#they’re also both sequels that take a notable tone shift

[agirlking]

Veilguard and Andromeda show an interesting habit BioWare has: having victims insist they deserve to be oppressed. The elves justify their enslavement, the Krogan justify the genophage.

[frankendykes-monster]

On revisiting Mothra vs. Godzilla (1964)

Mothra vs. Godzilla is an interesting film to say the least.  On the surface it looks like nothing special, if anything you could call it an example of how Japanese science fiction films were stagnating only a decade after Godzilla (1954), considering this film barely does anything new, just aping material that was already handled by its two predecessors: Mothra (1961) and King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962).  But somehow it’s become one of the most beloved entries in the series and something of a gold standard for everything that came after.

Mothra vs. Godzilla opens with a title credit sequence over a hurricane, with Godzilla’s theme from 1962 transitioning into an instrumental version of Mothra’s theme.  The hurricane has caused property damage along the Japanese coast, but most notable is the washing ashore of a giant egg.  We soon get introduced to Ichiro, a news reporter, Junko, a news photographer, and Dr. Miura, the leader of a scientific team called in to study the egg, who serve as our three main three heroes for this story.  The egg is bought by Happy Enterprises, headed by a Mr. Kumayama, who is in turn financially backed by a younger Mr. Torahata, who plan to turn the area surrounding the egg into an amusement park.  They and the three leads are both confronted by Mothra’s twin priestess fairies from Infant Island about returning the egg (the current adult Mothra is nearing the end of her life, and the egg secures Mothra’s legacy), and the efforts to retrieve it are also squashed, forcing the fairies and the indigenous people of Infant Island to turn their backs on the outside world.  When Godzilla appears, having also been caught up in the hurricane and thrust onto the mainland, he immediately goes onto another rampage, and it seems the best option is to ask Mothra for help (personally I find it humorous that there needs to be some reason for monsters to fight in these early films given they’d eventually go at it on instinct).  Some arguing is done but the fairies and Infant Islanders agree in return for the possibility of a better world to be built.  Both Kumayama and Torahata are killed in Godzilla’s attacks, and the monster seemingly can’t be stopped, as even the adult Mothra succumbs to battle, before the newly hatched larvae from the egg eventually stop Godzilla, and all seemingly returns to normal, in a cautiously optimistic way, as the protagonists have vowed to make a world better for everyone.

Mothra vs. Godzilla switches from the intense anti-commercialism satire of King Kong vs. Godzilla to some more general anti-capitalist themes.  Near the opening when the damage of the hurricane is being documented by Ichiro and Junko, and unnamed capitalist protests about such possible news coverage as it could damage public opinion on an industrial project being built there.  Later the same capitalist protests about the protagonists returning to test the area for radiation (as Godzilla is buried in the general vicinity and is contaminating the soil).  There’s some inherent ridiculousness that’s openly stated about Kumayama buying the egg in general, but the cost is 1,224,560 yen (i.e. the logic is since a chicken egg costs 8 yen, and the giant egg is approximately 153,820 times larger, it’s a fair price).  It’s explained “[the egg is] not private property, the public can watch it incubate for an admission fee.”  A musical cue used in the series to hint at some under-the-surface tension and dread is used in this film when we discover that the egg’s incubator has been built and is already operational.  Kumayama later stiffs the fishing village who brought the egg to shore out of the money he owes them, only to later on in the film be scalped by his superior Torahata (the two of them turning on each forces Torahata to shoot Kumayama, and in turn Torahata has wasted too much time before Godzilla destroys the hotel they’re in).  Torahata is explained to have originally been some trust fund kid to some larger businessman before heading up his own endeavors.  When the public discovers that it’s Mothra’s egg and it will not be returned, Kumayama effortlessly throws a PR stunt to counteract.

Functionally it’s a repeat of the plot from the first Mothra film, only here it’s Mothra’s egg and not the twin fairies that have not been kidnapped.  I feel as if everything works smoother here as this film definitely has more weight to the proceedings and isn’t nearly as theatrical; the villian in Mothra, Clark Nelson, is often times a bit too exaggerated.  (There’s something to be said about how Kumayama and Torahata have zero concern about provoking the wrath of Mothra considering she partly destroyed Tokyo and NYC in the previous film in the effort to get her fairies back; I guess it’s more accurate than capitalists just giving up possible investments.)  I’ve seen some fans vouch for Mothra as anti-colonialist story but this film allows concepts such as that much more room to breathe given how the Infant Islanders have actual agency in the story, turning down the possibility of Mothra fighting Godzilla on behalf of Japan, whereas in the previous film they didn’t have much of anything to do given Mothra immediately goes on the attack upon discovery that the fairies were kidnapped.

The rather dense first 30 minutes of the film gives way to the reveal that Godzilla was also thrust ashore by the hurricane, and buried underground in the process, before reawakening.  The entire film shifts into a mode of immediate urgency, as everyone now has to confront Godzilla.  A lot of Godzilla’s scenes are far more detached than what else the film has to offer, as we’re following mostly nameless crowds fleeing and evacuating and JSDF officials trying to handle the situation.  Once again it resembles the previous film, which had all the main characters more closely associated with King Kong.  This film spends a much more notable amount of time showcasing military strategies being implemented against Godzilla with tanks and land mines and air strikes and giant electrocuted nets being thrown at him.  I think it’s this film that fully established that while Godzilla could take a beating, the character is functionally indestructible, as nothing leaves any lasting damage.

