Review of Alien Resurrection (1997) by Sim R — 30 Oct 2012

Oh, Alien Resurrection. Bless your slimy socks.

Looking back at it, knowing Joss Whedon wrote the thing and in the wake of Serenity / Firefly, you could very easily view AR as Whedon testing out the character archetypes for Mal Reynolds & Co., in the crew of the Betty. Hell, River even gets delivered in pretty much the same manner as Leland Orser, who seems doomed to have a film career in which he shakes, screams and has something horrible happen to him. Johner is Jayne, Elgyn is Mal, Christie gets a sex change later to become Zoe and so on.

It's...hard to find real fault with Resurrection. Contrary to Whedon himself, I don't find it acted wrong, delivered wrong or cast wrong. Because Ron Perlman. And Michael Wincott. And Brad Dourif. So, the premise is a little daft and if you analyze things too closely there's a lot of plotholes. But, eh. Pretty much every story can have that said of it. It's not as if the previous installments are tightly-plotted masterworks with no glaring "Why didn't they do that?" moments. You can pick holes in the plot of every Aliens movie, so it seems unfair to downrate AR purely because of the dafter aspects of its storyline.

Is it a fun film to watch? Yes. And...I think that's the core of the difference between it and all its predecessors. Alien Resurrection has its inner mouth planted firmly in its slimy cheek. And that's were things become a little more problematic. It doesn't take itself seriously. Jeunet was probably not a great choice to direct; if you wanted something with the sort of sci-fi grandeur of the Nostromo, or the structuralist Brutalism of the shotgun Sulaco. As in his previous works, he's far more about the people and the aliens than the spaceships. And again, things fall down here, because of a confused plot and uncertain tone. Winona Ryder seems very unsure of herself as Call, and most of the other strong character actors get killed off in fairly short order, which is a shame, as it would've been nice to more from Wincott as Elgyn.

So, why is AR not as good as either Alien or Aliens? Because it doesn't have the same clarity of purpose. It's not sure whether it's a monster film in space (Alien) or a Vietnam film with aliens (Aliens), or if its something else entirely - a sort of conspiracy thriller in space, with aliens. Four years on from the epically unsuccessful Alien3, Resurrection, especially at the ending, is clearly aiming to revive and reboot a franchise. And it's more colourful, slightly slapstick approach to things doesn't gel terribly well with some its attempts at darker, slimier horrors and sinister plotting in the shadows. Like some its own characters, its a hybrid. And it doesn't work out too well.

Resurrection IS fun. There are a lot of neat little moments and the characters spark nicely off of each other and snark well. And they should, it's a Joss Whedon script. The aliens get more screen time than ever before, and they're bigger, badder and gooier. And again, that's a problem. Not the bigger, the badder or even the gooier part. The more screen time. The more you see a monster, the less frightening it becomes. And the Hybrid...just looks silly. Great film? No. Great Aliens film? God, no. But then, this is the third sequel. It's not much of a surprise that by now, things are looking and feeling a little ropey. I remember seeing it in the cinema when it came out and laughing.

And that's an issue, too. Resurrection is just that bit too funny, too self-aware, too in-your-face. It's watchable, it's even enjoyable, but it's not a good Alien movie.