Let sleeping dogs lie?
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the makers here basically stick safe to the formula of the series. This time it's a space station with space pirates and a cloned Ripley (Siggy Weaver of course) - yes! A cloned Ripley, only this time she's devoid of human compassion - kind of... The gore quota is significantly upped, which makes for some serious sci-fi terror, and some of the imagery crafted is outstanding (a clone lab sequence is shatteringly unforgettable). A tip top cast featuring Ron Perlman, Michael Wincott, Brad Dourif, Dan Hedaya and Winona Ryder, all give good shows, whilst the photography (Darius Khondji/Se7en) and art design (Steve Cooper, Andrew Neskoromny and John M. Dwyer) takes the breath away. Yet come the final straight it loses its way, sinking into a mire of over confidence, topped by a crown of thorns involving an albino baby alien hybrid. Shame that. 6.5/10
bestchallenger
Jul 24, 2016
5/10
A pretty average movie, specially compared to the previous installments in the Alien franchise (even Alien 3). The plot sometimes gets very confusing and none of the characters are memorable. Some of them are even rather cartoonish. The movie seems like a cheat attempt at cash crab, by using a known franchise. I would recommend watching if you are a fan or are looking for a mediocre action/horror movie to watch with friends.
Wuchak
Jul 24, 2016
6/10
A combo of the first three with a couple fresh ideas
Two hundred years after Ripley’s death in the previous film (Sigourney Weaver), she wakes up as a clone in a space station, which also serves as a colossal vessel. Scientists there are experimenting with xenomorph/human eugenics to create, I guess, the ultimate living weapon. Meanwhile a ship of smugglers visits the station when (big surprise) the aliens escape captivity. Winona Ryder and Ron Perlman play space pirates while Dominique Pinon and Michael Wincott are leaders at the station. Brad Dourif is on hand as a scientist.
"Alien Resurrection" (1997) is the fourth film in the series and combines elements of the previous three while throwing in a couple of new things. The diverse cast is great but I started to get bored by the end of the first act. Thankfully, the movie perks up with an outstanding underwater sequence that recalls “The Poseidon Adventure” (1972), albeit more amped up.
The peripheral cast is highlighted by the voluptuous Kim Flowers as Hillard and the formidable Gary Dourdan as Christie. But you just know they’re the equivalent of red shirts in Star Trek.
If you’ve seen the first three entries, there’s no pressing reason to see this one. It has a been-there-done-that vibe. However, if you appreciate those films and want more of the same with a new cast, “Alien Resurrection” is well done for what it is, proficient sci-fi/horror. Armchair critics have been too hard on it. While it lacks the mystery of the first movie and the suspense & utter horror of the second, it has more pizazz than the relatively subdued third installment.
The film runs 1 hour, 48 minutes.
GRADE: B-/B
r96sk
Jul 24, 2016
8/10
Super fun!
I wasn't expecting 'Alien Resurrection' to come out better than 'Alien³'. Sure, this 1997 flick isn't as great as 'Alien' and 'Aliens' but I honestly wouldn't put it that far off. I really enjoyed it, cracking action coupled with a great cast.
Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley is a pleasure as always, meanwhile this is the most I enjoyed a support cast from the franchise. Winona Ryder, Ron Perlman, Brad Dourif, Raymond Cruz, Gary Dourdan and Michael Wincott all have positive moments.
Not the franchise's best, yet arguably its most entertaining. ¯\_(ツ)/¯
CinemaSerf
Jul 24, 2016
6/10
At the end of the last film, we see "Ripley" (Sigourney Weaver) fall headline into a vat of what looks like molten lava, clutching her newborn - determined that neither shall survive. Well, luckily for all concerned, technology roars ahead and 200 years afterwards we have somehow managed to clone her - and her baby. Military plans for the killer beasties are the reason, but as we all know by now - nature finds a way, and after some dodgy DNA sequencing, they face an enemy that presents a terrifying hybrid of alien and human that could threaten Earth itself. It is up to her, whom the aliens still think is one of then, and a disparate bunch of space pirates to try to thwart the creatures - and to survive! This offers quite a shocking indictment of just how state-sponsored science, coupled with militaristic aspirations can lead to some hideous creations but aside from that rather obvious moral imperative, the rest of this is pretty routine. There is no shock left for us to feel; we have seen it all before and just like last time, the folks getting gobbled up are largely deserving of their fates. Winona Ryder's ("Call") adds a little quirkiness to the plot later on, but otherwise this is all just completely forgettable, churned out sci-fi that, though quite quickly paced and complete with some great special effects, offers nothing new.
