Is a clone still the original? Does it/her/him share a common humanity?

Rating: 7/10 (25 October 2005)

In some ways, "Resurrection" is a logical fourth episode in the sequence: the trilogy has become a tetralogy. What SHOULD be considered (apart from the obvious need by the franchise to make more money) is that the Ripley character IS NOT THE SAME Ripley we saw in the first three.
Ripley has been a constantly changing/evolving character. Within the 'original' trilogy, she has developed from the competent officer on a company ship, via a protective mother-figure, into a militant protector of humanity and, perhaps, beyond. Resurrection puts this much-loved, fiercely-protective character, into a situation where SHE is the controller. But who are we talking about? It/she is the end result of generations of experimentation: of an attempt to create a hybrid alien/human.
Perhaps, the underlying message is that scientists cannot cage their creations, indeed, cannot control and/or understand them.
The introduction of the 'mercenary crew' underlines this notion. Ripley has become an 'alien' complete with the 'attitude' the entity 'Ripley' has apparently always had.
When, accompanied by the 'new' humans, she discovers her lab-bound predecessors, (complete with 'kill me' dialogue), the realisation that we are only shown a small percentage of the 'failures' is, perhaps, accompanied by the notion that she has every reason to kill ALL the research scientists.
As a mother-figure to the aliens, who have, possibly, become more HUMAN, the hybrid clone (Ripley) still can't overcome her loathing of this invasive, destructive life-form.
Whilst not the insect-based supermom, the Ripley hybrid surely offers us the luxury of feeling empathy for ALL mothers, regardless of species.
There are subtexts within subtexts. Still, I could be overreacting. Damnit - it deserves better than some of the featured critiques.
Watch Alien: Resurrection and make up your own mind. I did.