Comments | selenak: Alien³ and Alien: Resurrection...

selenak

Alien³ and Alien: Resurrection...

Jan 27, 2004 17:06

Now I've rewatched Alien³ and Alien: Resurrection as well, or rather, watched the Special Editions for the first time. If I had to sum these films up in one sentence, I'd say "flawed but interesting". Certainly more original than the sequels in most other franchises.

( Ripley the Alien Slayer )

alien, film review

Comments 13

asta77 January 27 2004, 09:48:06 UTC

I was contemplating doing a bit of an Alien write up in my own LJ at some point, but I'm not sure I could possibly say anything as well as you have. :) Alien3 and Alien: Ressurection have always been my least favorite of the franchise. The latter I have a slightly higher regard for since I can view it as a decent sci-fi/horror film. The former has always been a major disappointment for me. Hopefully, I'll feel kinder towards the new cut of the film.

The penal colonists are for the most part as much types as the Marines were, there are too many of them to tell them apart (it really works just for the doctor, the preacher and the Renfield wannabe). We see too much of the single Alien for it to be the mystery and threat the original creature was, and it's not the intelligent mother creature the Queen was, either. In a way, this combines the worst of two worlds.

You've summed up quite well my issues with Alien3. With the exception of Ripley, we don't really give a damn about any of the characters. Both in persoanlity and ( ... )

selenak January 27 2004, 10:16:48 UTC

Additionally, it's a bit difficult to sympathize with rapists and murderers.

Ah, there are ways to accomplish that. (Take a film like The Shawshank Redemption, which takes place in a prison; yes, Tim Robbins' character is innocent, but no one else's is.) But Alien³ didn't even try to make us care about the prisoners, with the exception of Charles Dance's character, who gets killed early on. If you do a horror movie and expect it to work (and this is one, not an action movie like Aliens), then you have to make the audience care about the victims.

I suppose if we were to continue on with the Buffy comparison, where Ripley literally became what she loathed, Buffy saw herself identifying far too much with her enemy, the vampire, and specifically, Spike.

Yes. It's also visible in the Buffy and Holden sections in Conversations with Dead People (written by Joss), where Buffy finds it far easier to confide in a vampire than to her friends, teaches him the correct vampire terminology and really doesn't want to kill him (though she knows ( ... )

phillyexpat January 27 2004, 11:49:39 UTC

I got linked to your post from casapazzo's journal. I prefer to think of ,Alien and Aliens as distinct films rather than original/sequel, because the look and feel are so different from one another. I actually prefered Aliens. I'm a fan of straight up horror, and especially Jaws-esque horror where you don't see the monster (an effect used well when the aliens themselves were coming through the airshafts). But I enjoyed the complexity of the second film-the corporate greed of Paul Reiser's character being as monstrous as the Alien itself, the two mother figures battling to save their kin.

I remember seeing Alien3 in the theater and being absolutely devastated during the Newt autopsy.

Now I'm dying to see them all again-is the Quadrilogy worth the investment?

Absolutely! selenak January 27 2004, 22:36:47 UTC

There is an extra disc for each film (and I've only seen the Alien extras yet), with documentaries, sketches etc, and the films themselves are presented in both the theatrical release versions and the special editions, with director, cast and crew commentary.

(It's worth noting that Sigourney Weaver is only in the audio commentary on the first one, though.)

BTW, I explained why I prefer Alien to Aliens in my previous post about the first two movies.

It's a matter of invidual taste and aesthetics, I suppose. But let me point out that the theme of corporate greed and its monstrosity was set up by the Scott movie already. The moment when Ripley sees the order which classifies the crew of the Nostromo as expendable is one of the most horrible in the film.

Excellent essay! buffyannotater January 27 2004, 12:20:31 UTC

As was your previous post on the first 2 Alien films. You have some wonderful insights here, and I agree that the last 2 entries in the series are not given enough credit by most viewers. Although neither is a particularly good movie, neither are either of them bad movies. Although both are arguably failures in various respects, they each did try to do a variation on the series, unlike most horror sequels. I was very impressed with the sheer tragedy of Alien3, which at the same time makes it a very hard film to sit through, as I was with the idea of a Ripley/Alien blend in the fourth film. Neither holds together properly as a film, but they each do have their strong points ( ... )

One particularly great... buffyannotater January 27 2004, 12:30:22 UTC

...point the book brought up is how it really is All.About.Ripley, and how the aliens are connected to her, almost psychically. Why do the aliens just start to attack the people on the colony now, when Ripley wakes up? Isn't that an awfully big coincidence? This critic's perception was that it wasn't a coincidence at all. The aliens have resurfaced at this point in time because Ripley has, too.

I was referring to the events of "Aliens"... buffyannotater January 27 2004, 12:31:05 UTC

...in my previous post, btw, in cast I didn't make it clear.

Re: One particularly great... raincitygirl January 27 2004, 13:14:22 UTC

It's not a coincidence, though. It's explained in the movie. The Queen and her eggs had lain dormant for fifty-seven years with no hosts for htem to gestate from. After Ripley was rescued and told the Company her story, Burke sent the colonists out to the location Ripley mentioned to check it out (it's not near the colony's base ( ... )

Thread 9