GenerationofSwine
Jul 24, 2016
1/10
I can't believe how the Alien franchise has been politicized in two directions by the same side of the political debate.
I pointed out Ripley as an example of a strong female lead that everyone loves, and that got me the ire of the cancel culture folks. It's not politically correct to like Ripley when you have worse and more modern strong female leads.
But, I really didn't like "Alien: Resurrection" and that earned me the wrath of the exact same people!!!!
So, I guess the basic rule of thumb is that you are only supposed to like the bad movies to be politically correct?
I don't know how it works.
For those of you that are rational, "Alien: Resurrection" stinks. For starters, Ripley is supposed to be dead. Bringing her back the way they did, well, that's not only an insult to us fans that love her, but to Ripley as well.
Seeing her like that left a sour taste in my mouth.
And though I always loved and will likely always love both Winona Ryder and Ron Perlman, and though they did as good of a job as they could...they couldnt act their way around a horrible script and a terrible premise.
You can't blame the actors for this nightmare. You can see that they are actually trying to salvage something from the mess. In the end, you have to blame it on the fact that this is an Alien movie that no one asked for, and it's a plot that should never have been.
In 1997 this movie was trash. In 2018, however, it's fresh air considering the Alien movies we have now. But still, I'm giving it the 97 rating.
it was over at 3, no need to insult a stellar franchise.
Filipe Manuel Neto
Jul 24, 2016
5/10
Despite some merits and the effort of the director and cast, it is the weakest of the Alien films.
This was the fourth film in the Alien franchise, and the last one for many years. The franchise started well and developed nicely into three films that, while not without criticism or problems, work really well and have a lot of coherence as a joint work. The fourth film, unfortunately, completely breaks with this coherent and harmonious union.
Jean Pierre Jeunet has done a pleasant and undoubtedly strong job. It is one of the films that made the director's career and that we remember when we talk about him. And there is no doubt that he managed to prevent this film from being even worse, putting great effort into his work, coordinating his technical team and guiding a strong and highly competent cast.
Sigourney Weaver is back with the character that launched her career, despite the very understandable reluctance to accept the project (after all, Ellen Ripley had died in the immediately preceding film). She herself stated, without any fuss, that she agreed to do the film because she was handsomely paid. I don't blame her. For an actor, who lives off the jobs he's called to, and who never quite knows when they'll appear, it's important to accept lucrative opportunities. And we have to be honest, the actress committed herself to the work and did everything to give us a performance at the same level as we have seen in previous films. However, she unfortunately did not have been material with the same quality. Winona Ryder, who was experiencing a particularly happy period in her career, is also here, and she also gives us a very reasonable job, although far from matching the great performances she achieved in other films of the same period. Ron Perlman, fairly unknown, is in good shape, as is Brad Dourif.
On a technical level, the film is frankly inferior to its predecessors, and considering that all this is a set that should be cohesive and homogeneous, it is difficult not to make some comparisons. It's a film that continues to rest solidly on very strong visual and special effects, which are very reasonably done considering the age of the film and what has gone before it. It's not as spectacular as its predecessors, and any originality has been lost, but it's not bad, and it's worth seeing. Unfortunately, for a horror film with monsters on the loose, the action scenes are sparse, and seem very weak copies of what was done in the other films (to give an example, this film also has an alien sucked through a hole, in a very similar way to what happened in the first film). The tension and suspense are still present, and it's a truly unnerving film, which can be unsettling for some people. However, the really effective scares are few, even if it is a more visual and bloody film than its predecessors. An excellent cinematography helps to set this all up reasonably well.
Between merits and demerits, what really has no salvation is the script. The story we see in this film, in my opinion, not only has a very poor articulation with the films that preceded it, but actually ends up contradicting them. All it takes is to bring back to life, through a rather lame artifice, a character we saw to die with dignity. If this film needed Ellen Ripley – and indeed it needed, she was the character who gave the previous films its strength – the most logical thing was not to make a sequel, but a prequel or a spin-off with a story that was credible and logical, considering what was already done.
