides between death, and Newt, and ultimately decides to jump into the lead to ensure a safer future for the child. It's perhaps the bright spark of hope the film needed to justify all the pain the characters go through.
Despite the failings of Alien 3, Director David Fincher has more than proven himself in the years since with such films as Fight Club, Seven and Zodiac, and despite severe pressure from interfering studio execs during Alien 3's production, early hints of his distinctive style are evident in that film too. Whether his stylistic influence was responsible for the overwhelmingly depressing tone of Alien 3 is debatable (Fox execs seem to think his 'artsy' and non-commercially friendly approach ruined the movie), but in honesty the faults of the film lie with the writers. Vincent Ward decided to kill Hicks and Newt - a decision which was to divide the entire fanbase - and a variety of writers were responsible for the implausible opening with its magically appearing alien egg. Fincher's job was merely to come in and pick up the pieces, and make the best film he possibly could with an array of pre-conceived ingredients. It's fair to say that for his first directing job, Alien 3 must have been a bitter experience.
He's since distanced himself from the franchise entirely, stating his dislike of Alien 3 and refusing to partake in any of its subsequent digital re-releases. In addition to this, he's also refused to work on any sequels or sci-fi films in the intervening years - a sure sign of the impact such a troubled production has had on his views of film making.
Director Fincher on the set of Alien 3 at the age of 28
The popular opinion is that Fincher was chosen particularly because he was young and inexperienced at the time, and the producers wanted someone they could control. It backfired in their faces when he turned out to have his own strong vision for Alien 3, and their constant interference caused huge conflicts on the set. One famous quote jokingly suggests there were more producers on the set than actors.
The problem was, from the moment of its conception to the last day of production, each and every person involved had a different idea of what Alien 3 should be. Nobody could agree on a single concept, and no single person was allowed to pursue their creative vision. It's an assortment of ideas all merged together into one inconsistent final product, unlike Alien and Aliens, where the respective directors were allowed more creative freedom. Fincher never had that luxury.
Although responsibility ultimately lies with numerous conflicting parties, it's pretty evident that it was greed on the part of Fox that made this sequel what it is. The script was still in development when principal photography had begun, two directors were fired before Fincher himself was shoehorned into the role (who himself was fired as the film went into the edit room). A release date had even been announced before a final decision was made on a director or a story. The now famous teaser trailer, released far ahead of schedule to secure an audience and push the production forward, depicts a different scenario entirely, with the narrator stating 'on Earth, everyone can hear you scream.' Going into production, Alien 3 had no idea what it was or where it was going - its producers only knew that they wanted to make a large amount of money with the franchise name.
"As a studio we set out to make a release date, not a movie" - Jon Landau, Ex 20th Century Fox producer
Having watched the film again I can conclude that Alien 3 is still a terrible sequel. Not only did it fail to do justice to its predecessors, but it also did a narrative U-turn that directly opposed the expectations of 90% of its audiences. The elimination of some of my favourite characters is still unforgivable, and I can only wonder what this film could have been if creativity had been the focus rather than money. Watched as a continuation of James Cameron's Aliens, Alien 3 is hard to stomach as it shows blatant disregard for continuing characters and the established logic of the series. But watched individually and judged on its own merits, it's a well executed film that is intriguing, darkly atmospheric and beautifully shot. It presents some interesting ideas that simmer under an oppressively dark atmosphere, and it clearly wears the damaging marks of an overcomplicated and tense production schedule on its shoulders.
And therein lies the problem. Alien 3 is not actually a bad film, it's just an awful sequel - probably being the reason I'm still writing articles about it 19 years after its release. I can't write it off because there are elements of it that I thoroughly enjoy, and if the writers hadn't taken such liberties with characters and story, I might actually recommend it as an intriguing slice of dystopian sci-fi. The Assembly Cut (Special Edition on DVD or Bluray) is the version to watch, being as close to Fincher's envisioned final cut as we're likely to see. This version adds some enlightening scenes and removes some unnecessary ones, and is clearly a more engaging viewing experience.
Releasing trailers for a film that still doesn't have a script is always fun
Fact: David Twohy wrote an early draft of Alien 3 which featured the prison planet 'Fury' 161, but no sign of Ellen Ripley. It was the accepted screenplay for a length of time until Fox gradually moved to another director (Vincent Ward) and another concept. While Twohy's script was abandoned, elements of it were retained in the final screenplay, and the concept itself was later rewritten and made into sci-fi/alien/thriller Pitch Black featuring Riddick, a Furian criminal.
Fact: The original concept for Alien 4 was to claim that Alien 3 had been Ripley's bad dream during hyper sleep in an attempt to appease the fans.
First off, let me just say the quantity of reviewers who've published articles on Alan Wake's American Nightmare and have no idea what they're talking about is astonishing. In almost every article I've read, American Nightmare is described as being a 'spin-off and not a direct continuation of the narrative in the original game.' Others have made direct complaints about 'wanting to see what happened to Alan Wake after the conclusion of the first game' and feeling disappointed that the new game was unrelated. For anyone who's actually paid attention, this is simply not true.
I'll attempt to explain this in spoiler-less fashion, as the story of the original Alan Wake is fantastic and I highly recommend playing it through if you haven't already, particularly if you're a fan of survival horror or the works of such writers as Stephen King. The narrative of the original game ends with a measure of resolution in that Alan has won the battle against the dark presence, but not without sacrifice. Two special DLC episodes, The Signal and The Writer, were released shortly after to directly continue this core storyline, with Alan trapped in the dark place (under the lake apparently) and the true influence of his writing skill allowing him to begin shaping the world around him. The conclusion of the second DLC is a tense cliffhanger. Alan finds his Doppelganger, Mr. Scratch, and begins writing a new story called 'The Return' on his typewriter in order to literally write himself out of the horrific scenario of Bright Falls. Most gamers assumed at this point that Remedy would release a third DLC called 'The Return' to wrap up the story entirely, and to show how Alan Wake would go on to escape from the dark place. The role of Mr. Scratch - the cynical and self destructive copy of the titular character - was at that point uncertain.
