Alien: Resurrection (1997) User Reviews

"The best thing you can do is pray for a quick death."

[classicsoncall · 8/10 · 21 March 2015]

If you ever had any doubt that comic book or movie characters don't have to stay dead, "Alien Resurrection" is your proof. Sigourney Weaver is back as Lieutenant Ellen Ripley, two hundred years following her demise in Alien3, and cloned from her remains found on Fiori Sixteen. One would probably consider this film another installment of the original Alien saga, but it has a decidedly different twist with the cloning angle and the experiments aboard the USM Auriga designed to produce a new breed of alien to serve a military master.

For the most part, I'd say the film makers did a successful job in bringing their vision to the big screen with a credible balance between sci-fi and horror. The movie touches on the familiar aspects of the earlier trilogy of films with chest bursters and synthetic robots while adding a new element in the concept of a host queen Alien that bypasses the egg cycle to produce a new generation of monsters.

Weaver's character has a difficult task in requiring her new cloned form to summon up remembrances of a long ago past, and I found it intriguing the way she displayed her motherly instincts just before dispatching the Newborn to the depths of space in a creative way. I also liked the way the writers linked the story line to another franchise when Brad Dourif's Dr. Gediman described Ripley as "something of a predator, isn't she?"

So overall I didn't seem to have the same problem with the picture some other reviewers and fans seemed to have here. I think it works either way, as a follow up to the original trilogy or as a stand alone film combining elements of horror and science fiction in a compelling manner.

Not to be taken seriously...

[andyajoflaherty · 6/10 · 15 September 2023]

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...

Fun New Ripley

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 26 October 2013]

It's 200 years after Alien3. The company has cloned Ripley and the alien inside her. It has created several aliens on a research vessel. One Ripley was successfully recreated with some of the Queen's DNA mixed in. Another ship Betty delivers a cargo of people in hypersleep for implantation. When the aliens escape, the crew of the Betty must fight with the help of the clone Ripley.

This is the 4th installment of the franchise, and it has return to more flashier digs. The moody ugly sets are gone. Winona Ryder is really a godsend to this movie. She brings back a similar energy as Newt. She has an innate ability to project vulnerability. It was sorely missed in Alien3. And Sigourney Weaver is giddy playing this creepy feral version of Ripley.

The premise is a bit out there. It doesn't really make complete sense. The ending is a big mess with the different versions of aliens. As much as it likes to be something profound. It makes the climax one crazy mess.

Flawed yet underrated fourth installment in one of sci-fi's most notorious franchises

[plpregent · 6/10 · 18 April 2016]

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.

"Alien: Resurrection"- A fun big-budget 'B-Movie.' Trite and a bit mindless, but ferociously entertaining!

[TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness · 6/10 · 26 November 2017]

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.

"Was it everything you hoped for?"

[Anonymous_Maxine · 8/10 · 30 May 2008]

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.

Action packed n much better than part 3.

[Fella_shibby · 8/10 · 29 April 2021]

I first saw this in the late 90s.

Revisited all the four parts in the early 2k on dvds which i own.

Revisited this part (116 mins special edition/DC version) few days back as i am on Alien movie marathon n very impatient to check out Prometheus n Covenant.

This movie has lots of action and that too very bloody.

The underwater scene is amazingly shot n it is creepy to see the Aliens swimming.

The clone lab scene is terrifying.

The ending is a bit lol with the decompression stuff and all and that too the Alien baby crying , "oh no".

It has a bloody head smashing a la watermelon bursting scene and once again our android is back.

Resurrection is a good final chapter, so far.

[OllieSuave-007 · 7/10 · 24 April 2014]

Sigourney Weaveer returns one last time, so far, as Ellen Ripley, albeit as a resurrected cloned version that was created by the company. It also removed the alien queen from the original Ripley, but not before its DNA gets mixed with Ripley's, making her develop certain alien characteristics. The Queen then goes on in giving birth to a deadly new breed of its kind that would spell trouble for the human race, leaving Ripley, along with a group of space smugglers, to stop the creature and the ship from reaching Earth.