Even though this film isn’t as upfront with the nuclear text as the first Godzilla film (which openly compared the coming of Godzilla to the atomic bomb attacks and brought up Godzilla being born out of hydrogen bomb tests as the most likely origin), it’s still the only other entry in the Showa series aside from that first film which brings it up in any meaningful capacity.  Initial news reports call Godzilla “the atomic monster”, and when our protagonists first ask for Mothra’s help because of the attacks, the Infant Island chief shoots back with, “it’s your fault for playing with the devil fire!”  Both on a narrative and thematic level, Godzilla and the age of nuclear warfare are one and the same, and everyone from Kumayama/Torahata to any number of offscreen civilians to the people of Infant Island to even Mothra must contend with Godzilla; a deadly force that threatens everyone.  Godzilla’s characterization in this matches with the first film more so than the previous two; Godzilla Raids Again doesn’t have much interesting to say given it’s a cash-in sequel, and the explicitly comedic tone of King Kong vs. Godzilla makes him out to be much more jovial than expected, taking delight in dishing out death and destruction.  (An added detail in this film is the subtle inquiry that Godzilla is like a natural disaster, you can only move out of the way in the same capacity that you can’t physically fight a tsunami or a hurricane.  This was an element of the first film with Godzilla’s first landing being obscured by a hurricane or the electrical towers set up outside Tokyo resembling sand bags defending against a flood.)  But this film is the only sequel of the Showa era to maintain Godzilla in a purely threatening, antagonistic role.

The decision to feature both Mothra and Godzilla in a single film does produce more interesting results than having done so with King Kong.  King Kong vs. Godzilla only really happened because Kong, in the real world, was the only extremely notable giant monster of the movies prior to Godzilla, and this limitation extends into the film with how the characters remarked over how their individual rampages were like a ratings battle, with constant “who’s going to win?” fights over the stronger of the two.  There’s much more thematic depth with this entry, even on immediate visual level; Mothra is quite dainty and gentle compared to how dark and brutal Godzilla is.  (Kong was blown up from approximately 20 feet to 45 meters to fight Godzilla for that film, and this film does so in turn.  Mothra was absolutely massive in the first film with a wingspan of 250 meters, she’s been shrunk to 135 for this film.  Whether it’s succumbing to radiation or just a natural part of Mothra’s life cycle is never openly mentioned.)  The first Mothra film made mention of how nuclear testing occurred near Infant Island because no one knew an indigenous population lived there, and upon seeing it, both the characters and the audience discover a lush paradise that has somehow survived the radioactive fallout.  This film stands in stark contrast; when the protagonists land on Infant Island, we discover it’s become a desolate graveyard, with only a hidden oasis being what sustains the local population.  It’s not just that the egg was stolen, the Infant Islanders are initially non-compliant because their home has been destroyed.  (For narrative purposes, Ichiro, Junko, and Miura function as representatives for the outside world, and are confronted about the atomic age despite them, you know, being Japanese.  It works in context of the rest of the series wherein nuclear warfare isn’t blamed on any single country and is viewed as something that threatens the human race equally regardless of nationality.)  Bringing in Godzilla as the overarching threat thematically completes the mythos surrounding Mothra.  Mothra has the upper hand during the entire initial fight, what with her being able to fly and Godzilla being a slow lumbering animal, but one hit of Godzilla’s atomic breath is all it takes to finish her off.

Director Ishiro Honda has mentioned that the driving thesis across all his films (except maybe Matango) is the quest for peace amongst people, considering Honda embraced pacificism following WWII.  Mothra vs. Godzilla is possibly the least subtle about this, with the scene where Junko makes a statement to the Infant Islanders might as well being directly aimed at the audience.  “I understand why you don’t trust us, but even as we speak many are dying because of Godzilla.  Many of them are good people, but even bad people have a right to live.  You may call it divine retribution...but all are equal before the gods.  They don’t choose sides.  Please.  We need your help.”  Mothra eventually appearing to stop Godzilla comes alongside the fairies stating “we always keep our promises”, a reversal of the unnamed capitalist saying the same line about his industrial project being completed by the target date.

Some have complained that the final act loses steam, as the film has already finished on a thematic level, with the antagonists killed by Godzilla and the vows of a better future already ensured.  To which I respond if some people have ever heard of the concept of a final action scene, but I digress; what caught my eye with this viewing is that Godzilla’s final targets are a group of schoolchildren on an island that can’t escape because all the boats have already left.  The protagonists are able to have time to rescue them as the Mothra larvae contend with Godzilla, and it stands in contrast to the first Godzilla film where we know that children are amongst the body count, children suffer from radiation exposure by being in Godzilla’s presence alone, and had to see their parents die in front of them.  Children in this film being rescued without harm feels like the closest this film gets to putting “a better world” into action, moreso than just a means to artificially increase the runtime.

