Alien Resurrection
List Price: $2.99

Our Price: $2.99

You Save:


Customer Reviews:

  • Looking for a replacement
    Im looking for a dvd to replace my Alien resurrection disc from the quadrology wich came defective and i need to know if anyone can help by telling me if this Two disc collectors edition set has the same two versions of the film as the quadrology has!....PLEASE HELP!!!!...more info
  • Too much CGI, not enough acting
    Let me start by saying that I am a huge fan of the Alien series. The first and second movies were landmarks in cinema, and the third was actually well-done, albeit not as action-packed as the rest of the series. This fourth installment, though, completely baffles me. First of all, why was it made? Second, why was it made the way it was?

    As noted in my title of this review, there is far more CGI used than the classic foam rubber actor-in-a-suit option. This takes away so much from the aliens themselves, as they almost look goofy and cartoonish. If you are looking for the suspense created by the reachable and tactile aliens from previous films, look away.

    Another aspect that really brought me down on this film was the casting. Mostly B-list actors swarm around Sigourney Weaver (why?), Winona Ryder (playing an android... who cries... like she always does), and a not-quite-so-famous Ron Perlman in a smaller role. I understand the appeal of Ripley in the series, but in the setting she is placed (200 years after Alien 3), why bring her back to life merely to put her in the movie in a weird and implausible plotline? I admire her as an actress, but I have to stand in wonderment as to why she agreed to this role. Maybe she just really likes playing Riply, I don't know.

    Now, about that plotline. Without giving anything away, you have the same general elements of the series. A corporation/syndicate is attempting to breed/harvest the aliens for personal gain/military application and (who would have guessed?) it goes horribly wrong with much acid and gore. The genetic element adds a weird undertone to the whole thing, although it does explain Ripley's 'resurrection.'

    If you have not seen this one yet, I would say save your coin and pick up the special edition versions of the first and second installments (Alien and Aliens). If you really want 'closure' on the series and merely want to see this one just to see it, head on down to your local video rental store and check it out for the night. I would not add this to a collection. Even true fans (such as myself) found this movie an affront to the series....more info
  • This should be titled, "Hey, it's better than Alien 3!"
    A fun romp in space with Ripley and 13 of her closest friends. There's not so much suspense in this one, and it's less taxing to watch than Alien or Aliens. That being said, the payoff isn't as great either. A decent choice for fans of the series, but totally average otherwise....more info
  • Part 2 was better, heck should've really ended with 3.
    While this movie is nice for just a popcorn flick, this series really should have just ended with 3. While I could enjoy the movie for what it was, which is why I'm giving this a 4 star rating....more info
    Action packed forth installment is actually very good! We get to see more aliens than ever in this fun and fast paced finale(so far??). While the first and third 'Alien' movies were deliberately slow, building tension along the way. This film feels more like 'Aliens' (part 2) with lots of action and fast paced fun! I didn't remember liking this film as much the first time I saw it, but it seems to have grown on me.

    While we could all argue that this franchise could have stopped after the first film.....or maybe part 2. I feel that the last two enries did have something to say and there was a lot of thought care in these projects. These are not paint by numbers sequels. Much better than almost any other series that gets into these kind of numbers! How many part 3 or 4 films can you name that are any good at all? If you love the first film, maybe you should give the sequels another chance and a little lee-way. I found the three sequels all fairly intelligent and entertaining.

    ...more info
  • Alien Return
    Sigourney Weaver does it again in the final movie. No disappointment here, she kicks A**!!! In this final movie, there are people who survive with her, nice to see. It is a Movie that would be worthwhile adding to your action movie collection. ...more info
  • My favorite movie
    This is my favorite of the series. I got it quick and I didn't get charged a small fortune...more info
  • The comic book version of Alien!
    This film is better than Alien3, just the improved cgi effects accomplish that. The practical alien effects are outstanding and very creepy.

    The hybrid creature birthed during the finale, is no doubt one of the reasons many reviewers do not even consider this to be a part of the Alien series. I agree the strange looking creature is annoying, but the fun moments during the rest of the film make up for that.

    There are a few cheesy lines and bad acting moments here, but overall, Alien Resurrection is an exciting, original, and fun movie....more info
  • what the flying flock of seagulls!
    now, i am not angry at this DVD, rather the boxed set i bought a times before it...

    you see kids, i bought the ALIEN boxset and started watching it as soon as i opened it, instantly annoyed.
    the intro included the titles in the series as follows

    ALIEN 3

    and i'm sitting there looking at the box saying 'flying jesus F&$*' this only has the first three!

    so, is hunted high and low to find this fourth film in the ALIEN franchise and gave it three stars because of all the trouble i had finding it,
    and the boxset should not include resurrection in the menu intro!
    ...more info
  • Rewatch it. It's better than Alien3
    Alien Resurrection is surely not the best in the Alien series, but I don't think it's the worst either. Most will disagree, but I find it to be a much better sequel than Alien3. In Alien 3 nothing happens. I like that it picks up right where the second left off, but the characters she encounters this time around are all disposable, except the doctor, and they kill him off way too early. What was the point of that? The third is the worst in the series.

