Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:28:57 AM
713383 Posts in 53058 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Personal Thoughts on the "Alien: Resurrection" Review « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Personal Thoughts on the "Alien: Resurrection" Review  (Read 10284 times)
Cullen
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 734



WWW
« on: October 07, 2002, 07:04:49 AM »

I know ASHTHECAT’s got a whole thread on the subject.  This'll be totally diffrent, and worth it's own thread.  Count on it.

Dan Kretzer’s review really p---ed me off.  I’m not talking angry, I’m talking white hot rage.  I’m talking Wrath of God style rage.

And in this state I started writing a response.  Y’know, your typical anonymous Web stuff.  Like an Ain’t It Cool News Talk Back, only literate, in my case.

Now the funny thing is, I could care less about Alien: Resurrection .  It’s a Bad Movie.  It’s crap.

But here I was, compelled to write this little reply in ASHTHECAT’s topic on why I thought Mr. Krezer’s review was too harsh.  I listed points and everything.  I would not let go, I would not let go.

At first I thought it was because I was a Josh Whedon fan.  Through out Mr. Kretzer’s review he keeps hammering left and right on Whedon.  Justified, I admitted.  But way over done.*

The problem is, is that while I like Whedon’s stuff, I don’t watch it regularly.  I don’t have the investment in it.  If Mr. Kretzer went after Doctor Who or Godzilla, then I could understand the ire.

It took all night to realize the reason, but when I did, it was a killer.

It’s the first sentence of the review proper: “That Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece ‘Alien’ is one of the greatest horror films (and THE greatest horror/scifi film) ever made only makes this vile and offensive third sequel all the more painful.”  Actually, it’s even simpler than that.

It’s the “Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece.”

Go through the review.  All through it is  Josh Whedon this, Josh Whedon that.

Not once, not one damn time, is the director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet mentioned.  Not even in passing.

Not.

Once.

I could give a damn about Jean-Pierre Jeunet, one way or the other.  He can sail away back to France or go to the Moon for the life of me.

It’s the “Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece” that sends me trembling with rage.  Still.  Still, damn it.

The movie Alien didn’t pop from Scott’s pea brain like Athena did from Zeus’s brow.  A small group of WRITERS helped him make the film.  Their names are Dan O'Bannon, Ronald Shusett, David Giler, and Walter Hill.  These men are the source of your classic.**

True, Scott had “vision.”  He did a tremendous job with the film, as did the actors , the set designers, and the F/X people.   But they didn't do it alone.  They had a script to work from.  For God's sake, have at least the common courtesy of giving credit where credit is do.

God, does that irritate me.  And it’s not just Mr. Krezter who does it; the mentality is constant.

If the movie's a hit, it's the director's film all the way.  Look at Duel.  It's always Steven Spielburg's Duel.  Screw Richard Matheson, he only wrote the damn thing.  Twice.

But if it fails, it's the scriptwriter's fault.

It's bulls----

Can anyone tell that I’m a writer?  Anyone?

Sorry about that.  Just needed to vent
_______________________________________________________________________________________

*Here’s a little hint for better reviews.  Comments like “Arrrrrrgh!! Damn you Joss Whedon! ROT IN HELL!!" are not funny.  They’re childish as hell.  I hate seeing this crap in any review.  Especially since you’ve been b***hing about him throughout the whole thing anyway.  It’s redundant.

Also, the last comment, “Screenwriter Joss Whedon is now raking in millions for his 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' TV series, which is evidence enough for me that there really is a Satan,” was a tactical blunder.  The show has last seven years and has had one spin-off that’s lasted four.  All of this sprouting from a crap film.  It is a show of the man’s skill, if not genius, to have pulled this off, and not diabolic influence.  Not merely on the writing side, but on the producer side as well.

If you doubt this, I’d like to point you the great success the TV series Turner and Hooch and Blue Thunder had, both of which sprung from hit movies.

Oh wait.  Both were cancelled before their seasons finished.  Never mind.

It takes talent to assemble a crew and to maintain a series in this day and age.  You'd have been better off wondering how he got the gig for writing Resurrection after the movie stinker Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

** I also thought the whole “greatest horror/scifi film ever” wasn’t that well thought out at all.  It’s a good movie and all, scary as hell, but The Thing from Another World is a far better film, and that puppy no longer has that much scary left in it.  Let me tell you why: The characters in The Thing behave in a rational manner.

In Alien Ripley goes back into danger for her cat.

Her cat.

All the WRITERS (and Scott, mustn’t forget our genius) had to do is spare one human character and they could have a legitimate reason for Ripley going back.  One character.