The ending is what gets me.  It essentially combines the endings of the first Godzilla and Mothra films.  Godzilla was killed in the first film but forced back into the sea in this one, but regardless, while the immediate danger has been averted, nuclear testing still occurs, the conditions that allowed Godzilla to come into existence haven’t changed.  With Mothra, she is able to return to Infant Island with what is hers and the Infant Islanders’ been rightfully returned.  They’re sobering and delightful respectfully, but combined we know that forces that created Godzilla have also terribly weakened Mothra and her people, and a better world being made by the protagonists includes rectifying this specific situation.  You know the scene in Ratatouille (2008) where Remy shows his brother that while strawberries and bananas taste good on their own, the flavor is far greater when eaten together?  Yeah.

[aion-rsa]

Alien vs. Aliens: Which Is the Better Movie?

https://ift.tt/2VZ88Yt

Thirty-five years ago, James Cameron’s Aliens opened in theaters, stunning audiences and surprising even the most jaded critics. Here was a much belated sequel to a Hollywood blockbuster that was seven years old—and at a time when sequels were synonymous with soulless cash grabs. Yet in so many ways, Cameron’s follow-up took the ideas introduced by Ridley Scott and company in Alien and ran with them. More than just an added “s” in the title, Aliens marked an entire shift in tone and even genre. Rather than horror, we were now in the realm of action; instead of hiding in the shadows, the sequel overwhelmed audiences with spectacle. Like the poster said, “This time, it’s war.”

With near universal praise, Aliens even earned an Oscar nomination for star Sigourney Weaver in a role she’d already played once back in 1979. Hence many fans have spent years and decades arguing which is the actual better movie: the Ridley Scott chiller that started it all or the James Cameron thriller that blew the concept into the stratosphere? Well, sit back because Den of Geek movies section editor David Crow and west coast correspondent Don Kaye are going to settle this debate once and for all.

Horror or Action

David Crow: For more years than I’d care to remember, I’ve heard science fiction fans and genre aficionados say James Cameron’s Aliens is one of the rare sequels that is better than the original. That action heavy clichés are, somehow, an improvement over probing, immersive horror that lingers in the mind like a waking nightmare. To this day it is baffling.

For all of Aliens’ undeniably high-octane thrills, it lacks a fraction of the existential dread and infinite mystery which makes Alien one of the best science fiction films ever made. Originally engineered by screenwriter Dan O’Bannon as a “haunted house movie in space,” director Ridley Scott and a legion of collaborators elevated the concept into something unwaveringly oppressive in its nihilism. The Nostromo spaceship at the center of the film might be “haunted” by an alien organism, but so is the film itself. Half of the movie’s design was dreamed up by concept artists Ron Cobb and Chris Foss, who evoked a grungy, dilapidated vision of our future among the stars that still feels real in its sweatiness, and the rest was masterminded by H.R. Giger, who designed the now iconic “Alien” creature as well as the derelict “Space Jockey” ship that the organism’s egg is found on. The intentionally disparate sensibilities creates a genuine culture shock in the film that remains unsettling long after you know what John Hurt’s last meal looks like.

In the tradition of H.P. Lovecraft, the film’s heroes have ventured into the unknown or forbidden, discovering a beast truly alien in nature and beyond our comprehension. To know a fragment of its mystique, and a bit about its bizarre life cycle, is to be violated—figuratively and literally as a facehugger shoves itself down your mouth. It is perverse and intentionally unnatural. And unlike any of its sequels, this movie succeeds in tapping into our primal abstract fear of the unknown, and the implicit anxiety that comes with discovery. It transcends genre and remains the lone masterpiece in the franchise.

Don Kaye: Right from the start, I will say I agree with much of what my esteemed colleague David Crow says. Alien is an undisputed masterpiece that hits the sci-fi/horror sweet spot in a way that most of the films which have come in its wake have failed to do. And yes, the film is extremely Lovecraftian in its incredibly atmospheric evocation of the existential dread and terror of both deep space and the alien organism itself.

But if there had to be a sequel to Alien (and the laws of Hollywood dictated that there must), it couldn’t just be a repeat of basically the same story. What James Cameron did so brilliantly with Aliens was take the initial tale told by Ridley Scott and Dan O’Bannon and expand upon it while preserving most of the mystery surrounding the title menace itself. Cameron did formally jump genres from “haunted house in space” to “military sci-fi,” but he retained enough of the brooding horror of the original to make it not just a worthy successor, but a fuller, more epic film in many ways (he did much of the same with his own Terminator—making a far superior sequel in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, which is surely a debate for another day).

In Aliens, Cameron expands the mythology just enough to give us more tantalizing details about the xenomorph without over-explaining it or shredding the mystery around the species entirely (ironically, it would be Ridley Scott himself who did that in the awful Prometheus and Alien: Covenant years later). He also expands wonderfully upon the character of Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), making her the center of the story while adding a slew of colorful new cast members who in many cases are more memorable than the crew members of the first film’s doomed Nostromo. While both films are genuine classics, in the end Aliens has held up over the years as the more satisfying experience.

The Most Expendable Crew

David: Don, I’ll agree that Aliens is a worthy sequel. But as a sequel it can only ever be a copy—an extension of the original genius. And while Aliens is certainly more epic, I would hardly call it more satisfying. For starters, there are the characters you mistakenly claim are more memorable than the original crew. I’ll grant you that Aliens’ ensemble is colorful, but in the same way stock characters on a Saturday morning cartoon can be colorful. As is often the case in Cameron screenplays, the characters are broadly drawn archetypes who speak almost entirely in on-the-nose dialogue with all the subtlety of a villain waving a gun on the Titanic as it sinks.