    At least Resurrection pushed the mythology further and had far better characters and situations: 200 years in the future, more Aliens than in 3, having an infected person join their party (which was stupid of them but still keeps things interesting) the room with all of Ripley's failed clones and how they continued to progress cloning her was by far one of the creepiest parts of the entire series. Not only that but they never make mention of Earth as far as I can remember in the first 3 movies, but not only do they make mention of it in this one, but we finally get to see what's become of it in this future, which I can see why that would bother some fans, ruining the mystery, but after that many movies over that many years, it seemed like the right thing to do, to finally answer that curiousity.

    Ripley's character I find a lot more complex in this installment. There's so much more history behind this movie than in the others, so there's a lot more to draw from, and she has an attitude like she's seen it all before and Aliens have become her life now. I thought about that partway through watching this one, how everytime she wakes up in between each movie, it just keeps escalating and she even makes the statement herself that no matter how bad the dreams are, she doesn't fear them anymore because everytime she wakes up, its always worse. That's by far one of my favorite lines of hers throughout the franchise. What a terrible life she lives. And how ironic is it that she was the one who never wanted to let them back onto the ship in the first movie. I really do like her character in this movie, she's the most developed than in any other Alien. I just don't understand why everyone's so down on Resurrection. ...more info
  • The black sheep of the series
    Every Alien installment has had a new director at the helm, also bringing about a new style for the series. While Ridley Scott made a more clastrophobic sci-fi horror, James Cameron went all out and made a big combat movie and David Fincher made a more bleaker film which looked better and more "arty". After that film's failure, people thought the series was doomed and wrote it off until a 4th Alien film was announced with Jean-Pierre Jeunet at the helm, director of Delicatessen, City of Lost Children and the later film Amelie. So is it good? Heh...nope. Is there any redeeming quality to it at all? Well let's just say this: you know the film's in trouble when you actually have to think what was good about it.

    200 years after the events of Alien3, the ship Auriga has been secretly cloning Lieutenant Ripley who died with an Alien queen inside her. Well after several failures, they finally successfully cloned her, who happens to be carrying an Alien queen. Using live people for guinea pigs, they get them "impregnated" with the alien. But of course aliens don't like being caged so they manage to escape so it's up to Ripley and the crew of the ship Betty to get out of the ship.

    One thing that was always great about this series was its emphasis on the presence of the aliens rather than full blown shots, which then helped the film when there wasn't any gore, allowing your imagination to go into overdrive. That all changed with this film since people are dispatched in really gruesome ways including one alien who has an unfortunate encounter involving a window. Instead of being a great sci-fi horror film, it turned into a generic splatterhouse movie. While it is a new direction, the over-the-topness of it just kills it.

    The set design and the look of the film though was starting to get better, relying on dim corridors and small lighting, much like the first film. And an action scene involving an underwater set is quite thrilling and the aliens certainly never looked better. But ultimately these are kind of superficial since a great scary experience like Alien or a blast like Aliens is sorely missing here. And while she is a cutie, Winona Ryder was severely miscast here.

    Should you watch it? Oh man I have no clue what to say. I guess it's for curiousity purposes only but don't think you're going to see an Alien/Aliens experience here. It's not even an Alien3....more info
  • Weird, but Moderately Entertaining
    This movie was difficult to rate, mostly because it was so weird. There are shades here of Chronicles of Riddick and Resident Evil 3. Consistently dark, not especially plausible, slightly mind-numbing, and yet fairly original and even in some respects thought-provoking. At the end of the movie one is left with the impression that we are all monsters to some degree, and that what makes us human is not our flesh and blood, but our compassion. Definitely not Joss Whedon's best writing, but worth watching some Saturday when you have not in particular to do....more info
  • Surprisingly good
    Today I watched Alien Resurrection. I never did originally, because I had not been so impressed with Aliens and Alien3, so I figured, how good can the fourth one be?
    Turns out, much better than expected. I was never bored, which is unusual for me and action movies.
    And I found it funny, well acted, beautiful visually, and with fresh ideas, surprisingly.
    Winona Ryder is lovely, and Sigourney was no less hot for being 47 when she made it.