That part of the movie was damn lazy, and should have been rethought or dropped.  It’s first draft stuff.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen, who has been watching the personal attacks on fellow Boarder Squishy with much amusement.  He knows the direct approach will never work.

First you beat him to an IMDb reference.

Then you usurp him as Cranky Old Man on the Board.

That’s the way to take him out.   :-)
Logged

Cullen - Super Genius, Novelist, and all in all Great Guy.
Ash
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 6775


23 Year Badmovies.org Veteran


« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2002, 07:46:59 AM »

Damn Cullen, you said a mouthful!  I have to agree with you on this one.  As you know I am a writer also.  This was a VERY NEGATIVE REVIEW.  When I noticed that it was given a skull and no slime drops that immediately got my bells ringing. The first thought that sprang into my head was "WHAT!!??"  It is my opinion that a great review should be decidedly neutral.  Even if the reviewer has an extremely bad view of a film I think the wise thing to do would be to look at it from both the positive and negative angles.  Only one small positive thing was mentioned.  (the part about when everyone is trying to escape).  Ripping on this person and that person for what they did or shouldn't have done was I agree, a very childish thing to do.  I've read the entire review and in my previous independent post I admitted that I like this film and I'll continue to stick to my guns on this one.  I do indeed like it and own it as well.  Throughout the read I constantly kept thinking NEGATIVE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE REVIEWER and not of the movie in and of itself, thus defeating the purpose of the entire evaluation process.  Especially for someone who has not seen it yet (though I bet most of you have).  There are lots of movies that have been reviewed on this site that I have sought out and watched simply based on the good or decent and IMPARTIAL review they have received.  I can tell you that my upcoming "Ice Pirates" tribute review to the late Robert Urich will be much better than this one.

Logged
Cullen
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 734



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2002, 08:05:59 AM »

When I started writing this post (my first draft, as it were), I made a comment about Mr. Krezter being too close to the films, that he was taking it too personally (pot calling kettle, as it turns out.)  It colors the whole review, and casts him, as you point out, in a negative light.  Which I know wasn't his intent.

(I also made a comment about how the review made me want to run out and by the movie out of spite, just to show you how petty I COULD have been.)

Here's something I learned while writing that post: Do not post angry.  I spent a half hour afterwards correcting various grammatical points, as well as clarifying here and there.  I'm still not certain I got them all.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen, who would like to thank Andrew again for putting in the Edit Post Function.  Keeps Cullen from looking like a complete idiot.

Now if Cullen could only stop talking in the third person.  That might make him look smarter, too...
Logged

Cullen - Super Genius, Novelist, and all in all Great Guy.
Squishy
Guest
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2002, 08:08:27 AM »

Oh, thanks, Cullen. I thought ya was my friend. But now I know YOU'RE ALL AGAINST MEEEEEE!!

" :) "

You'll never usurp me as Crany Old Man on the Board, sonny. You don't have nearly a big enough corncob up yer hatch.

Anyway...

I haven't even read ANY of the reviews involved, but as an aside:

In a particularly enraged review of "Alien 3," someone went on--endlessly--about the fate of the "junkyard" dog, who winds up doomed host to a facehugger's implant.

Screw all the human victims. Screw Newt. Screw Ripley. This guy was flipped out over the dog.

He would've gone back for Jones.

(As for me, I liked "Alien 3" for having the stones to take the happy end of "Aliens"--which, whether you like it or not and I do like it, is, in the end, a Disney film* with swearing and a gory body count--and smash it into a pulp right in our faces. "Alien Resurrection" had its moments, but its script was so horrendously directionless that it becomes nothing BUT moments strung together. And some of those moments are howlers. Look, ma! No bones!

So confused the movie becomes that many people I've discussed it with didn't realize what was going on when Ripley II was trapped in that pile of "warriors." They were gettin' it on--so Ripley II could keep the franchise alive with a bun in the oven. Hopefully, this will never come to pass.)

*...complete with the orphaned kid regularly endangered yet miraculously emerging without a scratch to become part of a psuedonuclear "family." I'm not saying it's a Disney film, but its resolution follows the usual pattern.
Logged
Cullen
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 734



WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2002, 08:27:32 AM »

Squishy writes:

"You'll never usurp me as Crany Old Man on the Board, sonny. You don't have nearly a big enough corncob up yer hatch."

Damn it!  I knew I should have stuck with the first draft.  The "Ridley 'the Christ' Scott" comment alone would have sent me to the top for sure.

