Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn more Shop now Shop now

Customer Reviews

3.4 out of 5 stars105
3.4 out of 5 stars
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

TOP 1000 REVIEWERon 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.
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon 6 February 2016
With Ripley “dead” at the end of the misunderstood Alien 3, the only option for the producers of this third sequel was, re-cast and hope the public would “buy into” the new character, or bring Ripley back with the help of scientists and DNA. Well they went for the easy option and this pretty poor effort is what we ended up with. When the basic story has already been written for you, any screenwriter would find it difficult to create something that feels fresh and new. The DNA option had been knocking around Hollywood for ever.

With some balls to be honest, producers opted for French director Jean-Pierre Jeunet (during filming he and his crew spoke little English and needed interpretors on set) to helm this huge expensive production, even though he was essentially known for small and very personal, if extremely stylish, European movies. He brought over his own crew, insisted on employing his stock players and pretty much got his own way because he was seen as an Auteur, rather than a film maker, and would hopefully give the production a much needed cache injection after the disappointment of David Fincher's previous film.

Although good looking, the whole film filtered using a special process to give the film a certain silver/metallic look, and the special effects and sets are handsome, the overall effect is somewhat of a disappointment. The widely promoted underwater scenes are impressive but cannot hide that silly script and the screenplay often relies on grand spectacle rather than characterisation. The over done comedy, sometimes very silly indeed, dissipates tension and excitement far too often and was unwelcome most of the time. The unbelievably poor casting of Winona Ryder as a killer cyborg never works and in her scenes with a powerhouse Ripley on top form she looks like a frightened schoolgirl who hasn't done her homework. However Ron Perlman and Dominique Pinon do a great job of at least trying to look like a spacer's who know they are in trouble. The rest of the cast are watchable but ultimately forgettable and none remain in the memory for long.

It's not completely terrible, but it's not very good either. Saying that it's still better than Prometheus.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 16 February 2015
After the excellent movies (Alien 1979) and (Aliens 1986) 20th Century Fox make this next sequel which doesn't compliment the first two at all. At least Alien 3 had a consistent dark and brooding tone which is what you need for an excellent Sci - Fi series like this.
The aliens or 'Xenomorphs' look very good in this, maybe more visually impressive than they looked in Aliens. Unfortunately despite the sleeker and grosser look, Resurrection falls over far more than it succeeds.

Spoilers coming.

The Queen is seen only twice and it's brief. She also looks impressive but she is seen only at the beginning in a containment cell and near the end when she gives birth. Aliens had Ripley fighting the queen in a large free loader, but the queen doesn't do anything here other than put the story in a weird and not helpful direction. The queen also gets killed by her new hybrid offspring near the end making her look more helpless and useless than Ripley. Seriously, the Queen gets no action at all in Resurrection and her death is getting her face sliced off. Not a good way to start wrapping things up.

The camera work is bad, overly close up shots of actors faces and also not much character development. Sigourney Weaver and Brad Dourif are the only good characters. Winona Ryder is a good actress but she plays her robot too over the top and not as good as Bishop in Aliens. To be fair, Michael Wincott gives a strong performance, it's a big shame his character is short lived.

You saw several aliens on screen simultaneously a few times in Aliens but with this, there are what? 13 or 14 Xenomorphs on board, you see maybe 2 or maybe 3 (3 once perhaps) on screen at any time and they aren't in the movie overall that often either. Alien 3 had only 1 alien but that was on purpose, Resurrection is supposed to have a small horde and they disappointingly crept up on our protagonists individually.

This just isn't the same survivor Ripley fans of the series have come to know. In Resurrection she is not just a clone but has alien attributes as well and connects with the aliens as a new half of 2 species mother. The new hybrid offspring was interesting and creepy, but not the best idea for this series.

The producers and director can try new ideas if they want but they shouldn't stray from what makes the alien series.........The Alien series.

The biggest weakness this movie has which maybe some don't realise is, if you took out all the gory scenes, and there are a few quick ones here and there, you are left with a bog standard survival horror movie which doesn't scare and tries to be funny where it should be serious. Aliens on the other hand had a focused serious tone throughout with relatable characters you route for and make you smile in the right places. Including the mother - daughter Bond between Ripley and Newt.

Picture of the blu-ray is fairly good and plenty of extra features too. But you should stick with Alien and Aliens.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 25 May 2016
Reviewed Version: 2000 UK DVD by 20th CEntury Fox (Region 2 locked)

I do not count ALIEN RESURRECTION as part of the ALIEN trilogy (yes, in my universe it ended with the truly superb ALIEN 3, my personal favorite in the series!), and RESURRECTION is the kind of sequel that never ever should have been made.
The story is totally ridiculous. The style - think popcorn humorous wannabe horror. What happened to the scary atmosphere? Not present! It seems like the producers felt that ALIEN 3 was too dark and pessimistic, so things need to be cheered up. Well screw that! This is NOT an ALIEN movie! It's like a bastard child, an ALIEN parody. It sucked! Plain and simple.
Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is back as a cloned human-alien hybrid (OMG). I don't know. I could have done with a prequel of some kind, or have Weaver play Ellen's daughter, it would have been more convincing than this insane idea.
This is truly the worst in the series.

Audio: English 5.1
Subtitles: English (+10)
Runtime: 104:21 mins.