    The creatures looked totally real, even when they had to be CG. I liked how they finally moved away from the silly humanoid body the original alien had. Ridley Scott said in the commentary to the first one that it was humanoid because it was adaptive to the host, but it feels like a justification for the fact that it was either that or stop-motion, which would have looked even worse. (See Robocop II.) And of course there was the final creature, which looked even more different, I liked it....more info
  • My favorite
    The best of the series, with #1 a close second. Lovely production design, loriginal casting, great performances. My only gripe, if you could call it that, is that this one is so sad. *sniff* The ending always makes me a tad teary....more info
  • Witness the Resurrection of Fear...
    When "Alien 3" was released to theaters with lackluster results, it left both the studio and fans wondering if there was any need for further installments in the franchise or had it simply run its course. After 5 years of wondering whether we had seen the last of those nasty creatures known simply as `aliens', 20th Century Fox released what they hoped would be their redemption for the failure of their previous effort with the appropriately titled "Alien: Resurrection".

    "Alien: Resurrection" picks up approximately 200 years after the events of "Alien 3" a group of scientists have found a way to clone Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and successfully remove the Queen that had been inside of her. But this clone Ripley isn't exactly the Ripley we remember, during the cloning process her DNA became spliced with that of the alien's, leaving Ripley with the ability to sense their presence and also giving her enhanced strength and stamina. When a team of smugglers come aboard carrying human cargo to be used to breed new aliens, they quickly discover that the creatures are far more dangerous than they expected, and much smarter too (thanks to Ripley's DNA). In no time at all, the aliens have found a way to get loose aboard the space ship, and not surprisingly, they make quick work of most of the crew, save for a few who managed to survive along with the smugglers and Ripley. Now Ripley must decide whether to save herself or fall back into her old habits and destroy the aliens that have plagued her for years and years.

    After "Alien 3" brought the franchise to its knees, this fourth installment allowed the `Alien' saga to once again stand tall and become a film series that 20th Century Fox could once again be proud of. "Alien: Resurrection" brought back the horror and ominous atmosphere that Ridley Scott had used so successfully in "Alien", and packed exhilarating action sequences that reminds you of the glory days of James Cameron's "Aliens", all wrapped up together with a very strong, well-written script that tied up the series nicely and left fans with a satisfying movie experience that allowed them to forget about the less-than-stellar "Alien 3". I was happy that the creative team behind "Alien: Resurrection" decided to incorporate story elements that occurred in "Alien 3" rather than ignoring the film altogether like some franchises do with lackluster installments. Of course that may have been a decision heavily backed by the studio in an attempt to save face for their tampering with the previous movie, but that's just my assumption.

    The cast was comprised of great actors who all turned in excellent performances, Michael Wincott, Winona Ryder, and Ron Perlman were by far the biggest standouts as far as the new members to the franchise are concerned. Of course, the biggest star of the movie was Sigourney Weaver, who was having much more fun here than she did in "Alien 3", and her performance was evidence of that, as she appeared to breathe new life into her character Ripley. I believe she truly enjoyed getting to play the much darker side of the character, a side that had not been seen in any of the previous installments, and made the movie even more enjoyable, since you never knew for sure what Ripley was going to do from one moment to the next.

    The special effects were the best in the franchise, and the decision to use CGI at times to create the aliens was nice, giving them much more fluidity and freedom to their actions. But even with all the great CGI work, the practical effects employed in this movie, and throughout this entire franchise for that matter, is by far some of the best in all of Hollywood, and should be held as the standard for what all other monster movies should aspire to.

    If you were one of the many fans that was disappointed, and perhaps disillusioned with the franchise by "Alien 3", then you should definitely give "Alien: Resurrection" a look, as it will quickly redeem the series in anyone's eyes, and it serves as an excellent ending (at least so far) to a terrific science-fiction/horror franchise that spanned almost 20 years.

    "Alien: Resurrection" is rated R for violence and language....more info
  • Alien Resurrection
    Read Matthew Farrell's review to truly be illuminated about this movies shortcomings. I only bought this movie so I now have all the Alien/Predator movies. The fact I bought it last after the last "Alien vs Predator - Requiem" doesn't mean it is worse. This movie has one thing going for it, Sigourney Weaver. If it wasn't for her acting this movie would have no draw at all. Mediocre story, mundane acting from the rest the cast, and less than inspiring sets, effects, and music makes it one to slip into the player when you have watched "Alien", "Aliens", "Predator", "Predator 2", and "Alien vs Predator" many, many times and need a change. If you enjoyed this you really aren't seeing enough good movies but maybe you will enjoy "Alien vs Predator - Requiem".

    CA Luster...more info
  • A weak film with few shocks
    This is a very formulaic movie that has a few enjoyable parts but overall is a letdown to the series. It's a film that gets very silly very quickly and doesn't have the class of the first two by a long shot. ...more info
  • Alien termination
    Alien and Aliens were sci-fi classics that can still be enjoyed till this day. Alien 3 was very flawed but it still had its moments. Alien Resurrection is a joke and shouldnt even be mentioned as a part of the Alien trilogy.

    Plot: Mad scientists clone Ripley to get the alien that was inside of her from the previous episode on the maximum security prison. Later on Ripley stumbles upon a sick experiment to breed aliens with humans.