The guy-upset-over-the-dog review I can believe happening.  In fact, if they bothered to set it up better in Alien , I might have been able to buy that, too.*

I didn't care for Alien 3 .  The killing off every character save Ripley smacked too much of a Slasher flick to me.  Now, if 3 had been the second movie, and not the third, I would have liked it a lot more.
_____________________________________________________________________
* However, I will never accept James Brolin going back in after the dog in The Amityville Horror .  Ever.  I'm sorry.  

I had a dog once.  He was a good dog.  He was.  But if my dog wasn't smart enough to get out of the demonically possessed house... hey, that's Darwin calling.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen
Logged

Cullen - Super Genius, Novelist, and all in all Great Guy.
Fearless Freep
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 15
Posts: 2328


« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2002, 09:41:35 AM »

My biggest thought on the review was that I thought the 'anti-military propaganda' was a bit over stated consider that the whole series has had the same stance agains corporations, the government, etc...  Since the first movie, the thread has been consistant that some big organization was willing to sacrifice any and all  for the sake of gettinh ahold of an Alien for research and explanation.  As such Alien: Resurrection really didn't stand out to me as being outside the norm for the series.

Logged

=======================
Going places unmapped, to do things unplanned, to people unsuspecting
Akira Tubo
Guest
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2002, 10:22:54 AM »

A lot of people wonder why the cat was there at all.  Well, I believe it was to A) get us (the audience) to say, "Aw, cute," B) to give us a false scare jumping out of the locker, C) to give Ripley some excuse to be seperated from the others so she wouldn't die yet, D) to make us say a knee-jerk "Oh, no!" when the alien contemplates the pet carrier with the cat in it.
Logged
Flangepart
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 653
Posts: 9477



« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2002, 10:44:05 AM »

The spring loaded cat.Just once, i'd like to see that cat get 'et...but, thats just me...
.... Never watched 3, never will. I understand Squishy's P.O.V, but hey, after all the mayhem, somebody should have had a break. More realistic, given the universe postulated, true. But, the entertainment factor goes down, when everybody "Goes down" in flames.If i want endless pessamisim, i'll watch the news......

Logged

"Aggressivlly eccentric, and proud of it!"
slax
Guest
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2002, 10:56:29 AM »

I just don't understand why you'd review a movie if you hated it so much
Logged
Fearless Freep
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 15
Posts: 2328


« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2002, 11:00:01 AM »

As a warning to others, perhaps?

Logged

=======================
Going places unmapped, to do things unplanned, to people unsuspecting
Luke Bannon
New Visitor
*

Karma: 0
Posts: 6


« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2002, 11:28:01 AM »

I agree with you that it isn't fair to only credit or blame one person for a film failing.

Logged

THIS I COMMAND!
slax
Guest
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2002, 02:12:51 PM »

I agree a warning is nice but the review just seems out of place on this site imo

no offense but that's skull should have an asterik next to it ;-) for "only a skull if your an alien series fanboy" and 2-3 slimes for the casual b-movie viewer

again just my opinion,no offense to the reviewer
Logged
Dano
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 396


« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2002, 03:27:47 PM »

Dan Kretzer’s review really p---ed me off. I’m not talking angry, I’m talking white hot rage. I’m talking Wrath of God style rage.
*****  Glad I'm not listed.  :)

The problem is, is that while I like Whedon’s stuff, I don’t watch it regularly. I don’t have the investment in it. If Mr. Kretzer went after Doctor Who or Godzilla, then I could understand the ire.
*****  I like Whedon's stuff (or most of it except Alien IV) too, which is why this movie baffled and infuriated me.  And wouldn't going after Dr. Who or Godzilla be kind of missing the point of Dr. Who and Godzilla?  That stuff didn't take itself nearly as seriously as this (or if it did, you'd never know it).

It’s the “Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece.”
Go through the review. All through it is Josh Whedon this, Josh Whedon that.
Not once, not one damn time, is the director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet mentioned. Not even in passing.
*****  This is a fair point, and you can chalk it up to me not being familiar with anything that director had done to use as a frame of reference.  However, I don't care who the director is, it's tough to imagine a good 1:45 minute horror movie in which the monster is hunting the humans for a total of less than 30 minutes of screen time.  I felt the writer was culprit numero uno here, and to say I belabored that is, again, a fair point I guess.  Still, all the great directing, acting, and effects (2 of which this movie also lacked) in the world weren't saving this screenplay.

