The quadrilogy of films consisting of 'Alien' (1979), 'Aliens' (1986), 'Alien 3' (1992) and 'Alien: Resurrection' (1997) is a well known set. It's got a cult following, with fans spread out across the world, and I am proud to say that I am one of them.
That's right, I love the 'Alien' franchise, but I can't deny that the quality of the films as you go along them seems to jump up and down like one of those things that measures people's heartrates. Whenever people ask my opinion on them, I tell them "Masterpiece, Excellent, Crap, 'Interesting'", in that order. Now that I've got a blog in which to go on about thing like this, I can go into detail with my opinion on the matter.
The first film, in 1979, was hailed as revolutionary, and rightly so. Ridley Scott here took two genres, horror and science-fiction, and blended them together in a way that nobody had seen done before. It had the shock factor, the blood-and-guts, the skin-crawling suspense throughout of a well designed horror-thriller, and yet it was all placed on a gritty backdrop of an industrial future in outer space. I describe 'Alien' as a masterpiece because of what it achieved and the imagination it showed, but the other reason for my praise is that God damn is that good film making. If you've got any appreciation at all for suspense in films, this is like the motherload. Right from the opening titles, the way they fade into view letter by letter, you already know what they're going to spell, but it keeps you waiting, on the edge of your seat, and that's what the entire film does. It had you waiting and waiting for that giant climax of action and bloodshed, and then it had you waiting a bit longer, and then it exploded the ship and you thought it was over, and then you waited some more... I digress, but the point was that you didn't mind the waiting, because of the atmosphere that Scott created, it was the waiting and the suspence that the audience got the enjoyment out of. 'Alien' was a incredibly intense film, and I stand firm in calling it a masterpiece.
Aliens (1986) brought James Cameron, and James Cameron brought guns. Lots of guns. The most hardcore fans of the prequel slated the new addition for completely going against everything that it stood for, the suspence, the build up. It was all exchanged for more shooting, shouting soldiers and a hundred or so more aliens. However, while the select group sulked in the corner and drew moustaches and silly hats on pictures of Cameron with a sharpie, the rest of us agreed that, while not exactly as revolutionary as the first film, 'Aliens' brought something new and enjoyable to the table. The way to look at this first addition to the franchise is that it takes the concept presented in the first film, which was a blend of horror and sci-fi genres, and puts a new spin on it, making it instead action and sci-fi. It's quite reasonable to want to consider what would happen if a group of soldiers were faced with multiple copies of the baddie that was so infamously hard to destroy in the first film. 'Aliens' also adds a little bit to the alien life cycle which was first presented in the original film, and develops the story of Ripley in a satisfying way with relative depth. I consider 'Aliens' an excellent film, because of these reasons and its sheer entertainment value.
Now, there were many factors that almost stopped 'Alien 3' from being released, but the picture pressed on through and hit the screens in '92. I really wish that hadn't happened. Let's see what's wrong with this picture. The filmakers make the foolhardy decision to kill off all three of the new characters that 'Aliens' spent so long allowing us to build a relationship with. These were people that we came to really care for, cheer for, and they kill them off. Wait! It gets better! In what manner, you may ask, are these characters killed off? I'll tell you. OFF SCREEN. That's right, they don't even merit a death scene. It's like the writers and director David Fincher just walked into the board room and said 'Okay, we see what you did here in the first two films. We think we can do it better. Let's kill off what you've done and start again!'. Following this outrage we recieve a drab setting in the form of what appears to be a holy prison (I don't even...), and then, for good measure, let's shave off all Sigourney Weaver's hair! WHY THE HELL NOT? And this is all before I even mention the crappy CGI 'dog alien' that hounds the characters throughout the film. They would have been better off using a bloody cardboard cutout than the graphics showcased in this film. Alien 3 is without doubt the low of the quadrilogy.
And thus we come to the questionmark that is 'Alien: Resurrection' (1997). It's a little bit abstract, a little bit artsy. By the end of it you're not really sure what the hell is going on, but even so it has some nice scenes, some solid action, and this acts as a reminder of the franchise's better times. The storyline, while unquestionably bizarre, does something new, yet again, with an old concept, and that's what made the second film good. The problem here is that 'Aliens' took the concept in a bold new direction by mixing in action. 'Resurrection' takes it in a wierd new direction by mixing in... something. Like a perverted artist's dreams, or something. If you're a fan of the Alien series, yeah, I'd say watch 'Resurrection' too, especially if you were able to stomach the third film with your love of the franchise still in tact. This movie should be a breeze.
Well, there you have it. I won't bother going into the 'AvP' films, at least not this time (suffice to say that they were "Good, Crap"), but there you have my humble opinions on all four of the films. If you haven't watched them, I would absolutely reccomend them. If you have, then so would you.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment