ALIEN RESURRECTION is really underrated. On Fan Conservatism...

[david g]

While certainly a flawed film, Alien Resurrection is also a daring and imaginative film that presents us with some radical sci-fi themes and images. The fusion of Ripley and the Aliens takes this series to a new place and has continuing relevance for our genetics-obsessed era. There are also fascinating explorations of the effects of cross-breeding--human-like Aliens, Alien-like Ripley. The underwater chase scene is a gorgeous action sequence. And the scene in which Ripley must confront the failed, grotesquely misshapen clones that came before her is simply one of the great sequences in genre film, with a haunting poetic power that may go beyond anything else in the series.

I believe that something has changed in sci-fi fan bases. SF fans used to be the people who championed odd, flawed, frustrating, but nevertheless interesting or resonant films. When Blade Runner came out, the mainstream press attacked it for being incoherent, a mess; it was SF who made a case for its brilliance and transformed it into a cult hit. Were that film to be released today (the theatrical cut), it is most likely SF fans who would be pouncing on its flaws and, most crucially, its deviations from Philip K. Dick. Actually, if Philip K. Dick wote graphic novels, that last scenario would be even likelier.

It seems to me that SF fans privilege literalism: a one-to-one adherence to source materials (movies must represent the novels and graphic novels they adapt faithfully, and no deviation can occur); an absolute consistency between one film in a series and the other (example: the Face-Hugger shown during the credits of Alien 3 doesnt act the way other versions of the creature have, so this is a violation of what we already established; much more importantly, this film eschews the previous film's obsessive gun-play, so is obviously a misguided failure, and so forth). I first became aware of the first tendency during endless bloody battles over continuity issues in Star Trek:Voyager. But seeing the way fans ruthlessly police the content of genre films generally, I believe that what we are seeing is a really new kind of fan.

Any thoughts?

 

[Pingfah]

I don't think consistency from one movie to the next is too much to expect when you are dealing with 3 or 4 stories like the Alien franchise. Details of continuity changing are more understandable when you have something like Star Trek which has 100s of episodes and 5 different shows to remain consistent throughout.

The real problem with Alien Resurrection was not that it was a really poor movie though, it was that it had all the ingredients for a brilliant movie and they fucked it up. Jean-Pierre Jeunet is a brilliant director who has made some excellent films, the cast is top notch, it had a talented writer on board and a great big budget, and yet they produced only an average film at best with some flashes of excellence. That's what I lament the most, the squandered potential.

Sci-fi fans still do champion the underdogs and support "odd, flawed and frustrating but nevertheless interesting or resonant films", one only needs look to the success of films like "The Man From Earth" to see that. But Alien Resurrection clearly falls short of the other movies, and clearly falls vastly short of it's own potential, and for that it deserves the scorn it receives.

 

[Middle Earther]

I really enjoyed all 4 Alien movies for what they were. I see AR as more of a popcorn pick, but the idea of the mixing with the Alien and the Super-Ripley clone was well done, IMHO. I've especially enjoyed the series even more since reading a philosopher's take on the whole series in R. Kearney's book: Strangers, Gods, and Monsters.

 

[Roshi]

WHAT'S IN-FUCKING-SIDE OF ME????!

Best line ever!

 

[Middle Earther]

And then Ripley calmly explains it and looks him in the eye: "Any questions?"

 

[Harvey]

It has great cinematography, I like the music, Weaver gives a good, conflicted performance, and most of the cast is great (Ron Perlman and Dominique Pinon, anyone?).

I think the biggest problem is either the script (Joss Whedon be damned), or the fact that they ran out of money and had to completely cut at least two big set pieces.

I enjoy it for what it is, though.

 

[Aragorn]

Having good ideas mean nothing if they fail to execute them. Praising a movie for ideas alone is like when you were in grade school and got an A in math for effort even if your real grade was a C. It's not WHAT a movie is about that makes it good or bad, it's HOW it goes about telling its story.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

I like the approach they took with the Alien series, bringing in a new director for each film and giving each film a tone distinct from the others. The problem is that the third and fourth films just weren't executed nearly as well as the first two. That's not to say that they're poor films by any means. I quite enjoy both of them, and both have some great moments, but they're nowhere near as good as Alien and Aliens.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

WHAT'S IN-FUCKING-SIDE OF ME????!

