Not bad, but disappointing

Rating: 6/10 (2 December 2002)

I remember how excited I was to see this movie when it came out. Aliens was at the time, my favorite movie ever, and I wanted to see a much better follow up to it and Alien than the mostly mediocre Alien 3. The result? An okay film that could have been better (aren't most films like this nowadays?)
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***
I won't reveal the plot, except that Ripley has been cloned by the evil 'Corporation', and yes, once again, the Corporations' own greed backfires on them. We get some cool characters, nice sets and plenty of action...so what went wrong?
First, before I go into that, I'll go into more detail with the good points. I loved the setup, like Alien, straight and to the point. I thought the atmopshere at the beginning was very creepy and very claustrophobic, especially with the musical score. The beginning (before everything gets FUBAR), is well done, well directed and most importantly, well lighted. The atmosphere is dark and creepy, just what we need to get into our fantasy/horror film mode. The characters are cool, but not nearly as cool as the seasoned hombres we saw in Aliens. Michael Wincott (The 'bad guy' actor with that incredibly cool voice from Robin Hood and The Counte of Monte Cristo), Ron Perlman and some others you know you've seen before on tv make up a pretty good supporting cast/alien fodder. Sigourney Weaver, as usual, really shines as she resumes her role as Ellen Ripley, this time, as an Alien hybrid. The movie sports some good action scenes, and a few scares, though mostly for shock value (loud sound effects mixed with buckets full of gore). There are some creative scenes given the time period and the setting (a cube of whiskey being heated in a shot glass, the futuristic weapons, the alien labs...etc). As for the special effects, not too shabby, especially the part where we see the camera go down inside a screaming man's throat to see an alien chest burster about to make it's appearance. Okay, now comes the part I'm sure will be ubiquitous for those who read other reviews on this one on this site...so far, I've given this one so pretty good reviews to be fair and give credit where credit is due, but like everyone else on this site, I just have to vent my frustrations now on the bad parts of Alien 4...
First, did I like this one better than Alien 3? That's a tough one since all four Alien films have different directors and look and feel differently from one another. But did I like it over the often visually stunning, yet ultimately disapointing sequel directed by Fight Club director David Fincher? Yes, but not by much (what can I say? I'm a sucker for 'survival horror' with plenty of guns and ammo). Alien 3 suffered from too many underdeveloped characters that we couldn't give a damn about (a la Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None") and just one slaughter scene after another. This one is a little different in that most of the characters are developed, at least minimally, yet, they are still picked off in pretty much the same way as Alien 3. The thing that frustrated me the most was that Michael Wincott and Dan Hedaya's characters, both pretty well developed at the beginning, make you think that they will be really important to the storyline, but no, they are among the first to be killed off...though I was looking for another 'Hicks' in Wincott who is a great actor, I may have to give a few props to the writer in that noone truly expects both the leader of the mercenaries and the leader of the marines to die before the movie hits it's 3rd chapter. Besides that, there are some stupid deaths (especially the last, and truly unnecessary death aboard the space ship...that one made me groan so much, it was so obvious that it was tacked on for no good reason), some stupid decision making and totally unrealistic scenes. There are scenes that make you go, that makes no sense at all, just like when the mercs. kill off a squad of marines...were they asking for it? No, they were just doing their job, but what do we care? The only reason I bring these frustrations up is not b\c I don't like violence (Evil Dead 2 and Dead Alive are amongst my favorite 'Over the top' films), I think it can be done well for camp or horror purposes, but b\c I can't stand when filmmakers put such stupidity on the screen (from characters, and the plot) and think that noone in the audience will think otherwise. That really insults my intelligence, and I know others. I have to agree, Alien 4 plays like a video game, which is mostly bad than good b\c we don't want to see this in an Alien movie. The Alien movie (1-3) all based their horror elements on the human psyche...how given people would react to a given situation, and they all suceeded. Alien 4 doesn't give a crap about the human psyche or that inner fear inside, instead, it relies on visuals (though, it does have some impressive ones at that) and a fast-paced (almost Jerry Bruckheimer-like) plot that goes from one scene of impending doom to the next. I have to agree with many posters on this site...the aliens are just overexposed...the real fear in the others was the clandestine nature of the aliens; the sounds they made, the motion sensors used to track their movements, the looks of fear of the trapped victims' faces. All of these made us jump out of our seats after the suspense had been built up for so long. This one goes for a newer generation I guess, one that likes quick thrills and not much else. I thought the alien hybrid at the end was so stupid, almost comical looking, though brutal (Brad Dorif's death was classic...if only he would have shut his stupid mouth...LOL...if you have seen it then you'll know what I mean). Which goes to show you, just because a plot idea may be new, it is not necessarily a good idea. In a weird way, I almost wish that the ending to Alien 3 was the grand finale (though from a rather weak film at that).
All in all, not too bad. It is entertaining at times, but it just doesn't give the true fans what we crave, true survival horror. I don't think any sequel will top Alien or the much better in terms of horror and excitement, Aliens. Aliens was such a good film, filled with action, suspense and characters you rooted for towards the end (and for the person on this site who called Aliens a "Vietnam Revenge allegory" that is "a disgusting NRA wet-dream", I have to say that you are totally wrong...just because a film has violence, or even in this case, marines who crack under the pressure and go nuts given the situation, does not make it symbolic of the vietnam war, nor does it excite those of us who happen to support the NRA and the right to bear arms. Aliens is simply entertainment at its finest, and truly embraces the human condition as most characters reach an epiphany of courage at the end as they've had to change over the course of the movie. It is not a generation flick for blood thirsty 'cowboys' who grew up watching Rambo and Arnie blow people away). Aliens truly was a film that was almost flawless, in my opinion, in terms of what it was aiming to accomplish. What was Alien Resurrection trying to accomplish? $$$$. Plain and simple. Anyways, I would only recommend this one for die-hard fans, but even most of them will range from somewhat to incredibly disapointed by this one, but yet, not as disappointed as they were with Alien 3 (though I know that opinion will vary). Yet, it is still entertaining, and a good way to kill a couple of hours. Not the worst movie I have ever seen, but definitely not the best. Overall, I did like it, and think it has more pluses for the sake of entertainment than negatives. I add one more star to my rating just b\c of Sigourney Weaver doing a kick @ss job this time around, and of course, seeing the silver screen's best 'creatures from another planet' return once again. Though this one was almost a 6, I give it my slightly above average rating of 7/10 stars.