Movie Defense Force: Alien: Resurrection

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I liked Resurrection. Was it as good as Alien or Aliens, no where near, but it was enjoyable. There is a couple of points that don't seem to come through in the film so well. The first is that the DNA between Ripley and the Queen hasn't been completely seperated, hence the obvious hybrid "baby". But also, Ripley has acidic blood. It probably was designed like this but if you look at Ripley's fingernails, they look like the alien's nails do. They had things in there that could have been used to greater effect, but seemed to have been tossed. In some scenes and if you watch Weaver's performance, it seems that there was some communication between her and the aliens. It has been a while since I've watched it last, but I think she knew when the aliens escape. Internal thoughts or communications like this are hard to convey on screen, especially without voiceovers and because of that some of the tension is lost. One of the side plots that I think got lost because of this was the idea that whose side was Ripley really on. All in all, Resurrection, to me, is a film where a lot of the context is sort of there, and if you know is there, makes it a better film.

The only Alien or AvP film that really can't be defended in some way, imo, is AvP:Requiem.

aliens + space-pirates, a mad scientist, some goofy humour of which you sometimes cannot be entirely sure if intended or not
throw into bowl, stirr

et voilą, a fun movie (with fun as in "i liked to watch it", which, i admit, is the only criteria i work with. same goes for games, music, literature, etc. it's madness, i know...)

also, Winona Ryder ^^ (what? yeah i know it's shallow, but we're talking about an audio-visual medium here, and she's got some nice eyes... and with eyes i mean eyes, you dirty...)

FightingFurball:
Well yes, you can certainly defend 'Alien: Resurrection' but there is no way in hell anyone can defend 'Terminator 4'!

oh yes, that i'd like to see as well - nealry impossible, i'd say (damn, that was bad ^^ although not as bad a parody as Terminator 3. oh boy. how can you fuck up a Terminator movie so badly.)

What they should do is get rid of Ripley, they should have allowed her to die at end of A3, it was a great send off in that she sacrificed herself. Ripley as a character has to much baggage when writing a movie and that can change how a story works, they should have had a movie with those new characters only. Plus how could they clone Ripley if their was nothing left of her? An even if they found some blood, that doesnt mean she would have an alien queen in her as well. Its a parasite, its not part of her dna. I know, thats just nit picking.

Also, i like those failed clone Ripleys - why couldnt they have those freaks running around at the end? Some of those designs were disturbing and would have preferred some of them used as the newborn. What about if their was no actual aliens apart from queen and newborn (better looking newborn) and loads of freaky Ripley/Alien freak clones as the enemy. :-)

I liked the movie, but i think they are to scared to colour out the lines and do something different. Look at the novels, they added loads of stuff to the lore like red versions of the alien. Like using alien queen royal jelly for medical products. Aliens attacking earth. The army training aliens to help fight the war on earth. Even the alien homeworld and the queen of queens.....hell they even had Ripley in that one. They also had alien cults that worshiped them allowed themselve to be facehugged. There is so much that can be done with the alien......and thats what this series needs.

I personally would love an Aliens on Earth. In the books the cult people let them free from company head quarters then left to different corners of the world until the chest burster did its thing. Then the army started destroying alien nests around the world until the aliens learnt to make smaller nests and better hidden. Eventually the humans lost and people left earth. Amazing film if they did that.

Yeah, "really weird" does sum up this movie in a nutshell, Jim. Especially Brad Dourif's scenes with the aliens. O_o Talk about a guy that desperately needs a hobby outside of his profession.

Still, any movie with Ron "Fuck-mothering" Perlman in it is OK by me.

I always quite like it to be honest the hybrid was goofy but overall not a terrible film. I'd pick resurrection over Prometheus any time!

Mr. Q:
Still, any movie with Ron "Fuck-mothering" Perlman in it is OK by me.

Also this!

canadamus_prime:
I didn't think this movie was so bad. Although the way they brought back Ripley was reeeeealy contrived. Like how the hell were they able to separate her DNA from that of the Xenomporph for the cloning process?

