Resurrection: In Retrospect

Rating: Null/10 (23 September 2002)

After its release in 1997, 'Alien Resurrection' has become the victim of harsh criticism. The harshest comments often come from fans of the series-the same people one would expect to seek out the positive elements in the film.
Much of the blame has fallen-unjustly-on the shoulders of Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet. However, I must agree with those who fault Joss Whedon, who wrote the movie. While his style of writing might lend itself well to his 'Buffy' franchise, it is somewhat a misfit in our Alien environment.
As for those who voiced annoyance with the acting, specifically Winona Ryder's Annalee Call, all I can say is 'sorry'. Personally I enjoyed her character the most. Sigourney Weaver returns as Ripley. The fact that this incarnation of Ripley isn't Ellen Ripley at all is where a lot of the criticism stems from. I agree, this is not the Ripley of Aliens past, but I can appreciate the light hearted comments of one fan- `Well, at least she's got hair this time.' Bringing back Ripley as a human/alien clone was simply a big risk that didn't pay off. The supporting characters, like the movie, are enjoyed by some and hated by others. I enjoy them, although I'll be the first to admit they're a far cry from the supporting characters of Aliens, the tough, callous and humorous Colonial Marines.
Another large complaint was centred around the fact that the Aliens were over exposed, and this diminished their frightening aspect. I don't believe that the Alien has been scary since the first movie. In 'Aliens' the beasts receive much exposure, many of them being little more than fodder for the Marines. 'Alien 3' presents us with a lone monster, as the first, but by this time we're familiar with the Xenomorph anyway. Are we not all familiar with the alien? Its form has ascended into the sci-fi lexicon, a god among movie monsters. To claim that Jeunet has taken away from the horror of the creature by exposing it is absurd: There is nothing left to expose. Furthermore, the films attempt to create a new horrible creature-the alien/human hybrid -left most fans largely unimpressed. This tells us that they have come to the film with unrealistic demands: to be horrified by a creature that was terrible decades ago, but has been made harmless by years of mainstream exposure in the form of video games, action figures, novels, comics books and parodies.
'Alien' is a classic of suspense. 'Aliens' is Cameron at his best: loud, flashy, unforgettable. 'Alien 3' is a respectable effort to keep the series firmly grounded in reality-after all, the sequel to 'Aliens' could have easily attempted to be louder, faster and flashier, resulting in a battle of absurd proportions between Human and Alien. This is a fact overlooked by most fans, although, over time, David Fincher's vision is being accepted on a wider scale. Where to go from here? Fox decided Joss Whedon could write the story, after all, he was he was the man behind the success of televisions 'Buffy'. Working from this script is Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who crafts a film as visually pleasing as the others in the series. This, I feel, can not be denied. While I am forced to agree with certain grievances that many fans have, I hardly feel that the film deserves the reaction it has received. Fans should be pleased that every film in the series has been a theatrical release, and has not degenerated into the direct-to video market, as many sci-fi franchises do.
What does the future hold for the Aliens series? Time will tell. Whatever happens, I feel that it must include Ripley, however that need not mean Siggy Weaver. Personally, I think Hillary Swank would make an excellent Ellen Ripley. Hopefully the series will solidify it's reign at the top of sci-fi horror, and continue to make us scream into the vacuum of space with terror and delight.