Avatar: Fire and Ash (2025)

Director: James Cameron

Cast: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang

Have I Seen It Before: Brand new.

Although…

Did I Like It: There are few directors who’ve had the track record that Cameron has. On a recent episode of Beyond the Cabin in the Woods I made the proclamation that even his worst film* was a cut above most films produced by most people.

Fire and Ash might test that assertion, but I tend to believe that it still holds up. It’s nice to look at, but I’m getting too much of a sense of deja vu here. Aside from the occasionally intriguing performance by Oona Chaplin as Varang**, the leader of the Ash People, there is almost nothing in this film that wasn’t covered already in Avatar: The Way of Water (2022).

Is it possible that Cameron has spent too much time on Pandora, and unlike Jake Sully, gotten bored of the whole thing? The fact that I can’t honestly remember where that magnetic anomaly in the ocean comes from during the film’s climate is certainly a sign that he may have lost a step as a storyteller. The way he’s been talking on this press tour—semi-threatening us with a Schwarzenegger-less Terminator sequel—I do start to wonder. I’d like to see him create something new, if he has it within him. But as this film already drifts on momentum alone towards the 1 billion mark, I imagine I’m probably going to politely show up for Avatar 4 and 5***.

*I assumed everyone would be on board with his worst film being The Abyss (1989), but had to revise when I realized many people weren’t as eventually charmed by the original Avatar (2009) as I was.

**I will admit that I can drop the names Jake Sully (Worthington), Neytiri (Saldaña), and Pandora, but the rest of the Avatar mythology melts into a ball of blue-skinned noise for me. (I may not be as charmed by this series as I’ve been insisting up until this point in the review.)

***Are we taking bets yet on the titles? Avatar: Up In the Air? Avatar: More Water Because Uncle Jim Never Really Gotten Over Titanic (1997)? Avatar: You’ve Already Bought a Ticket For The 2:45 iMAX 3D Showing, So You might As Well Show Up?

Alien Resurrection (1997)

Director: Jean-Pierre Jeunet

Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Winona Ryder, Ron Perlman, Dan Hedaya

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure. You buy an Alien box set in a couple of different formats, and you’re bound to give in. My biggest memory of the film, however, is it opening along with the grand opening of the AMC Southroads 20 here in Tulsa, and my poor little 13 year would have wanted nothing more in life than to just go to the theater of my own accord and watch a mindless monster movie sequel.

Did I Like It: I’ve been watching a lot of 90s late-series genre movies lately, and there’s no way to judge this movie by exceptionally harsh standards. Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997) should have probably been cancelled before shooting began. Batman & Robin (1997) is a movie I have been spending a lot of my life really loathing, and for some good reason, but I’ve come to understand that someone out there might enjoy it. Beverly Hills Cop III (1994) I keep referencing in recent reviews, mainly because the more I think about it, the worse the movie gets. Ultimately, this one could be a lot worse, and sort of works in fits and starts as a b sci-fi movie. It’s a step up from Alien 3 (1992), although the last entry didn’t exactly leave us with a lot of beloved characters to suddenly kill in a prologue.

One doesn’t necessarily want to engage in a lot of blind praise for Joss Whedon, but the story of this film is its strong suit. Ultimately the pitch of “a prototype version of the crew from Firefly and Serenity (2005)) up against a new batch of Xenomorphs is a nice idea for a movie. Sure, the notion that some of Ripley’s (Weaver) memories survive into a clone is a little silly, but the cloning plot line does give the movie something of a reason for existing, and more importantly gives Weaver new and interesting things to do. All of this concludes with an ending that seems ready for a future (that was not meant to be) for the series—which Alien 3 was resolutely against—even if that history was meant to focus on Ryder’s Call, always inhabiting the film as if she is waiting to take over in the event Weaver gets bored.

Special effects are the film’s Achilles’ heel, though. There is some interesting and genuinely unsettling creature work when the film focuses—really only for a single scene—on the array of Ripley clone drafts. But our friend the Xenomorph never looked—and never would look—so underwhelming. Physical actors in suits look like the costumes were hastily put together. The otherworldly quality of H.R. Giger or Stan Winston are gone. The less said about the more extensive attempts—Alien 3 tried it occasionally—to render the creatures using CGI, the better. If I had wanted to play the Alien Resurrection game on the original Playstation, I would have just done that.

Alien 3 (1992)

Director: David Fincher

Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Charles S. Dutton, Charles Dance, Lance Henriksen

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure.

