Alien resurrection - inspirational or pointless?

Discussion in 'Archive: SF&F: Films and Television' started by General_Veers05, Jun 4, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. General_Veers05 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2005
    star 2
    Lets hear your thoughts people!
  2. Andalite-Bandit Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2005
    star 6
  3. ezekiel22x Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 4
    While it?s not iconic in the sense of the first two, I certainly don?t think it?s the train wreck many detractors make it out to be. Jeunet succeeded in letting his own favored style shine through with a multitude of dark, comedic moments, while I?d dare say that the various space pirates are just as lively and individually developed as the fan favorite space marines from the second film. There?s a real rapport in a lot of the byplay going on between the core cast, especially in regards to Weaver, Dominique Pinon, and Ron Pearlman (which isn?t so surprising considering the latter two actors were previously established as Jeunet favorites.) And in regards to bringing back Ripley, I actually think this was handled quite well with the whole human/alien hybrid thing. It was a creative risk bringing back a Ripley version that?s inherently different from the character we knew from the first three films, but in the end I think this brought about an air of freshness and thematic depth that might have been lacking had the clone Ripley been characterized too close to her earlier counterpart.

    I consider Resurrection to be a worthy installment to the Alien series, while every time I see the powerful ending to this film I lament the fact that, barring some miraculous turn of events, a continuation to the story left off there isn?t forthcoming.
  4. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    you are standing alone there - it truely was a train wreck - cemented by that joke of a new type of alien born towards the end.

  5. ezekiel22x Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 4
    Stellar analysis.
  6. Jedi_Master_Conor Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2005
    star 6
    i agree. i'd rather they had gone with a storyline from one of the alien novels from the early/mid 90s. those were more worthy
  7. Panther50 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 3
    It had its moments, but as an effort to revitalise the series I think it was a failure.
  8. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    I liked The Betty, the pirates, the conversation between Elton and the General, the underwater scene and the basketball scene. But it's not a good film, and far from a good Alien film. The Humalien = worst film monster ever.
  9. gabe Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    I enjoyed AVP more.
  10. The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 10
    Alien Resurrection is a fun movie scarred by a bad ending. Up until Ripley falls through the floor, the film is a mostly solid installment in the franchise that continues the pattern of each film being very different in feel, and while Alien 3 harkens back to the original film, Resurrection definitely harkens back to Aliens. You had a fun mix of characters (as mentioned earlier, Ron Pearlman and crew are just as strange a band as the Colonial Marines were), a different Ripley to change things up, and some intelligent Aliens (the "button pushing" scene) that makes them seem less mindless.

    But, man, after she falls through that floor, does it ever go straight down the tubes.

    Not only do we have that awful Newborn creature, but we have the embarassing "live birth" scene with the Alien Queen. The greatest movie monster of all time, and you make it look silly and have it killed off by the stupid looking Newborn? Ugh.

    Cut out the last 15 min or so of the movie and you have a pretty decent flick, though.


    [image=http://home.arcor.de/annonym2803/bilder/queen1_.jpg]

    [face_love] I love you, baby. :*
  11. CaptainBinaca Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2005
    star 3
    It wasn't helped by the fact that the best actor in the film, Michael Wincott was the first main character killed. I liked the development given to some of the Betty crew, but Ryder was even more miscast in this one than she was in Coppola's Dracula.
  12. Jedi_Master_Conor Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2005
    star 6
    same here
  13. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    fair point, but I'm not prepared to point-by-point rip the movie apart as that won't change anything.

    Simple analysis for me would be to say "movie sucks, watch Aliens again instead". No-one will disagree.
  14. Jedi_Master_Conor Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2005
    star 6
    now that I think about it The2ndQuest has a good point. it was a good decent movie up until the last 15minutes. that newborn idea was just plain stupid. i'd rather there had been another battle with the queen. just have the Betty be a little bigger
  15. Yodas-evil-twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 5
    It should have ended with Alien 3, forming a nice little trilogy.
  16. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    It should have ended with Aliens
  17. RolandofGilead Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2001
    star 7
    I kinda liked watching baby Alien get sucked out the window. The other characters were good, but I couldn't get into the new Ripley. She just annoyed me.
  18. sarlaccpit_48 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 2005
    star 1
    It was pointless, but not a pointless as Alien vs. Predator. At least for Alien vs. Predator they could of added a cameo apperance by Arnold Swarcheneger and just have him yell, "COME WITH ME IF YOU WANT TO LIVE!!!"

