Ripley returns, two hundred years after taking a Terminator-styled incinerator bath at the end of Alien³, this time as a genetic clone. Where a rogue military organization sourced her blood samples, not to mention how they also managed to duplicate the queen xenomorph incubating in her torso, well, let's just try not to think about that. The screenplay certainly doesn't.
Whatever the scientific explanation, it isn't foolproof. Both Ripley and the alien are imperfect replicas, each retaining bits and pieces of the other (temper, blood type, reproductive cycle) like a space-bound version of The Fly. Predictably, this experiment soon leads to disaster and we get back to the usual territory: Sigourney Weaver, sprinting through dim hallways and firing bulky weapons, en route to the last remaining escape vessel.
Screenwriter Joss Whedon (I know, I was surprised too) apparently intended this as a tongue-in-cheek take on the sci-fi genre, territory which he'd soon explore in Firefly and Serenity, and was aghast to see everything played so straight in the final film. I don't think the Alien franchise is a great place to experiment with that kind of tonal shift, but yes, Resurrection shouldn't be a source of pride. It has strengths - the special effects, for example, are a marked improvement over the last film - but they're quickly overshadowed by the rudimentary plot, repulsive climax and hammy, made-for-TV acting. That last point is surprising, given the big names in the cast. We've got Ron Perlman and Winona Ryder, in addition to Weaver and a bunch of seasoned supporting players; they just can't work any magic with this brand of stiff dialogue and cruddy genre tropes. Not good.
Review by drqshadowBlockedParent2020-07-18T13:41:49Z
Ripley returns, two hundred years after taking a Terminator-styled incinerator bath at the end of Alien³, this time as a genetic clone. Where a rogue military organization sourced her blood samples, not to mention how they also managed to duplicate the queen xenomorph incubating in her torso, well, let's just try not to think about that. The screenplay certainly doesn't.
Whatever the scientific explanation, it isn't foolproof. Both Ripley and the alien are imperfect replicas, each retaining bits and pieces of the other (temper, blood type, reproductive cycle) like a space-bound version of The Fly. Predictably, this experiment soon leads to disaster and we get back to the usual territory: Sigourney Weaver, sprinting through dim hallways and firing bulky weapons, en route to the last remaining escape vessel.
Screenwriter Joss Whedon (I know, I was surprised too) apparently intended this as a tongue-in-cheek take on the sci-fi genre, territory which he'd soon explore in Firefly and Serenity, and was aghast to see everything played so straight in the final film. I don't think the Alien franchise is a great place to experiment with that kind of tonal shift, but yes, Resurrection shouldn't be a source of pride. It has strengths - the special effects, for example, are a marked improvement over the last film - but they're quickly overshadowed by the rudimentary plot, repulsive climax and hammy, made-for-TV acting. That last point is surprising, given the big names in the cast. We've got Ron Perlman and Winona Ryder, in addition to Weaver and a bunch of seasoned supporting players; they just can't work any magic with this brand of stiff dialogue and cruddy genre tropes. Not good.