Maybe the Franchise Should Have Died with Ripley Back in 1992

Rating: 6/10 (19 February 2010)

Here is the third direct sequel in the ALIEN franchise and, by this point, the series has all but completely lost the essence of the original. The film, directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, contributes nothing new to the series aside from better quality visual effects and a reason (albeit, a weak one) to resurrect Ellen Ripley. The film occurs 200 years after the events on Fiorina 161 and the military has used DNA samples from the impregnated Ripley to cultivate a Queen. Things get out of control and Ripley bands together with the crew of the unregistered freighter BETTY to escape alive. Whereas David Fincher's ALIEN 3 almost seemed to hearken back to the horror/suspense vibe of Ridley Scott's original, this film seems to aim more towards the man versus alien action of James Cameron's ALIENS. Unfortunately for Jeunet's film, it doesn't come close to matching the awesomeness that was Cameron's film.
This installment feels hollow and meaningless compared to the previous. Instead of focusing on interesting characters or claustrophobic paranoia, the movie feels more focused on the deaths as the aliens one-by-one pick off the survivors. The only scene with any real impact behind it is Ripley's discovery of the seven failed clone attempts that came before her, and the horror of confronting mutilated versions of herself (while showing her only instance of humanity in the entire film). Otherwise, it's just a paint-by-numbers survival horror film...a two hour period where you watch the survivors get dropped into situation after situation where someone is bound to die. As for the ending, I'm not all that keen on it. The conclusion involves an unforeseen result of the cloning process: Ripley has developed minor traits similar to the aliens (acidic blood, heightened senses and reflexes) and the Queen has developed human traits, namely a uterus that presents the film with it's final threat. The concept didn't sit right with me and it felt to me as if screenwriter Joss Whedon was stretching for ideas.
Perhaps the film would've been stronger if they had placed more of emphasis on the characters so their deaths would have an impact. Most of the characters are two-dimensional, with few exceptions. Sigourney Weaver returns for the fourth time as Ellen Ripley or, more accurately, Ripley clone #8. Weaver's spent three films building up a strong but empathetic protagonist and sacrifices it for an extra sequel where her clone is a cold, callous, hissing shell of her former self. Apparently, while Ripley's clone has managed to maintain all of her original memories, it's walked away with none of the best traits that made her who she was. I'll give her credit though, she still looks damn good in this movie.
Most of the supporting cast don't fare well. Michael Wincott shows promise as Elgyn, captain of the BETTY, but isn't around long (similar to the filmmakers' treatment of Charles Dance in ALIEN 3); I also enjoyed Gary Dourdan as Christie, though he is also underused (I'm seeing a pattern here...). I'm a fan of Ron Perlman and his tough guy routine, which is all he does here as Johner. Winona Ryder is beautiful but feels incredibly out of place in this film as Call, the newest crew member of the BETTY with her own secrets and intentions. I still don't understand what was up with Dominique Pinon as Vriess; the rest of the "good" guys (Kim Flowers, Raymond Cruz, and Leland Orser) never really evolve past fresh meat that scream/yell a lot. The film's "villain", Doctor Wren, is dastardly cartoonish in his portrayal by J. E. Freeman, though it doesn't get much goofier than Dan Hedaya as General Martin Perez. The cornball factor doesn't lend well to a series renowned for it's suspense and horror, and I really felt it weakened the film as a whole.
Probably the only aspect of the film that didn't underwhelm me was the visual effects. The shots of the AURIGA and the BETTY were fantastic and the xenomorphs are looking their best since ALIENS. Visual effects technology had improved greatly since 1992's ALIEN 3 so the CG aliens were much more impressive. There is plenty of gore this time around, giving the film a hard R rating, and should satisfy even the pickiest of gore-hounds. In that regard, the film entertains. I hate to sound as if I'm completely slamming the film because it's not terrible, it just doesn't live up to its predecessors. It's a bit more entertaining than ALIEN 3 but it's shallower in depth. The third film at least tried to have more substance whereas this movie accepts it's cookie-cutter format and runs with it, surviving on visual effects and gore.