Why did Alien: Ressurrection Suck?
09-18-05, 10:52 PM
#26
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
It's a pretty good argument. Would you like a Star Trek movie that opened by killing Riker and Worf and ended with the death of Picard, or a James Bond movie that began with the death of Q and Moneypenny and ended with Bond dying in a vat of lava? Probably not.
09-19-05, 12:38 AM
#27
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I really want to like Resurrection, and I can enjoy it on a "turn off your brain and enjoy the pretty pictures" kind of way. The direction is good, the effects are good, the acting is passable for the most part, but there are a couple of major problems.
The alien hybrid does looks ri-god damn-diclous. Theoretically it is forgivable, but the final realization is shite. Like a middle-aged Cronenberg Skeletor, it's not scary, but more disgusting like a deformed fetus. It's appearance at the end of the film leaves a real sour taste in the mouth, which I think accounts for why the movie is generally seen as worse than it really is.
Ripley's return is very flaky. She is the franchise star, so I can forgive bringing her back as it almost has to be done. The method used does add a few cool things, like the "failed" experiments, but brings a lot of baggage. The ridiculous human-alien hybrid is the most obvious, but I think the worst part is that it destroys the Ripley character that was the audience's personal connection for the first three films. Ripley becomes creepy, detached and untrustworthy for the audience, so Ryder's character is the real protagonist for the film. Ryder doesn't do a particularly bad job, but her one-note character is no Ripley.
The cast never really jells. You can tell they were trying to recapture something like the dynamic from Aliens' marines, but it never happens. I haven't seen the movie in a while, so I'm not sure if it's the script that's lacking here or the actors. The characters would have greatly benefited from a little more down time in the beginning and a slower buildup to the action. The first two movies were extremely successful in setting up the characters before the action kicked in and then continuing to develop the characters when they were under duress. This doesn't work so well in Resurrection in part because it steers away from the thriller/horror aspects and more towards action, which is less conducive to character building.
The alien hybrid does looks ri-god damn-diclous. Theoretically it is forgivable, but the final realization is shite. Like a middle-aged Cronenberg Skeletor, it's not scary, but more disgusting like a deformed fetus. It's appearance at the end of the film leaves a real sour taste in the mouth, which I think accounts for why the movie is generally seen as worse than it really is.
Ripley's return is very flaky. She is the franchise star, so I can forgive bringing her back as it almost has to be done. The method used does add a few cool things, like the "failed" experiments, but brings a lot of baggage. The ridiculous human-alien hybrid is the most obvious, but I think the worst part is that it destroys the Ripley character that was the audience's personal connection for the first three films. Ripley becomes creepy, detached and untrustworthy for the audience, so Ryder's character is the real protagonist for the film. Ryder doesn't do a particularly bad job, but her one-note character is no Ripley.
The cast never really jells. You can tell they were trying to recapture something like the dynamic from Aliens' marines, but it never happens. I haven't seen the movie in a while, so I'm not sure if it's the script that's lacking here or the actors. The characters would have greatly benefited from a little more down time in the beginning and a slower buildup to the action. The first two movies were extremely successful in setting up the characters before the action kicked in and then continuing to develop the characters when they were under duress. This doesn't work so well in Resurrection in part because it steers away from the thriller/horror aspects and more towards action, which is less conducive to character building.
09-19-05, 12:52 AM
#28
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cancer Man
Hmmmm, I guess Alien: Ressurrection was set about six hundred years in the future. The projectile weapons they used in the film looked slightly different to sidearms used now, I could see exotic tracer rounds being used. Also I felt that Ressurrection was not a patch on the first two Alien movies and not as good as Alien III.
09-19-05, 03:53 AM
#29
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by Cancer Man
Hmmmm, I guess Alien: Ressurrection was set about six hundred years in the future. The projectile weapons they used in the film looked slightly different to sidearms used now, I could see exotic tracer rounds being used. Also I felt that Ressurrection was not a patch on the first two Alien movies and not as good as Alien III.
That puts the movie (possibly) at 2382...which confuses me as to why one would still use projectile weapons 300 years in the future. Also, why have projectile weapons (and grenades) when you could run the possibility of a hull breach on a spaceship?
Didn't Hudson mention some heavy power non-projectile based weapons in "Aliens" but they never used them?
09-19-05, 07:24 AM
#30
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually thought Ressurection was pretty good... I definitely enjoyed it more after awakening to JPJ's other movies which I immensely enjoyed. Catching little tongue-in-cheek "stupid american" things like the soldiers chewing bubblegum, things like that. I really dig Ron Perlman too so that helped. Alien^3 was much, much worse, though there's a long backstory on that too.
09-19-05, 08:40 AM
#31
Originally Posted by UAIOE
I admit i like 4 more than 3, but the last movie really didnt seem to be that much different from any of the other late 90's CG monster movie.
09-19-05, 08:51 AM
#32
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,528
Received 1,941 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
Originally Posted by UAIOE
... and i believe "Alien 3" takes place some weeks(??) after the 2nd movie.