    I don't know about you, but Aliens is better than Alien 3 and Alien Resurection combined!
  19. plo_koom Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 2002
    star 5
    Jaws 1: Outstanding, Iconic

    Jaws 2: Good

    Jaws 3: Fair-bad

    Jaws 4: Abysmal

    Jurassic Park 1: Outstanding

    Jurassic Park 2: Good-fair

    Jurassic Park 3: Fair-bad

    Jurassic Park 4: Abysmal???

    Alien 1: Outstanding, Iconic.

    Alien 2: Good

    Alien 3: Fair-bad

    Alien 4: Abysmal

    Notice a pattern?
  20. howardgarbo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 29, 2005
    star 1
    I enjoyed Ron Perlman's performance as Johner. Perlman's great in anything and I loved his wisecracking badass persona.

    Gary Dourdan (of CSI Miami) is also fine as Christie. His twin mini-gun is cool. But I dislike the way his character is killed off, they should have at least kept him alive for another couple scenes.

    The underwater action sequence is fun.

    Other than that I felt disappointed by the film, due to the following: terrible dialogue and lame attempts at humour ("fork"..."f-word"), the whole wierd cartoony vibe that takes away any suspense, Winona Ryder's terrible performance, Dan Hedaya is also wasted, underrated actor Micheal Wincott is killed off way too quickly, and not to mention the alien newborn is one of the most ridiculous looking movie monsters ever.
  21. rumsmuggler Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 31, 2000
    star 7
    Gary Dourdan was cool and I think the movie started to slip after he was killed off. The alien spit in his face, but it didn't look to be fatal to me. He should have lived in my opinion. Ron Perlman was cool as usual. The newborn pretty much killed the movie for me, even though I still watch it from time to time.
  22. KissMeImARebel Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2003
    star 4
    I think it had a few good ideas...that were quickly squashed into a jumbled mess.

    Let me put it this way: my Grandmother fell asleap during this film.

    That's not a joke either - she kept snoring and had to be woken up.
  23. Lanky Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 2002
    star 4
    Mostly pointless. But its problems stem more from the direction that Alien 3 took the franchise than anything I think Jeunet or Whedon did (except maybe the Hybrid). What I really can't understand is this unwillingness to let go of the Ripley character. The universe that was hinted at in Alien and to a greater degree in Aliens is IMO so very ripe for further exploration. I've always been fascinated by the very early history of Europeans in the America's and in a lot of ways the first two Alien films hearken back to that feeling of unreality and immense foreboding that you get when you read about these people who were so bent on profit that they went off into the wilderness and sometimes never came back. In short, its the setting that does it for me - a time of unbridled greed in a new world filled with indisctinct possibilities and situations that nobody really understands, which by extension makes the things they don't understand that much more terrifying. Here be dragons indeed.

    But getting back to the main point, I've been disappointed ever since seeing the other 2 Alien films that the producers/studio/whoever decided that Ripley vs The Alien needed to stay the main focus of these films. I think the universe they've created as so many possibilites that by making these movies inseperable from the Ripley character, a lot of great story-telling possibilities are lost. Alien vs Predator got it half right, but the fact that the time-period was changed and it has a veritable Ripley clone anyway goes a long way to negating it.

    In all, I think there were and still are a lot of interesting opportunities with which a good director and some writers could plumb the depths of what I think is a very richly detailed universe.

    But of course, I think I'd probably go see an Alien movie even if it was just about the Nostromo making ore runs without any Aliens showing up, so take what I say with a grain of salt ;)
  24. Panther50 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 3
    Ripleys a good character, but the point of the whole series was the Aliens. Her story ended in part 3, there was no need to bring her back. Its like they were afraid to carry on without her. I for one wouldn't have been bothered if she hadn't been in resurrection, I was just excited to see another Alien movie.
  25. General_Veers05 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2005
    star 2
    Some very good points. i too think that the film was a disappointment. I thought that the "Newborn" Alien mutant at the end was lame to say the least. However, i did like Ron perlmans performance as Johner. As for the ripley thing, i think that the Alien films are not really complete without Ripley, but in Alien Resurrection, her character changes dramatically - she no longer really cares about saving people etc.

    Anyway, keep your thoughts coming...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.