‘Alien’ thought: movie showdown isn’t so bad

JIM ERWIN

It’s not too surprising that Hollywood would combine two popular

R-rated movies into an action movie targeted toward young teens, and

that’s what Twentieth Century Fox has done with “Alien Vs. Predator.”

What is surprising is that the movie isn’t completely awful. This

isn’t a brilliant movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it is

something you can watch with a 12-year-old without being too worried

about the content. For adults, this movie rates as solid “eh” --

should be better, could be worse. For its young target audience, it’s

pretty hot stuff.

I’ll admit that I expected this movie to stink before I walked

into the theater. Last summer’s “Freddy vs. Jason” was easily one of

the worst creations to hit the screen. It had painfully bad dialogue

and a story with no suspense. It’s not saying a lot to say “Alien vs.

Predator” is better than “Freddy vs. Jason,” but it is a better

movie. Something nice is that unlike “Freddy,” “Alien vs. Predator”

is a teen movie that’s actually made like a movie meant for teens.

There’s virtually no obligatory cursing or other embarrassing

nonsense thrown in just as adolescent titillation. It has a story and

it has characters, albeit a weak story and thin characters, but

there’s enough happening to keep you from guessing who’s life

expectancy is under 10 minutes.

The basic story revolves around the question of who would win a

fight between the extraterrestrial bug from Ridley Scott’s “Alien”

and the extraterrestrial hunter from John McTiernan’s “Predator.”

Both creatures are pretty tough in a fight, so this concept has a lot

of potential. Dark Horse comics started a series based on this idea

back in 1989, and fans have been looking for clues linking the

creatures in movie sequels to both franchises.

To answer that question, young Predator warriors come to earth to

test their skills by killing Aliens. The Aliens need living creatures

to serve as hosts, so they can do that face-sucking thing and grow

into big monsters. A team of human scientists who discover an ancient

temple 2,000 feet below the Antarctic provide all of the necessary

faces for newly hatched Aliens to suck. Gradually, the survivors

figure out that they are in the middle of something big involving

Aztec, Egyptian and Cambodian pyramids built by creatures from space.

Yeah, it’s all pretty silly, but at least they tried. Well, sort of

tried.

It’s a shame that director/writer Paul W.S. Anderson didn’t do

more work on his story and script. If he had, this might have been a

really great movie. Instead of letting the action tell the story,

Anderson has the characters tell the story by asking each other the

same kinds of questions the Little Green Sprout asks the Jolly Green

Giant. Instead of, “Why does Green Giant vacuum seal canned corn?”

the characters ask, “Why do you think they wanted us to go to their

sacrificial chamber?”

And the answer is, of course, “Well ...duh!”

On the plus side, this movie generally gets the visuals right. The

fights between the Aliens and Predators offer some excitement and

suspense. This isn’t a scary movie at all, but it’s fun to watch the

creatures kill each other. The Predators have nice weapons for

hand-to-hand combat and the Aliens are pretty clever at stalking

them.

This is a movie that could have and should have been a lot better,

but it also could have been much worse. It’s nothing anyone will want

to rush out to see, unless of course your air conditioning breaks

down and you want sit in a cool theater for a couple of hours. Even

then, I’d go with “Bourne Supremacy,” which is loaded with action, or

“De-Lovely,” which has an incredible musical soundtrack.

* JIM ERWIN, 40, is a technical writer and computer trainer.

Mann’s latest a new take on a familiar path

Director Michael Mann makes movies about lonely men thrust into

life and death situations with enemies that are bigger, more powerful

and dangerous than themselves.

Although the theme of good vs. evil is a constant in Mann’s films

(and most movies in general), he changes the situations and the

personalities involved in each story, as if he is taking us on a

journey through different aspects of conflict. “Thief” finds a cat

burglar being robbed by the mob, “The Insider” has whistle blowers

ruined financially and socially by the mega-corporations they work

for, and in “Heat,” a professional thief becomes his own worse enemy

during his last heist before retiring. Mann’s latest film,

“Collateral,” targets an unsuspecting cabdriver, Max, to be the

scapegoat for a hired killer’s murder spree.

Confining Max and Vincent in a taxi for the night is like watching

a lamb being thrown in with a lion. Max is weak, which is evident

from his sloppy clothes, his soft belly and acceptance of having

people walk all over him, such as his boss and mother. Vincent is a

professional predator who dresses to gain respect, remains fit to

keep his senses sharp, taking charge of every person and situation he

encounters. Besides, Max has never been in such a predicament as the

one he’s in now. For Vincent, it’s familiar territory.

They dislike and disrespect each other from the moment Vincent

enters the cab. Max refuses to open up and talk to Vincent, even

though he opened up to a cab fare earlier in the evening. Vincent

points out the flaws in Max’s plans to go into business for himself,

which Max never defends. From their first encounter, they act and

react from who they are: victim and predator.

Michael Mann does for the city of Los Angeles in his movies what

Woody Allen does for New York in his films. In the hands of the

director’s cinematographer, LA looks expansive, powerful and

stunningly rich in lights that shimmer like thousands of jewels.

However, as the night grows shorter, the City of Angels comes to look

lonely, frightening and deadly.

Mann also takes his time staging every scene, even the most

ordinary ones that enhance the characters and their actions. For

example, Max is always running for the shadows or trying to get lost

in a crowd in his attempts to escape and disappear while Vincent is

always emerging from the shadows or a crowd to strike down another

victim.

Usually cast as the hero, Tom Cruise takes the villain’s role in

“Collateral” without changing much about his actions or appearance

that has been seen before in “Mission Impossible” and “Minority

Report,” with the one exception of adding gray to his hair. Cruise is

more movie star than movie actor. Throughout the movie, you are

always aware that it’s Tom Cruise playing a bad guy.

Jamie Foxx, however, has exerted greater effort in changing his

appearance and behavior to play the part of Max. The most

recognizable changes are the weight gain and eyeglasses. The subtle

nuances that Foxx also incorporates are personality traits, such as

avoiding eye contact with others, consistent with a character like

Max that effectively tricks the audience into thinking of Max as a

real being, instead of a fictional character. Foxx has grown as an

actor since “On Any Given Sunday” and Mann’s prior film, “Ali.” Foxx

is a movie actor intent on surprising us all with his talents,

especially in the anticipated fall movie “Ray” about Ray Charles.

“Collateral” is a highly charged testosterone thrill ride that

puts a new spin on Darwin’s definition of survival of the fittest.

All of Michael Mann’s previous heroes have acted from what they knew

and believed to be true and right. Max tries working from his belief

system of right and wrong. When that fails, he must go in search of

something else that will work. As Betty Davis once quipped, “Fasten

your seat belts because you’re in for a bumpy ride.”

“Collateral” is definitely worth the ride.

* PEGGY J. ROGERS, 40, produces commercial videos and

documentaries.