Well, 200 years further into the future (and we were already quite far with 2)... doesn't seem too unreasonable. Then you also have to consider they still needed 8 attempts.

I liked Alien Resurection. I also liked both the Alien vs. Predator films.

the December King:
I was very disappointed with the 'Newborn', or the Alien/human hybrid, and refuse to accept it/ acknowledge it at all.

I liked the idea of the Newborn. The previous films, plus the expanded universe, already established that the xenomorphs aren't just parasites that use our bodies as food to grow, they actually merege genetics in some way and take on different traits depending on what species they are born from. The twist with the Newborn is that it's exactly the same thing, only done to the aliens by accident instead of done by them as part of their lifecycle.

The problem with it is simply that the design really sucked. Instead of a big scary alien like the others had always been, you had an awkward baby with big eyes and a smile that looked more like a Disney character than anything else. I can understand what they were aiming for with it - after all, it is a baby and it's supposed to look more human - but aiming for a nice idea is very different from actually pulling it off.

canadamus_prime:
I didn't think this movie was so bad. Although the way they brought back Ripley was reeeeealy contrived. Like how the hell were they able to separate her DNA from that of the Xenomporph for the cloning process?

You what? The entire premise of the film is that they weren't able to separate her DNA from the xenomorph's.

Kahani:

I liked the idea of the Newborn. The previous films, plus the expanded universe, already established that the xenomorphs aren't just parasites that use our bodies as food to grow, they actually merege genetics in some way and take on different traits depending on what species they are born from. The twist with the Newborn is that it's exactly the same thing, only done to the aliens by accident instead of done by them as part of their lifecycle.

The problem with it is simply that the design really sucked. Instead of a big scary alien like the others had always been, you had an awkward baby with big eyes and a smile that looked more like a Disney character than anything else. I can understand what they were aiming for with it - after all, it is a baby and it's supposed to look more human - but aiming for a nice idea is very different from actually pulling it off.

I totally understand this point of view, but as a fan of otherworldly horror, I get really tired of constantly being told in the narrative that the worst and most horrific things are humans/ done by humans/ mostly human. To me, the horror of the alien is that part of it's life cycle goes beyond the rape of the host and takes all of the victim, in a way that we cannot fathom (at least in a sane world/human perspective).

For me, the initial vibe from the 'Alien' movie was that humans stumbled onto something so horrific that it was best it had never been found. The second movie was a 'we can't understand it so let's gung -ho exterminate it' horror of an empowerment illusion- they came armed and confident, and got decimated. The third movie was a desperate last stand which I found endearing, though ultimately futile. The fourth? Another empowerment illusion, this time with science, and so over the top as to be a joke... and that doesn't cut it for me, but I can see the room for a self-satire of the franchise. I guess. (This is all under the shadow of the Weyland Yutani corp's faceless capitalistic greed, of course.)

It's a personal preference. I can see that the humanlike alien is all creepy for it, but in a creature that is already disturbingly human, I just didn't find it more poignant.

Also knocking a queen's head off with a baby slap is all kinds of retarded.

...

This might actually be the part that bothered me the most.

the December King:
I was very disappointed with the 'Newborn', or the Alien/human hybrid, and refuse to accept it/ acknowledge it at all. I liked it better when we had no power over or understanding of the alien life cycle, hence maintaining the 'alien' part.

However, I do see the other scenes and characters/ interactions in the flick as fun/enjoyable even if a bit strange, so, yeah. Good points, Jim!

I agree, the whole premise of the newborn just doesn't make sense. All the xenomorphs we've seen to date have been human hybrids (apart from the hound in A3). Why would the newborn really look any different; it is already established fact that the xenomorphs takes genetic stock from their host at this point.

It sort of ruined the whole movie for me, which I really enjoyed up to that point.

Bindal:

canadamus_prime:
I didn't think this movie was so bad. Although the way they brought back Ripley was reeeeealy contrived. Like how the hell were they able to separate her DNA from that of the Xenomporph for the cloning process?

Well, 200 years further into the future (and we were already quite far with 2)... doesn't seem too unreasonable. Then you also have to consider they still needed 8 attempts.

