Alien, la résurrection

I actually read the novel before I had ever seen the feature, and I really enjoyed it. As I remembered being on holidays with my family soon after it just opened at cinemas and grabbing a copy to fill in the time. The aspect I liked about it was that the fact you could read that of the thoughts of the aliens. Sure it wouldn't work on film (well it might --- however it would feel quite odd to tell the truth), but it was an interesting touch in the book. I seen it a couple times now and it remains just as adrenaline pumped and enjoyably over-the-top entertainment.

Anyhow French director Jean-Pierre Jeunet and writer Josh Whedon (best known for penning "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer" TV series and than later on the TV show and movie "Firefly") would definitely change the tone of the franchise with this well-budgeted sequel "Alien Resurrection" as its broodingly surreal visual edge and venomous tongue-in-cheek approach were the signature styles of its creators. Was it better for it… well, yes and no. While for me it doesn't come close to the first two films, I believe it to be an improvement over David Fincher's "Alien 3". Which I don't believe to be as bad as many make it out to be, but still a disappointing experience (although the producer's cut fixes up some problems evident in the theatrical release).

Whedon's story is a perfect blend of sci-fi/ horror / action that starts off with an interesting vision, before transcending into the same old formula. Nonetheless director Jeunet's clinical, but streamlined handling constructs some twisted images (like that of the newborn alien) and exciting passages outside the graphic jolts, liked the sequences staged underwater and involving some ladder climbing. The atmosphere is dark and shadowy with vast, open long wide photography and an expansively simmering score.

Special effects remain impressive as ever. Mixing with effective puppet work (how can you forget the second tongue and constant drooling!) and decent CGI work. The competent make-up FX stands up with moments of graphic carnage and new creation or two. The ensemble cast do decent job. Ron Pealman pretty much steals the show and Sigourney Weaver seems to be relishing her return. Winona Ryder is okay. Then there's solid support by Michael Wincott, J.E. Freeman, Dan Hedaya, Gary Dourdan and Brad Dourif.

I am one of those older (mature) reviewers who can claim to have seen this series in real time, in theatres.

First I will share my recollection of what that was like at the time.

Alien 1 was magnificent. If you were to make a list of the greatest films of all time (and all reviewers do this, if only subconsciously) Alien 1 would be make the list. Alien 2 was doubly astonishing because it was almost as good as Alien 1 and, as any film buff knows, the sequel is rarely if ever that good.

Expectations were high going into Alien 3, the prison planet movie, but the entry was disappointing and for the first time fans started to wonder if the franchise was going to self-destruct.

For this reason, Alien 4, Resurrection, was disappointing in every possible way. It was a weak concept, poorly timed and poorly executed. The template for the story was more "haunted house" than sci-fi. Not only was the story flawed but at the end of the day it ran out of steam after the first 30 minutes and became tedious for the audience, a sin no film should ever commit. All the characters were so unlikable -- including to a large extent Weaver's saucy clone -- that even if the audience WANTED to root for a character, there was no one worthy of the effort.

I got hold of the director's cut and re-reviewed this film because another member posted a review saying this film was unappreciated.

OK, so let's appreciate it for what it is -- a flawed entry that almost destroyed the franchise. The IMDb rating is solid -- in other words, this is really a very weak film.

(To date Alien 1 and 2 remain the best of the series. AVP is a remarkably perky little entry that somehow manages to polarize reviewers who either love it or hate. I have re-watched AVP more than any other entry. It is not elegant but it is very very entertaining.)

The first three Alien films have a unique kind of "magic" about them that I think make up the ideal Alien experience.

It is the "ALIEN" atmosphere: The first three films depict a very real world around a mysterious and terrifying ALIEN creature that you feared along with the well developed characters.

Alien Resurrection has a very different flavor. Although it has some serious moments, there are several areas of this film that are out-of-place in both the film and the saga: Alien Resurrection has a number of humorous scenes which I feel take away from the above described overall ALIEN experience. The director goes straight into the action very quickly in this film so the only well developed character is Ripley. I think that the Alien creature loses a lot of its majesty in this film mostly because of these two critical factors.

