MovieChat Forums > Morphindel
Morphindel (9)
Posts
Replies
Well in Aliens she opens the airlock when Newt is just wandering around and she almost gets sucked out, so i dont think she would care about the cat :'D
A good question, but in the first film I always assumed it eats Parker's brain - a mouth comes out and burrows into his head. It appears to rape Lambert to death. Brett is the only character to be cocooned, and my guess is they deliberately cut that scene for that reason - because it makes it a bit too convenient to the premise to have it do whatever the script requires to each member of the crew. But youre right about it appearing as an adult out of nowhere - maybe it was eating food supplies. I think eating metal would have been something that would set up an alarm or set off a warning light or something.
I watched it the other night, funnily enough though. I noticed when they find Jonesey in the lockers there seems to be some kind of blood-like liquid running down the lockers. Alien spit? Could easily have just been raiding the storage. In terms of the Alien killing the crew - i think as picnic said, the alien is just a nightmare. It kills because that is what it does. A perfect, hostile organism that exists to kill and procreate. Im sure i also remember someone saying somewhere that the Alien life cycle is very short, and that the original idea is that when Ripley finds it in the shuttle it is already dying...
Alien 3 is the most underrated Alien film. Alien Resurrection has its moments, and you have to give it props for being a completely different sort of film, but as an Alien film it is a bit of a mess. Alien 3's assembly cut is fantastic.
Yeah i just watched it last night, and it gave me chills. The performances, the weight of the situation, the imagery and that music all marry together so beautifully. You'd have to be pretty cynical to not feel something during that scene.
What did people think was cheesy about it? I love that films of the 70's treat their subject matter in a more grounded way, and i thought the acting was pretty fine. The only thing i consider cheesy is that weird "punch-acting" that they did in the 70s to show someone getting roughed up. Hook left, and then another punch on the way back - such a clumsy way of doing it.
I feel for him to some extent, simply because writers invest such a great amount of time, thought, and their selves in writing a book that it is hard to see it changed so drastically. On the other side however, is that they are simply different mediums, sometimes things need to be added or removed. Look at how well Shawshank Redemption turned out with its additions. And the Ash subplot from Alien wasnt originally in the script, and it works incredibly well.
I think the only book i've read that was more or less identical to the film is Silence of the Lambs - all that was really changed was a virtually unrelated subplot with Jack Crawford.
I watched last night and was a little confused by that. I guess they assumed that the term furniture was enough of a clue to how it all works, but it still is a little ambiguous.
View all replies >