The effect is definitely thrilling the first few times you watch Aliens, but after viewing the film more than twice, my mind is left to drift over the triteness of these haplessness “marines.” That’s probably why my favorite of the bunch is Bill Paxton’s Hudson, a caricature in cowardice who still always lands the laugh. He also sums up the surface level appeal of this entertaining spectacle: “We’re on the express elevator to Hell, going down!”

Conversely, the cast of characters in Alien feel painfully real. Created during the tailend of New Hollywood’s golden age of ‘70s cinema, there is nothing false or showy about any of these performances. They’re all underplayed to a degree, even talking over each other, but that is by design. Going into Alien in 1979, you wouldn’t know who the “hero” of the story is and might very well assume it is Tom Skerritt since he’s the captain and had appeared in popular ’70s TV shows. By contrast, Weaver was a complete unknown when she played Ripley, a survivor who persevered before “final girls” became a convention unto themselves. However, she is only a survivor in the first movie, not an action hero. She’s even-handed and levelheaded, and a woman from the jump who appears to be the most astute and thoughtful of the crew.

Still, right down to the legitimate grievances between this group’s “upstairs and downstairs” dynamic, with Yaphet Kotto’s Parker and Harry Dean Stanton’s Brett complaining about the bonus situation, there is a much more tactile conflict among the cast that makes this a fuller ensemble and thereby more immersive. They may not be marines, but they are tragically human in their reactions to the unbelievable—and that is not even getting into the brilliance of Ian Holm’s Ash, who might be the best representation of the insidious implementation of capitalistic control over labor ever put to screen. The traitor in these blue collars’ ranks is an honest to God robot who is literally there to divide them for conquest and the company’s bottom line.

Don: I’ll concede the more realistic development of the characters in Alien, but I enjoy the camaraderie and banter among the Colonial Marines. While it’s true that some of them really don’t amount to much more than cannon fodder (or is it xenomorph fodder?)I feel like there’s more going on there than Cameron might get credit for. I also do like the ensemble feel of it all, and the fact that these characters all go into this situation having no idea of what’s ahead of them, with most of them meeting it courageously (with notable exceptions, of course). There’s something about seeing characters in a film charge headlong into an impossible situation that always pulls at this viewer.

Some of the secondary characters go on little journeys of their own too, from Gorman (William Hope) to Vasquez (Jenette Goldstein), and even Hudson has a moment or two to shine as he finally finds his courage toward the end of the film. Watching Aliens, it feels like most of the major or secondary characters get some kind of payoff. If there’s one major flaw I find with Alien, it’s that the second half of the movie basically just mows everyone down, one after the other, which is, I suppose, suitable for the overall tone of despair and nihilism but makes for a less satisfactory film in some ways.

And I agree with you wholeheartedly about the brilliance of Ash, which is why I’m glad that Cameron went in a different direction with Bishop (Lance Henriksen). The character is just ambiguous enough to keep one guessing throughout the film whether he is true to his word that he cannot harm humans or whether it’s all an act—a nice twist on the evolution of Ash in the first film.

The More Perfect Organism

David: You are right, Don: Vasquez is a wonderfully badass character, and so are most of the Aliens troupe. In fact, it’s hard to overlook just how badass Weaver’s Ripley became in the film, beginning as a woman suffering from trauma and ending with the cinematic embodiment of Mama Bear ferocity. “Get away from her you bitch!” had to be why Weaver got an Oscar nomination for an action movie sequel, right?

Yet for all the quotables like that, as well as those of the aforementioned poor doomed Hudson and precocious Newt (Carrie Henn), I much prefer the messiness of Alien; Veronica Cartweight’s Lambert simply shutting down as the Alien tears Parker apart before inevitably coming back for her; Skerritt’s Dallas meekly resigning himself to his fate as he reluctantly goes into the vents; and of course Ripley who shows cool cunning and irresistible command while under pressure, but who’s only act of heroism is the quirk of going back in a deteriorating spaceship for a cat.

But if we’re discussing characters, I think one we’re both glossing over a big one: the Alien itself or “xenomorph.” You fairly dinged Scott for offering unsatisfying explanations for his and Giger’s nightmares in the prequels, but Cameron did it first in Aliens, right down to dubbing the creatures xenomorphs. In the first film, it’s really unknowable how intelligent the Star-Beast is. Is the creature just a feral animal hunting the characters on instinct or is it a dispassionate predator who understands its prey and their inadequate technology? And what exactly are its designs for its victims who vanish without a trace (at least in the theatrical cut)?

Cameron literally turns them into insects in Aliens, repeatedly calling the marines’ mission a “bug hunt.” The unstoppable creature in the first movie turns out to simply be a drone, a literal worker bee or ant in a colony of xenomorphs with a single Queen and countless simple-minded minions. Scott and Giger’s Alien is almost godlike (or perhaps demonic given its sexual undertones), and is described as a “perfect organism.” Aliens removes that mystique, turning the monster into a giant cockroach that can be mowed down in large numbers if you have big enough guns.

Read more

Movies

Aliens and Terminator 2: How James Cameron Crafts Perfect Sequels

By Ryan Lambie

Movies

Are Alien and Blade Runner Set in the Same Universe?