It is still a must-see film for any Alien fan. It is full of strong cinematic sequences that resonate in your head long after the film is over.

But go in expecting something different.

Enjoy!

Review 4 of 4

With Alien 3 closing the story arc of the Alien trilogy, this film begins with a fresh slate. The Alien films have always been a director's series but in this film it was the writing that ultimately killed it. Resurrection tries to be too many things at once. It has a very artistic and dynamic visual style, but cardboard characters. It has a very overt sense of humor, but it is all done in a very juvenile manner. Much of the maturity and restraint of the previous three films is thrown out in favor of a more comic book style. The cinematography and set design is gorgeous to the point of decadence. Sigourney Weaver has been given an interesting character to play and does it with a strange sense of detachment that lends more depth to the proceedings than the script ever could. Thinking back, the first three films all had very solid overall stories and well developed characters while Resurrection has a very solid concept but can't seem to build a coherent movie around it. If you follow the overall themes of the series with the first, second and third being birth, life, and death respectively that leaves Resurrection on shaky thematic ground. Since this is Alien: RESURRECTION obviously the filmmakers wished for rebirth to be the theme, but somehow it never quite works. The characters are basically action movie clichés, and the action sequences of the movie are hopelessly contrived. Why does the Alien always stop to snarl before it attacks giving people just enough time to shoot it? Alien 3 did not have this problem and it reinforced how dangerous the creature really was. Resurrection turns the Aliens into monsters from a B-movie. Very few scenes in the film are particularly memorable. Sure, the underwater chase is a nice bit of action derring-do, but there's no real sense of danger...except for the supporting characters you barely know who get killed in the reverse order they appear in the credits. Two fantastic scenes that I wish there were more of in the film are the doctor's examination of the Aliens where he "plays" with them. Now that was a scene of inspired genius. The other scene was when Ripley wakes up in her circular chamber. It is interesting to note that neither of these scenes have any dialogue, because the dialogue is pretty atrocious. Ron Pearlman is always fun to watch and makes a good comic duo with Dominique Pinon, but Winona Ryder absolutely kills this movie with her nonperformance. The effects look less realistic this time out and the score at times seems to try too hard to emulate the second and third films with Goldsmith's original Alien theme being used on several occasions. The film is a brilliant exercise in dynamic visuals but the story really does not go anywhere. Unlike the first three films this one does not take itself seriously at all so the danger level becomes nonexistent. I believe Jean-Pierre Jeunet was an excellent choice for a director but the script served him very badly. This is an interesting film to watch for an interesting scene here and there but not in the same league as the previous films.

Set some 200 years after the events of Alien 3, Alien Resurrection follows a group of scientists who are desperate to get their hands on some aliens to study. They achieve this (questionably, I might add) by obtaining some DNA from the long dead Ellen Ripley, and cloning her. Eventually they are successful, and extract the alien queen she had in her chest (hmmm) and begin their research. Thing is, the DNA has become slightly muddled, meaning the aliens now have some human traits along with a more organic appearance, and Ripley is... not quite herself. A band of mercenaries drop off some 'test subjects' for the scientists to impregnate, and all hell breaks loose. The aliens are much smarter now, so escape with ease and run amok, but Ripley is now super strong and has acid for blood. Together, she and the mercs must stop the aliens reaching Earth...

Sounds awful doesn't it? And many fans of the series think it is. I can see why, the aliens don't quite look right, the camera work is, well, very late 90s... and the characters are so ridiculous I'm not quite sure if the film is intentional parody. The film isn't tense or scary in the slightest, and the final act is pretty much complete garbage. The thing is despite its many many flaws, it is quite fun once you accept it for what it is - a fun and goofy sci fi action film that is not to be taken seriously. You will know if this appeals or not...