Jean-Pierre Jeunet did a pretty good job directing, creating an intense atmosphere full of non-stop thrills and action, and directed a cast who is pretty forgettable yet decent in their acting for the most part, but I think Weaver carried the movie. Joss Whedon wrote a pretty exciting story for the plot that I thought wasn't as intriguing as Aliens, but definitely better than Alien 3 - not as dark, gloomy and depressing. ***spoiler ahead*** In order of time-line if you include the Predator and Promethesus movies, Alien: Resurrection is the final chapter, and I thought it closes out the saga on a positive note.

To top it off, the special effects were quite good and realistic, especially the execution of the aliens. The film is not the best in the Alien series, but definitely far from being the worst.

Grade B-

Could have been great

[Joejoesan · 8/10 · 3 January 2010]

The problem with Alien Resurrection is that it could have been great instead of just fine. When I watched this movie back in 1997 in the theater I thought after the first hour: wow, this can't go wrong! The new born Ripley is an exciting character, because you don't know which side she is on. And Sigourney Weaver - 50 at that time - looked great in leather. Back was the hardware, the non-CGI aliens, the fresh ideas and the great action. The basketball scene and Ripley's confrontation with the previous clones were impressive. The look and feel were right on the spot and the story was exciting.

The first part of the movie wasn't flawless I guess. But I could live with the things that annoyed me. The miscasting and overacting of Wynona Ryder for instance. The unnecessary swearing and harsh language by both Ryder and Weaver. The scene in which Ripley suddenly talked in full sentences after her awakening. I could live with that. But it all fell definitely apart when the new alien was shown to us at the end of the movie. Man, were they serious? Was this supposed to be the alien of all aliens? The motha of all mothas? Come on, don't make me laugh!

The scene that spoiled it all for me had a great start, though. It began like the climax of Andrzej Zulawski's Possession (1981), a surrealistic European movie in which we saw the beautiful Isabelle Adjani making love to a monster. To me that was a shocking scene because it was very explicit. But here in Alien 4 it worked out very well... at first It looked like Ripley came to turns with her destiny. It started well until, of course, you see the final monster.

Twelve years later I'm watching the Alien movies again with my 12 year old son. I was 12 myself when I saw the first Alien in the theater so I thought the time was right. We both pretty much enjoyed ourselves. On DVD the first Alien was a little bit slow but still great. Aliens remained an overwhelming sequel. The long cut of Alien 3 wasn't good but better than the first time around.

And Alien Resurrection? Well, when you know what flaws to expect it's a good farewell to the Alien franchise. Good but not great. But if Ridley Scott or James Cameron wants to give it one more they both have my absolute blessing!

8/10

Many flaws, yet so many memorable moments

[mr-altex · 7/10 · 31 March 2019]

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.

Prophetic & Visionary...

[Xstal · 7/10 · 29 December 2023]

Alien Resurrection (1997)...

Allegorically and quite unintentionally a tale of a virus, ignorantly released its only aim is to destroy us, the wheels set in motion, a search begins for a new potion, but perpetuation has begun, and there's absolutely nowhere you can run - from the evolutionary transformations, variations and mutations, the prequels, sequels and un-equals yet to come.

Just like all great frighteners, there are links to the real world horror of what the world of science mixed with mother nature might have in store for us in the not too distant future, or indeed may well be incubating in a laboratory nearby already.

Alien Resurrection (1997).

Not as good as the classical Aliens, but still a bit underrated

[DelfinoD · 7/10 · 11 September 2010]

Alien: Resurrection is much different than classical Aliens. As a result many Alien-maniacs are disappointed and give it bad notes in the reviews. In my opinion one should look at the movie in a different way. It is not a clear continuation of the story, but rather a variation on the subject.

Alien 4 is not perfect, not even great, but still it is a good science fiction movie. The story is very well written. Many people criticize the idea of cloning Ripley along with the alien inside. Of course I agree that this is completely naive and unrealistic (even the general asks how it is possible), but we have to accept this as a convention. There was no other way to have Ripley back in Alien 4. Well I can imagine Ripley waking up and saying 'Hey, it was just a dream, I didn't jump into the burning lead', but this would be even more ridiculous to me. In Star Wars for example there are many naive and unrealistic things but it doesn't stop it from being a great movie. We accept them just as a convention.