Video Quality: 3/5
Audio Quality: 3/5
Extras: 1/5
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 1 May 2014
Alien Resurrection is a darker re-envisioning of the Alien series. Coming after the less successful Alien 3 there needed to be a way forward.
This new direction is achieved with a convoluted plot (please see Wikipedia for full plot and synopsis) but the result is very good.
A new dark and twisted world has been created and now we are breeding Aliens.
The ship malfunctions and is on autopilot set for Earth. An alien escapes and all hell breaks loose on board the ship

Being based on a ship is a return to the first in the series. Plus there are some strong and unusual characters which add to the junk ship feel.
There is lots of tension and menace. We get aliens swimming in water and spitting corrosive fluid and crosses between aliens and humans plus a house of horrors where experiments have gone wrong.
Since the series had little place to go this is a good effort at bringing something new to the serie while recreating some of the clostrophobia and dread of the original.

Well worth watching and better than Aliens 3 and some distance
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 8 January 2014
Signorey Weaver at her best, except for the dopey ending. Surely they could have thought of something better than THAT

0Comment|2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 9 February 2012
Actually a very mixed bag but overall an enjoyable film, while not touching on the first 2's uber-greatness. There are a million things wrong with this but also so much else that is right.

The humour is part of the director's milieu but is misplaced in most scenes where it is attempted. Also, the script has some terribly forced one-liners. But the cast are all great and the new 'nasty' Ripley works well against the xenomorph-fodder that arrives. Winona Ryder's Call (?) is ok but she uses some very hammy acting in parts, and it's a little too much to expect the audience to be surprised by another droid; it seems to be slowly part of an overall franchise motif. The CGI is poor in places but the model work is beyond reproach. The aliens have not looked better, but also have not looked worse either.

The plot is basically a retread of all of the past movies. It is a base-under-siege movie; the Auriga being the lonely outpost this time instead of the prison facility on a dead planet from 3, the terraforming plant from 2 and the Nostromo from the original. But it does have some differences such as the amount of survivors at the end of the film being greatly more. And the twist of the aliens being slightly more cerebral gives the franchise a much needed boost freshness. Also the bond between the alien queen and Ripley comes full circle and their bodies merge; however this almost makes Weaver's character impervious to peril as she is so well equipped to live. But it is interesting for the queen as now she can 'give birth' instead of laying eggs. Still, is this the franchise we know and love? We've come to get a kick out of the eggs hatching and the face-huggers are iconic in film lore. Thankfully it seems that that idea stopped here.

2 more aspects struck me as combative to a viewer. The underwater scene was great but implausible. Ripley could be believed to have the ability to hold her breath and even fight for a few minutes but most of the rest of the survivors should have perished by drowning. Saying that, it is a film about killer aliens set in a space station hundreds of years in the future, starring the universe's first alien/human hybrid clone, so....

The last good/bad thing was the 'birthed' alien. I wasn't sure whether it was scary or laughable. Sometimes it's both. It depends on the mood. However, it was a brave move. I'm all for pushing the boundaries and forcing franchises to expand and evolve but you do have to be careful. Audiences like their franchises as they have always known them. Food for thought.

All that said, it has more good stuff than bad stuff. Some of the deaths are brilliantly realised and heroically over the top. This is proper bubblegum Alien; not too cerebral, not too dumb, the right amount of scares, lots of action, lots of explosions and plenty of flat one-liners. Yee-Haw!
0Comment|4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 22 April 2007
First off I'm a huge fan of the Alien concept and have watched this most recent movie's three predecessors more times than I care to remember and as far as I'm concerned the plot ended with Alien3.

It is obvious to someone who watched the other movies as many times as I did that there is a clear point to be made about the danger of a human's uncompromising greed. And whether or not the alien is the better creature because it has no morals or greed and works for the survival of its race rather than itself. This movie does more than enough to prove that, as eighteen years later here we are seeing another greedy bunch of "humans" trying to squeeze more profit out of the same franchise.

That said, any viewer approaching this film as more of a spin-off rather than a continuation of the same plot as its predecessors will be pleasantly suprised by its quality.

Positive points include its incredible set designs and special effects which remain just as jaw dropping today as they did ten years ago. Other points worth a mention are the score, which retains much of the dark atmosphere of the earlier outings, where the plot does not. The script and narrative (though cheesy and predictable) manage to avoid making this film a sick parody of the other films, unlike a lot of other big budget sequals that try to capitalize on earlier success.

So if you like sci-fi action flicks that aren't too ashamed of acknowledging their own flaws and can excuse the pointless continuation of the alien saga then you may find what you are looking for here. If you are a fan I find it helps to keep an open minded approach to this film because this is very cheesy and almost laughable when compared to the three other films.
11 comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 11 July 2014
A Very big thanks for the great quality of box and blu-ray. See you in next orders. :)
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon 27 April 2012
This is the forth and probably least popular film in the Alien franchise among fans but still a very cool sci-fi withy a lot to offer, the story is very good with the resurrection not only of the Aliens themselves but also their mother Ripley!! The practical effects in this movie are awesome yet some CGI shots are a tad cheap which lets it down a little, the cast is brilliant yet the acting is sometimes a bit no brainer! The ending is completely messed up and pretty good but not the best in the franchise, still worth getting as it is part of the big picture and is great fun anyway.
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.