    Opinion: At least Alien 3 had a chance to be great. This movie was dead once the plot unfolded within the first ten minutes. Sigourney Weaver telegraphs her performance in, and the rest of the cast does the same. Wynonna Ryder unconvincingly plays an android that was sent on the ship to protect the gung-ho crew aboard and supposedly destroy Ripley. The special efforts are the only thing this movie has going for it. Whereas Alien and Aliens had more of a story plus great special effects and chills going for it. Alien Resurrection plays like one of those campy B-movies of the 80s. Mindless action sequences, asinine plots and plotholes, corny one-liners and leaps in logic. Why would anyone clone someone to get an alien? The last 20 minutes with the alien/human spawn with an attachment to Ripley comes off a pathetic attempt to tug at the heartstrings with all the subtleties of a sledgehammer. Its safe to say that Alien 3 was the last of the series. ...more info
  • Its negative reputation is richly deserved
    To put the following in perspective, I consider the first movie (Alien) to be one of the best science fiction movies ever made. The sequel (Aliens) was a well-crafted action-adventure film that is excellent for what it is, and Alien 3 was a failed "art film" that left a bad taste in my mouth for aesthetic AND cinematic reasons.

    Until recently, I'd avoided seeing Alien Resurrection (hereafter "A-Res") because of the overwhelmingly negative feedback from "professional" reviews and friends alike. However, a newer friend of mine who worships all things Joss Whedon (the guy wrote the screenplay) insisted that A-Res was a "misunderstood masterpiece" that needed to be viewed as a campy, self-parodying dark comedy. She also warned me that this intent was largely undermined by a director who chose to ignore Whedon's vision and play the movie fairly straight-faced and serious, the result being that much (though not all) of the allegedly-intended effect was lost. Despite that, my friend said, with some creative thinking you could still see what Whedon was going for, and it was worth the effort.

    With that in mind, she loaned me a copy, and I attempted to suspend prejudice and watch it with as close to an open mind as possible.

    Alas, that didn't work, and even early on it seemed as if the movie was daring me to find any redemptive qualities in it. Mission: failure.

    This film is a mess on so many levels. The direction/cinematography was at best lackluster, and the performances unmemorable. Notably, Sigourney Weaver is blatantly collecting a paycheck by just being there, and Brad Dourif (who usually turns in solid "crazy" performances) seemed to phone this one in as well. The film trades the tense horror of the first film and the action of the second for a gore factor that was as unnecessary as it was unconvincing. As to the last, the special effects were one of the weakest aspects in this, especially the "new" elements to the alien species' mythology. My friend insists that the effects were intentionally "so bad they're good" but honestly, I don't see that, and don't buy her defense.

    One of the biggest weaknesses in the whole thing was Whedon's screenplay. The film begins with a central premise: in the future, scientists can clone Ripley back into existence (which I have no technical problem with) and that somehow this clone will have an alien queen inside her (which I have a huge problem with). That just strikes me as lazy script-writing, especially if anyone is familiar with William Gibson's proposed (and wisely rejected) screenplay for Alien 3 which has a suspiciously similar element at its center. Even putting aside a fatally flawed premise, the overall story was so lame it would need a wheelchair to get around, and conspicuously missing were any type of dialogue "zingers" that would indicate this was somehow the "dark comedy" my friend suggested.

    If A-Res *is* a "dark comedy" it can only be by sheer accident, much in the way people consider Battlefield Earth or Manos: The Hands Of Fate to be "comedies." Personally, I have a soft spot for such "so bad it's good" offerings, but this one was "so bad it's embarrassing." Others might be more forgiving and might get some chuckles out of the sheer awfulness of it all, which in all honesty is the only way I can see this being enjoyed. You have been warned....more info
  • Scary adventure, almost touching at the end
    I'm somewhat new to the Alien series. Since I wasn't even born before the first movie made its appearance in the 1970s I was too young even after Alien Resurrection hit theaters in 1997. I did see bits of the movies since they represent an epitome of science fiction filming, but still a child until the late 1990s (I was born in 1985) I didn't care to see something so graphic and horror-based. I had recently purchased the second film Aliens and was impressed by how convincingly Weaver portrayed Ripley, and how interesting the plot line was (I happen to find the first film eerie, but a little boring at first). The third feature, Alien 3, was definitely scary, but was my least favorite. Alien Resurrection is one of the best in the movies. The film has great effects (for its time), and once again Weaver portrays a believable character--in an interesting sense, the mutant alien (part original Alien and part Ripley) almost comes off a little sympathetic in the final look between Ripley's character and said beast, with its sad eyes looking at its mother. Definitely one of the better Alien movies, although I doubt it completely takes the top spot from Aliens....more info
  • Uneeded and unwatchable.
    I am willing it belive that the only reason that Sigourney Weaver agreed to star in this is because they offered her much more money than she was given in the previous three. This was not needed at all. If they were going to continue the Alien series, they could have at least have done it right. This is not done right at all. I agree with the majority of fans that the series trully ended with Aliens. Unless you are a diehard fan, move on and look at something else....more info
  • Cheesy and poorly made.
    Wow, what a disappointment. Almost everything in this movie sucked, from the weak and monotonous set design, the overacted (but underdeveloped) characters, the predictable plot, the almost comically inept abilities of the military characters, the annoying musical score, the dumbed-down symbolism of Ripley as the 'mother' of the aliens (complete with a laughable scene where the alien looks at Ripley with googly eyes and almost says, "mama...?"), etc.

