Monster Movie Recommendations

[bigdog5994]

Hold the Phone. AVP was better than Alone in the Dark and Behind Enemy lines, but worse than just about every other film I've ever seen. And while Alien3 and Alien Resurrection are not in the same league as Alien or Aliens, they aren't bad movies. AVP was so bad that I turned it off, hoping that the film would end with the universe imploding, thus destroying all the offending parties, including the people who made the film.

AVP was better than a Gene Hackman movie?? you better straighten up your act mister

 

[ParkCungHee]

Come on, how can you not mention Gojira - the original?

This.

Oh, and King Kong is probably one of the greatest films ever made.

 

[mariogreymist]

AVP was better than a Gene Hackman movie?? you better straighten up your act mister

Have you ever seen that garbage? It is the single most vacuous piece of pro-USA propaganda hollywood has ever produced. Shot like a music video, Behind Enemy Lines is not only idiotic in its conception, but also in its characterizations (the evil spanish general who wants to kill Americans under his NATO command, Serbians who couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat etc) but also a headache inducing nightmare that would have been better suited to viewing under A Clockwork Orange style conditions than sitting in a theatre or on a sofa.

And I love Gene Hackman's work...but that movie is pure trash, and he should be ashamed of himself for getting involved with it.

 

[mariogreymist]

The question about King Kong is always which version to watch...I actually like all 3.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Oh, and to get into less serious of films then King Kong and Godzilla:

The Blob holds up remarkably well, though I've never seen the new one.
THEM! Also stands up remarkably well.
I don't know if they count but all those "Lets give Ray Harryhausen money and see what he does" films are all great, not the least because they seem to have classically trained actors in them, even if they have Cheezy lines, they give them with real feeling.

Of the other Godzilla films, I'd recommend Godzilla Versus Mothra, King Kong Versus Godzilla, Godzilla Versus Gigan, Terror of Mechagodzilla and Destroy all Monsters. Their latest one, Godzilla: Final Wars was fun, though very weird, even by the Standards of a film series who's most recgonzable character to have dialog is a pair of singing fairies kept in a box to summon a gigantic Moth.
Do not even touch Godzilla Vs. The Sea Monster, Godzilla's Revenge or Godzilla versus Megalon...Okay, maybe that last one, if you like MSFT3k.

 

[bigdog5994]

Have you ever seen that garbage? It is the single most vacuous piece of pro-USA propaganda hollywood has ever produced. Shot like a music video, Behind Enemy Lines is not only idiotic in its conception, but also in its characterizations (the evil spanish general who wants to kill Americans under his NATO command, Serbians who couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat etc) but also a headache inducing nightmare that would have been better suited to viewing under A Clockwork Orange style conditions than sitting in a theatre or on a sofa.

And I love Gene Hackman's work...but that movie is pure trash, and he should be ashamed of himself for getting involved with it.

your so jaded, your honestly the most jaded person ive ever met

i will admit its not the best move the ending was absolutely ******ed but it was still 1000x better than the stupid crapfest that is AVP i mean its like a SciFi channel movie

 

[mariogreymist]

your so jaded, your honestly the most jaded person ive ever met

i will admit its not the best move the ending was absolutely ******ed but it was still 1000x better than the stupid crapfest that is AVP i mean its like a SciFi channel movie

I've had bowel movements 1000x more suited for public viewing than Behind Enemy Lines.

 

[Lord Baal]

It has to do with the characters. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura are far more compelling as political figures than as actors, and Carl Weathers...uh, I liked him playing himself in Arrested Development.

I can give you that. But Predator was never going to be a character drama.

Hold the Phone. AVP was better than Alone in the Dark and Behind Enemy lines, but worse than just about every other film I've ever seen. And while Alien3 and Alien Resurrection are not in the same league as Alien or Aliens, they aren't bad movies. AVP was so bad that I turned it off, hoping that the film would end with the universe imploding, thus destroying all the offending parties, including the people who made the film.

I feel that waay about AVP: Requiem, probably the single worst movie I've ever seen in my life, but the first AVP, while not great, was not bad at all. It was actually much better than the terrible Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection. It had nothing on the greatness of the first two Alien films, but it's still better than what came after them. Though I thank glorious Poseidon that Joss Whedon's original Alien: Resurrection script never made it to air. Get your hands on the Quadrilogy and read that script. It's horrible, and would have been worse than Requiem was.

Oh, and King Kong is probably one of the greatest films ever made.

If you speak of the original, yes.

I've had bowel movements 1000x more suited for public viewing than Behind Enemy Lines.

There are worse Gene hackman films. What's that one where they go to Vietnam to free those American POWs who are totally still there, despite no evidence of such and numerous evidence to the contrary?

 

[mariogreymist]

I can give you that. But Predator was never going to be a character drama.

But then again, neither were Alien or Aliens; yet somehow there were characters worth caring about in them.

I feel that waay about AVP: Requiem, probably the single worst movie I've ever seen in my life, but the first AVP, while not great, was not bad at all. It was actually much better than the terrible Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection. It had nothing on the greatness of the first two Alien films, but it's still better than what came after them. Though I thank glorious Poseidon that Joss Whedon's original Alien: Resurrection script never made it to air. Get your hands on the Quadrilogy and read that script. It's horrible, and would have been worse than Requiem was.

Is it really any shock that given my opinion of the first AVP movie that I skipped the sequel altogether? I also think you're selling Alien3 and Resurrection a bit short; while not great, they really aren't bad movies and are both visually interesting if nothing else.

There are worse Gene hackman films. What's that one where they go to Vietnam to free those American POWs who are totally still there, despite no evidence of such and numerous evidence to the contrary?

I guess I missed that one. It's more than just the story and characterizations that bother me in BEL too...I think epileptics should be warned against it, as the rapid cutaways (in any ten minute stretch, it's likely to have about 1 shot longer than 5 seconds) could probably induce seizures in those susceptible. And those shots that are longer than 5 seconds are almost exclusively slo-mo shots of Owen Wilson outrunning bullets.

 

[Lord Baal]

But then again, neither were Alien or Aliens; yet somehow there were characters worth caring about in them.

Aliens was absolutely a character film. Moreso once the second reel is re-included. It's little more than a character study of Ripley as a mother figure, combined with kick-arse action sequences. Alien also dealt greatly with character; in fact, it was acclaimed for its realistic portrayal of character in a sci-fi setting, something which was seldom done prior.

Is it really any shock that given my opinion of the first AVP movie that I skipped the sequel altogether?

Not really, and it's a good move on your part. I saw the sequel out of boredom. I'd have been better served viewing one of your bowel movements ffor the 80 mins it stole from my life.

I also think you're selling Alien3 and Resurrection a bit short; while not great, they really aren't bad movies and are both visually interesting if nothing else.

Alien 3 is an interesting concept, but it doesn't work. The director began the film by killing off all the characters you loved from Aliens, leaving only Ripley. You can't get behind Ripley's survival in the film because she's carrying a queen - how she knew it was a queen was never explained, a gaping hole in the narrative - and therefore needs to die. The only remotely likeable character on a planet full of the worst kind of criminals is the doctor, killed halfway through the film, and even he's unsympathetic, having killed innocent people because of his drug addiction.

Alien: Resurrection is an even worse film, because it doesn't even have the Alien-like horror elements of Alien 3. Also gone is the sub-plot of corporate greed, replaced by military irresponsibility. How any military could be so incompetent as to allow both the xenomorphs to escape and a bunch of pirates to kill a highly-armed security detachment and run amok is beyond me. Again, few of the characters are likeable, even among the protagonists - Call, the wheelchair-guy, the guy with the alien inside him - though I do profess a completely unreasonable liking for Johner. Even Ripley is made less likeable in this film; she's not entirely human anymore, after all.

How Gediman thought the queen gaining a womb made her more perfect is also bizarre, as it actually drastically decreases her birth-rate, not to mention removing the parasitical nature of the xenomorphs, probably their most frightening feature. I think most people would be more afraid of being impregnated by the alien than eaten by them. The alien-human hybrid is also a dumb idea, as xenomorphs are already hybrid creatures; they retain characteristics from their hosts. That's why those with human hosts walk upright, whereas those from beast are quadrupeds.