Yes it is. There's no way I'm going to believe that they were able to separate 2 separate sets of DNA from presumably one mashed up sample. Besides how did they get that sample anyway? Riply's body and the Alien within it were pretty thoroughly incinerated at the end of Alien 3.

The one scene that's always stayed with me from this was the guy freaking out at a spider and using a whole bullet to kill it.

Theres alot of reasons to hate the movie. While I agree the movie isn't bad, it just really average at everything it tries to do. Fact is, for a dark comedy, I really can't remember laughing much at all. I don't remember being scared much or the action being fun. It tries to do to much but succeeds so rarely.

I love True Blood (pretty much the Dark Comedy of the vampire genre, done extremely well). And it had lots of action, but thats a tv series so yeah they had alot of time to work with. Anyway I think that whatever Resurrection is, it doesn't feel like a Alien movie. Fans walk away disappointed and general movie goer (when you tally up all the votes) will come to the conclusion that its a average film. Alien 3 is the one that doesn't deserve the flak its got. Alien 3 is the kind of movie that has equal amounts of people saying they loved it, and hated it.

Oh man, the scene when the General dude gets "stabbed" in the back of the head by one of the aliens, and he slowly reaches behind his head to pull out a piece of his brain, then looks at it with a confused "Durrrrr" look made me lose my shit when I first saw this movie. So damn funny! Everyone looked at me like I was insane! But thank Jim for Jim's clarification that this movie IS indeed a dark comedy, Now I can laugh my ass off at that scene again and again, and not worry about people thinking I'm "insane" I'm just more perceptive than them :)

While I still think this film is an utterly disjointed mess, I admire your ability to stick to your guns Jim. As far as I'm concerned, these are the kind of MDF's you should be doing. Films that you believe are genuinely good and are unfairly maligned, and not just 'so bad it's good' films.

If I may throw in a suggestion, you should do Ang Lee's 'Hulk.' My god, if there was ever a movie that was unfairly despised, it's that one. The only two tangible criticisms I've heard for it are: 'it's nothing like the comics,' and, 'it's paced slowly.' I have to ask, is that really enough to make the film a travesty?

canadamus_prime:

Bindal:

canadamus_prime:
I didn't think this movie was so bad. Although the way they brought back Ripley was reeeeealy contrived. Like how the hell were they able to separate her DNA from that of the Xenomporph for the cloning process?

Well, 200 years further into the future (and we were already quite far with 2)... doesn't seem too unreasonable. Then you also have to consider they still needed 8 attempts.

Yes it is. There's no way I'm going to believe that they were able to separate 2 separate sets of DNA from presumably one mashed up sample. Besides how did they get that sample anyway? Riply's body and the Alien within it were pretty thoroughly incinerated at the end of Alien 3.

Yeah, this.

I'm willing to throw a lot of science out of the window when watching movies like these, but there's no way any DNA survived a molten lava bath. Like, zero.

I found it b grade awesomeness too, kind of like starship troopers. By that i mean the first one, the rest we're just fucking terrible, though i look forward to the movie defense force of the third one.

Otherwise i found the hybrid reminiscent of skeletor from the movie, masters of the universe. Also, when you think about it aren't all of the aliens "hybrid"?

I disagree with you on Alien 3 (it was mediocre at best) and I disagree with you on this one too. (it's garbage)

The one point I'll give you is that the newborn was creepy. I think they did a good job making it sit in the uncanny valley, where it's close enough to human that you can empathize with it, but far enough away that it's a little disturbing.

It doesn't matter if they were trying to make a dark comedy out of it, because they made it into a bad dark comedy.

double post. : S

Even thought I know that Alien and Aliens are much better movies I acutally enjoy 3 and 4 more.
I think they are great and I also liked Prometheus alot.

Its pretty cool with a movie franchise with 5 so different movies. (+ the AvP movies but they doesnt count)

But is it better than Aliens: Colonial Marines?

DTWolfwood:
The "baby" is still to me the creepiest monster i've seen. That includes the Thing.

I thought the monster looked cool. thou i think Xenomorphs arn't scary, they got cool lore and just interest me.