    I had a sort of respect for the first two movies in this franchise for their innovative set design, use of special effects, etc. but the third and ESPECIALLY the fourth installments are just cheesy.

    I guess die-hard Alien fans need to see this, but for all others, be forewarned... this movie is a predictable and poorly made waste of time....more info
  • country boy tech
    great movie i realy like space movies and this 1 is a keeper ripley is back...more info
  • A New Ripley - A New Vision
    This movie is perhaps not as flashy or high budget as the first two, and certainly not as moody as the third, but it is definitely watchable. Signory Weaver as Ripley is terrific as always and Wynona Ryder is wonderful as the android. The rest of the supporting cast is a little over the top with the comedy at times but the vision of a new world even farther into the future than what that last movies offered is enthralling. You're left wondering what kind of twist is going to be offered up next, even if it is a little hard to swallow (a pregnant alien?). But all in all, a fun way to spend an afternoon....more info
  • Like resurrecting a man who died peacefully, only to then stab him to death with a serrated knife
    Resurrection? Why, what's the point?, what's the logic? what's the reason?, what's the meaning? Why?

    These are questions that should have been asked before Fox greenlighted Joss Whedon's piece of work, "Alien Resurrection". This film is a failure on so many levels it's almost unbelievable.

    After the troubled production (and obnoxious, studio-meddling) of Alien 3, you would think that someone would just have enough brains to leave it be. Just let it end on a relatively good film (who's only flaw was the studio's editing after Fincher's walkout). But no, they just couldn't leave it alone, the resurrection of this franchise has absolutely no logic behind it. How could this film possibly succeed? Someone should have said.

    Let me begin my walkthrough of this horrible injustice. The beginning problem was Joss Whedon's script. Who on earth said "Hey! let's have the buffy the vampire guy write our new Alien movie!", And then the next big question is: Who agreed to it? The funny thing about it is that Joss has apparently escaped all retribution for this movie by stating that they filmed his perfectly good script wrong. But this argument doesn't hold up when you know the contents of the actual script, in fact, the resulting film did the original script justice (maybe even improvement).

    The film starts off with no setting, and no backround. Where are we now? Why is this ship here? Who are these people? What is the universe's current conidition? Are questions that are never fully or satisfactorily answered. In fact the film is so restricted by it's limited scope that it doesn't even seem to know the answers to these questions. It just makes a large amount of excuses to get both weapons and aliens into the picture, and let me tell you their excuses involve, cloning, evil governments and pirates or "mercenaries" or whatever they called them (they seemed like pirates to me). Where these people came from, and why are they pirates are questions that no attempt was ever made to answer.

    The biggest of the script's issues are the mind-numbingly wide plot holes that cause the entire film's premise to crumble. The excuses used to drag our battle-wearly Ripley out from the grave is so clearly ridiculous they really can't fool even the most unsrutinizing audience.

    The foolishly ignorant use of science is used repeteadly throughout the film, most evident in the arrival of the "Newborn" (highly original name, aint it). Apparently, (SPOILERS) Since a group of scientists removed an Alien queen out of a cloned Ripley (not like that even makes sense to begin with), the queen apparently takes on human traits, such as a human reproductive system, resulting in the birth of an alien-human hybrid. The hybrid kills the queen and then identifies with Ripley as her mother (which also, doesn't make any sense). The original Whedon-design of the newborn was so ridiculous that it had to be redesigned into a better (but still awful) combination which is somewhere between the hunchback of notre-dame and casper the friendly ghost. (NOTE: All this info is thrown at you within a 4 to 5 minute period towards the end of the movie).

    So at about this point I was asking, why? what kind of plot device is this. Randomly thrown in, it doesn't help or move the story along just simply makes it more inconceivable than it was to begin with.

    So aside from Whedon's completely non-plausible script, the entire air of the story itself was a major problem. It successfully rips all terror and dark intensity from itself, only to replace it with what can best be described as swashbuckling campiness. Scenes with humorous intent were thrown here and there with no particular meaning, although the ending result was not humorous at all. There is no substance, not even one original piece worth noting, the entire film reeks of the staleness of it's own concept.

