Alfred Hitchcock established the power of horror with "Psycho"; Ridley Scott revitalized it with "Alien"

Rating: 10/10 (16 November 2009)

The motion picture that was the primer in setting off the explosion of popularity and influence in the horror genre was, hands down, Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho." Down the road, with rip-off after rip-off forming a chain, the horror and science-fiction genres—now a popular combo—seemed to dwindle in effectiveness. That's when Ridley Scott's visionary masterpiece "Alien" reinforced it.
The reason why "Alien" worked so well and why it still works today is not because the slimy insect-like creature can jump out and scare you or because the film's gruesome scenes that twist your stomach into a knot, but because it's art. It's a bittersweet work of art. Bitter because first viewing will leave you feeling really harrowed. Sweet because it's absolutely absorbing storytelling. "Alien" is a first-class example of film-making that goes beyond special effects and set design to create horror.
The premise is both simple and promising. Simple ideas are oftentimes the best ones. In an unspecified time in the future, a cargo ship transporting mineral oil is drawn off-course by an S.O.S. signal on a remote, uninhabited planetoid. The crew investigates and unwillingly brings back onboard with them a parasitic organism that begins to grow and change and before long, escapes and starts to pick the crew off one by one.
"Alien" is not only a great movie to experience, but a great one to look at. The whole film from start to finish is eye candy. The art-direction and special effects are absolutely fantastic even by today's standards. The cinematography is very much like outer space itself—dark in most spaces, but with bold embodiments of light and contrast spaced throughout the misc en scene. The spaceship travelling through the endlessness of the universe reminds us of similar shots from "2001: A Space Odyssey", a film this movie obviously is referencing visually. The alien, depending on its metamorphic stage is portrayed using animatronics or a man in a suit and although these effects can be outdone visually by a computer now, they cannot be outdone in terms of impact, for when the creature is in the same shot with the actors, the fear is genuine, because it's not something painted on the screen. It's really there.
Something that the makers of the travesty "AVPR: Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem" should have realized when they were making the branch-off to this film was that a good horror movie goes beyond blood and gore and off-putting images. "Alien" does boast really terrifying iconic horror images, but to a certain extent, that's not what it's about. It's about memorable characters such as Sigourney Weaver's career-launching portrayal of Ripley, special effects used a service to the motion picture entire, and the cemented lesson to any audience member that film-making is in essence, storytelling and it should be done well.
I grew up knowing Ridley Scott's director's cut of this film, in which he sliced out a few moments of the 1979 theatrical release and instilled some new footage that was before left on the cutting room shelves. Recently I saw the original theatrical version. Comparing the two, the director's cut is slightly better, but the theatrical version is sheer magnificence on its own. In either version, "Alien" and its first sequel, "Aliens", are first-class examples of brilliant film-making. It is harrowing, it is disgusting, it is gut-wrenching, but it surprisingly enough enthralls us as its puts us in a cold sweat. It takes genius to do that. Hitchcock did it with "Psycho." Ridley Scott did it with "Alien." Of these two movies, which do I prefer personally? Please don't ask. I couldn't possibly pick one over the other.