Top critical review
3 people found this helpful
So close (and yet so far)
on 29 September 2013
I doubt there are many people who are new to the Alien franchise, but, on the off chance you are, `Alien: Resurrection' is the forth instalment, charting the life of Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and her seemingly endless struggle to rid the universe of the monstrous aliens.
The first film, Alien, was heralded as a classic horror movie. Its sequel, Aliens, cranked up the action and is also regarded as one of the best sequels ever made. However, Alien 3 started a downward trend that fans were left wondering how this happened when there was so much rich source material to build on. Alien 3 was not up to the quality of its predecessors, but it had its moments and, if you look at it as a `stand-alone' piece, it's better still.
Therefore, Alien: Resurrection is the studio's attempt to make up for part 3. Do they? Well, sort of. For a start they realise that having only ONE alien and NO guns was a mistake in part 3. Now we have guns and about fourteen aliens. Unfortunately, this still means it's a step backwards from the planet full of aliens we saw in part 2.
Ripley is back and, seeing as she's now part alien herself, is enjoying playing her `duel role.' Plus the supporting cast are good. But, again, if you've seen Aliens, they you'll probably realise that they're all just there to make up for the characters (needlessly?) killed off in Aliens.
At least the direction is good (as per all its predecessors) and the film looks brilliantly dark and foreboding.
Alien: Resurrection is a good film, but, as keeping with part 3 rather than parts 1 and 2, it's better more as another `stand-alone' film. An Alien film shouldn't just be `good,' it should be absolutely amazing, setting the standards for adult sci-fi/horror to come. This one is a nice effort at the mistakes made in part 3, but it's still inferior to Aliens, sadly.