...which confuses me as to why one would still use projectile weapons 300 years in the future. Also, why have projectile weapons (and grenades) when you could run the possibility of a hull breach on a spaceship?
09-19-05, 09:43 AM
#34
DVD Talk Gold Edition
I hated Alien 3, then along came Resurrection which made part 3 look like a sci-fi classic in comparison.
It made me realize that Sigourney Weaver couldn't recognize a good script if it glowed in the dark. I remember watching one of the documentaries on the DVD where she said she was reluctant to return as Ripley until she saw this "amazing" script by Joss Whedon. My question isn't so much why did it suck, but who in their right mind would have thought this tired retread that added insult to injury was "amazing."
"Amazing" would have been something that continued the story arc of the Weyland-Yutani corporation. "Amazing" would have been a story set on the alien homeworld or Earth. Even if the story wasn't "amazing," but somehow managed to negate all the unnecessary deaths of the main characters from part 3, I would have forgiven it and been hopeful for a better part 5.
I know Joss Whedon can write great stuff, but his witty comic-book style was apparently a horrible mismatch for this series.
It made me realize that Sigourney Weaver couldn't recognize a good script if it glowed in the dark. I remember watching one of the documentaries on the DVD where she said she was reluctant to return as Ripley until she saw this "amazing" script by Joss Whedon. My question isn't so much why did it suck, but who in their right mind would have thought this tired retread that added insult to injury was "amazing."
"Amazing" would have been something that continued the story arc of the Weyland-Yutani corporation. "Amazing" would have been a story set on the alien homeworld or Earth. Even if the story wasn't "amazing," but somehow managed to negate all the unnecessary deaths of the main characters from part 3, I would have forgiven it and been hopeful for a better part 5.
I know Joss Whedon can write great stuff, but his witty comic-book style was apparently a horrible mismatch for this series.
09-19-05, 11:44 AM
#36
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 29,054
Received 1,961 Likes
on
1,290 Posts
Originally Posted by rennervision
It made me realize that Sigourney Weaver couldn't recognize a good script if it glowed in the dark. I remember watching one of the documentaries on the DVD where she said she was reluctant to return as Ripley until she saw this "amazing" script by Joss Whedon. My question isn't so much why did it suck, but who in their right mind would have thought this tired retread that added insult to injury was "amazing."
O: When you saw the completed Buffy movie, it wasn't the film you wanted to make, and several years later, you recreated it as a successful franchise. Do you ever have similar thoughts about Alien: Resurrection? Do you ever want to go back and "fix" it?
JW: Oh, yes, I have. Ohhh, yes, the fantasies. I've never had a worse experience in my life, and I've often thought of doing a lecture series on how to make movies based on just showing that movie, because I think they literally did every single thing wrong. The production design, the casting. there wasn't a mistake they left unturned. So I've often thought about it, because we'd been in talks about Alien 5. I love sequels, I love franchises, and I love big epic stories that go on and on. I used to love summer movies, before every single one of them was crap. So, yeah, I've thought about doing what I'd originally thought in Alien 5. And, after I found out on the Internet that I was making it, just after I directed Boy Meets World. [Laughs.] I thought about what I would do, what I would want to do with that franchise. And I was like, "You know what? I think maybe I'd like to work on something that 19 people don't own and control. We have so many executive producers on Buffy-and they leave me alone, they're great, but I think I'd like to do something that isn't just somebody else's. Having said that, I'm now considering doing the Iron Man movie. But that's just because it's got that cool shiny suit. Alien 5 was a longer shot. I mean, you have a body blow to recover from there.
O: Were you on the set for that, watching them take your script apart?
JW: No, I wasn't involved at all. I only went to the set once or twice. I'd been on movie sets, and I tend to stay away from them, because people want rewrites. They see the writer, and they're like, "Wouldn't it be cool if my character." "Gotta go, bye!" So I went once or twice, and I went after the première of Buffy [the series]. And the producer guy they had saw me, and said, "Hey, I went to the première of your show, and it was so weird. I said, ‘Hey, they're playing it the way he writes it!'" I was like, "And what are they doing here?" That was my first sign that there might be trouble. I literally didn't see any of it again until I saw the director's cut, during which I actually cried.
O: Just over what they'd done to your script?
JW: It was a single manly tear rolling down my cheek. About an hour into the movie, I just started to cry. I said, "I can't believe this." I was heartbroken.