Other people note that Alien 4 is not scary at all. I agree. But I still think that it wasn't supposed to be very scary. In Alien 1&2 Ripley was scared as hell and so were we. In Alien 3 she wasn't scared as much, as she knew from a point, that the Alien wouldn't kill her. We were not scared that much either. In Resurrection Ripley is not scared at all, as she is a bit of alien herself. Why should we be scared then? In my opinion this confusion, whether Ripley is more a human or a alien and who to chose, is the best feature of the movie. It is not a pure action but also a bit of psychological drama. The newborn alien is a masterpiece to me. Ripley, who has strong maternal instinct (see Aliens) feels that it has some of her DNA, that it is her own child. She has real doubts whether to kill it or not. And what is even more interesting is that she probably kills it only to save Annalee. I think she would not kill it just to save a human, which were shown in the movie as beings not really better than the aliens themselves. She did it to save the robot, who in her opinion was probably much more of worth. And that is how I actually felt while watching the movie. "The newborn alien is so cute, maybe let him kill those freaking human beings." But then I would be sorry for Annalee...

In my opinion this is a very good movie, with nice climate and many philosophical questions asked. But if you care only for good action or horror, then you might be disappointed.

Some perspectives on Alien: Resurrection

[laika-lives · 6/10 · 10 August 2007]

The Auteurist Perspective - The most unorthodox way of viewing this picture is as a kind of formalist exercise. Jean-Pierre Jeunet has talked about his desire to make a film tailored exactly to the format of a Hollywood action movie, even going so far as to count the number of cuts and camera set-ups in the blockbusters he watched for research. Everything in the movie may be taking place within quotation marks, as in the melodramas of Douglas Sirk or, more obliquely, Gus van Sant's 'Psycho'. The film wants to be both an archetypal big sci-fi action movie whilst simultaneously a pastiche of the form. The gorgeously overblown shot of Ripley and Call standing amid the clouds at the film's close certainly suggests a playful tweaking of blockbuster bombast. However, the 'Alien' series may not be the most appropriate place for this experiment; the series is far more defined by spaces and silences than by frenetic action of the Bruckheimer variety. Even James Cameron's 'Aliens' is surprisingly slow in its build-up; by contrast, Resurrection's relentless pace becomes oddly monotonous and the film loses the distinctive texture Jeunet brings to it.

The Whedonite Perspective - The problems with the script are mostly additions or changes to Joss Whedon's original (which is available online). Whedon rightly made Ripley's resurrection the backbone for the story, finding new things to do with a character many believed had reached the end of her life, both literally and creatively. He also carefully fleshed out the supporting characters just enough to keep them interesting. There are small problems even in his original script - Purviss is sidelined when his predicament demands imaginative exploration, and the narrative is more linear than you'd expect from this writer. But it's the feeble alterations that damage the film - reducing characters like Hillard (in particular) to cyphers, changing the ending so the audience never gets to see earth (the only place, as Whedon instinctively understood, that the climax could possibly take place), and removing a lot of the texture of the setting, like the marijuana fields. 'I'm a stranger here myself' should have been one of the great closing lines in movie history, up there with 'Tomorrow is another day' and 'Shut up and deal', but the dialogue (Whedon's great strength) is mangled by a director working in his second language, and who seems to be paying more attention to the lighting anyway.

The Cynical Perspective - The 'Alien' series is, by this point, a cash cow that everyone involved wants to milk until it bleeds. 'Alien3' ended Ripley's story with an unflinching finality that 'Resurrection' can only cheapen, no matter how good it is. The hiring of a cult french director is a sop to the critics who lionise Scott and Fincher's contributions - and whilst prior instalments were filmed in England, this production was mounted in LA, for the convenience of everyone involved. It wouldn't do to make too much of an effort on what is, after all, the latest sausage on the string. The suits' only concern is the opening weekend; hence Winona, shoehorned in just in case Sigourney's box office draw is waning.

