A 20 year re-review

Rating: 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.)