Did I Like It: I get the complaints about the film. Hell, I feel the complaints about this film. Having an opening sequence designed solely to take the air out of any positive feelings one might have had at the end of Aliens (1986) feels like an injury one is not likely to overcome over the next nearly two hours. I think it is probably pretty fair to say—and Fincher would likely to agree—that David Fincher with one arm tied behind his back is not the filmmaker that James Cameron or Ridley Scott are in their prime. Editing problems abound. Early CGI effects abound that seem less designed to wow than to try and paper over some of those aforementioned editing problems. It all ends in a bummer. For a big summer movie, it’s a sad, not very thrilling affair.

And yet…

I’ve had the weird misfortune of watching a lot of misbegotten 90s sequels lately, and the more misbegotten those films are, there’s a rash of “Where’s Skippy?” moments. A beloved—or even liked—character from previous entries is missing from the entry. Inevitably, the actor reads the script and bows out of the prospect of more-of-the-same. The script isn’t re-written to be not include the character. Instead, there’s is fifteen seconds of dialogue about why the character is just off camera (“I broke up with Jack” Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997); “Taggart’s retired in Arizona” Beverly Hills Cop III (1994)), after which we are introduced to the same type of character so that the script wouldn’t have to be re-written and… gasp… the movie might lose its release date.

That doesn’t happen here. We can be horrified by Newt and Hicks’ fate (or lack of one in this film), but at the very least the filmmakers have something akin to the courage of making Ripley (Weaver, still good despite doing one film too many) always seem as if she is in mourning. The film may not care about characters from Aliens, but at least they didn’t send them to Arizona. It’s a film about mortality and mourning, and while the mangling of a big studio movie that would make any big studio nervous dulls that theme somewhat, the theme can’t be extinguished.

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

Director: James Cameron

Cast: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang

Have I Seen it Before: Never. I know, I’m running behind. It’s probably mostly a busy holiday season that kept me out of the theater all together, but it might just be a little bit that when I saw the original Avatar (2009), I made the boneheaded move to show up to the theater late. This was before theaters had assigned seating (kids, ask your parents). I then sat in a 3D IMAX screening for 3 hours in the front row. I spent the next few… uh, weeks, if memory serves, vomiting.

The movie was fine. I enjoy it now a lot more on Blu Ray and with no 3D

Did I Like It: So, anyway, yeah, I went to go see it in IMAX 3D again. I chose seating anywhere other than the front row, and am happy to report that I experienced not even the slightest bit of nausea this time. Put that on a newspaper ad*, Disney!

There’s been an obnoxious, bad-faith debate leading up to the release of this movie about whether or not the whole Avatar thing has any cultural relevance, especially with more than ten years between movies. Given that the sequel is making money hand over fist, that argument feels quaint already, but why did it come about in the first place?

Is it that gap? No, I think that’s too easy. Really, I think it was the first film’s success giving way to a new trend of 3D releases, many of them not needing them in the slightest. I’m looking in your direction, The Green Hornet (2011). I spent most of the 2010s patiently wearing two pairs of glasses in every movie, and you can’t help but feel a little resentment for the Na’vi each time it came up.

Which is unfair. The first was great (even with becoming quite ill), and now it is absolutely impossible to deny both the skills of James Cameron, and any film that goes north of 3 hours and doesn’t wear out its welcome. Sure, the man who built the Terminator may be returning to some wells here (is there a director who can better make a third act out of a sinking ship?), but the action is non-stop, it all serves character and story.

But do you want to know the movie’s best special effect? Sigourney Weaver. No, not the fact that Weta’s motion capture can make her character look like a 14 year old, but her performance in making me believe that she might actually be one.

That’s Cameron’s real strength. All the toys and tools are put to full effect, but in the end the writing and performances keep things aloft… until the third act, when they’re supposed to sink.

*Do newspapers even run a movie times section anymore?

Never Give Up, Never Surrender: A Galaxy Quest Documentary (2019)

Director: Jack Bennett

Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Tim Allen, Sam Rockwell, Justin Long

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. It had been on my list of things to watch on Amazon Prime for a while, though.

Did I Like It: It’s a mostly fine film, of a piece with other fan celebration documentaries like Back in Time (2015), Ghostheads (2016), or What We Left Behind (2019). The stars are interviewed. The fans are interviewed. Hopefully a couple of things the viewer didn’t previously know are examined, or at least examined more deeply than they were previously known. Everyone who liked the original thing comes away with a nice warm feeling. It isn’t the cutting edge of documentary, but I can easily think of worse ways to spend an hour and a half.