The Aesthetic Perspective - John Frizzell's score is the fourth classic in a row for the series; both lushly romantic and queasily menacing, it gives the film its own distinctive flavour. The production design is bold and distinctive, with perhaps a hint of playful parody (the sickly green light, the mad scientist outfits, the giant glass jars in the lab); the film looks like a comic strip version of its predecessors. Some of the direction is highly effective - the underwater sequence is devastatingly beautiful. The problem is the slightly over-ripe grotesquerie Jeunet brings out in the material, particularly in the way the cast is shot (Dominique Pinon looks like a malevolent garden gnome, Dan Hedaya resembles a sweaty gendarme). It sits uneasily with the straightforward disaster movie plot. The biggest miscalculation on the production front, however, is the Newborn. The thinking behind it - to give it an expressive face and thus complicate Ripley's (and our) emotional response to it - is sound enough, but it doesn't really come off in the finished creature, which looks like moldy old tissues clinging to a pipe-cleaner frame. Whedon's original conception of a white, red-veined alien of the traditional design might have worked more effectively, although even that might not have survived the aesthetic indignity of its impossible demise, getting sucked into space as a string of alien linguine.

Ripley's Saga Ends

[TheHande · 8/10 · 17 August 2009]

Alien Resurrection brings back the action of Aliens and combines it with the grimy goriness of Alien 3 to provide a film that is creepy and entertaining at the same time. The film's strength involve a number of interesting ways to reinvent the Aliens and a memorable cast of actors.

The film really seems to bring the Alien-franchise's more sensual aspects to life with the resurrected Ripley. The film also has many great confrontations with the Aliens and the final act of the film provides one of the strangest and most rewarding finishes of any of the Alien films.

The film's only real weakness is that it doesn't quite match the emotional conviction of Aliens and the story is more of a wrap up then a stand-alone chapter. Riddick and the Aliens make a grand exit with this film which is interesting enough to keep the audience invested and entertaining enough to avoid a dragging pace which the first and third film suffered from.

A 20 year re-review

[A_Different_Drummer · 6/10 · 20 July 2016]

I am one of those older (mature) reviewers who can claim to have seen this series in real time, in theatres.

First I will share my recollection of what that was like at the time.

Alien 1 was magnificent. If you were to make a list of the greatest films of all time (and all reviewers do this, if only subconsciously) Alien 1 would be make the list. Alien 2 was doubly astonishing because it was almost as good as Alien 1 and, as any film buff knows, the sequel is rarely if ever that good.

Expectations were high going into Alien 3, the prison planet movie, but the entry was disappointing and for the first time fans started to wonder if the franchise was going to self-destruct.

For this reason, Alien 4, Resurrection, was disappointing in every possible way. It was a weak concept, poorly timed and poorly executed. The template for the story was more "haunted house" than sci-fi. Not only was the story flawed but at the end of the day it ran out of steam after the first 30 minutes and became tedious for the audience, a sin no film should ever commit. All the characters were so unlikable -- including to a large extent Weaver's saucy clone -- that even if the audience WANTED to root for a character, there was no one worthy of the effort.

I got hold of the director's cut and re-reviewed this film because another member posted a review saying this film was unappreciated.

OK, so let's appreciate it for what it is -- a flawed entry that almost destroyed the franchise. The IMDb rating is solid -- in other words, this is really a very weak film.

(To date Alien 1 and 2 remain the best of the series. AVP is a remarkably perky little entry that somehow manages to polarize reviewers who either love it or hate. I have re-watched AVP more than any other entry. It is not elegant but it is very very entertaining.)

Creature Effects Are Impressive Over A Plodding Plot

[eric262003 · 7/10 · 27 February 2017]

Like every continuation of a series, "Alien:Resurrection" has the instincts of a child who has a fit after their parents took their favourite toy away. The sketchy, slimy alien creatures and the dark, claustrophobic scenarios are curiously provocative. However, the story fails to deliver even through its hardest effort in adding a new twist in the franchise. The film itself had the right material for newly inventive ways to make the series fresh, but it never tugs at your emotions and the impact falls flatter then diluted soda. In fact I was surprised more at just how fuzzy Dan Hedaya is and he's not the main attraction here. Sure fans of the series had came into the theatres in drones and it did do quite well at the box office, but it was highly doubtful if its welcome was long termed.