In Alan Wake's American Nightmare, Night Springs is the place in which Wake finds himself after writing his way out of Bright Falls. Evidence to support this theory? Read on.
Firstly, and most obviously, Mr. Scratch - Alan Wake's identical but evil twin, spawned at the conclusion of The Writer DLC - is the primary villain in American Nightmare, wreaking havoc everywhere he goes and leaving Wake cryptic messages via TVs throughout the game's 3 distinct areas. If you played The Writer DLC, then you'll remember that possessed television sets spouting insanity were the order of business, but this time Mr. Scratch has gained full control of his maniacal personality and the messages come through fast and clear. Direct story continuation? Check.
Also, at the very start of American Nightmare, as Alan regains consciousness following the opening live-action video cut scene, look to your right. You'll see the cabin from Cauldron Lake slowly slipping beneath the water as a last reminder of the reality that was Bright Falls. This is the stepping point between The Writer DLC and American Nightmare, as Wake writes himself into the new story we see a glimpse of what's left from his last manuscript.
Thirdly, if you simply play through, collect and actually read the manuscripts dotted about the 3 areas of the new game, then it's clearly explained on a number of occasions that Wake is still trying to reach Claire and events in Bright Falls are referenced many times - both written and in dialogue - as having previously occurred. I can't believe that, after all the reviews I've read, I seem to be the only one to have come to this conclusion.
Despite popular belief, American Nightmare is effectively Alan Wake 2, slimmed down for an Xbox Live Arcade release and written in such a way that newcomers won't feel lost without an existing knowledge of the franchise. But for those who are paying attention, details confirming its status as a sequel to the original game are clearly there. One possible reason that so many reviewers are describing the game so erroneously is that they simply haven't played The Signal and The Writer DLC. Without that additional content to bridge the gap between AW and American Nightmare, I can see why someone might come to such a misleading conclusion.
So to anyone reading this rather than any of the mainstream articles on high profile gaming sites, American Nightmare is definitely worth getting. It plays very similarly to the original title, and there are a number of subtle improvements here and there. A broader range of weapons creates a fast paced and action oriented atmosphere when compared to its predecessor, and the change of setting to Arizona is welcomed after many hours spent trawling through mountains and forests. There is more of an emphasis on free roaming in each of the three game areas, and an arcade survival mode with numerous maps makes for a welcome and enjoyable addition. Overall, it might feel slightly lightweight when compared to a full retail title, but it's probably the best game available on the Xbox Live Arcade at present.
But most importantly, American Nightmare continues where we left off in Alan Wake: The Writer, and such a finely written story deserves to be followed to its conclusion.
For those who saw the trailer to War Horse and immediately wanted to gouge their eyes out at the thought of watching a family-friendly horsey film set to the sweeping backdrop of World War One - this film isn't going to win you over. For those with a slightly more open mind, who understand that the range of 'family-friendly' Spielberg films include such well recognised works as E.T and Hook - War Horse isn't half bad at all, and the film itself definitely isn't as sentimental as the sickening trailer.
Yes, this is just another film making the point that 'war is bad, and people get hurt,' and this topic isn't at all foreign to Spielberg. His past works include Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Empire of the Sun, and two factually based HBO miniseries - Band of Brothers and The Pacific. It's safe to say the subject of war is of particular interest and is very personal to him, as references to war and the holocaust also inhabit many of his non-war movies.
But War Horse is different in that it delivers this anti-war message within a film that's suitable for the younger viewers among us, and quite importantly it's a film that young people will actually want to see. Your 12 year old son/daughter isn't likely to be in a hurry to watch a documentary about the horrors of war, and quite possibly the message as delivered in that medium might not even make sense to them. But show them a sad story about a horse, which represents the tragedy of war from a lovable four-legged creature's point of view, and suddenly it will all make sense. It's that perspective from which the success of this film can be best appreciated.
The battle scenes in the movie are quite a spectacle (if rather tame in regards to realistic violence), and mark the most epic depiction of World War One on the big screen for many years. In popular movies, it's a war that's generally overlooked, so it's nice to see Spielberg give it the grand treatment.
Acting is top rate on all counts, and the horse is represented well if not a little disconnected from the audience at times. The original tale by Michael Morpurgo was written from the perspective of the horse, so this is probably just a result of the necessary changes made to adapt the story from page to screen. Just think of it this way - if Disney had made this, the horse would probably have talked. That's enough to make anyone appreciate Spielberg's take on the material a whole lot more.
There were only two real gripes I had with the movie. The first was the use of English dialogue by German and French characters, which really bugged me from start to finish. But then I suppose you could again argue that they're trying to make a film that's accessible to children, and children are lazy and don't like to read? Still, having hammy German accents throughout many scenes ruined the illusion for me, especially when the German soldier claimed to speak 'very good English,' despite every other German character on the battlefield speaking fluent English aswell. Hmmm.
The other gripe (while minor) was lead character Albert sounding a bit too 'SamwiseGamgee' for my liking. I half expected him to shout out 'Mr. Frodo!' at just about any second and go bounding off to the Shire.
Overall though, it's not a bad movie, but it's very set on being a family film and therefore it might not be to everyone's tastes. It is a bit cheesy and predictable in parts, but when you think back to E.T for example, and how we put it on a pedestal because many of us grew up with it. Well surprise, E.T is incredibly cheesy too. War Horse is that same kind of cheesy - the kind that this generation of children will grow up with fond memories of.
