Alien: Resurrection (1997)

[Guestx]

The aliens swimming underwater still scares the bejeezus out of me. Didn't know they're that agile and graceful.

It really would be terrifying to see some shit like that coming at you. . .

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Its better than Alien3.

<{cruzshake}>

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

they busted out extra KY jelly for the aliens in resurrection.

it was that bad, wasnt great and ripleys baby boy had no real pay off -- and bitch tits.

the scene with all the deformed ripley clones freaked me out as a kid

 

[Kowboy Karl]

It was aight. A fairly enjoyable slice of hokum not much more.

It did however have one of the most incredible asses ever seen on film....

Watched it a few days ago and yes lord what a greAt unexpected scene

 

[Tyrannosaurus rex]

I think it's by far the weakest of the original Alien movies.

@shadow_priest_x not to bash your taste in movies or something, but I've noticed that most of the time you talk a movie you tend to give it a pretty good score. IDK if I'm right about this, but it seems like movies easily entertain or impress you at least a bit. Maybe my memory is off though.

 

[HomerThompson]

The movie is impossibly bad, and this is just more proof that @shadow_priest_x is a buffoon who should stop ever commenting on movies in any capacity.

 

[Lonesome Crow]

That crap at the end with the Queen giving live-birth to the Newborn, rejection of the Queen and Ripley being mommy-dearest was really fucking lame and cringe-worthy. Can't believe Joss Whedon actually wrote that shit.

Work your mommy/oedipal fetish shame-fuck fantasy out in private, ya freak; don't spew it all over the big screen.

 

[Guestx]

@shadow_priest_x not to bash your taste in movies or something, but I've noticed that most of the time you talk a movie you tend to give it a pretty good score. IDK if I'm right about this, but it seems like movies easily entertain or impress you at least a bit. Maybe my memory is off though.

There are probably a few reasons for that.

For one, as a rule, I try to watch movies that I think I might like or be interested in. If a film looks like one I'm not going to enjoy then I'll probably skip it for something that actually seems appealing.

For another, I believe my scoring system is a bit different from others. If a 10/10 (well, actually I don't really give out perfect scores since no film is perfect, but let's say a 9.5/10) would be a movie that has almost no flaws, like Goodfellas or Jurassic Park or Driving Miss Daisy, then a 1/10 would be like the kind of movie a first year film student would produce.

When scoring a film, I look at a wide range of criteria:

- technical achievement ranging from the basics (is the image in focus? is the sound recorded clearly? is the image properly lit?) to more advanced techniques (how complicated is the camera work? are the effects especially good? is lighting used in a special way, perhaps to enhance mood?)

- performances

- the direction

- production design

- editing

- sound design

- soundtrack

. . . and so on. You know, the things you look for when breaking down a film.

Hollywood films are almost always at least 5/10s in my book because they succeed well enough in enough areas, when put up against the entirety of films produced each year (from first-year film students to guys like Spielberg and Fincher), that it doesn't make sense to score them any lower. Only a very small handful of directors even get the chance to work in Hollywood, and so it makes sense that the ones who do will at least have a fairly high level of competence.

A recent film I gave a 5/10 to was Jack Reacher: Never Go Back. I had absolutely no interest in the story, but it was good enough on other levels (performances, cinematography, action choreography, editing) to at least get a score of 50%. Very occasionally I might dip down into 4/10 territory for a big-budget film but that's quite rare. And 1/10-3/10 is really reserved for filmmakers who have little experience and don't really know what they're doing; they're trying and failing badly.

Another thing to keep in mind is that I very rarely make a thread for a film just to bash that film. It might happen occasionally, such as the Jack Reacher 2 thread I recently made, but the vast majority of the time I'm going to make threads for films about which I have something positive to say.

 

[Guestx]

The movie is impossibly bad, and this is just more proof that @shadow_priest_x is a buffoon who should stop ever commenting on movies in any capacity.

If you think this movie was "impossibly bad" then it's just more proof that you've seen very few movies and aren't even qualified to comment on another person's opinion of movies, much less movies themselves.

How about this, begin your education with this book:

Once you're done with that one, come back and let me know and I'll give you another recommendation. It's clearly going to take a while, but we'll make an educated filmgoer of you yet.

 

[HomerThompson]

If you think this movie was "impossibly bad" then it's just more proof that you've seen very few movies aren't even qualified to comment on another person's opinion of movies, much less movies themselves.

How about this, begin your education with this book:

Once you're done with that one, come back and let me know and I'll give you another recommendation. It's clearly going to take a while, but we'll make an educated filmgoer of you yet.

Just because there are thousands of even worse movies, doesn't mean that this piece of crap isn't tragically shitty. It is.

 

[Guestx]

Just because there are thousands of even worse movies, doesn't mean that this piece of crap isn't tragically shitty. It is.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's worth noting that there seem to be more people in this thread who enjoyed the movie or at least thought it was passable than who actively disliked it.

It also has a 63 on Metacritic, which is not too far off from my score of 7/10. Maybe you're the odd man out here?

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Its better than Alien3.