Sigourney Weaver is back for the fourth time returning from the dead after 200 years as a hybrid human/alien Ellen Ripley and she's still just as tough as ever battling those slimy aliens as she's been doing since 1979. It's no surprise that Weaver is in her comfort zone and still looks buff and sexy and boss for a person who's by now in her late 40's. And when she did that back basketball shot, I think she's the only person who could get away with doing that.

As the franchise continues, the alien creatures continue to get more awkward each time. But the looks still have some originality each time and in this movie the aliens depicted here stand out above the rest. The inspiration for the alien creation comes from director Jean-Pierre Jeunet who got the horrific physicality of the creatures from his previous outings "Delicatessen" and the always inviting "The City of Lost Children".

The horrific characteristics of the film blends nicely to the dark settings, the heavy metal and the disgusting manifestations coming out of the creature's vials along with an exciting underwater scene along with the fear and the loss of humanity are just some of the spectacular traits from Jeunet's warped mind. Plus he brought his favourite actors Ron Perlman as a heavy-hitting antagonist and Dominique Pinon for some much needed comedy relief.

Winona Ryder was a nice new added attraction to the series as an engineer aboard the spaceship Auriga the centrepiece to where all the fun takes place. Unfortunately 12 sniveling aliens are heading to Earth, planning to conduct evil biological experiments to the civilians.

Ryder arrives on the scene with a ragtag group of smugglers seems out of place with the kind of cynical, barbaric individuals that make up the population in this franchise. Her chocolate brown eyes and her deadpan dramatic expressions has that token bright light for what has been a dark and dreary journey so far. Finally we can say this movie has a character with a small dosage of humanity.

Mean is the focal characteristic in this film and the violence renders no apologies about it. We are treated to a delightful opening scene where we get an up close look at some performing open-chest surgery with barf-inducing detail with Brad Dourif as the mad doctor. The final result is that Ripley has given birth to a bouncy baby alien. You don't see that everyday that's for sure.

Like every splatter fest in movies the aliens dine on delicious cuisines like guts, severed heads, and yummy brains. We also get insightful information about predatory subjects very few people talk about like predatory alien sex. Yeah "viewer discretion advised" makes its mark here.

Granted the film does have creative vibes going for it, so there's no need to go through plot details no matter how narrow it is. The thick of it all is that this film depends too much on the visuals and not much emphasis is based on the story.

We get fragments of a story that Ripley returned from the dead after two hundred years and her alien child has come back as well and she's on the hunt to slay these hideous evil creatures. The aliens are still the same gross, slimy creatures we all seen before, only now they're populating.

In the span of five years since the last "Alien" film back in 1992, the special effects have truly come a long way. The transformation from archaic puppetry to the more advanced use of CGI has created a new, but not entirely for the better way of upgrading the franchise. Plus these new batch of aliens possess a more humanoid look to them and can display emotions. It's something to think about here.

Moronic film

[harryplinkett14 · 1/10 · 22 September 2014]

Where does one even begin? I guess the first thing I want to say is that this film has absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever. There is not a single line of dialogue, a single shot, a single performance or detail that is actually good.

So let's get to the bad things, then.

The director. That deranged, surrealist Frenchman should never have had anything to do with the project.

The script. It is as though it was intended as a kind of parody of the Alien films, which was a horrible idea. But in the hands of the aforementioned director this would-be parody becomes a surreal mess that is simply unwatchable.

The cast/characters. Winona Ryder's character is irritating and irrelevant for the plot. Come to think of it, all of these characters are irrelevant. They just run around while we wait to see how many will make it until the end of the film. Sigourney Weaver is now a psychotic bitch, which means she talks nonsense and none of her actions seem to have a discernible motivation. Dan Hedaya plays a general whose character is straight out of a cartoon. Seeing him do these comedic bits is probably the first shocking thing. A film that starts like a straight horror in space takes a strange turn as soon as he enters the stage, and the confusion thus created never ceases. Of course, the confusion and incredulity are exacerbated by further...