JW: Oh, yes, I have. Ohhh, yes, the fantasies. I've never had a worse experience in my life, and I've often thought of doing a lecture series on how to make movies based on just showing that movie, because I think they literally did every single thing wrong. The production design, the casting. there wasn't a mistake they left unturned. So I've often thought about it, because we'd been in talks about Alien 5. I love sequels, I love franchises, and I love big epic stories that go on and on. I used to love summer movies, before every single one of them was crap. So, yeah, I've thought about doing what I'd originally thought in Alien 5. And, after I found out on the Internet that I was making it, just after I directed Boy Meets World. [Laughs.] I thought about what I would do, what I would want to do with that franchise. And I was like, "You know what? I think maybe I'd like to work on something that 19 people don't own and control. We have so many executive producers on Buffy-and they leave me alone, they're great, but I think I'd like to do something that isn't just somebody else's. Having said that, I'm now considering doing the Iron Man movie. But that's just because it's got that cool shiny suit. Alien 5 was a longer shot. I mean, you have a body blow to recover from there.
O: Were you on the set for that, watching them take your script apart?
JW: No, I wasn't involved at all. I only went to the set once or twice. I'd been on movie sets, and I tend to stay away from them, because people want rewrites. They see the writer, and they're like, "Wouldn't it be cool if my character." "Gotta go, bye!" So I went once or twice, and I went after the première of Buffy [the series]. And the producer guy they had saw me, and said, "Hey, I went to the première of your show, and it was so weird. I said, ‘Hey, they're playing it the way he writes it!'" I was like, "And what are they doing here?" That was my first sign that there might be trouble. I literally didn't see any of it again until I saw the director's cut, during which I actually cried.
O: Just over what they'd done to your script?
JW: It was a single manly tear rolling down my cheek. About an hour into the movie, I just started to cry. I said, "I can't believe this." I was heartbroken.
09-19-05, 02:25 PM
#37
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Giantrobo
But during the autopsy scene in Alien 3 Newt's corpse seemed older than she did when she went into the sleep thing in ALIENS. The corpse appeared to be at least a teenager.
The girl in Alien 3 looks like a young girl, not really a teenager. Obviously she's a different actress since Newt would've been too old. I'm not sure how you got the impression she was a teenager...at best they show Ripley feeling her chest which is flat as can be. Otherwise you don't even see Newt save for quick cutaways.
09-19-05, 06:05 PM
#40
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by eXcentris
These characters are important characters which are part of a franchise. Newt and Hicks were secondary characters in one film. I don't even have a problem with killing Ripley. Does every Hollywood film have to be made taking possible sequels into consideration? I would hope not. It might have pissed off fans but this has little to do with good moviemaking.
. Alien 3 is my favorite of the series, btw.
09-19-05, 08:44 PM
#42
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,528
Received 1,941 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
Originally Posted by jaeufraser
All three went into hypersleep after Aliens, meaning they wouldn't age. They all would've been the same age.
The girl in Alien 3 looks like a young girl, not really a teenager. Obviously she's a different actress since Newt would've been too old. I'm not sure how you got the impression she was a teenager...at best they show Ripley feeling her chest which is flat as can be. Otherwise you don't even see Newt save for quick cutaways.
The girl in Alien 3 looks like a young girl, not really a teenager. Obviously she's a different actress since Newt would've been too old. I'm not sure how you got the impression she was a teenager...at best they show Ripley feeling her chest which is flat as can be. Otherwise you don't even see Newt save for quick cutaways.
Foo on you!
09-20-05, 03:00 AM
#45
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by jaeufraser
All three went into hypersleep after Aliens, meaning they wouldn't age. They all would've been the same age.
The girl in Alien 3 looks like a young girl, not really a teenager. Obviously she's a different actress since Newt would've been too old. I'm not sure how you got the impression she was a teenager...at best they show Ripley feeling her chest which is flat as can be. Otherwise you don't even see Newt save for quick cutaways.
The girl in Alien 3 looks like a young girl, not really a teenager. Obviously she's a different actress since Newt would've been too old. I'm not sure how you got the impression she was a teenager...at best they show Ripley feeling her chest which is flat as can be. Otherwise you don't even see Newt save for quick cutaways.
I was under the impression in "Alien 3" that the events weren't that long after "Aliens"...but i could be wrong.
09-20-05, 09:20 AM
#48
DVD Talk Hero
From the interviews of his I read, beneath the verbose whinning, I think it all boils down to his being upset over being credited for something he essentially didn't write. Imagine if you poured your heart and soul into writing something and along the way the whole thing got changed and was completely alien to what you originally penned down. Then they have the gall to say this is what you wrote all along. I guess if that happpens enough you tend to grow bitter.
For the record, I also don't think 4 was all that bad and 3 was better than people give it credit for.
For the record, I also don't think 4 was all that bad and 3 was better than people give it credit for.
09-20-05, 01:36 PM
#50
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Alien 4 would be a great (B) movie...if it didnt have the "Alien" name attached to it.
Sam goes for the 1998 Godzilla. Call it "New York vs. Giant Iguana" and I find it to be very B-movie tolerable.
Both movies failed for me because both had a name that gave fans a certain level of expectation that both never really lived up to.
Sam goes for the 1998 Godzilla. Call it "New York vs. Giant Iguana" and I find it to be very B-movie tolerable.
Both movies failed for me because both had a name that gave fans a certain level of expectation that both never really lived up to.