That's what she said!

I enjoyed Resurrection first time around. Later viewings, it's more like a comic book take on the franchise. Not bad, just more removed from the hard sci-fi trappings of the first 3.

I like the basketball scene a lot.

 

[Teelie]

I think "squandered potential" best sums it up. All that good stuff and they still somehow ruined it. If I could, I'd blame Fox suits for meddling in the production. They are responsible for so many fuck ups.

 

[bigdaddy]

I think the biggest problem is either the script (Joss Whedon be damned), or the fact that they ran out of money and had to completely cut at least two big set pieces.

The writing does suck, he is a writer, he screws up, live with it. It does have a very comic book feel to the movie. The idea of a Ripley and alien clone is a very interesting one, however they fail on all levels for it, and it's a shame.

 

[RoJoHen]

I really liked the new alien-hybrid version of Ripley. It was an interesting way to bring the character back into the fold, and I thought Weaver's performance was great.

That said, I pretty much hated every other character.

Also, when did it become a requirement for the aliens to be constantly wet and drooling everywhere?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

It has great cinematography, I like the music, Weaver gives a good, conflicted performance, and most of the cast is great (Ron Perlman and Dominique Pinon, anyone?).

I think the biggest problem is either the script (Joss Whedon be damned), or the fact that they ran out of money and had to completely cut at least two big set pieces.

I enjoy it for what it is, though.

You could maybe couple that with the fact that Jeunet from what I understand could speak very little English.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I saw it in the cinema when it came out and liked it. Liked it better than Alien 3, which was the first of the series I'd seen in the cinema. Not as good as Alien or Aliens but few movies of that type are. The friend I saw it with, who would regularly disagree with my views on movies, also enjoyed it.

I haven't seen it since so I may or may not like it, but from memory, I'd definitely agree that it was under-rated.

 

[miraclefan]

Later viewings, it's more like a comic book take on the franchise. Not bad, just more removed from the hard sci-fi trappings of the first 3.

Ya, that's how I see it. If anyone here has read the dark horse ALIENS comics you can really see that influence in ''res''

 

[EmmanuelZorg]

I thought it was a HUGE HUGE improvement over part 3, it's not too bad but it does entertain on all levels with action and gore galore. Jean Pierre Jeunet who was fresh off the brilliant fantasy classic "City of Lost Children" seemed like the right man to do this movie.

 

[crouteru]

Ironically, the best and worst thing for me about Resurrection is the same thing - Ripley. She turned out to be the most interesting character, with her dual loyalties and coming to terms with her existance (the point where she discovers the previous 7 clones is a great scene).

I didn't like her return because I felt she had a definative ending in Alien 3, and it's a bit of a stretch to believe her own DNA would also clone the alien embryo inside her. Anybody who studied basic biology in school would know that couldn't happen.

 

[Rii]

I've been meaning to give this film another chance. I loathed it upon first viewing, but that's been my only viewing to date and it was a number of years ago now.

I didn't like her return because I felt she had a definative ending in Alien 3

Yeah, as a fan of Alien 3 and the development of Ripley's character therein, I had difficulties with this film right from the start. I guess it's like Newt/Hicks in Alien 3 for some Aliens fans.

 

[Worf2DS9]

I also enjoy the movie. When I saw it at the theater, I LOVED it, but that opinion was most likely inflated due to the "big screen experience". However, I do like the look of the film and there are a number of sequences that are really good. You even feel a little sorry for the hybrid alien as he's sucked into space through that little hole (shudder). But there are some weird moments that don't quite work for me, like General Perez calmly pulling a piece of his brain away after an alien has bitten the back of his head off; and I hate that deep growling the aliens in this movie do.

However, as I flip through the equally slick The Making of Alien Resurrection book, a lot of hard work and care went into making the movie, and for the most part what we got wasn't too bad.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

An interesting way for the series to go would have been to let Ripley and Hicks have their happy ending at the conclusion of Aliens and for the third film to switch to a grown-up Newt as the protagonist. Having the main character be someone for whom the aliens are a nightmare from her childhood, and then she encounters them again in adulthood could have been interesting, especially if Newt was raised by Ripley.