...Nonsensical moments. A guy fires a gun at an angled surface on the ceiling, thus shooting an adversary. This is straight out of Looney Toons. To make it more baffling, that same character cannot hit an alien from three feet away, even after unloading an entire clip at it. Then he falls into a pool of water and everyone assumes he is dead. Why is he dead? Can he not swim back to the surface? Who knows. And who cares? The director certainly doesn't care, so why should we? But let's look at the very basics: They are running this super secret, expensive project... which relies on services provided by space pirates. They breed aliens that bleed acid... in containers that are not resilient to acid. They are a military facility, crawling with troops, yet they never even attempt to contain the escaped aliens. For some reason, they just run for their lives without even taking the time to assess the situation. Was that their emergency plan from the start? Run for your life? And just to make things even more interesting, the ship is programmed to return to Earth... in case deadly aliens break loose, making the entire garrison flee in disarray. Great idea. By the way, although the ship is supposed to be far away, far from sight of the various government agencies, it makes the trip to Earth in a matter of hours. I guess it makes sense the crazy Frenchman took the job as the director - no one else would touch it, while he clearly couldn't care less about plausibility and saw the whole thing as a way of shoving in some of his favourite implausible plot elements. I'd like to point out another inconsistency here: the plot only seems to remember aliens bleed acid when it needs the acid to be used to make the aliens escape or to help Ripley cut something open with her own, acidic blood (the result of cloning). In other situations, aliens that have been shot dead do not bleed acid. The script simply doesn't care.

The alien hybrid. Apparently alien has been fused with human DNA and is now being born like a human baby, and looks like Pumpkinhead. You don't know whether to laugh or just feel uncomfortable watching that thing.

The lesbian overtones. Ripley is not only psychotic, apparently she is now a lesbian as well. I guess they thought that they could score some points for that. But Ripley looks godawful and frankly watching her make sexual advances towards that little twerp Wiynona Ryder is just creepy.

Boring. Yes, it's boring. We couldn't care less about the characters - in fact, they are quite unlikable so we might find ourselves cheering for the aliens to get them. And when they do get them, it doesn't involve suspenseful scenes. The only action scene people will remember from this film is the one where they are being chased by aliens under water. It's interesting to see aliens swim, but then again, they do not look convincing at all. They are being chased by CGI.

Ending. I have no idea how it ends. I have seen this film several times and by the time Pumpkinhead makes its appearance I am sick of it. By the time we get to about ten minutes before the end I can't take it any more. I know how it ends, though, but only because I have seen some reviews of the film on Youtube. I literally cannot endure to watch this nonsense until the end.

So there you have it. You still want to watch this thing? It just occurred to me that I somehow still haven't been able to explain just how awful the viewing experience of Alien Resurrection is. I guess that final touch of awfulness comes from the French auteur himself. Think of Alien Resurrection as a cinematic turd with an attitude.

Threepenny Opera

[chaos-rampant · 15 November 2012]

I admit I like this quite a bit, having seen it four times now. I think to get into this, it helps to have some appreciation for dissonance, for music not quite melodious. Cogs in a machine that you are not quite sure what they do. This one works, just not every part in congruity with the others - that would be Cameron's way of doing things, this is closer to the original despite the radical shift in tone.

This was first and foremost intended as a parody in the operatic manner, an exaggerated cartoon, you can see that in the opening scene (special edition) with the bug being spat out on a windshield. It is very clearly a staged product, any allusions to organic development long gone. Ripley is manufactured for the purposes of the mission, the opening shot in essence is of her character being unveiled as the protagonist of this operatic show. The aliens are constructed from her. The situation where they will breed is similarly staged, victims carted in.

Someone like say Verhoeven could pull this off clean through, Starship Troopers-style, gleeful, sardonic, tongue-in-cheek from beginning to end. The dissonance here is between writer, filmmaker, and lead actor, each one pulling in a different direction.

