Not brilliant, but fun entry.

Rating: Null/10 (16 January 2007)

I'm not sure I agree with even having a fourth party in the "trilogy", or ex-trilogy. The third part had a glorious and finite ending. But when you combine the DNA from the dead Ripley and the DNA from the head of a Hollywood studio you get a monster that is for all practical purposes immortal. The film is visually up to the standard of the series, perhaps even better-looking than some of the others. Jeunet, as is evident in "Amelie Poulain", knows his way with visuals so there is no problem there. There is also no problem cast-wise... almost.
Who the hell had the "brilliant" idea to cast Ryder in a sci-fi film, and in an "Alien" film at that? First we are supposed to accept her as a SMUGGLER. I don't think so. (I mean, she proved that she can't even successfully smuggle stolen clothes in an L.A. clothes store!) Then we are supposed to accept her as some kind of a TERRORIST with a mission to destroy the aliens. I don't think so. And then we are supposed to buy that she is an ANDROID - on top of all that. Smuggler? A joke. Terrorist? A bigger joke. ANDROID??? UNBELIEVABLE! Her being an ANDROID is a piece of absurdity that was the hardest to swallow in recent movie memory. To make things worse, they made her WEEP in one scene over the fact that the others are making fun of her being a robot: this doesn't exactly help make her more believable as one, either. Ryder is cute, relatively likable and everything, but I simply don't see a place for her either in the future or in the past; I would only cast her in a late 20th century setting. Having Ryder in this picture is like putting Bruce Willis or Stallone in a generation X film (or a costume drama). Who's next in line to play in outer space? Madonna? Drew Barrymore? Richard Simmons? Roseanne? Hugh Grant? The rest of the casting is good; the inclusion of Perlman, Hedaya, and Wyncott, among others, was good. The film is full of action, the characters aren't annoying... almost.
The evil scientist shtick was used here to a high and absurd level. There are also occasional lines and one-liners here and there that almost threaten to turn this film into a self-parody and I, for one, consider this a bad idea; either it's a full-scale parody with Bill Murray and Goldie Hawn or it's a regular sci-fi horror - make up your mind. An example of this indecisiveness is the scene in which a half-human half-alien is born in the presence of a cocooned scientist. His comments about the "infant" being like a "butterfly" (and other such nonsense) were ridiculous. A sequel that parodies itself cannot work, one example being "Escape from L.A." (though, admittedly, THAT particular movie would have been bad anyway).
However, the film is fun to watch, and the underwater sequences were good. The humour didn't always work, but most of the dialog didn't get (too) moronic. The first half is better. If you'd like to read my "biography" of Sigourney Weaver, contact me by e-mail.