Trezu:

DTWolfwood:
The "baby" is still to me the creepiest monster i've seen. That includes the Thing.

I thought the monster looked cool. thou i think Xenomorphs arn't scary, they got cool lore and just interest me.

thats the thing, when they look like themselves they are cool, but when they some what look like humans you get that Uncanny Valley feels lol This one so happens to be just enough creep for me. Plus the sound it makes. :Cringe:

Waffle_Man:
But can't anything be a comedy with a sufficiently disturbed mind?

The defense seems like someone defending a shitty student art project as "expressive."

Keep in mind that I'm speaking as someone who didn't hate the movie.

I likewise enjoyed the film for many of the (Ron Perlman) reasons that Jim (badguy from The Crow) mentioned, but the whole "it was supposed to be a comedy" has been losing traction ever since Tommy Wiseau flagrantly lied about it to try and justify The Room.

I've been a bit busy recently and forgot to check in on this feature, so I missed commenting on "Hell On Earth", sad as I kind of like MDF.

I figured I'd throw in my two cents to this video before the new one comes out, by simply saying again that I think "Movie Defense Force" seems to be missing the point in the way some of these films are defended. Almost everything on MDF is a sequel, and the defense seems to usually be "well, it's not that bad if looked at entirely on it's own merits", the problem is that when your dealing with a sequel that is promoting itself as a sequel it's by definition not something intended to be judged on it's own merits, and doing so your missing the entire point of a sequel and the movie as a whole. What's more in cases where your dealing with a multi-media franchise, you have to understand that products are going to be compared to other products, in part the later "Alien" movies got so heavily blasted by fans because serious fans of the material were reading the "Dark Horse" comics, which produced a far better sequence of events following "Aliens"... at least in the minds of most people who seriously cared about the franchise in an overall sense. "Alien" is pretty much a good example of what happens when the people controlling a franchise don't respect the scope of the entire thing, and go charging off full tilt on projects that should never have been made due to invalidating material already embraced by the fan base. There are exceptions where doing this might be the right thing, but they are very, very, rare. "Alien 3" which was also defended here got blasted largely for de-canonizing the Alien comics and not replacing it with anything as cool, and inevitably an even more disjointed sequel following a movie the fan base already wasn't so keen on got blasted even worse.

While it was the episode before this one, I will say also that "Hellraiser III" wasn't too bad, and I can agree with that... and as much as I love them, it's a cinematic masterpiece compared to some of the later installments in the series, especially when it starts going into retroactively inserting things that also happened into the mythology. I mention it here largely because I'm a franchise fan, and noticed that MDF raised a good point which I brought up about Hellraiser 3's plot and the uncharacteristic behavior of Pinhead which was that he himself was in a degree of turmoil, a lot of the things the movie is criticized for can be justified by it's own concept, and the fact that this cenobite who was formerly a big wig in Hell's hierarchy is wandering around earth with emotional problems and no leash at all has a lot to do with it. Not to mention if the guy is going to create minions on the spot, he's going to have to work with what's actually there... beggers can't be choosers and so on. While such wasn't the gist of the defense, to be honest I think MDF would be more entertaining of we saw more conceptual defenses within the movies themselves and their own mythologies (especially when dealing with sequels) rather than harping on how a movie needs to be judged on it's own merits.

I'll also say that when dealing with science fiction and horror "deep" and "dumb" are surprisingly easy to get confused especially when dealing with the needs of a movie, and simple seeming, but surprisingly complex mythologies. This can be pretty pronounced when dealing with movie translations of books, comics, and ongoing universes spread across a lot of different media. In a movie where you can't always tell what people are thinking, easily work in huge monologues for back stories, etc... things just happening or pulling out "this is a clone of so and so" loses a lot of depth and comes across as being well... dumb, when in many cases a rather sudden occurance or odd turn of events can carry a lot more weight if lead into more. This has nothing to do with either film specifically, but in a lot of cases I think the problem with movies that fail is because the audience thinks they are dumb by being dumb, or at least ignorant, themselves. An example would be one occasionally picked on bit from the otherwise successful "Lord Of The Rings" trilogy of movies where The Witch King Of Angmar is pretty much paralyzed for a second after being jabbed by a Halfling, before being struck down by Eowyn in one of the climactic scenes from the book. The thing is that there is a good reason why this went down the way it did (having to do with the weapon the Halfling was using actually being an utter beast of a magical weapon) but it's not the kind of thing that you could work into the narrative because nobody really knew about this for there to be dialogue. Indeed a big part of the mythology is how nasty some of the weapons pulled out of a certain troll cave in "The Hobbit" actually are, with those weapons quietly being passed along and recurring in the stories, or things being used that aren't exactly expanded on until the simirilian. The audience reaction "this is dumb" in a case like this is more or less something going over the head of a viewer who has no real inclination when dealing with an otherwise well constructed work to figure out why something happened the way it did.

