User reviews

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...

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.

It is strange, that movie this bad is so memorable and awesome :D

Every other line of script consists loud shouting with close up so the head takes at least 60% of the screen. It is maybe the reason this movie is a walking meme.

It's a horror movie that has given horror theme and basically there are no surprises. You can surprise somebody from behind only couple of times before it gets old. Sometimes the one walking up front gets it, sometimes the one guardian the rear. And this movie does this kinda well, it plays it for its audience.

I liked it. Even back then, still even now. After seeing Alien 2 as a kid, i had nightmares as it was seriously scary movie. But then the A3 + this cured me forever as it does not take itself that seriously. On one hand it's a shame, but on the other hand it's good to have some different take on the same universe.

Alien Resurrection is the most radical departure in the series that has now spanned centuries in its own universe and nearly twenty years of our own earth time. Gone is the meticulously constructed suspense of Ridley Scott's 1979 original. Gone is the heart-stopping pulse of uncannily staged action from James Cameron's 1986 sequel. Gone is the Ripley who cried and fought and bled and sacrificed her own life to save the world from the horror she very nearly unleashed in David Fincher's atmospheric and underrated Alien 3. Instead, we get the all-new Ripley: cynical, sardonic, and ready with a wisecrack or a fist for anyone who crosses her path. Director Jeunet unfortunately seems to bask in self-parody, and this is where the film goes wrong. He serves up plenty of nasty evisceration and gruesome chest-bursting, but by now we have seen so much of the creatures that they are no longer terrifying. Still, I have a lasting affection and fascination with this series -- and Jeunet Alien is better than no Alien.

Although it's got major flaws and some plot holes, I find myself liking Alien Resurrection a lot. First of all, I'm a sucker for horror and sci-fi movies. Second, I LOVE the Alien series, although Alien³ was a bit offbeat in the action department. Third, Sigourney Weaver is incredibly menacing as a cloned Ripley. She's always great to see on screen but this was truly something to behold. and last but not least, I loved the storyline, how they brought the genetic aspect so cleverly. It was truly a new twist on the series, although I wouldn't qualify A:R as a REAL episode in the Alien series but rather a new begining. Jean-Pierre Jeunet did a great job in bringing his fantastic style to Hollywood. The creatures were cool and scary although I wish we had seen more of the Queen; we still had the horrific Newborn which was truly demonic. Anyway, despite it's flaws, it's still a great film, although it will never be a classic like Alien and Aliens are. Now if only there could be a fifth one with a better script, more character development and more firepower.

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.

One of the longest running modern day horror franchises, "Alien" is a fascinating beast in the world of entertainment and media. With its humble origins as a quiet, slow-burn sci-fi thriller, the series evolved through sequels and spin-offs into something else entirely. Whether it be through James Cameron's exquisite action-extravaganza "Aliens", or the Paul W.S. Anderson schlock-tastic crossover "AVP: Alien VS Predator", or even series co-creator Ridley Scott's own pseudo- philosophical quasi-prequel "Prometheus"... "Alien" has changed and evolved quite a bit over the past forty years.

But one release in particular has attracted an almost unanimous scorn and unending ridicule from all over the fanbase. A film that's so reviled, it's almost become a prerequisite that you're just expected to hate it. That being 1997's "Alien: Resurrection"- a strange little footnote in the series that tries its hardest but never quite comes together into much of anything. An attempt to turn the series around after the mixed reception garnered by "Alien 3", this fourth film aims for the stars, but stumbles and falls flat on its face. Although, if I am to be completely honest... I actually don't mind it too much. It's silly, but quite amusing and thrilling, with stylish visual direction and plenty of laughs and thrills to go around. Yes, "Resurrection" might be a mindless and trite exercise in style over substance... but it's also bold and extraordinarily entertaining. It's a ton of fun, even if it is objectively a "bad movie."

Two-hundred years after the events of the previous film, scientists working for the military successfully clone Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and the queen embryo she had been impregnated with, intent on allowing the alien life-form to reproduce so that they might study its race. This "new" Ripley has retained some faint memories of her former life thanks to genetic memory, but as a result of the cloning process, has also taken on some characteristics of the dreaded "xenomorph" species. When the offspring of the alien queen manage to escape, however, Ripley is forced to team up with a group of mercenary space-pirates (including Ron Perlman, Winona Ryder) in order to escape. Along the way, she will uncover startling and deadly revelations about the project that brought her back to life, and come face to face with a devilish new threat...

Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet from a script by the world-renowned geek-god Joss Whedon, "Resurrection" does so much right that it's frankly a shame it's so routinely dismissed without much thought. It's essentially an incredibly slick and exceedingly well-made crappy B-movie. The plot is ridiculous. The characters silly and archetypal. And it's filled to burst with nonstop gore and effects. But it's made with a massive budget, an A-list cast and comes from a wildly talented director with a clear vision. Even on a pure aesthetic level, it's one of the most striking films of the franchise, with Jeunet's wonderful eye for flow and composition delivering many incredible set-pieces and designs that'll stick with you. It's just a gorgeous film all around.

The cast is an absolute blast, with Weaver once again knocking it out of the park. Especially as this "new" Ripley also goes through some fascinating changes that both allow Weaver to stretch her acting chops... and have some fun chewing the scenery from time to time. Perlman and Ryder are good fun as members of a space-pirate team, with Perlman in particular being a good fit for the franchise. He's a criminally underrated performer and it's a joy seeing him on- screen. We also get small but fun turns from the likes of Brad Dourif, Dan Hedaya and Michael Wincott, and all serve the film quite well. The effects and action are top-notch for the time, with many sequences still holding up quite well to this day. An underwater chase-scene and a trippy climactic battle against a potential new threat in particular being eye-popping and absolutely jaw-dropping. And the wonderful cinematography and almost amniotic musical score add much to every single scene.

But yeah... despite that praise, the film does have a lot of problems. Like I said above- it's basically a big-budget B-movie filled with the tropes and archetypes you'd expect, and it doesn't fit in with the rest of the series quite well. Unless you're willing to forgive a lot and go with the flow, you're not gonna have a good time with "Resurrection." There has been a lot of talk of how Whedon disowned the film and felt his script wasn't translated properly to screen, and I could definitely see shades of that. For all the amazing things he does, Jeunet seems less interested with story and more interested in increasingly psychotic visuals. And if you're looking for anything more than surface-level entertainment, you'll be sadly let-down.

But me? I take movies for what they are and what they aspire to be. It's clear everyone involved on-screen is having a lot of fun. It's clear that Jeunet is trying to build a wild thrill-ride of a monster-movie. And it's clear that this is a film more concerned with crazed displays of gore and effects than a cohesive story. And you know what? I had a lot of fun with it. It's technically a "bad" movie, but to me... it's a FUN bad movie. And I'm giving it slightly above average 6 out of 10. Give it another shot with an open mind. It just might surprise you how enjoyable "Alien: Resurrection" really is.

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!

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.

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.

There must have been some very good reasons for the release of this film, but on the evidence of how the film turned out, this film should not have seen the daylight. Almost everything is done wrong: Ripley's character is ruined in to a clone, supporting characters are simply idiots, the aliens only manage to be scary in one single scene and the ending is without any scientific base or sense of logic. The new alien, Newborn, goes only for a bad joke. What was about to be an exciting twist in the overlong tale of Ripley came out as as repulsing variation of a cheap splatter film. This film is horrifying in all the ways the makers didn't intend.