Alien Resurrection is genius. It's The Fly meets Aliens.
The characters, of course, are annoying. But you can't fault it as a creepy gothic horror on a large scale. It's weird and meant to be.
shareIt's The Fly meets AliensThis is the perfect description of the film in one short sentence. Well stated.
http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html share
I'll be honest- The Fly didn't come in to mind until I saw the following post so credit to smoko/ Quadrinaros:
--
smoko
» Fri Oct 10 2014 16:07:38 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2003
Post Edited:
Fri Oct 10 2014 16:10:12
@Quadrinaros Yes, I was wondering if anyone else saw a similarity to The Fly.
--
However it just shows how creepy Resurrection was that it doesn't feel like a cheap derivation. The newborn was a fantastic creature because it neither looked human nor looked alien. If it had looked alien it wouldn't have been as scary to viewers wearily used to filmmakers just going bigger to try to beat Scott's original. Part of its scariness is this sense that it has some helpless sense of not wanting to be what it is. It's as if when you're that ugly, with alien DNA infused in you, you can only hate and kill even if it wasn't in part of your better nature. Its eyes are hollow like a cadaver. It's as if it's an abused child whose light has already been extinguished. People who hate the design sometimes don't get it- you're meant to. It's not meant to be 'badass'. It's meant to be a tragedy in itself, as well as for most people it comes in contact with who it might even be trying to show love - or get love from - yet it can only come out as hurt. I think it's the most peculiarly interesting creature in all of cinema along with the original alien.
However it just shows how creepy Resurrection was that it doesn't feel like a cheap derivation. The newborn was a fantastic creature because it neither looked human nor looked alien. If it had looked alien it wouldn't have been as scary to viewers wearily used to filmmakers just going bigger to try to beat Scott's original. Part of its scariness is this sense that it has some helpless sense of not wanting to be what it is. It's as if when you're that ugly, with alien DNA infused in you, you can only hate and kill even if it wasn't in part of your better nature. Its eyes are hollow like a cadaver. It's as if it's an abused child whose light has already been extinguished. People who hate the design sometimes don't get it- you're meant to. It's not meant to be 'badass'. It's meant to be a tragedy in itself, as well as for most people it comes in contact with who it might even be trying to show love - or get love from - yet it can only come out as hurt. I think it's the most peculiarly interesting creature in all of cinema along with the original alien.
That's exactly why the film shocked me, creeped me out - and touched me - when I first saw it. The friend I watched the film with thought the newborn looked ridiculous: I found it to be deeply tragic and disturbing for the exact reasons you so aptly stated here. I felt very similar about the final scenes of The Fly, although in that film, the creature seems more rational (and adult) and felt more tragic than disturbing. The newborn oozes a sense of danger yet at the same time feels so helpless and doomed; a mixture that I found to be deeply disturbing (which I'm sure was Jeunet's and Whedon's intention). I felt the climax - as well as the lab scene where Ripley finds her other "versions" - were the film's strongest aspects by far. The lab scene and the newborn are what elevate 'Resurrection' above a mere rehash and make it a truly unique sequel.
In that sense, the Alien franchise (including Prometheus but not counting the Predator crossovers) has to be one of the most interesting ever: despite some flaws in the last 3 installments, every sequel managed to bring something entirely new to the table and every film was made by a visionary director.
http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html share