एलियन: रेसरेक्शन

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...

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.)

Alien:Resurrection divided audiences from the day it got released in theatres. To this day, even many studio execs and producers of the earlier films don't even dare watch this film or even consider it as part of the Alien franchise (so glad the Alien anthology Blu-Ray Boxset includes making-of featurettes for each of the four films - pretty awesome stuff). Among the franchise's fanbase, it's not unanimously appreciated either. I can understand why.

Nonetheless, I still think it deserves to be watched, as despite its weaknesses, Jean-Pierre Jeunet's film offers its share of interesting moments, all wrapped up in a technically-sound package.

Now, for anyone who has seen all four films, it's pretty obvious that each one of them has its own respective flavour, so to speak. Each film comes from a different director (and all four directors are extremely talented guys), and the difference in tone is quite noticeable, as the first film is a true, nightmarish, slow-paced sci-fi horror film ; Aliens is more action-oriented ; Alien 3 is a blend of thriller and horror film. Alien:Resurrection is no rupture to this thread of changing tones, as it has its share of dark humor, it's far more gory and graphic than all the previous installments, and it picks up (only) 200 years after Alien 3, in a spaceship, with our favourite monster-slaying female protagonist, none other than Ellen Ripley. Yes, she died in the third film, but writers have found an unoriginal and somewhat far-fetched way of bringing her back, which surprisingly ends up being perhaps one of the most interesting subplots in the whole movie (and one of the only ones too), as it leads to one pretty haunting scene later at the mid- point of the feature.

The script certainly isn't the film's strongest asset, as it serves no purpose other than getting the spaceship crew to confront the notorious alien creatures through all areas of the spaceship, with plenty of bloody and gooey fun throughout. My synopsis might not do the script justice, as there are a few subplots that I will not spoil, some interesting, some just plain silly. It does borrow elements from the previous films: Ripley develops a relationship with one of the characters that's a bit reminiscent of that she had with Newt in Aliens; there is a lot of action and gun play, just like there was in Aliens; it follows the tradition of featuring a robot character; the crew of the spaceship is composed of a few macho characters that might remind you of those in Alien 3, etc. All these elements are nice inclusions, but have a tribute feel to them more than anything else.

Anyhow, we do get good performances from the likes of Ron Pearlman, Brad Dourif, Wynona Ryder, Dominique Pinon and, of course, Sigourney Weaver.

Directing and cinematography rank among the highlights, along with the tremendous makeup and practical effects. Jean-Pierre Jeunet definitely brings a humorous touch here and there, but it never amounts to any overly distracting silliness. The aesthetics are true to the genre and look better in this film than in any of the previous ones, especially the creatures. They're more fluid in movement, the costumes are very detailed and gorgeously textured, and some of the set-pieces bring the gooey madness to a whole new level. Cinematography has a distinct feel to it, and the work on lighting is somewhat reminiscent of that in La cité des enfants perdus and Delicatessen, two of Jeunet's previous films.

The soundtrack by John Frizzell also works very well, and adds a nightmarishly majestic tone to the film, especially in those moments featuring plenty of organic imagery.

Overall, Alien:Resurrection, despite its fundamental flaw of suffering from a linear and quite predictable script that might borrow too much from the previous outings, is still a welcome (yet maybe unnecessary) addition to the franchise, and a technically competent film which profits greatly from Jean-Pierre Jeunet's approach in visual storytelling. While it is not nearly as good as either one of the first two films, it's still a worthwhile 100 minutes in the Alien universe.

Alien Resurrection was released about six months after I graduated from high school, and at the time I wasn't very familiar with the series. I took my first film class about six months later, at which point I learned to really appreciate the great films and filmmakers, and one of the first things I learned was that the first three Alien films are spectacular achievements of science fiction cinema and the third sequel is a sad, ridiculous mess. This happens all too often with sequels and yes, part four is not yet another amazingly impressive Alien film, but come on, it's not THAT bad.

I watched it last night for the first time in almost ten years, and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It's strange that I liked it so much, because it shows all the signs of a botched, modernized sequel of a series that should have been left alone long ago. The characters, most of all, are almost all goofy caricatures with preposterous dialogue and routine motivations, and some just don't belong at all. Personally I am a pretty big fan of Winona Ryder, but only in roles that suit her, and she has had a lengthy list of roles that suit her, but Annallee Call in Alien Resurrection is just not one of them. Too often she comes off as a tough talking teenager in this movie and it just gets hard to take her character seriously. She's like Ja Rule in Half Past Dead, but less ridiculous.

Then again, this could just have been a result of her starring alongside Sigourney Weaver, and that woman is just awesome. Dan Hedaya is suitably over-the-top in his role as the gleefully neurotic General Perez, and I have to admit that I was curious to see the performance of Gary Dourdan as Christie. Lately I've been watching countless hours of CSI on DVD, and it's amazing to see how different his role is in this movie from the most serious role he would play later in that show. I prefer the later performance, myself.

The resurrection implied in the title refers to Ripley being borough back to life 200 years after her death for the purpose of creating one of the alien queens, and then breeding the animals for twisted scientific purposes. They decide to keep Ripley alive for observation after surgically removing the alien from her chest, only to discover that she and the aliens are clearly more than they are prepared to handle. There is a negligible subplot involving a group of shady characters headed by the wonderfully sinister Michael Wincott as a Frank Elgyn, who promises his men won't start trouble or get into any fights if they are allowed to stay on board for a few days and nights.

I also have to mention Ron Perlman, who just has a face for this kind of movie. Probably most recognizable lately as Hellboy, this has to be one of the least appreciated actors of the last few decades. In just over 20 years he has acted in more than 150 films and TV shows, and at the time of this writing he has 18 projects in the works. Unbelievable! He also has one of the best lines in the movie ("Why the waste of ammo?! Must be a chick thing…").

The aliens are probably the thing that will make or break this movie, and in my opinion they were impressive enough. The occasional CGI effects are never convincing, but then again they never are, so luckily they didn't overdo them. Even the aliens swimming underwater was not too much for me to accept, perhaps given the automatic tension that is immediately generated in almost any movie where someone has to hold their breath for a long time. This went on far too long to be anything remotely realistic in this movie, but it was a good scene nonetheless.

I would also argue that this is the goriest of all of the four alien movies, particularly at the end, but also contains some of the best comic relief. This combination makes the movie highly entertaining, even following in the long shadows of its spectacular predecessors. There is a high energy scene in the third act of the film where Perlman's character performs a daredevil stunt to shoot one of the pursuing aliens dead which is followed by what has to be the funniest spider killing in film history. I haven't laughed out loud like that at a movie in a long, long time.

In browsing through the posts on the message board for Resurrection I have been inspired to raise my rating for the movie from a 7 to an 8, if only because it is so obvious that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon about bashing this movie. I see nothing but whiny, pouting little brats whimpering and griping about little nitpicky details in the movie, condemning the third sequel in the Alien quadrilogy as a travesty and an embarrassment and a pathetic way to end the series.

Stupid people in large numbers, man. It's sad to see such a clear mob mentality slamming a movie that is about 100 times better than most people say. No, it's not up to the same level as the first two films and it definitely has its drawbacks, but it is definitely a good installment in the series, and you could certainly do a lot worse for some fun popcorn sci-fi on a Friday night. I'll admit that my judgment might be a little skewed because I watched the staggeringly awful Eaten Alive just before seeing this, but it is clear to me that Alien: Resurrection has yet to receive the respect it deserves.

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!