I had known at one point that the late, great, Harold Ramis had once been on board to direct the film but dropped out. He made Analyze This (1999), a film that would have likely collapsed in on itself without Ramis, so everything worked out. I had no clue that it was largely over the casting of Allen, and it was nice to hear that there were no harsh feelings over the issue, just an honest disagreement.

The debate over the casting of Jason Nesmith/Commander Taggart is the most revelatory information. Ramis’ number one choice of Kevin Kline would have been interesting, as he is a comedic actor of the first order, but his on screen persona has always felt far away from the Shatner energy that Allen would be charged with channeling. Bruce Willis and/or Alec Baldwin might have worked, but only if they believed in the movie. Either one of the sleep walking through the film wouldn’t have worked, and the whole film would probably be unwatchable in the here and now if Mel Gibson fought the rock monster.

The one failing of the film is that it didn’t take a deeper dive in the one subject this film could touch on, and we aren’t likely to see any elaboration on anywhere else. Just before the inimitable Alan Rickman passed away, production was going full speed ahead on a sequel miniseries for Amazon Prime. They talk about briefly, and with appropriate sadness, but What We Left Behind creates hypothetical future material for that series out of nothing. This film doesn’t touch on where the characters ended up and what they would be doing now, and there were even scripts written on that project. It’s a missed opportunity in an otherwise perfectly fine experience.

Galaxy Quest (1999)

Director: Dean Parisot

Cast: Tim Allen, Sigourney Weaver, Tony Shaloub, Sam Rockwell

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, come on. What do you think? I saw it opening weekend.

Did I Like It: It’s beloved for the reason. Many people count it among the best Star Trek films, and even a few people place it as number one, ahead of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982). That, to me, feels like too much.

The special effects don’t age exceptionally well, yet another casualty of relatively early CGI without a lot of artistry behind them. The space battles and weird phenomena (more on that later) probably wouldn’t pass muster on a Star Trek television series from the same era.

But that hardly matters. The Wrath of Khan is the best version of these films, and large swaths of its VFX footage are pulled directly from the previous film. This film is great great. Every joke lands, and the thought that Tim Allen could give a performance that has any sort of dramatic believability without shielding himself with Pixar’s plastic seems ridiculous, but there he is, making us believe in Nesmith’s anguish at having to be found out as a fraud. The movie absolutely hinges on that scene, and he delivers.

I would say it is inarguably in the top half of Trek films, and just precisely where in the ranking depends on your average. The film precisely hits all of the targets it wishes to satirize, while never looking down on the subject, minus a chomper sequence or two. There are few comedies that work on the same level. A film like Last Action Hero (1993) may aim for the same territory, but struggles to connect on almost every level. The only film I can think of that qualifies is Young Frankenstein (1974). Even Blazing Saddles (1974)* never quite works for me, and I’m imagining most of the world does not want to hear the aggressive shrug I have for Spaceballs (1987).

So why am I not putting it at number 1? Well, primarily, I don’t think I’ll ever let go of my perhaps irrational love of The Wrath of Khan, but more specifically, there is a moment in this film that grates on my nerves and feels like rocks rattling around in my head whenever it plays out. Just at the end, when Tommy Webber (Daryl Mitchell) flies the Protector back to Earth, he says that he has to go through a black hole. Which they then do.

I wouldn’t normally want to reach for the Neal deGrasse Tyson angle of criticism, but that isn’t how wormholes work! Nesmith even asks if there is any objection to going through the black hole, and everyone sort of goes along with it. I do. I have an objection, but they didn’t ask me. Trek and other space opera clearly flies in the face of real science regularly by virtue of its very existence, but that just seemed like a silly moment that doesn’t even function as a joke.

If they had said wormhole, I’d be fine. They edited around Sigourney Weaver saying “fuck,” they couldn’t have fixed this? If it had been, the whole thing might be, as David Mamet of all people claims, one of the few perfect films of all time. As it stands, it is quite excellent.

*Hard to deny that Mel Brooks had a hell of a year in 1974. Regardless of my particular tastes, the only other single calendar year where a single director made two verifiable classics that stand the test of time, is 1939, where both The Wizard of Oz and Gone With The Wind were credited to Victor Fleming. Although the auteur theory was at least two years away from having any undeniable case studies, and he had to abandon the former in order to take over the later. Here’s a good question: why am I spending all of this time on my review of Galaxy Quest talking about this? The world may never know.