Ah well, enough from me for the moment, this is long and rambling enough, and I figure not many people will read it anyway.

sorry, but that was the weakest defense so far. Even if you follow the flimsy argument that it was supposed to be a comedy and the jokes are not the film makers' way of trying to cover up their colossal failure, Alien Resurrection isn't all that good...

One thing I never understood: They had that concept of an alien-human hybrid, which fits the "mythology" very well and is genuinely creepy in itself, and then proceed to throw that out the window by only using it in the last 15 minutes (or so) of the movie for a really cheesy "showdown".

Why not make this creature the main attraction of the movie just like the original Xeno was in Alien 1? Have it born at some point in the first 30 minutes and make that thing (with a better design) the main creature. That could have been cool.

bandit0802:
My only problem with this movie (and I've only seen it once): Winona Ryder. My only problem with Star Trek 2009: Winona Ryder. My only problem with Mr. Deeds: Winona Ryder.

Can someone please just make her go away? And digitally insert someone with actual talent into every role she's ever played ever?

Huh. Ryder(The only Winona in the realm of entertainment I acknowledge being a gun) was in the Star Trek reboot? I've seen that movie twice and apparently my brain edited her presence out.

This movie isn't funny, so if it's a comedy, it's shit.

This movie isn't ironic or insightful or amusing, so if it's a parody, it's shit.

The CGI was terrible at the time of release; my friends and I cringed upon first seeing it.

The movie isn't weird -- it's banal. The problem is that every take on the mythology of the series is stupidly fucking bad in the same way all science-fiction or fantasy premises, handled by a hack, is stupidly fucking bad: turn the idea into unreflective tripe, laden with buzzwords, so you can get on with your masturbatory character drama that really interests you.

That's not weird. Science fiction fans have been putting up with that for generations. That's why when a creator dies and his or her material gets sold to a big-name producer, that creator's fans all collectively cringe. Hollywood veterans with good reputations know they can shit all over a story, theme, or concept and just explore their own material, then slap the franchise name on the result and call it a day.

That's what happened here. Except for the author pathetically claiming that his script wasn't bad and his fanboys defending him.

For example: the Newborn was boring. By attempting to humanize the alien, they took away every elegant thing Giger had given it. It was a pastiche monster, the result of a 3d modeler being used as a toy. Plus, its origins were unjustifiably stupid. The movie was a cartoon, a warped example of nonsensical fairy-tale logic, but without the sense of wonder of the latter or the punchlines of the former, and the newborn was the epitome of that.

I'd honestly forgotten Perlman was in this piece of shit. I just remember being bored to tears when I wasn't insulted. I'm pretty sure one of my friends cracked a joke after I saw it (though I can't remember the joke); that was the first time I'd laughed in hours.

The newborn is creepy as hell, but when you've got such comedic elements, you can't help but shake your head at what could have been an even scarier theme.

For me, the biggest reason to like Alien Resurrection is the fantastic set design - easily as good as that seen in the original Alien. Beautiful sets throughout the film provide, at the very least, a convincing 'industrial sci-fi' aesthetic faithful to the 'raining indoors' cathedral-like visuals of Scott's first film in the franchise. Story and plot be buggered: I came for the eye-candy and I wasn't disappointed by what I saw.