    None of the acting was really worth mentioning, almost all of the performances felt weak and contrived, none of the characters had any depth or soul to them. Even Ripley has been leached of all her relatability, replaced with weird alien-hybrid version of herself that really leaves no character relatibilty in the film at all, they all just seem like disconnected people that we just don't know or care about.

    As I wrap up here, I will say this, if you are dying for some alien action, this will not satisfy you no matter HOW desperate you are. In fact you would be better off watching AVP, which, regardless of how weak a film it was, was WAY better than this crap.

    3/10 stars...more info
  • Good,but not great.
    I liked this film better than part3. The ripley character is given a bit of depth by her being part alien. I thought the cast was pretty well picked also. The movie could have used a bit more action and the end is pretty weak to me. The whole alien,human hybrid should have been done with ripley. Them adding an alien who is part human is misplaced and gets in the way of more action. good film,but not as good as aliens....more info
  • Less serious and more hokey this time around
    I'm glad not everyone listens to the Amazon reviewers like Marshall Fine's recap of how the best Alien films are the even numbered ones. Anyone who thinks this is the best shouldn't be writing a review. I on the other hand enjoy the odd numbered films because it focused less on action and more on characters. Don't get me wrong, I love Aliens as much as any other fan and the mother/daughter relationship between Ripley and Newt was beautiful. But let's face it, Aliens directed by James Cameron was more about the action and the aliens, but it still had a great story unlike AR. And after the troubled production of Alien 3, it's obvious that they were trying to make Aliens 2 with Resurrection. With Alien and Alien 3, they focused on one sole alien but even more on the characters in the film, and how they interacted with each other and the dilemma they were facing. Alien 3 went even further with its religious theme and an awesome soundtrack. As I wrote in my Alien 3 review, the Ripley character was much more layered and interesting because there had been so much disappointment and turmoil in her life at that point. Plus finding out the truth that an Alien had been impregnated in her forced her to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to save mankind, her own life. Alien Resurrection is watchable for mindless entertainment but don't expect anything that packs an emotional punch or that will leave a lasting impression. It gets more silly here and the characters are nothing great like in the previous films. It's 200 years later and Ripley is a caricature of her former self, now half human, half alien after being cloned from some of her DNA mixed with alien DNA. She even makes love with an Alien Queen and produces a new form of alien. Winona Ryder who has always irritated me with her acting does not enhance the film any as an android. Some high-tech scientists are now trying to control the Aliens and their behavioral patterns, and are using human prisoners as hosts to breed more Aliens. The aliens escape of course and wreak havoc on the spaceship as a group of smugglers try to fight their way out with Ripley leading the way. It's hard to take anything in this film seriously and it leaves something to be desired like a better script for one. Only the most devout Alien fan will want this in their collection. It's worth seeing for Sigourney Weaver but nothing else really matters. Stick with the first 3 as a trilogy....more info
  • Good scare
    Okay, again I don't own this movie, but I have seen it.
    It was scary, but not as good as the first one.
    Lots of blood, and gory scenes...more info
  • Proper Return To form
    After the dymsmall Alien 3 release, I had my resverations about Alien: Resurrection. To my surpise though the film was a lot of a fun and the directors cut is better than the oringail film. The script by Joss Wheldon is one of the best in the series and both Sigourney and Wionna give great performances....more info
  • The best of the series
    It seems like the first 2 were the most popular -- no doubt. The third was a dog. And this on is ... different. This is the one that reveals more of itself when seen again.


    For me, anyway, I got more interested in it and saw different stuff each time I've seen it. I mean, after being chased arouind the galaxy for several centeries Ripley has never been a victim. In fact she manages to take the character to some kind of anti-victim-hood when she teeters between helping to save her team and eating them.