By David Crow

Don: I have to say I like Ripley’s evolution in Aliens, and even more so in the director’s cut where the information about her having a daughter gives a whole other layer to her quest to save Newt in the film. But to be fair, I suppose we’re talking about the original theatrical cuts; even there, Ripley starts out in a completely different and much darker place, not really interested in helping anyone, but her basic compassion towards her fellow humans finally comes to the surface. She stands as the one beacon of decent humanity in an otherwise very hostile universe.

I’ll again agree that there is something majestic and horrifying about the mystique of the Alien in the original film, but I don’t think that Cameron completely removes all the mystery from it. Those eggs did have to come from somewhere, after all. Why not a Queen? And even if we see the species as more of a hive culture, it doesn’t take away from their predatory nature or what appears to be their exceptional intelligence. And it still leaves the ultimate nature and purpose of the aliens unexplained—meeting the Queen in Aliens doesn’t necessarily undercut the fact that we still don’t know at the end of the film what their agenda is (nor should we).

Aliens actually reemphasizes the remarkable adaptability and cleverness of this deadly race. The organism in the original film made quick work out of the crew of the Nostromo; when confronted with first the colonists and then the space marines, the creatures analyze the situation and ascertain that their new victims or enemies must be met with overwhelming force in lieu of having weapons themselves (although their entire body could be considered a weapon, for sure). They are predators and part of a hive culture, but they think, they strategize. That gives them a different spin, for sure, but one that is just as terrifying as the godlike creature in Alien.

The Best of the Alien Franchise

David: I respect that, and for the type of movie that Cameron wanted to make, it worked perfectly. There is little argument that Cameron pinpointed the likely best way to expand (and conclude) this story. After all, the mystery of the creature’s gruesome lifecycle is lost after the first film. David Fincher attempted to return to Scott’s aesthetic with Alien 3 to dire results, and Scott himself struggled with his decades-later prequels. Thus it’s hard to knock Cameron’s action-heavy alternative too much.

Nonetheless, I prefer the, as you say, majesty of Alien and the sensation that you’re watching something grotesque, invasive, and strangely beautiful in its fatalism. I’d also point out that the creature and its world never looked more grimly evocative than in Giger and Scott’s hands. There’s a reason the “last supper” scene with Hurt’s Kane remains the most famous scene in any of these movies. Still, both films are obviously better than what came afterward, though I must admit to having a soft spot for Prometheus. The ideas introduced to explain where the xenomorph and Space Jockey came from in that movie are fascinating, and the visuals and cast were mostly top notch. Alas, the screenplay threatened to derail it all. It’s still a very interesting mess, however (as opposed to the utter failure of Alien: Covenant and the other movies).

I’ll leave it then on this: If you really like the deleted subplot of Amanda Ripley—Ellen’s daughter mentioned to have grown up and died during her mother’s cryofreeze in Aliens—might I recommend the video game Alien: Isolation? More so than Scott’s own prequels, it is able to conjure up the dread of being hunted in a confined space by such a creature. It’s the best Alien anything in the last 35 years… and it was all about evoking that original, perfect organism of a film.

Don: To address your last point first, I don’t play video games so I’ll have to pass on Alien: Isolation—but it’s interesting how sometimes these properties have more success in extending themselves through other media besides movies or TV (I imagine there’s a really good novel out there that takes place in the Alien universe​​—do you know of any, David?)

I think we’ve come around to where we started, in that we both recognize the inherent high quality of what Scott and Cameron achieved with these two films. And I do think that Aliens did conclude this story, just as Terminator 2 ended that story as well—and Cameron’s elegant endings only point out just how difficult it was for later filmmakers to try and continue both in various failed sequels. For the record, I was soooo excited about Prometheus initially, and there were some fascinating ideas contained in that film. But the execution of them was a major letdown.

My last argument would be that Alien is a concept-driven film and Aliens is a character-driven film (as we said earlier, making it truly Ripley’s story). The emotional payoff of Ripley’s journey in Aliens makes that the more enjoyable of the two movies for me in the long run. But there’s no question that no movie I can think of offhand, not even Cameron’s masterful sequel, quite captures the ice cold, existential horror of Alien. While we may differ on which of the two films is better, I think we can probably agree that Alien may accidentally be the best H.P. Lovecraft film ever made!

*Editor’s Note: David does not know of any good Alien novels but is aware the Scott film is better than any official Lovecraft adaptation.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The post Alien vs. Aliens: Which Is the Better Movie? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3evocYb

[deadcactuswalking]

REVIEWING THE CHARTS: 1st December 2019

REVIEWING THE CHARTS SPEEDRUN – 1:20 (WR)

Top 10

For the eighth consecutive week, “Dance Monkey” by Tones and I is at #1.

Up a whopping 17 spaces off of the debut last week is “Before You Go” by Lewis Capaldi hits number-two, becoming his fifth top ten hit in the UK.

At number-three, we have Stormzy’s big debut for the final single from his upcoming sophomore album, Heavy is the Head. With the album release, this can likely get to #1, but for now, “Own It” featuring Ed Sheeran and Burna Boy has debuted at number-three. It’s Stormzy’s 19th UK Top 40 hit and eighth placement in the top 10, Sheeran’s 53rd UK Top 40 hit (Jesus Christ – that might actually be an inaccurate figure since I manually counted) and 27th top 10, and Burna Boy’s highest-ever peaking song and both his third UK Top 40 and top 10 hit.