That doesn't say much.

Strongly disagree. 3 >> Resurrection

Judged against the field it's about on the same level as Event Horizon. Good but not great. Plenty of flaws, but overall it's pretty enjoyable.

What the fuck? Event Horizon is way better than Alien: Resurrection



Anyway, I consider A:R to be a shit movie for many reasons, but to me its cardinal sin is that it was the beginning of making xenomorphs into total fucking cans. They used to be terrifying in the first three films, then with A:R and beyond (ie AvP) they became total wusses that get obliterated left and right. No fear left in them.

 

[Gazwald]

Strongly disagree. 3 >> Resurrection



What the fuck? Event Horizon is way better than Alien: Resurrection



Anyway, I consider A:R to be a shit movie for many reasons, but to me its cardinal sin is that it was the beginning of making xenomorphs into total fucking cans. They used to be terrifying in the first three films, then with A:R and beyond (ie AvP) they became total wusses that get obliterated left and right. No fear left in them.

Yeh, you're one of those dudes. Resurrection> Event Horizon> Alien 3

 

[Gazwald]

btw I think I might have a resserection. Anyone want sum fuk?

 

[Tyrannosaurus rex]

There are probably a few reasons for that.

For one, as a rule, I try to watch movies that I think I might like or be interested in. If a film looks like one I'm not going to enjoy then I'll probably skip it for something that actually seems appealing.

For another, I believe my scoring system is a bit different from others. If a 10/10 (well, actually I don't really give out perfect scores since no film is perfect, but let's say a 9.5/10) would be a movie that has almost no flaws, like Goodfellas or Jurassic Park or Driving Miss Daisy, then a 1/10 would be like the kind of movie a first year film student would produce.

When scoring a film, I look at a wide range of criteria:

- technical achievement ranging from the basics (is the image in focus? is the sound recorded clearly? is the image properly lit?) to more advanced techniques (how complicated is the camera work? are the effects especially good? is lighting used in a special way, perhaps to enhance mood?)

- performances

- the direction

- production design

- editing

- sound design

- soundtrack

. . . and so on. You know, the things you look for when breaking down a film.

Hollywood films are almost always at least 5/10s in my book because they succeed well enough in enough areas, when put up against the entirety of films produced each year (from first-year film students to guys like Spielberg and Fincher), that it doesn't make sense to score them any lower. Only a very small handful of directors even get the chance to work in Hollywood, and so it makes sense that the ones who do will at least have a fairly high level of competence.

A recent film I gave a 5/10 to was Jack Reacher: Never Go Back. I had absolutely no interest in the story, but it was good enough on other levels (performances, cinematography, action choreography, editing) to at least get a score of 50%. Very occasionally I might dip down into 4/10 territory for a big-budget film but that's quite rare. And 1/10-3/10 is really reserved for filmmakers who have little experience and don't really know what they're doing; they're trying and failing badly.

Another thing to keep in mind is that I very rarely make a thread for a film just to bash that film. It might happen occasionally, such as the Jack Reacher 2 thread I recently made, but the vast majority of the time I'm going to make threads for films about which I have something positive to say.

I suppose that makes sense.

But even so, if a movie has nice directing and looks good visually it can still be a shitty movie IMO. If the story sucks for example. That's the most important factor for me. If the movie just doesn't make sense or has a lame ass story I simply won't like it even if it looks really good. Only exception being movies that aren't supposed to make sense such as Pacific Rim, which is just an excuse to have giant robots fight giant monsters.

 

[Guestx]

I suppose that makes sense.

But even so, if a movie has nice directing and looks good visually it can still be a shitty movie IMO. If the story sucks for example. That's the most important factor for me. If the movie just doesn't make sense or has a lame ass story I simply won't like it even if it looks really good. Only exception being movies that aren't supposed to make sense such as Pacific Rim, which is just an excuse to have giant robots fight giant monsters.

Well I think you're right that the story is the most important thing. That's really where Jack Reacher failed for me: I just did not give a FUCK about the story!

What I think a bigger problem is today--more than a story simply being uninteresting--is incoherence. I think there are a lot of films today where the narrative is just not clear, details get lost, you're never 100% sure what's going on, etc. For me, that is THE #1 factor that will drag down a film's score. It's a major problem.

But story issues by itself is not enough to disqualify a film from getting a solid score. To give you one example, I think the script for TRON: Legacy needed another revision, but the fundamental concept, the visuals, the action and the soundtrack are SO strong that I still really enjoy that film.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Yeh, you're one of those dudes. Resurrection> Event Horizon> Alien 3

 

[Halifax]

I liked it before the Alien Queen gave birth to the "MAMA" skull alien. It was all downhill from there

 

[Guestx]

I haven't seen Event Horizon in forever so I can't comment, but I do think that Resurrection is a more interesting watch than Alien 3. At the end of the day, weird and wacky > uninspired and dull.

 

[Guestx]

I liked it before the Alien Queen gave birth to the "MAMA" skull alien. It was all downhill from there

I didn't love the ending either. It was very strange. But it is also only like 30 minutes of a two hour movie.