Whedon wrote a black comedy of sorts. He satirizes action heroics, masculinity, leadership (Perez and Vriess are the first to go), the military is not only inept (compared to Cameron's marines), but basically involved in shady , unethical business. He wrote what he thought would be a few memorable one-liners, to be delivered with a wink to the audience. The first part until roughly the alien breakout is closer to his idea of the film.

Enter Jeunet. He wants to do the best blockbuster money can buy, a new gamble this, the most exciting and intense firecracker toy, one of those 'big' Hollywood films that we all enthused about as teenagers and you'd have to be a joyless macaroon to say no to. He has studied a lot of Spielberg and Cameron and, daresay, meets them in equal terms. He bends Whedon's vision to his, and because he hardly spoke any English at the time, he directs actors in a perfunctory manner - some of them areonboard with Whedon's idea, others not.

And you have, quite apart from the other two, Sigourney Weaver who always felt an emotional attachment to Ripley, and who is by this point as much a shaping force as everyone else. Amidst competing visions, she insists on a heavy emotional center, which just so happens (as it did in Aliens) to emphasize a damaged personality, nightmares, schizoid tensions between motherhood and her more conventional action/hero role.

So, when this spins, it spins in three directions at once. I think it is a great joy to be able as a viewer to accommodate all three visions, you will have a helluva time I guarantee.

You will never more clearly see this rip-roaring dissonance in the Newborn being sucked out through a tiny aperture, sent out guts flying into space.

The scene is at once meant to be hilarious, gruesome, and, as you shift to Ripley's point-of-view, emotionally devastating. The scene is so appalling because it IS those three things at once, and they are simply not emotions that as humans we can easily juggle.

Jeunet was brilliantly inspired in moving the aliens underwater, this scene was a long time coming.

In space, no one can hear you sigh

[pooch-8 · 25 February 1999]

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.

The Fatal Mistake.

[LordBlacklist · 6/10 · 9 February 2006]

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.

Flogging A Cloned Horse

[Theo Robertson · 5/10 · 13 September 2004]

A lot of people were bitterly disappointed by ALIEN 3 because there wasn't enough action . Personally I liked that movie though not as much as I liked ALIENS and seeing as ALIEN 3 performed badly with cinema goers and critics the studio has decided that RESURRECTION will be an action fest similar to ALIENS . Unfortunately they made a mess of it

!!!!! SPOILER TO ALIEN 3 !!!!!

First of all did they have to bring Ripley back ? She was seen plunging to her death in ALIEN 3 and by a totally unconvincing plot device involving cloning she's back . There's another problem with this and that's her character has been altered , she's no longer capable of showing much in the way of sympathy as in the previous two sequels and therefore the audience find it hard to sympathies with her

William Gibson wrote a script for ALIEN 3 set on a space station dealing with modified aliens and space commies but was eventually turned down because there was little substance to the story which was basically just a series of action set pieces . RESURRECTION involves a space station where space villains battle modified aliens . The first half is set up to introduce the wafer thin characters while the second half is a non stop auctioneer featuring set pieces of humans against aliens . I was just wondering why Gibson's ALIEN 3 script wasn't good enough to be produced this rather similar script was ? I guess it's all down to box office considerations . Unfortunately by trying to make money at the box office the studio have ruined the franchise with this movie

I haven't seen ALIEN VS PREDATORS yet and to be honest have little inclination to , but ALIEN RESURRECTION is by far the worst of the first four ALIEN movies I've seen

Different Worlds

[tedg · 27 June 2001]

Different Worlds

Spoilers herein.

I've just rewatched `Alien,' `Aliens' and `Alien Resurrection.' Considered simply as films, each is a fine film but they come from worlds that are more different from each other than the normative world of now is to the world of any of them. Just viewing them is a course in filmmaking.

Ridley Scott's `Alien' is the most impressive, knowing that it was only his second film, that every effect is physical, and that the budget was so low the spacecraft is cobbled together from used aircraft parts. Even at this early point, Scott has the ability to create a unique look and has the mastery of craft to coordinate every element (acting, score, movement) to reinforce that look. That he chose Giger to base the look on was brilliant. Organic darkness -- evil embodied in living things. The alien ship, though only briefly shown, is a sequence that will live way past the time that the monsters of the series are forgotten; that blending of beast, environment and narrative is unique in all filmdom. Really amazing that the sequels didn't go back to that ship. Scott has grown to be one of our best and most original filmmakers -- Alien and `Blade Runner' (with `Forbidden Planet') are the very best `real' scifi films we have, meaning films that are not just adventure films.

