Not signed in (Sign In)
      CommentAuthorCK Burch
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2011
    Hullo, everyone.

    I was sick and bored over the weekend, and as a result sat and watched both Alien and Alien Resurrection and thought, what the hell, I'll write an elongated blog post about Resurrection. Then I realized that I post on Tumblr, and that most of the readers on that particular blog system are hipsters and would probably ask what a resurrection was, and how long it's been in the music business.

    So here I am, blatantly asking for your time to waste, with three long posts dealing with the three main components of what makes Resurrection an important film:

    Joss Whedon.
    Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
    John Frizzel.

    This is just to say, if you read the above, thank you very much and I'm so sorry. Being hopped up on NyQuil can lead to delusions of grandeur, IE, being a certified movie critic/writer.
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2011
    Shame you don't live in Toronto. The Toronto Underground Cinema started an "In Defense Of..." series where they give a talk on a certain film that's known to be bad and play it. I think they started with Alien Resurrection.
      CommentAuthorCK Burch
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2011
    Damn! That would have been interesting.

    You know, it's hard to defend Resurrection, but simultaneously it's still entertaining in a weird way. It's just an odd film that should work, but doesn't, but does, and yet doesn't.
    • CommentAuthorMaC
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2011 edited
    It's kinda like Deep Blue Sea but lamer. Some of the dialog is cool, and the general "Escape from this self destructing Space Station while Aliens hunt you" was a decent plotline. But then it all gets covered in a mess of Ripley fucking Aliens with clones and newborns and Alien Babies
  1.  (9696.5)
    I saw it while so off my head that I can't really remember what happened apart from the half-Ripleys... which somehow disturbed me on quite a deep level.
  2.  (9696.6)
    Hah - me too. My friends and I smoked a ball of Tangiers hash and then watched Alien Resurrection on a mate's home theatre. It's one of the few films I've never seen while sober, along with Eraserhead and The Life Aquatic.
  3.  (9696.7)
    I think I remember Sigourney Weaver, basically saying she did it for the money, around the time it was coming out.
  4.  (9696.8)
    I re-watched Resurrection a year or two ago — and I still love it. Whereas I find Alien really unmoving. (No, that's not right. I find it dull.)

    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2011
    I'll be honest, haven't seen any of the Alien films. I remember watching about half an hour of Resurrection on TV, but that was it.

    I should really get on that.
  5.  (9696.10)
    Best thing about Alien Resurrection is learning that Weaver made that over-the-shoulder-not-looking basketball shot in one take, no FX.
  6.  (9696.11)
    It's a great looking film. Had Wheddon's script not ben rewritten, I think it would be even more reviled
  7.  (9696.12)
    @ Mister Anderson

    You have no faith in Wheddon's writing? I have never heard anyone imply that before. Firefly+Serenity were fantastic, its my only exposure to him but the general consensus seems to be that hes brilliant.

    I don't know what to make of Alien4 myself. I do know i've seen it more than the other films in the series (with the exception of 2 of course) which must mean it has some kind of appeal. Although that could also just be because I can never remember what it was like, so I have to keep revisting it (read: forgettable).

    I do remember it was quite striking visually.
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2011 edited
    Alien Ressurection was one of those "Eh?" movies.
    You expect one thing, and you just leave going "Eh??"

    Terminator Salavation
    is another "Eh?" movie.

    I thought I was going to get the continuation of the Terminator story,
    instead I got a lifted Battlestar Galactica Cyclon confused
    Human clones storyline
    , mixed with the Matrix production values.

    it was an alright movie, but "eh?", not what i expected. It was also very loud,
    and that's from someone who likes Hip hop! My ears hurt after that movie.

    heri mkocha
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2011
    I liked the grenade-down-the-escape-pod-hatch bit. There endeth my enjoyment of the film. Franchise should have ended with Fincher's sequel, IMO.
  8.  (9696.15)

    I really liked Terminator: Salvation in a brainless action kind of way. I give Terminator 3 the dubious honour of being the worst film that I've ever watched in my life, the kind of film that can spend a billion dollars on a chase sequence that illicted absolutely no response from me whatsoever. The Sarah Connor Chronicles were another chronic waste, where a half-decent idea was buried under writing lacking anything resembling subtlety or subtext. This paved the way for me to enjoy Salvation, because it basically reinvented the Terminator franchise as an apocalytpic action flick with lots of Deathstar-run style flight sections!

    I keep meaning to rewatch Alien Resurrection, but rewatching anything has became increasingly less likely since my son was born. I hardly have to time to watch the occasional new film, so revisiting something universally reviled just doesn't carry the weight that it once might have done.
  9.  (9696.16)
    Terminator 3 was miles ahead of Terminator 4, mainly because the ending of Terminator 3 went a long way to reedeeming the film. Terminator 4 left a sour taste in my mouth for the whole series, the ending was terrible!
  10.  (9696.17)
    Terminator 5 was so riddled with complications and exposition (a queen's dowry, hurricanes, libraries in Spain) you wish the audience had just been handed an appendix and footnotes that covered the boring parts.

    The frequency with which people are shot or drowned in Terminator 6 wears away at any attempts the film makes to be frothy or screwball.

    I succumbed to the very occasional charms of Terminator 7's fair, good-natured romcom adventure and left the screening in quite a good mood.
  11.  (9696.18)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    @audientvoid whereas i think you will agree it is universally acknowledged Terminator 8 suk da donkeys ballz
    • CommentAuthorSolario
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2011
    "Terminator 3 was miles ahead of Terminator 4, mainly because the ending of Terminator 3 went a long way to reedeeming the film."

    If it had been any other movie, I would have agreed about the ending, but the entire point of the Terminator series is that the future is mallable and non-deterministic; that's why they always manage to either postpone or stop the apocalypse. And in 3 it wasn't. That's just not in the spirit of the series.
  12.  (9696.20)
    I'm not sure I agree. Terminator 1 only shows that the machines think the future's malleable, but all they succeed in doing is turning Sarah Connor into the kind of person that could raise a total badass. Terminator 2 ends with Sarah Connor convinced that she's somehow managed to avert the Rise of the Machines, even though her own past has future-robots in - her belief that the future can be changed conflicts pretty badly with her belief that Skynet is created by copying its own technology. I'd have celebrated Terminator 3's "screw everyone, machines win" ending if the rest of the film hadn't made me totally bored with their universe anyway.

    Apparently the box set has a director's cut that ties things together much more satisfyingly. They cut a lot of dream-sequences out of Terminator 5 that were supposed to be clues about Schwarzenegger's father's mind-control experiments in Terminator 7. Without them, the scenes in the volcano crater just seem kind of jarring.

    I feel we may have wandered off topic.