The two new top three entries sadly crush Dua Lipa’s hopes at a #1, as “Don’t Start Now” is down two spaces to number-four. Let’s hope the Christmas period isn’t too rough on this track.

Billie Eilish’s “everything i wanted”, is also down two off of the debut at number-five, fairing a lot better than I expected it to, to be honest.

Lewis Capaldi is two-for-two in the top 10, as “Bruises” is steady at number-six.

Unfortunately, Arizona Zervas is up to number-seven with the clunker that is “ROXANNE”... trust me, I’ll be covering this in about a month, although not to that much of an extent. My year-end worst list seems to be pretty small and uninteresting this year, actually.

“Memories” by Maroon 5 is down three spaces to number-eight. God, that sounded like an AI-written sentence.

At number-nine, we have Ed Sheeran’s pathetic “South of the Border” featuring Camila Cabello and Cardi B continuing to fall down two spaces this week.

Finally, at #10, finishing off the top 10, is “Down Like That” by KSI, Rick Ross, Lil Baby and S-X, becoming what I’m pretty sure is the first UK top 10 hit for all artists here, although I could be wrong about that. Congratulations, I suppose, although the song is far from great.

Climbers

I am my own best source when fact-checking what the BBC site says. I don’t go to the Official Chart Company’s UK Singles Chart, I don’t go to ACharts, I go to last week’s REVIEWING THE CHARTS, especially for situations like this, in which BBC messes it up so badly that I’m confused to how they messed it up in the first place. BBC says that “Pump it Up” by DJ Endor, is down nine to #29. The issue is that it is placed after #20, and #22 continues after it. After looking at my climbers section last week, I found that “Pump it Up” by Endor was already at #29... last week. So, “Pump it Up” by Endor is up eight spaces to #21... and “Watermelon Sugar” by Harry Styles is up seven spaces off of the debut to #28. BBC got that one wrong, too.

Fallers

There are only a couple here. We have the unfortunate continuing fall for the great “Must Be” by J Hus down seven spots only on its third week down to #20, as well as a couple of massive songs that have probably had their on-demand streaming numbers cut. It sounds about time for “Ride It” by Regard featuring Jay Sean and “Circles” by Post Malone to be affected by that arbitrary chart rule and they have, as they’re now down 21 and 26 spaces respectively, at #25 and #35. Oh, and “Paper Cuts” by Dave continues to flop down 10 spaces at #40.

Dropouts & Returning Entries

We have a pretty plentiful number of drop-outs and, uncommon for the UK Top 40, two returning entries. The drop-outs are all reasonable and in order of their last chart position (For now, at least), we have “Buss Down” by Aitch featuring ZieZie getting its streaming cut from #21, Dermot Kennedy’s ballad “Outnumbered” finishing its run at #23, “Jerry Sprunger” by Tory Lanez featuring T-Pain flubbering off of the debut last week from #32 after Chixtape 5 fails to continue its hype beyond the first week, “Post Malone” by Sam Feldt featuring RANI dropping out from #34, “Follow God” by Kanye West embarrassing itself out from #36, “Opp Thot” by Poundz suffering from the amount of new and returning entries from #37 (This one’s the most likely to rebound), “Lover” by Taylor Swift dropping out from #38 despite returning last week and the release of the first dance remix, and finally, as expected from last week, “Take Me Back to London” by Ed Sheeran featuring Stormzy and remixed by Sir Spyro featuring Aitch and Jaykae, is out from #40. Hopefully, I never have to type that mouthful again. Our first returning entry is “Orphans” by Coldplay returning to #27 after dropping out from last week, thanks to the album release. Our second, well...

IT’S CHRISTMAS INNIT

It’s starting! We have a second returning entry this week in the top 40, and it’s “All I Want Christmas is You” by Mariah Carey at #34, which is making a play for #1 in the US. I’ve already reviewed the song last year, and I just love this song even more now, to be honest. That’s the only Christmas song in the top 40 (For now), but I figured I should just mention the other Christmas songs in the top 75. “Fairytale of New Yorks” by the Pogues featuring Kirsty MacColl is back at #71, “Last Christmas” by WHAM! is at #43... and that’s all for now. We’ll definitely have more to fill out the new It’s Christmas Innit section next week.

NEW ARRIVALS

#39 – “Can’t Fight This Feeling” – Bastille featuring the London Contemporary Orchestra

Produced by Mara Carlyle and Hugh Brunt – Peaked at #4 in Scotland

It’s not exactly an unpopular opinion to admit that the original REO Speedwagon version of “Can’t Fight This Feeling” from 1984 is an incredibly well-written pop song, especially for the time, but real talk: I don’t like that version of the song at all. While I can’t deny the anthemic chorus, the song is such a slog at nearly five freaking minutes and it is exhaustingly dull. I was actually quite interested in hearing the full version of the cover, as the John Lewis Christmas advert always has a hit single to go along with it, in fact the next song I’ll be reviewing includes an artist who got their big break from John Lewis... and it’s only three minutes, and better yet, features the London Contemporary Orchestra in their first credited UK Top 40 appearance. I also like Dan Smith’s voice a hell of a lot more than I do Kevin Cronin’s. Notably, for a bit of trivia, this isn’t a John Lewis-exclusive single, as it features on a Waitrose advert as well. Huh. Anyway, is Bastille’s eighth UK Top 40 hit any good? Well, I feel it’s misleading to call it a Bastille song as this is very much Dan Smith crooning over an admittedly pretty gorgeous and busy orchestral rendition of the original Speedwagon single. Smith does sound overwhelmed in the mix by the strings at times, and the dude has a couple weak moments at times, especially during the verses, but he mostly holds his own and I’m always a sucker for some well-placed horns riffing out of nowhere. Even then, I don’t think the song is all that great, and nearly two minutes in, there’s a really abrupt, distorted string riff that clips heavily and it just sounds gross. Do I prefer it to the original REO Speedwagon song? Of course I do – it’s nearly half the length and I’m a fan of both Bastille and well... the Super Mario Galaxy soundtrack, as the tones of this instrumentation do resemble that at points (Which is never a bad thing). Oh, and I love the addition of the twinkly pianos at the end as a nice touch. Otherwise, it’s pretty good, but I don’t see it reaching the heights of the Lily Allen’s cover of “Somewhere Only We Know”, also from the John Lewis advert, that peaked at #1 in 2013. I guess it didn’t warm the cockles of my cockles.

#36 – “Into the Unknown” – Idina Menzel and AURORA – from the Frozen II soundtrack

Produced by Kristen Anderson-Lopez, Robert Lopez and Christophe Beck – Peaked at #55 in the US and #5 in South Korea

I don’t know or care about Frozen II. I am not a film person; I watch about five movies a year, and they typically aren’t boring Disney sequels that pose no interest for someone who has already seen the first film. I don’t think the sequel will ever reach the absolute phenomena that the original Frozen was because that era starting from 2013 is impossible to match, even for the monopoly that is Disney. This is Idina Menzel, or as most people know her, Elsa’s fourth UK Top 40 hit excluding those that she had as part of the Glee cast and AURORA’s second after the indie darling’s brief stint of fame she experienced due to covering the Oasis B-side from 1994 that was attached to a standalone single that peaked at #3 and got them sued by Neil Innes of Monty Python fame. AURORA’s version was featured in a John Lewis advert in 2015 and peaked at #11, and then she became a folktronica-influenced art pop songstress, who is still getting calls from companies to promote their products, despite the inaccessibility of her newer material. Regardless, this is “Let it Go” part two, or at least Disney’s attempt at one, and I have no idea what relevance this has to the film, but the song itself is okay, although it struggles, as do a lot of cinematic, orchestral show tunes, with structure and a lack of transitions that make the shifts in sections any less abrupt, as at times, it does feel like a certain string section is off-beat simply because you’re never prepared for what’s coming next. AURORA’s verse has a lot of odd empty space, and overall, her presence seems to kill the momentum of the song entirely, even if the chorus has a lot of swell despite some painful, dry mixing that Disney tends to have. Also, this will not be the next “Let it Go”. It’s way too disjointed and not nearly catchy enough, and nobody will be able to hit the belting notes these guys do in the chorus... except maybe Brendon Urie, who in fact did hit those notes in his inferior cover that debuted at #74 (Might be one of the first times since at least 2016 where both the US and the UK have had the same song twice on their charts). Weezer have a song on this soundtrack, too, called “Lost in the Woods”, and I kind of like it, to be honest, with some pretty cool, chugging guitar riffs and great harmonies from Cuomo in the pre-chorus. It’s kind of reminiscent fo the White Album, but I digress. “Into the Unknown” is listenable; next!

#35 – “French Kisses” – ZieZie featuring Aitch

Produced by Tré Jean-Marie

This might not be listenable, however. Aitch was the worst part of their last collaboration, “Buss Down”, which ironically dropped out this week (It’s almost like they called the Official Charts Company and asked them to switch the two out), with ZieZie being equally mediocre, although in his chorus, he was pretty cool, and in the verse, he was vile. I don’t have high expectations is what I’m saying. What a fitting producer for this song, though, and it’s ZieZie’s third and Aitch’s sixth UK Top 40 hit, so... eh? I actually quite like the vintage French vocal and string sample used here, but it’s abruptly drowned out by a bass-heavy Afroswing beat that sounds pretty okay but ZieZie doesn’t play it cool here, reaching into his relatively non-existent higher register in both the chorus and his verse, although admittedly that pre-chorus has some swagger. The post-chorus, on the other hand, has a nasal repetition of nonsense sounds, and Aitch just... Jesus, man, what the hell WAS that? He sounds half-dead, and his monotonous flow is continually harbouring on off-beat! His lyrical content is far from interesting either as he follows the main theme of the song, which is “I’ll give this girl French kisses and make her girl, “ooh-la-la”.” It’s a bit of a flimsy concept, and to quote a geography teacher, there isn’t enough place-specific detail to really excuse this dreck. This is pretty disposable.

#31 – “Loyal” – PARTYNEXTDOOR and Drake

Produced by Dregotjuice, OG Parker and 40 – Peaked at #63 in the US and #19 in Canada

Alright, well, I’m surprised this debuted so high but I’m not surprised it’s here. I’ve only ever liked PARTYNEXTDOOR on uncredited guest appearances (“Ghost Town” by Kanye and “Ratchet Happy Birthday” by Drake) so that doesn’t exactly bode well for him. I assume this will be a very Views or More Life-type song, which also doesn’t bode well as those albums are some of Drake’s worst but obviously have a very large PARTYNEXTDOOR influence. I don’t have much hope for this, but it’s PARTYNEXTDOOR’s third UK Top 40 hit (First as lead artist), and God knows how many of those Drake has at this point. The song starts off well with some lo-fi keys that could make a very smooth R&B ballad... but then the snares come in and it’s obvious this is some garbage. PARTYNEXTDOOR sounds checked-out as does Drake, although at times PARTY decides to just belt and it sounds freaking awful. It’s almost hilarious, actually. To be honest, the synths paint a really pretty atmosphere behind the Young Thug impersonator with the out-of-place “Ayy” ad-libs and the 808s that cover any sense of lead melody. This barely has a groove or melody to catch onto, and Drake’s heavily Auto-Tuned which leads me to believe he just came into the studio for about five minutes whilst drunk. It sounds like both of these lads are drunk, actually. Honestly, I’ve been nice. This is disposable, mediocre garbage, although the outro does seem promising, with some nice strings and cute synths... but I doubt that’ll lead to anything good on the album, if it even does. I doubt PARTY has that foresight. God, this guy is really only good for uncredited backing vocals, huh?

#16 – “New Dior” – DigDat and D-Block Europe

Produced by RXR Music

Okay, this song debuting high shouldn’t be a surprise. D-Block Europe get this high purely off of YouTube and Spotify every few weeks, and they’ve gotten to their highest peak of #16 before with “Kitchen Kings” and even “Nookie” featuring Lil Baby. DigDat, on the other hand, has never reached this high with one of his three UK Top 40 singles, not even “Guten Tag” with Hardy Caprio, which I’m still impressed by and don’t think he’ll make anything as good as that anytime soon, especially not with these two hacks. Young Adz and... the other one have consistently proved to be some of the most untalented yet also the funniest duo from this crop of British rap of recent years. I can’t take these guys seriously, and I know they want me to. This starts as all D-Block Europe songs do, with some incoherent murmuring from Young Adz and nonsensical guitar strumming, but this one has a lot of momentum initially, with Young Adz’s comedic inflections in the chorus (Which is all he has: for once, he doesn’t provide a verse) failing to cover up the hilariously cheap producer tag... but Goddamn it, I like it. I’ll admit, this is a pretty decent song all things considered. First of all, Sean Donoghue, the mixer of this song, sorted out the issues D-Block Europe constantly have with vocal mixing, and to be honest, now that I’ve got to hear his voice a lot better, Young Adz may be more talented of a singer than I thought, although he sticks to a pretty monotone cadence here. In the post-chorus, Young Adz genuinely raps pretty well, and the 808 hits that pound through the beat are a cool addition, as are the yells that act as screaming ad-libs throughout the chorus. DigDat is on-brand, and by that I mean a misogynist and untrusting gangster, but he has two verses here, and they both detail his court case with his brother – not in great detail, but it’s really interesting how he depicts his materialistic mindset failing to let prison tame him. It’s kind of emotional, which is something I never expected D-Block Europe to be. Dirtbike LB is just extra weight as always, although his line about telling his mother that Percocets aren’t vitamins is kind of funny. For once, I think these guys have won me over... well, this song has. I still don’t think these guys are any good, and this may be a complete fluke, but I don’t care. This song is good.

#3 – “Own It” – Stormzy featuring Ed Sheeran and Burna Boy

Produced by Fred Gibson and Jay Weathers

Somehow, I have less hope in this song than I do D-Block Europe’s. Since I’ve already said everything else about this song in the top 10 section, I can skip the pre-amble and get this done pretty quickly. I like the sporadic vocal samples, they have a crowd cheering effect and a sound you can genuinely attribute to found footage rather than some sampled pack. Stormzy doesn’t sound great here, in fact, he sounds asleep and oddly distorted, clipping in the mix several times in the chorus. The synths here are airy and boring, the groove is stiff, the ad-libs are awkward and the beat cuts out for no reason when they come in. Burna Boy comes in with Stormzy on the chorus and for a random bridge / interlude, so I don’t know his purpose here and it makes the song feel very disjointed. The extra glittery synths in the post-chorus are really nice-sounding, and Ed Sheeran can sing better than any of these guys, so he somehow gets the crown of the best verse here, especially due to the harmonies with his multi-tracked vocals and Burna Boy’s. I don’t like Ed, but he definitely brought his talent here, even though his vocodered contributions on the chorus are pretty gross, in fact the mixing on the song entirely is pretty gross – and muddy. Everything sounds a lot more distorted and loud than it should. Is it disappointing? For Stormzy, yes, but for a Stormzy collaboration with Ed Sheeran and extra baggage Burna Boy, it’s about what I expected.

Conclusion

Well, Best of the Week goes to... DigDat and D-Block Europe. Colour me surprised, but “New Dior” is actually pretty good, and Honourable Mention goes to Bastille and the London Contemporary Orchestra for their improvement on the REO Speedwagon classic, “Can’t Fight This Feeling”. Worst of the Week is definitely going to PARTYNEXTDOOR and Drake for “Loyal”, and Dishonourable Mention... uh, sure, ZieZie and Aitch. “French Kisses”. Follow me on Twitter @cactusinthebank and I’ll see you next week!