Aliens (1986)

UK / USA, 137 minutes

Director: James Cameron

Writers: James Cameron, David Giler, Walter Hill, Dan O’Bannon, Ronald Shusett

Photography: Adrian Biddle

Music: James Horner

Editor: Ray Lovejoy

Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Carrie Henn, Michael Biehn, Paul Reiser, Lance Henriksen, Bill Paxton, William Hope, Jenette Goldstein

Now that it’s Christmas week and all time has stopped making sense, consider catching up on one or two or three of your favorite movie series. In the case of the Alien franchise, do as I say not as I do, because I haven’t even seen Alien: Romulus yet (soon!) or any of the TV treatments or Predator crossovers. The first two—Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986)—are classics that are worth multiple looks and basically after that you are on your own, except remember: Christmas week is a generous time for mediocre movies so don’t hesitate to go for three or more movies a day. On the other hand, no one will blame you if you don’t get far past this one. Aliens is rather a different movie from Alien but it’s nearly as good in its own way. Where Alien is a monster horror picture with trappings of science fiction and lots of suspense, Aliens is more science fiction action / adventure with trappings of horror and also lots of suspense. Aliens also has Sigourney Weaver and wholesome girl power all over it—even on the alien side. What’s not to like?

Now that you mention it, and speaking as someone dedicated to not liking sequels, yes, there are things not to like about Aliens: director and cowriter James Cameron, the unctuous sitcom star Paul Reiser (albeit six years before Mad About You), a generally slow start, an overly militarist mindset (albeit 15 years before 9/11), and even some noticeable cribbing from Steven Spielberg’s style. Aliens rationalizes all the shock of the Alien revelations into a systematic universe with a known sequence of so-called “xenomorph” malevolence: the face-hugger, the chest-buster, the blood that is an incredibly corrosive acid. In many ways this alien life form is the perfect terrifying monster. Except—is it my imagination or are they a little inconsistent about the whole alien-blood-is-acid thing? Sometimes it seems much less corrosive than others.

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

They said 50,000,000 Elvis fans can’t be wrong (on Elvis Presley’s second collection of gold records in 1959) so maybe the same principle applies to the second movie in the Avatar franchise? About the 2.9 billion who saw the first? They can’t be wrong? I don’t know. I saw a 3D IMAX version of that first one some double-digit years ago, with all the many folks (and me) ridiculously wearing the 3D glasses and gasping in wonder. Every generation seems to get its turn at the buying end of 3D as the future of cinema. I was duly impressed and inclined to defend it in a general way, the problematic auteur James Cameron notwithstanding. What’s wrong with a hit? I even looked at it again a few years later across the living room on my not-so-big TV and still liked it then, perhaps some kind of lingering hangover effect from the wonderful theater experience. But certainly things about the blockbuster rankled as insipid—looking at you, “unobtanium”—and they’re not particularly better in this sequel. I never thought the putdown of “Dances With Wolves in space” was that insightful, maybe because I like Dances With Wolves, even with all its problems, including a running time close to four hours. And speaking of long, I spent half my life the other day looking at a non-3D non-IMAX streaming version of the 2022 Avatar sequel. The Way of Water (which is over three hours) spends nearly an hour reprising the situation established in the first one, then shifts gears from the forest culture of the planet Pandora to the sea culture. Native forest Pandorans are tinted blue whereas the sea tribes helpfully have teal skin, for easy identification during the pitched battles. There’s probably nothing I can say to convincingly encourage or discourage anyone about seeing this movie, particularly at this late stage of the affair. It’s all world-building and big battles, with the now-usual blockbuster dose of family feels sprinkled in. Those inclined may find it wise to keep a hanky handy. In the first one, if it was there, I missed that Pandora is a moon of a larger gas giant type of planet. They make good use of it here as periods of light and darkness are dramatically affected, with a regular (daily?) event called “Eclipse,” functioning something like our tides. There’s also a lovable whale-like creature with specific interesting features who must suffer from human stupidity. Among other things, The Way of Water is a condemnation of game hunting. I can allow that in many ways its heart is in the right place and now and then it even rises to the level of entertainment. I thought The Way of Water was mostly boring but, you know, how can 2.9 billion people be wrong?

The Terminator (1984)

UK / USA, 107 minutes

Director: James Cameron

Writers: James Cameron, Gale Anne Hurd, William Wisher

Photography: Adam Greenberg

Music: Brad Fiedel, Tryanglz

Editor: Mark Goldblatt

Cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Biehn, Linda Hamilton, Paul Winfield, Lance Henriksen, Bill Paxton, Earl Boen, Bess Motta

It had been a long time since I’d seen a Terminator movie—and, full disclosure, I’ve only seen the first two (of six, not counting TV, video games, action figures, and other treatments)—so I wasn’t entirely sure what I would be getting into these 40 years later. As I recall, the first sequel, from 1991, was the better picture. And sure enough, this 1984 original puts an impossibly young Arnold Schwarzenegger into a thriller milieu that is at least 80% 1980s cheese. Even the projected dystopian future of 2029, a wrecked war zone with deadly purple rays and other high-tech war gadgetry going pew-pew-pew, seemed faintly rinky-dink. Meanwhile, in 1984, Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) and her big-hair best friend Ginger (Bess Motta) are grooving to walkmans and the relatively newfound portability of music. Can’t stop, won’t stop—which means they don’t always hear the dangers coming down. Let’s not even get into the rockin’ soundtrack by Tryanglz, whoever that is. Was 1984 the most ‘80s year of all? I know there’s a theory it was the best year all-time in pop music. Tryanglz is not evidence for it.

In spite of the many dated aspects, The Terminator remains relatively good entertainment (even if the sequel might be better). It has an intriguing science fiction / time travel premise, based on the oldest chestnut in the books, about going back in time to kill your grandfather. But that means—I couldn’t be alive—to kill him—he never died—so I was born, but— Don’t think about it too much because the paradoxes will make your brain hurt. Oh, wait, it’s a whole franchise later now, and the many zigs have profoundly zagged. The fact of the matter is that The Terminator is closer to Beverly Hills Cop and The French Connection, in terms of what it is, than to heady science fiction like Blade Runner or 2001. What it is is lots of gunplay, lots of car chases, and a light dusting of sci-fi. Action, baby. As a movie, The Terminator notably loves guns to the point of fetish. Everyone has different models of automatic weapons and shotguns, sawed-off and otherwise, with fancy laser attachments and such. Later there will be pipe bombs. Let the ordnance fly!

Avatar (2009)

USA/UK, 162 minutes
Director/writer: James Cameron
Photography: Mauro Fiore
Visual effects: hundreds (scroll down)
Editors: James Cameron, John Refoua, Stephen E. Rivkin
Cast: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel David Moore, CCH Pounder, Wes Studi, Laz Alonso

From the earliest days of its release, before it was clear yet what a monster runaway hit it would turn out to be, before I had even seen it for myself, I have been mystified by the levels of critical revulsion aimed at James Cameron's decade-plus-in-the-making science fiction extravaganza. I know it's a bit of a mug's game to attempt to assign motivations or other psychological overlays to people's reactions to movies, especially those who write about them professionally or as a passionate hobby, but it has been very difficult to read them as anything but churlish backlash of some kind.

Look, I don't know that Avatar is one of those giant generational movies that comes along and (for better or worse) changes everything, the way that movies are looked at and/or made, a Citizen Kane or a Star Wars (make that Jaws) or a 2001 or whatever. But I also don't know that it isn't. And, having seen it a second time now at home, I know I like it a lot more than most of the writers I read and trust on these things—a lot more.