Mick P.:

EDITED: I don't know why these films must always have their cast of misfits. That approach ruined Prometheus. It's a trope that needs to die. There's a reason after all that support characters are called support characters. Think about it.

Because otherwise you will get just a bunch of people who seem to be rather same-y and that makes for a boring show. You don't have the time {in today's hectic TV/movies) to show off little characteristic flaws/differences between bunch of stone cold professionals so you end up with group of 2 legged sci-fi tropes.

ravenshrike:

bandit0802:
My only problem with this movie (and I've only seen it once): Winona Ryder. My only problem with Star Trek 2009: Winona Ryder. My only problem with Mr. Deeds: Winona Ryder.

Can someone please just make her go away? And digitally insert someone with actual talent into every role she's ever played ever?

Huh. Ryder(The only Winona in the realm of entertainment I acknowledge being a gun) was in the Star Trek reboot? I've seen that movie twice and apparently my brain edited her presence out.

Mother of Spock

image

Incomer:

Mick P.:

EDITED: I don't know why these films must always have their cast of misfits. That approach ruined Prometheus. It's a trope that needs to die. There's a reason after all that support characters are called support characters. Think about it.

Because otherwise you will get just a bunch of people who seem to be rather same-y and that makes for a boring show. You don't have the time {in today's hectic TV/movies) to show off little characteristic flaws/differences between bunch of stone cold professionals so you end up with group of 2 legged sci-fi tropes.

Would not bore me. You're not supposed to be focused on that many character arcs. Especially in a feature length film (plus professionals would be more interesting than circus freaks any day.)

I'm a little confused how the Newborn "corrupts" the concept of the Aliens.

Aliens have the same general shape but take on some characteristics of the host.
Human born aliens walk on two legs.
Dog/Cat born aliens walk on all fours.

Why wouldn't the Queen born from Ripley have extended reproductive capabilities?

Oskuro:

The hybrid though... It succeeds at being creepy, I'll give it that, but it corrupts the central element of the series (the Aliens) way too much. Then again, nothing as disgusting as what they did with the Predalien in AvP:Requiem.

What did they do to the Predalien? Or are you critiquing the concept of the Predalien?

Phuctifyno:

I'm thoroughly a fan of the Alien Quadrilogy, front to back, each film for its own reasons. If you go on to defend any of the AVP's, however, I'll draw the line there and I'll say so, godammit. [nudge, lol]

Haha, if he can defend the first AVP I'll be amazed.

Trek1701a:

The only Alien or AvP film that really can't be defended in some way, imo, is AvP:Requiem.

Really? I thought Requiem was a godsend compared to AVP 1.

I would love to see a prequel to this movie, featuring the space pirate guys.

Well I'm a little late to this party but let's explain why its a piece of fucking shit. It breaks the series convention aggressively, which in turn cheapens the rest of an up to that point pretty damn good series. By being a weird overacted dark comedy. It lacks the tension, and contrasted visual design of the prior films. The visual design is a big issue, filled with soft red lightning and a complete lack of sharpness. The aliens are no longer something in the shadows that we fear coming out and eating our asshole, instead they are just there and pop up whenever without a bit of thrill. The set design and shot composition is not menacing ever. The whole visual design is just a mess from start to finish from the cheap visual effects, the silly makeup costumes, to the goofy alien designs, its just B-Movie trash at best. The next issue is the massive critical mass of camp, with over the shoulder basketball shots, silly over the top death scenes, corny dialogue, and an endless wave of silly melodrama. Ripply is so melodramatic its reaches a point of complete disconnect, and her crew of rag tag characters rise to the melodrama occasion as well which makes not a single character the viewer can relate to. The plot is a mess, and rife with ludicrous holes, characters act nonsensically, the script is a mess as well, so forth, and so on. Literally there is nothing good about this film, you can say, "well if viewed as a dark comedy space thing on its own, its not bad." But its a terrible dark comedy space film with literally nothing redeeming, top it off with the fact that it cheapened an up to that point pretty solid series only makes it all the worse.

Its boring, not funny, painful to watch, and a fucking disgrace considering it came from the guy who made City of the Lost Children and Delicatessen.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here