Aliens (1986)

Director: James Cameron

Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen, Carrie Henn

Have I Seen it Before: It is one of the greats..

Did I Like It: It is one of the greats…

*I viewed the 1990 special edition, which is notedly preferred by director James Cameron.*

There can be a problem with director’s cuts, especially when the vast majority of additional footage is lumped into the first forty-five minutes of the movie. Hard to front load a story like that, but Cameron is right in his introduction. This movie has 40 miles of bad road before things go truly pear-shaped, but when it does, that first bunch of the film is necessary. Without them, the film would be less. It would be more like most of the bland movies that exist now. Most writing advice would have you start your story as close to the meat of the action is possible, and I’m glad that Cameron ignored—at least in one format—that advice.

This first sequel in the Alien series is a master class in floating opposites, and miraculously, it makes a strong argument for itself as the superior film. Where Alien (1979) is steeped in subtext within the relationships between the characters. 

The original film straddles between a space-based haunted house movie, demonic possession movie, slasher, and monster man-in-suit shocker, all while staying firmly weighted in Horror. This one embraces a full-throated action vein by becoming a Vietnam War picture in space, but still feels of a piece with the original film. It’s a tricky thing to do, as most movies in a series that try to jump genre usually have to jettison much of what made the earlier films work.

The people of the Nostromo in the original film don’t particularly care for each other or the work they do in the cosmos, but they’ve been on the job for so long that they would never dare speak about it. In this film, the marines have much more clearly defined relationships. The subtext is gone, but the motivations are far clearer, and richer for the specificity. In the original film, Ripley’s (Weaver) mission to recover the ships cat is a gaping flaw in the work, if for no other reason than not one character appears to have any particular attachment to the cat up until that point. Here, Ripley’s forming of a surrogate family makes her quest to recover Newt (Henn) makes perfect sense.

Is this sequel superior to its progenitor? I’m not sure there is an objective answer to that, as it will almost exclusively (as with a great many things) be a matter of taste. It’s certainly in the running, and it isn’t exactly like any other film in the series can compete in that fight.

Alien (1979)

Director: Ridley Scott

Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt, Veronica Cartwright, Ian Holm, John Hurt, Harry Dean Stanton, Yaphet Kotto, and Bolaji Badejo as himself.

Have I Seen it Before: Sure.

Did I Like It: As Brett says, “Right…” 

This is another movie that proves difficult to try and write about critically with any sort of honesty. It’s a great film. You know it’s a great film* because they’ve been trying to remake it about a thousand times in the forty years since it was unleashed. And after you see a great film several times, it’s harder still—if not downright impossible—to unpack the experience. One is more struck by the little things that one may not think about on first blush.

The performances are pitch perfect and so against what would be the obvious direction a film like this could have taken. Ash (Holm) particularly stands out on second watch. He slithers through the movie, fighting down his glee (or as much glee as a robot could muster) that things are about to go down. 

The others are no slouches, either. They don’t particularly like each other—or at the very least, have gotten sick of one another after this much time beyond the frontier—and it shows. They don’t even like being in space, which is unique in both this series, and in science fiction as a whole. 

All of this comes about as subtext as well. Never once does one character turn to another and say, “I don’t like you, and I don’t like having to work in outer space.” This, along with the occasionally insane design gives the entire world a lived-in feel that Star Wars or Trek series often reaches for and comes up wanting.

Another element that never fails to delight—although it is likely less of an intentional choice and more of a reality of the time in which it was made—is the technology that surrounds the characters. Between clicking and clacking, displaying nonsense numbers as comprehensible data, and literally everything about the Mother computer make me long for a time when every piece of tech in a film didn’t look like it was designed by Tony Stark. Eagle-eyed readers of these reviews might detect a hypocrisy in that thought, as I have often extolled the virtue of films resisting looking like they were filmed at the time in which they were, but if films still used computers like this, it’d be impossible to tell when any film is made without consulting IMDB or Wikipedia, and that would make me a very happy camper, indeed.

If a film doesn’t have these little things, maybe it is not all that great in the first place. We are lucky that this one has them in spades. They make them worth coming back to every once in a while.