    Anyway, I think this episode comes out as the best of the lot....more info
  • A Disappointment, Here's Why:
    In 1979 Ridley Scott released Alien, one of the most elegantly crafted Sci-Fi Horror films ever made. Working closely with a number of visual artists (most famously H.R. Giger), Scott managed to put together a work that seethes with moody atmosphere and would become a essential classic. Everything here works: the cinematography is beautiful, the story's pacing deliberate, Jerry Goldsmith's score is haunting and gorgeous(easily one of the film's best qualities), the suspense and mystery of it all... hell, when I watch the film I'm struck by how lonely and horrifying space must be even without merciless killing machines on the loose. Other films in the genre have nothing on Alien in terms of setting a mood, the creepiness and isolation are so palpable. The creature effects are simple and the quick glimpses, close shots and lighting make it frightening, human-in-a-latex-suit though they may be. Of course the effects aren't up to the level we've come to expect in a post The Abyss/Jurassic Park/Lord of the Rings world, but I'd argue Alien's strengths far outweigh it's weaknesses, and that modern Sci-Fi/fantasy blockbusters can't really say that. Big budgets don't always make for a good film. Which brings me, finally, to Alien Resurrection, a movie that couldn't possibly be less true to it's roots.
    Aside from the inclusion of the series' main character and actress, 1997's Alien Resurrection looks and feels like the latest Sci-Fi Channel high budget TV series, and anyone with a smattering of taste will recognize this as a bad thing. Far removed from the quiet tension and human drama of Alien, Resurrection is a brainlessly slick action movie from the start; a fact proven time and time again by lame one-liners: "Earth man. What a s##thole," and the cheesy fight scenes everyone seems to get involved in. The lush production, light years ahead of what was possible for a low-budget film in 1979, does nothing to keep Resurrection from resembling just about every other modern-day John Carpenteresque space "thriller." Visual and script cliches abound here and the special effects do not pick up the slack. True, the alien design has evolved beyond simple rubber suits, but at this point they are no more mysterious than the Velociraptors in Jurassic Park, and they certainly aren't scary any more; they barely qualify as gross. Perhaps all of this is what you expect when effects are taken out of the hands of artists and placed into the hands of computer technicians. Not to say that there isn't an art to creating computer graphics, but... well I'll save that argument for another time. That comment aside, a good portion of the cg, especially in the underwater scenes is sub par anyway, and few things kill a modern day Sci-Fi movie faster than poorly done computer animation.
    Speaking of mediocrity, the poorly designed "new" Alien creature at the end (humorously enough, a man in a rubber suit) resembles the titular character from the movie Pumpkinhead a little too much for it's own good. All of this is nitpicking though. The real heart breaker here is that Resurrection's director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, has made some very very good films in France (Amelie, City of Lost Children) and certainly his particular visual style is evident the lighting and in his casting choices. But in this instance he seemed to have tried very hard to make an "American" style movie, commenting negatively on the state of affairs in Hollywood today. His other movies are great. The other Alien movies are great. This movie is disposable. Bottom line, see it if you like cheap action, but don't waste money on it. ...more info
  • Here we go again...
    You didn't think Ms. Weaver could revive her classic character for another fat paycheck, but she found a way.

    I have to admit, the premise behind this film (cloning Ripley to get the Alien baby she died with in "Alien 3") was pretty creative. Though, I'm not sure how creating a Ripley clone also regenerated the alien, but who cares.

    The action in this film is much better than "Alien 3," and there are humorous little quips here and there for die-hard fans of the series to appreciate.

    "Alien: Resurrection" is full of over-the-top gross-out gimmicks, and just when you think they're done, they raise (or lower) the bar once more. Somebody really wanted to make people vomit.

    This isn't a great movie, but if you just love that slimy little guy with the extra teeth (like I do) you will probably enjoy it to some degree....more info
  • A good movie
    Although the best movie of the Alien legacy remains, in my opinion, "Aliens", this movie is number 2. Special effects are fine, we can see the aliens longer, and the screenplay is correct (and obviously it follows the screenplay of "Alien 3") despite some slight incoherences (in a physical sense). I only found weird enough that weapons have not evolved much since "Aliens" whereas there are more than 2 centuries between "Alien 3" and "Alien - Resurrection" according to the screenplay. Anyway, this is a good entertainment movie at low price. So I recommend it for Alien lovers and others. ...more info
  • Alien Abomination
    I can't believe Sigourney Weaver read this script and said "Yeah, I'll do it!". Easily the worst of the Alien films and quite possibly one of the worst films ever made. What is Alien Resurrection suppose to be? A black comedy or an actual sequel to Alien 3? Either way it fails miserably. The acting is atrocious, the story is non-linear and absurd and the direction is abysmal. Believe the hype...this movie sucks!...more info
  • alien resurrection
    Ms. Weaver is (as always at the top of her game). Brad Douriff is spectacular in his subtle acting, and the rest of the cast follows in suit. One (of four) great films. Thanks for the ride....more info
  • "Kill me ... kill me ..."
    "Alien: Resurrection," released five years after the failure of David Fincher's "Alien3," sounds delightful. It's written by the utterly brilliant Joss Whedon, creator of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" among others, and directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the man behind "Amelie." Mixing Whedon's trademark creativity with Jeunet's vibrant style seems like the perfect remedy for those who disliked "Alien3." Unfortunately, it's not. Written shortly before he created "Buffy," Whedon's script reads like a comic book, sorely lacking the structure of the series' previous entries. It's in Jeunet's directing where the film really plummets, though. The actors seem to have had little guidance (Jeunet didn't speak a word of English at the time the film was made), the performances are over-the-top to the point of being cartoonish, and Jeunet's style is all about in-your-face grotesque imagery.

    Here's the story: 200 years after "Alien3," a group of military scientists have successfully cloned Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and extracted the baby alien queen from within her. Also, they've experimented by combining her human blood with alien blood. The result is a far more out-there, carefree, bizarre Ripley, devoid of the humanity that made the character so appealing in the other films. That's not to say that this new Ripley isn't appealing. On the contrary, she's quite fun, thanks to an enthusiastic and oddball performance by Weaver. The supporting cast includes Winona Ryder, who shines as a determined young space pirate with a secret, Ron Perlman, future "C.S.I." star Gary Dourdan, Dan Hedaya, and Brad Dourif, who is creepy as usual.