It’s the “Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece” that sends me trembling with rage. Still. Still, damn it.  The movie Alien didn’t pop from Scott’s pea brain like Athena did from Zeus’s brow. A small group of WRITERS helped him make the film. Their names are Dan O'Bannon, Ronald Shusett, David Giler, and Walter Hill. These men are the source of your classic.**
*****  True, but this is a wider issue.  It's a convention to refer to movies in this sense as "the director's."  I was merely following this convention without giving it much thought.  While I think Scott deserves much credit for Alien, I certainly don't think he acted alone to create it.  I am sorry that this offended you, or any other writers out there.  I bet this kind of thing drives Hollywood writers to madness.

*Here’s a little hint for better reviews. Comments like “Arrrrrrgh!! Damn you Joss Whedon! ROT IN HELL!!" are not funny. They’re childish as hell. I hate seeing this crap in any review. Especially since you’ve been b***hing about him throughout the whole thing anyway. It’s redundant.
*****  That's a matter of taste I guess.  In writing out this movie's plot, it struck me just how awful it was.  You can say Ripley going back for her cat was bad, but it wasn't any kind of bad compared to this movie's plot.  As a matter of personal catharsis I typed out that line (read the paragraph that precedes it again!), and decided to leave it in.  In retrospect, I wish I had just left it at "Arrrgh!", but Andrew doesn't have an edit Review function like the edit post function, so I'll have to live with it.  

It takes talent to assemble a crew and to maintain a series in this day and age. You'd have been better off wondering how he got the gig for writing Resurrection after the movie stinker Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
*****  I know - and Whedon certainly HAS talent, which is why I have to ask three questions:  1) Why did he write such an awful screenplay?  2) How did it ever get accepted?  and 3) Why didn't he exercise his option to take his name off this film?  

** I also thought the whole “greatest horror/scifi film ever” wasn’t that well thought out at all. It’s a good movie and all, scary as hell, but The Thing from Another World is a far better film, and that puppy no longer has that much scary left in it. Let me tell you why: The characters in The Thing behave in a rational manner.
*****  Comparing the Thing to Alien is tough because they're from such different eras.  I suppose I could have thrown "modern" in there, meaning post 1950s.  It's an opinion, but one I'll stand behind having seen most in the genre and observed that a whole lot of them borrow heavily from Alien.  

***** I guess the characters in the Thing behave in a rational manner  - I don't know if I'd bring a frozen extra-terrestrial inside my arctic station when you could just as easily leave it out front until the weather cleared to fly it somewhere to thaw out more safely.  I also don't know if I'd fall asleep while guarding it.  As for Ripley and her cat, there have been cases of people risking their lives for their pets.  You can say that no sensible person would take that LEVEL of risk for a pet, and you may be right, but if that's the extent of people acting senselessly in Alien, I think the screen writers can rest assured of a job well done -- especially when compared to Resurrection.
***** Regarding the depiction of the military - Resurrection was not in line with the other movies.  The second movie (the only other one in which the military played a part), had very realistic soldiers in it.  They were all different people who struggled in different ways with the stress of combat and tried to do what they were trained to do, following orders insofar as they felt was reasonable.  This movie has the military painted as a bunch of sceming criminals and cardboard cutout cannon fodder.  Not the worst such characterization in Bad Movie history, but it looks like campus-radical kid's stuff compared to Aliens.
*****As for my skull for this movie, I reiterate that it was a 1:45 minute horror movie with less than 30 minutes of action; the science was horrendous; the acting was wooden; and it was completely and utterly humorless.  For me, that's a skull (even with - as Andrew mentioned - the very good underwater effects).

I'm out of town this week, I'll catch your response when I get back.
Dano

Logged

Dano
"Today's Sermon: Homer Rocks!"
AndyC
Guest
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2002, 04:44:13 PM »

> one I'll stand behind having seen most in the genre and
> observed that a whole lot of them borrow heavily from Alien.

Just thought I'd point out that Alien borrows heavily from other movies, most notably It! The Terror From Beyond Space and Queen of Blood. Watch them and you'll see the obvious similarities.
Logged
Chadzilla
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 983


« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2002, 04:47:46 PM »

Genre movies are like a snake eating its tail.

Still I HATED Alien: Resurrection (and LOVED Alien 3) so I can understand the feeling.

Logged

Chadzilla
Gosh, remember when the Internet was supposed to be a wonderful magical place where intelligent, articulate people shared information? Neighborhood went to hell real fast... - Anarquistador
Pages: [1] 2 3
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Personal Thoughts on the "Alien: Resurrection" Review « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: osmosis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.