It's also full of Joss Whedon's usual ******ed humour. That might work on Buffy, a much lighter, teen-oriented television series, but it simply doesn't work in what is essentially a horror franchise. Humour in a film like this should be character-driven, not gag-driven.

That being said, Sigourney Weaver's acting is stellar in both films. The ending of Alien 3 is very good, and the scene where Ripley finds the room full of previous clones in Resurrection is a light in the darkness of that film. Fantastic scene. Still, these are but a few diamonds in the roughness of both films.

I guess I missed that one. It's more than just the story and characterizations that bother me in BEL too...I think epileptics should be warned against it, as the rapid cutaways (in any ten minute stretch, it's likely to have about 1 shot longer than 5 seconds) could probably induce seizures in those susceptible. And those shots that are longer than 5 seconds are almost exclusively slo-mo shots of Owen Wilson outrunning bullets.

Owen Wilson in an action film is just wrong. The cinematography sounds worse in BEL than the one I'm thinking of, but it is far more of a propaganda piece than what you're describing. The ending also makes sense, since the US would have absolutely no choice but to declare war on Vietnam, Laos, and half the region if the film's depiction of events actually occured. Public opinion would demand it. The Rambo idea of what the US would do in the event of there really being US POWs still in Indo-China is at least somewhat believable, but not that they'd automatically be given a damn press conference.

 

[mariogreymist]

Aliens was absolutely a character film. Moreso once the second reel is re-included. It's little more than a character study of Ripley as a mother figure, combined with kick-arse action sequences. Alien also dealt greatly with character; in fact, it was acclaimed for its realistic portrayal of character in a sci-fi setting, something which was seldom done prior.

I think of Aliens as primarily an action movie. Good action movies always have characters worth caring about, imo. I really love Tony Scott movies, (demonstrating I can enjoy a movie with lots of cuts) and it's largely because I give a damn what happens to the characters in them. Alien benefited from a confluence of genius, imo. Ridley Scott at his peak (This and BladeRunner are miles ahead of anything he's done since, though some of it is very good) and a cast that just boggles the mind when you consider them as a whole.

Not really, and it's a good move on your part. I saw the sequel out of boredom. I'd have been better served viewing one of your bowel movements ffor the 80 mins it stole from my life.

I'll tell you what...next time you have the urge to watch it, let me know and I'll take my camera into the crapper to dissuade you.

Alien 3 is an interesting concept, but it doesn't work. The director began the film by killing off all the characters you loved from Aliens, leaving only Ripley. You can't get behind Ripley's survival in the film because she's carrying a queen - how she knew it was a queen was never explained, a gaping hole in the narrative - and therefore needs to die. The only remotely likeable character on a planet full of the worst kind of criminals is the doctor, killed halfway through the film, and even he's unsympathetic, having killed innocent people because of his drug addiction.

I agree about the plot holes and a variety of problems in the movie. I did find Charles Dutton's character likeable though, and if you can't then I can see how it becomes unwatchable.

Alien: Resurrection is an even worse film, because it doesn't even have the Alien-like horror elements of Alien 3. Also gone is the sub-plot of corporate greed, replaced by military irresponsibility. How any military could be so incompetent as to allow both the xenomorphs to escape and a bunch of pirates to kill a highly-armed security detachment and run amok is beyond me. Again, few of the characters are likeable, even among the protagonists - Call, the wheelchair-guy, the guy with the alien inside him - though I do profess a completely unreasonable liking for Johner. Even Ripley is made less likeable in this film; she's not entirely human anymore, after all.

How Gediman thought the queen gaining a womb made her more perfect is also bizarre, as it actually drastically decreases her birth-rate, not to mention removing the parasitical nature of the xenomorphs, probably their most frightening feature. I think most people would be more afraid of being impregnated by the alien than eaten by them. The alien-human hybrid is also a dumb idea, as xenomorphs are already hybrid creatures; they retain characteristics from their hosts. That's why those with human hosts walk upright, whereas those from beast are quadrupeds.

It's also full of Joss Whedon's usual ******ed humour. That might work on Buffy, a much lighter, teen-oriented television series, but it simply doesn't work in what is essentially a horror franchise. Humour in a film like this should be character-driven, not gag-driven.

That being said, Sigourney Weaver's acting is stellar in both films. The ending of Alien 3 is very good, and the scene where Ripley finds the room full of previous clones in Resurrection is a light in the darkness of that film. Fantastic scene. Still, these are but a few diamonds in the roughness of both films.

Part of the problem with Alien Resurrection is that it's a sequel that breaks with the previous films in serious ways. That is also true of Aliens and Alien3, but AR pretty much drops the idea of horror/suspense for more of a straight sci-fi approach. I hated it when it came out, but actually liked it when I re-watched it about a year ago. (though not nearly so much as the first two, which I own)

Owen Wilson in an action film is just wrong. The cinematography sounds worse in BEL than the one I'm thinking of, but it is far more of a propaganda piece than what you're describing. The ending also makes sense, since the US would have absolutely no choice but to declare war on Vietnam, Laos, and half the region if the film's depiction of events actually occured. Public opinion would demand it. The Rambo idea of what the US would do in the event of there really being US POWs still in Indo-China is at least somewhat believable, but not that they'd automatically be given a damn press conference.

I can handle a well made propaganda film, even if I disagree with the genre and even the political sentiment of it. It's the general worthlessness of this movie on any level except as pro-US interventionist policy propaganda that makes me hate it so. If I could name one film to have stricken from the earth to never be seen by a living soul ever again, it would be Behind Enemy Lines. The only use it could possibly serve is as an example of how to get a bunch of 17 year old boys who already have decided to join the military with a "cuz I wanna kill me some for'ners!" mindset to juice in their pants over how sexy Owen Wilson is, without admitting their bloodlust is channeled latent homosexuality.

 

[Lord Baal]

I think of Aliens as primarily an action movie.

Watch it again. Tell me how long the movie goes between Ripley's dream sequence and the massacre scene without any action. It's a character piece. The action is the vehicle through which Ripley's character is revealed.

Good action movies always have characters worth caring about, imo. I really love Tony Scott movies, (demonstrating I can enjoy a movie with lots of cuts) and it's largely because I give a damn what happens to the characters in them. Alien benefited from a confluence of genius, imo. Ridley Scott at his peak (This and BladeRunner are miles ahead of anything he's done since, though some of it is very good) and a cast that just boggles the mind when you consider them as a whole.

Tony is Ridley's brother, right?

I've never been a big fan of Ridley. I find him overrated. I think Ridley is as successful as his script and his actors. He's a very visual director, which means his movies look great, but he is incapable of doing anything to make the acting or story great, which great directors do. if you give him a good script and good actors, like in Alien, he'll give you a masterpiece. So what? Given the cast and script of Alien, Uwe Boll could give you a masterpiece, provided he wasn't allowed to change the script to include car chases.

The real test for a director is when they're given crap to work with. When Ridley Scott was put in charge of Hannibal, where he had a lot of say over the story as well as direction, he created crap. Even with Ray Liotta, Anthony Hopkins and the woman who replaced Jodia Foster - I know her name, it's just escaping me right now. Starts with a J - and tremendous visuals, he took a bad script and created a bad movie. Someone like Scorcese would have made that a classic.

Sigourney Weaver delivered a great performance in Alien - largely because Yaphet Kotto kept at her throughout the film - and Harrison Ford is just brilliant. That's why Alien and Blade Runner are great films; the acting, combined with the great stories, which Ridley Scott had no input in whatsoever. Ridley Scott is not a director; he's a cinematographer, and a great one, possibly the best of all time. I do not offer that praise lightly. But he should not be in charge of actually making movies. Sorry Russell Crowe.

Interestingly enough, Sigourney Weaver mentions in the special features on the Quadrilogy that she "hates directors who direct through a camera, directors like... that." you can totally tell she's about to mention Ridley, who talks about his directorial style - you guessed it, through the camera - earlier in the features.

I'll tell you what...next time you have the urge to watch it, let me know and I'll take my camera into the crapper to dissuade you.

Fortunately, I'll never feel an urge to watch that film. Not unless I want to torture someone for information.

I agree about the plot holes and a variety of problems in the movie. I did find Charles Dutton's character likeable though, and if you can't then I can see how it becomes unwatchable.

Charles Dutton's character is portrayed as likable, but one can never forget that he's a serial rapist. He says so himself. It's very difficult to empathise with a character like that, even if he is reformed.

Part of the problem with Alien Resurrection is that it's a sequel that breaks with the previous films in serious ways. That is also true of Aliens and Alien3, but AR pretty much drops the idea of horror/suspense for more of a straight sci-fi approach. I hated it when it came out, but actually liked it when I re-watched it about a year ago. (though not nearly so much as the first two, which I own)

A:R is probably alright as a piece of mindless sci-fi. unfortunately, I don't watch the Alien franchise seeking mindless sci-fi. I'm seeking much more. Aliens and Alien 3 broke with the previous films, but, at least in the case of Aliens, the braak was... Organic. it made sense. Alien 3's changes were logical, but stupid. A:R was pretty much just stupid. I mean, come on, 12 xenomorphs running around - to start with - and Ripley's group of pirates actually escape? Maybe these xenomorphs loss their killer instinct in the cloning process, or picked up human stupidity. Yeah, that must be it. The holes in that film are gaping.

If I could name one film to have stricken from the earth to never be seen by a living soul ever again, it would be Behind Enemy Lines. The only use it could possibly serve is as an example of how to get a bunch of 17 year old boys who already have decided to join the military with a "cuz I wanna kill me some for'ners!" mindset to juice in their pants over how sexy Owen Wilson is, without admitting their bloodlust is channeled latent homosexuality.

If you know a better way of channelling latent homosexuality into bloodlust, I'd like to hear it.

Seriously, that paragraph is worlds of awesome. Also, pretty damn accurate.

 

[mariogreymist]

Well, I agree that Hannibal is crap. Kingdom of Heaven (which Ridley Scott directed but did not write) is very good however (though it probably would have been better had it cast Edward Norton and Orlando Bloom in reverse). I also liked Matchstick Men very much (again, a great cast).

But while Ridley Scott has been sinking into mediocrity, Tony Scott (yes, they are brothers) has made some really good movies. Man on Fire is my favorite movie of the last ten years (other than LotR, which is more of a nostalgic thing for me). Domino, Spy Game and Deja Vu are all very good as well. And that's not to mention True Romance, which is just absolute brilliance imo. And if you must watch a "the US military is great" propaganda film, Top Gun is the one I would suggest.

If you know a better way of channelling latent homosexuality into bloodlust, I'd like to hear it.

That's why God created American football.

Seriously, that paragraph is worlds of awesome. Also, pretty damn accurate.

Thank you very much. I'll be here all week. Tip your waitress.

 

[Lord Baal]

Well, I agree that Hannibal is crap. Kingdom of Heaven (which Ridley Scott directed but did not write) is very good however (though it probably would have been better had it cast Edward Norton and Orlando Bloom in reverse). I also liked Matchstick Men very much (again, a great cast).

Kingdom of Heaven kind of proves my point about Ridley having nothing to do with the movie's quality other than visually.

But while Ridley Scott has been sinking into mediocrity, Tony Scott (yes, they are brothers) has made some really good movies. Man on Fire is my favorite movie of the last ten years (other than LotR, which is more of a nostalgic thing for me). Domino, Spy Game and Deja Vu are all very good as well. And that's not to mention True Romance, which is just absolute brilliance imo. And if you must watch a "the US military is great" propaganda film, Top Gun is the one I would suggest.

Tony Scott made Top Gun? That and Man on Fire are the only two of those films I've seen. I thoroughly enjoyed both.

That's why God created American football.

if anyone made American football, it was Satan.

Thank you very much. I'll be here all week. Tip your waitress.

I'll tip her as far as I can without her hitting her head.

 

[mariogreymist]

Tony Scott made Top Gun? That and Man on Fire are the only two of those films I've seen. I thoroughly enjoyed both.

He certainly did. His first major movie is actually a pretty good vampire flick (see how we got back to monsters?) called The Hunger. I strongly recommend True Romance if you like Tarantino (he wrote it) or crime flicks in general. It has one of the most memorable conversations in cinema history, between Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper. Also appearing: Gary Oldman, Samuel L Jackson, James Gandolfini, Tom Sizemore, Chris Penn, among others. To this day, my favorite Tarantino movie is the one he didn't direct.

Deja Vu is a good time travel movie, with a crime drama as its vehicle. Domino is a crime flick, with some excellent action sequences and very good performances from Mickey Rourke and Keira Knightly (whom I normally don't like). Spy Game is a spy movie (duh) with Redford and Pitt and is extremely well done and imaginative, if somewhat implausible.

Tony Scott also directed Crimson Tide, which is also a really good military story, and one which gets me around to liking Gene Hackman in spite of BEL.

 

[Lord Baal]

I've seen Crimson Tide. I liked it, though I liked The Hunt For Red October better as a submarine movie. My girlfriend loves Spy Game, though I've never watched it with her. i assumed she was just watching it due to her completely illogical crush on Redford.

True Romance I've heard of, but never seen. Christian Slater is the male lead, is he not? That right there is probably why I've never bothered to watch it. When the revolution comes, I will personally put him up against the wall.

Never heard of The Hunger, I'll have to search for it at the video store when I get the chance.

 

[mariogreymist]

Christian Slater is okay in the right roles, and the one in True Romance was made for him. He does have the male lead, and Patricia Arquette (someone else I am not a big fan of) the female lead. And I forgot to mention Val Kilmer, though you never see his face. As for lining Slater up against the wall: he deserves it for Alone in the Dark, even if he has redeemed himself in some pretty good black comedies. (Heathers, Very Bad Things)

Spy Game is a good movie, though certainly not the most realistic spy tale ever told on screen. (Not that spy movies often attempt to be realistic) While a crush on Redford or Pitt might be enough to get someone to watch it, it certainly isn't why I watched it and absolutely not why I own it.

Another good Gene Hackman/Tony Scott collaboration I forgot to mention was Enemy of the State...a movie good enough that Will Smith in a lead couldn't ruin it. In a funny way, it's kind of a modern take on The Conversation, though with more emphasis on action. Also has Jon Voight, Jason Lee, Jack Black and Seth Green.

 

[Lord Baal]

I like Enemy of the State. Good film.

 

[Lillefix]

Assuming this thread is still about recommending monster movies I recommend Mermaid Chronicles Part 1: She Creature from 2001. Very good and atmospheric movie on a small budget.

 

[Plotinus]

I'd just like to say that I'm amazed that both latent homosexuality and Top Gun have been mentioned in the same thread, but with no connection being made. Honestly, I saw that film for the first time a few months ago and it was like the cinematic equivalent of a Friday night in Old Compton Street.

Returning to the theme, I'd like to put in a mention of Starship Troopers. Why? Because, as I was reminded in a recent conversation, this was the very first special effects-heavy film where, as I was watching it, I thought that the special effects were completely convincing. Before then, monsters in films had never looked genuinely real. You had to use your imagination and pretend that these jerky things or things with suspicious outlines around them were real when you could see they weren't. Think, for example, of the not-very-good stop motion at the end of The Terminator, which makes that otherwise aged-very-well film a lot less good to watch today. We've become used to monsters that really look really real, because CGI has become so advanced. When I saw Starship Troopers at the cinema (in my defence, I was a graduate student and therefore had nothing better to do) I thought, "This is a watershed moment in monster movies." (There wasn't much else to occupy my mind at the time.) I haven't seen it since - perhaps the effects wouldn't look so good now in our post-Avatar world.