    Comparing these films, Ridley Scott's "Alien" and Fincher's "Alien3" are the suspense-based, claustrophobic, "nowhere to run" entries in the series, while James Cameron's "Aliens" and this movie are the action-packed, shoot 'em up entries. Jeunet knows how to direct a sci-fi film, and it would appear he knows how to direct an action film as well (his style is actually similar to scribe Joss Whedon's in "Serenity"). Unfortunately, he has no idea how to direct an "Alien" film. It's this disregard for the previous films that makes "Alien: Resurrection" seem like your everyday sci-fi thriller.

    As this is the most recent of the solo "Alien" films (excluding Paul W.S. Anderson's foolish "AVP: Alien vs. Predator"), it has some more bombastic visual effects than its predecessors. However, they aren't always better - in fact, these are the weakest effects of the series. Granted, there are some highlights, such as the utterly horrifying, foul alien hybrid (and his stomach-churning demise), or any scene featuring the alien queen. But there's frequent use of CGI, and part of what made the titular beasts so frightening in the earlier movies was the realism that came with using a guy in a suit. That realism is lost through this film's CGI effects, and with it dies much of the terror contained in the previous films.

    So who's to blame for this movie's many problems? Many a finger points to Joss Whedon. Whedon has defended himself by saying that though not much from his original screenplay was changed, the finished film follows it very loosely: actors speak the lines wrong, scenes are filmed wrong, everything looks wrong. Even a glance through Whedon's script proves that, in the hands of the right director, it could've been a decent film. Regardless, it's too much like an action comic and not enough like an "Alien" movie.

    However, most of the blame should go to the director. In the introduction to his "special edition" cut of the film presented in the "Alien Quadrilogy" boxset, Jean-Pierre Jeunet says that he is extremely proud of the movie in any form. Sadly, there's nothing to be proud of here; truthfully, this film is a disgrace. How odd that the director who brought us "Amelie," one of the best and most refreshing films ever made, should be responsible for such a turgid movie as this. And turgid it is: "Alien: Resurrection" is unquestionably the worst of the "Alien" movies. It's a cartoon version of the "Alien" saga, filled with drifting actors and a shoestring plot. It's gross, frequently confusing, and just plain weird (take, for example, a scene in which Ripley apparently has sex with an alien).

    At its end, "Alien: Resurrection" is a perfect example of what happens when foolish studios keep series going after they've run their course. "Alien3" would have been a fitting close for what may be the greatest science fiction series of all time, but instead we're left with this stupid, dull mess of a film. It's ironic that through "Alien: Resurrection," the title a reference to what execs planned to do the saga after its near-death through "Alien3," the powers that be unwittingly killed off the series. Ten years after the film's release, there's been no "Alien 5," and with the overwhelmingly-negative response to Paul W.S. Anderson's "Alien vs. Predator," it seems likely that the "Alien" saga, at least on its own, has reached its end. ...more info
  • Excellent end to a great scifi series.
    This is the final chapter of the Alien saga unless you count AVP which I kinda count as both a prequal to the Alien saga and a sequal to the Predator saga. I remember being very excited when this came out for two reasons. I love the Alien movies and this is the first one I got to see in the theaters. It was very well done all around IMO. The acting was great as usual and the special efects were outstanding for the day. Even in 10 years it amaing how much CG has improved. This was a great movie then and even better now with this release. While not a directors cut it adds more depth to the film and the ending gives a much better finale than the orriginal ending. My only gripe with the special edition is the cheesey opening but all in all it's a great movie and great release....more info
  • This one was good.
    Many times, when an idea is revisited in a Sequel film, the whole series is ruined by a bad movie. This was the 4th movie in the ALIEN series, and could be arguably the best one. By letting the resurrected Ripley play the semi-bad guy in this one, it gives the movie a hell of a plot twist. Great performances by a first rate cast, and the thrill of a good horror flick makes this one and must see and one for the DVD collection....more info
  • Its Ok!
    I was too young to see the other Alien films in the theater when they came out, so this was the one that I saw. After buying the Legacy set and seeing it again I have to say that it really is not that bad. It has a completely different feel than the others and takes Ripley to a different level that I never would have imagined. Looking back on it should they have made it? Maybe not. But it was good to see an Alien movie in the theater. I always felt that Aliens was the best one. The android was a bit much in this film and a far cry from the awesome Bishop of the second film....more info
  • Alien Resurrection - Review
    I generally liked this movie, but the story reminds me more of keystone cops type of comedy rather than the movie I had hoped it would be. Slapstick this movie should not have been....more info