Where `Alien' is scifi in the service of horror, `Aliens' is scifi in the service of action. Aliens is a war film, and equally impressive as one of Cameron's earliest. Movement and conflict. More emphasis on the familiar is necessary for this approach, so we see the sets and costumes less adventuresome. This is a thrill which uses the trappings of scifi only as another thing with which to impress. The mood created is projected not into the image as with Scott, but into the theater as something to amaze. Cameron hasn't evolved at all from this film, only been given ever bigger effects with which to amaze. So one might consider this his most `genuine' film.

`Resurrection' seems to not be as admired by the fan base. But I think it every bit the equal of the other two. In this case, we also have a new director, a European with two fantasy tales under his belt. But those set a tone that is strikingly weird: the tone not in the setting, but in the psychological space in the story. And that's what we have here. In Cameron's film, every character is a stereotype. Here, every character is an anti-stereotype: the black guy isn't jive; the cripple is the toughest; the sex kitten is a robot... even the hero isn't really. This is also the most cinematic use of the camera, using the psychological eye. Scott dwells, Cameron moves, Jeunet examines. He doesn't mind annotating the past films (rather like Van Sant's `Psycho' annotates Hitchcock's).

The only negative thing I note in the sequels is that Weaver isn't adaptable enough to understand and get behind these diverse visions. She understands Scott. Cameron doesn't really care, but she is outclassed by Jeunet.

Seeing any one of these enhances the appreciation for the other two.

The resurrection of a popular series

[dee.reid · 10/10 · 4 December 2002]

Let's recap.

The first alien film, which was directed by Ridley Scott is the film that started it all. Scott's direction was sharp and "Alien" had the most tension-filled setting of the series and it brought to life a truly horrifying creature. But that was twenty-three years ago. "Alien" since it was released in 1979, has become seriously dated and seems to have lost some of its potency.

"Aliens", which was directed by James Cameron, is the most well-known film in the series and the most successful. This time instead of Ripley going up against one alien, she must now go up against an entire nest of the deadly creatures, but with the help of a few good marines added to the bunch. The ultimate question was of course, would excellent firepower be enough to combat the aliens? Cameron focused a lot on action and tension, which transformed "Aliens" into a war movie of sorts. I liked "Aliens" the most and hasn't lost any of its ability to still shock its audience.

"Alien 3", directed by David Fincher, is the most underrated of the series. Fincher changed the series by doing something new with it by adding his trademark dark settings to the film. Instead of continuing the trend that was pioneered by James Cameron, he went back to step one, while still taking the series in a new direction. He created one of the most dark and depressing horror films ever brought to life. Though for some odd reason, audiences missed that entirely. Fincher had originally intended the film to be much longer and with more character development, but executives at Fox had cheated him out of his own vision by removing most of said footage.

Now we have "Alien: Resurrection", released in 1997 and directed by acclaimed French film maker Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Set two-hundred years after the events of "Alien 3", Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) has been cloned from a sample of her DNA and must continue her ongoing fight with the deadly alien this time with the help of a group of futuristic space pirates and a mysterious woman named Call (Winona Ryder).

It goes without saying that Jeunet is a visual genius. He has a real sense of bringing life into his scenes and giving the movie a fantastic look. The gore here is pretty extreme and some scenes will certainly make your skin crawl, turning the movie into a freak show of sorts. But that could ultimately be what Jeunet was trying to do, I'm not quite sure. That is no reason to hate this film however. An excellent addition to the series that is not to be missed.

Alien=suspense, Aliens=action, Alien³=tragedy, Alien Resurrection=gore

[Pluto-3 · 9/10 · 14 August 1998]

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.

"Hey, Ripley. I heard you, like, ran into these things before?"

[lost-in-limbo · 7/10 · 26 December 2009]

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.