*While it is a great film, it is a competitive candidate for best trailer of all time. You have to kind of imagine yourself as a person who has no idea what the film is about when watching it, but from that perspective its one of the greats.

Ghostbusters II (1989)

Director: Ivan Reitman

Cast: Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, Dan Aykroyd, Peter MacNicol

Have I Seen it Before: Let’s just assume I’ve seen every movie released in the summer of 1989 about a thousand times.

Did I Like It: It has all the same ingredients as the original, and is still a satisfying meal, but in the end there is nothing like the first taste.

Comedy sequels are rough. Quick, name a good one. You probably didn’t mention Caddyshack 2 (1988). Or Analyze That (2002). Or The Whole Ten Yards (2004). Or Fletch Lives (1989). Smokey and The Bandit II (1980)? Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 (1983)? What’s left that can rise above the absolute laughless masses? The Austin Powers movies? Was the original even that funny after the hazy binge that was the 90s ended? Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)? Watchable, yes. Funny, sure. But not the same as the original.

So it is too with Ghostbusters II. Many—including much of the cast—have poured cold water over the second film, and I get it. The plot needlessly contrives putting the busters back to square one. There’s too much of Slimer and other elements and choices elevated by the only occasionally good Real Ghostbusters cartoon series. The notion of a Jaeger Statue of Liberty is sort of disappointing in a world that has Kaiju Marshmallow Men.

Although I admit that my soft spot for the movie may be a byproduct of people irrationally loving movies they first saw when they were five years old, but this movie is still Peak Murray, and thus cannot be dismissed entirely. I enjoy it every time I watch it, even if it is not as joy inducing as the original, or even if it is not quite as fresh as the 2016 remake. Watch it, and realize that while it isn’t perfect, it could have been truly embarrassing. That it isn’t in that low pantheon of comedy sequels is certainly worth something.

Ghostbusters (1984)

Director: Ivan Reitman

Cast: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver

Have I Seen it Before: Do you want me to perform it for you?

Did I Like It: Top five, likely. Top ten, definitely.

Ghostbusters fandom is a divided place now, it seems. If you like the original films, the 2016 remake is akin to sacrilege, inciting a series of dumb opinions, many of which coming from people who have never seen the new film. Similarly, to those who really found something to attach themselves to in the new film, the original is less thrilling.

To wit, the question I come to as I start writing this review: Is it possible to like both the original and brand new Ghostbusters? I enjoyed the new film, and never once felt threatened by its existence. This may be one of the prime pieces of evidence supporting the notion that I’m not an entitled man baby, and just like funny movies about people catching ghosts. And yet, the original film is one of my all-time favorites. I hope it isn’t perceived as sexist to prefer the original, because I’m of the mind that ghostbusting must know no borders of race, creed, or gender.

Now that we have that out of the way, I will restrict my comments to the original film.

There’s something special about Bill Murray. With many comic actors—indeed, many of those appear in this film—there is a period where they are at their funniest. Not so with Murray, as while he changes as the years go by, each version of Murray is equally watchable. That being said, the Murray enjoyed by filmgoers in the 80s through the mid-90s is peak Murray. He’s aspirational. Some people my age might have wanted to be James Bond or Michael Jordan, but the kind of people I would most get along with wanted to be like any Bill Murray character, even if they couldn’t quite admit. Laid back, but charismatic. Funny, but no one’s fool. Loved—even if begrudgingly so—by the best of people, and detested by the worst. For someone trying to get by on his wits, Bill Murray is the peak of manliness, and no more so than in this movie.

There’s an interesting extension to the above thought that I realized during this viewing. Any role during this same period that Bill Murray played, Chevy Chase could have played as well, and vice versa. However, when Murray plays the role, he is the heroic scamp, where if Chase portrayed the character, he’d be an irredeemable asshole. If Murray had been in Fletch (1985), it would have been an even better film, and if Chase had played Dr. Peter Venkman, the movie would have suffered within this alternate universe.

While the movie lives and dies by Murray’s presence, the rest of the cast helps elevate the movie to a true classic worthy of eventual remake. In my deep Ghostbuster fandom, I once had occasion to read the original screenplay by Aykroyd and Ramis. The script is fine, but the movie as we have all come to enjoy it is not on the page, it is in the performances. This film is a brilliant low-key comedy wrapped up in the trappings of a summer blockbuster. The blockbuster elements will fade (and in the case of the special effects, already have), but the film will live forever, owing to the bizarre, ineffable alchemy that is the true fun of the movie.