Personal Thoughts on the "Alien: Resurrection" Review

[Gerry]

AndyC wrote:
>
> 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.

And don't forget Bava's PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES.

[Andrew]

Well...

I think that Dan wrote the review with a lot of his feelings, which usually means that some points come across very strongly.

"Alien: Resurrection" is not a film I hate (in fact, I dislike number three more) and would probably give it a two slime rating.  Let me explain.

Seeing Jeunet's name in the credits when it was in production gave me some hope, but the finished product is definitely flawed.  I have thought about it and there were a couple of factors:

1.  The script is, as Dan pointed out, not the best.  I am reminded of "Wing Commander," in which the script was so bad as to prevent me from gauging other parts of the film, like direction and acting.  This one is not as bad as WC, but still.

2.  The "Alien" movies work best on almost a Lovecraft level of horror.  Some things have to be left to the imagination.  If you are going to put it on the screen, it has to equal or surpass what the audience has in their minds.  Jeunet's other films have almost a magic feel to them - and I don't mean black magic.  Maybe a true horror film is not his cup of tea.

3.  Another maybe is that the producers could have insisted on any number of things.  I have heard stories and producers can ruin a movie in a heartbeat.

It is really hard to tell someone that their opinion about a film is wrong, because that is one of the great things about movies - someone could like "Sextette" and think it is the best movie ever made.  They would not be wrong in their opinion.

However, I would still try to get that person committed.

[Cullen]

Look, the review hit me in the wrong place at the wrong time.  If I was out of line on any of my responses, I apologize.  I was mad.  I tried to be reasonable (and in good humor!)  If this didn't come across (and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't) it was due to extreme tiredness on my part.

Most of the time when I flare up like that I delete the post once I'm finished.  WRTINING IT was what was important.

(Also, I don't send out raging E-mails.  Like ever.  So y'all are safe on that score.)

Like I said, the funny thing was me getting worked up on a review I basically agreed with.

________________________________________________________________________
And now for something completely different -- replies!

Dano's comments in bold, mine in regular, dull font.

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).

That wasn't my point.  I was trying to give some of my thought process.

HA!

- I made a funny.  Cullen, thought process?  Hehehe.

(And if you liked Whedon's stuff, the last sentence of your review makes no sense to me at all.)

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.

I agree with what your saying.  I think, fundamentally, what bothered me wasn't the attacks on Whedon (all though it might well have come across that way) but that first sentence again.  And it might not even be that.  Like I said, it hit me at the wrong place at the wrong time.

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.

I think Hollywood writers, by now, probably just accept and move on.  This is why I will NEVER EVER be a Hollywood writer.  It's pure crap.

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.

I can understand that.  My original post was, in many ways, the same thing.

Problem is, is that I don't think the comments adds anything.  Personal opinion, of course.  Ignore it if you wish.

The whole Scott thing got me in a cranky form of mind.  Normally seeing stuff like that barely bothers me.

(The Edit Function on the posts is now my best friend.  While the second draft is far tamer than my first draft, I did step out of line on several instances, and I felt very fortunate.)

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?

1.) Ignoring possible Tampering By Other Hands, Whedon's lack of belief in extraterrestrial life (as he mentions in interviews for Firefly ) was probably a factor.  It's hard to take something seriously when you can't make yourself believe in it.  That sounds funny, considering Whedon's other works, but it happens.  Richard Matheson once wrote that while he admired the more Gothic stories, he couldn't write one himself.  

I think it's a case of Whedon trying to do something his mind wasn't wired for.  Instead of classic, we get crap.

2.) As to how it got accepted, well that's easy .  It got accepted for the same reason Batman and Robin got accepted.  Namely, the Suits in Hollywood assumed that people who liked Science Fiction liked it for the effects alone.  Or that people are morons.  Or both.

3.) I'd say Hollywood politics.  The movie and Buffy the series were released around the same time.  It might have been that he didn't want to make waves while his baby was being born (remember, one of the companies involved in Buffy is 20th Century Fox, the same ones who produced Aliens: Resurrection )

_____________________________________________________________________
I thank you for the reply, and like I said at the start, if I was out of line, I apologize.
_____________________________________________________________________

Edit - 10/09/02 - I spent a good day walking through dull, empty countryside before reaching Quinlen’s home.  I didn’t mind it much; the weather was as fine as Spring got around these parts

Having give this further thought, I would like to AGAIN apologize.  I should have done a THIRD draft and scrapped the second.  When I wrote my posts (all of them) I spoke as honestly as I could.  (Not including ill attempts at humor.)  While I will not take back what I said, I will say that I was speaking from a position of anger, not at you specifically, but at a condition I find offense and that I have no power to change.

This should have been made clear with the first post, and on that I failed.  Miserably.

It should have been the only topic I stuck with.  That, too, I failed at.

Writing about personal opinion/ giving reviews is not my field of expertise, see.  I'm learning, I wouldn't mind dabbling, but when I screw up, I do it big time.

I reiterate that I agree with most everything you said about the film.  I think that if you had simply put it, say, "classic movie, Alien," I would not have flaked out.

Now, if we can both agree that I'm just a Cranky Baka (Idiot) Boy...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Abby]

I would like to point out one incredibly important detail when discussing Jeunet:, the immensely fabulous director of Alien: Resurrection:

THE MAN DIDN'T SPEAK A SINGLE WORD OF ENGLISH WHEN HE MADE THIS ALIEN MOVIE!!

That's right. Not one word. Who in his/her right mind would hire a talented yet communicatively challenged director to spearhead one of the largest movie franchises in American history (our money)? A buffoon, obviously.

Jeunet had translators dictating to the cast and crew. And he said even at the time his hands were tied -- he had more say in the visual look than the story, pacing, etc. That was all handed to him by the studio.

Jeunet is terrifically gifted, but leave him out of the argument. Like Aliens 3 (which I disliked more than the fourth), this was a committee movie. Its crappiness was predetermined by studio nitwits who didn't realize that singular vision fueled the magic of the first two films.  I saw Alien: Resurrection in a theater because of Jeunet (OK, I REALLY hated Aliens 3 and swore I'd never see another Aliens flick again after that) and I was disappointed, but it's not his fault. He should never have been given the assignment. He's produced much better work before and since.

I  don't ENTIRELY blame the writer (s) either, because like Aliens 3, this installment felt like too many people paying the bills were hovering around yelling "change this; fix that." It's what happens to franchises abandoned by their creators. But the story is pretty stupid, you gotta admit.

The review is merely a review -- it made me consider how the military angle can be perceived by some folks, and I hadn't really given that much thought before (and yeah, the first two films paint corporations as the bad guys; not the military. In fact, the opposite is true in the second). I didn't agree with the review, but  it's not the sort of thing that would send me into a blind rage ... like, say, dissing The Monkees HEAD! Now THAT is call for a war!

[Cullen]

Okay, so I picked on an innocent director.  So what?

That bit of idiocy aside, my point wasn't so much that Jeunet should have been blamed more.  It was the whole dump on the writer thing.  Now thanks to your post, Abby, I've seen that, I was WAY too close to the issue.

I should have been blaming the suits, I guess.

Argh.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen, who has come to believe that the >>Faulty Brain at Work<< part of his signature isn't quite strong enough.

[Abby]

It's all about you you you, huh?

Hate to rain on your parade, but I wasn't entirely directing that post at you, nor are you the only person who has mentioned Jeunet on this board. However, no one has brought up the fact he spoke not a word of English. And I think it's relevant.

Plus, seeing how Jeunet couldn't read English, he wouldn't have been aware of how bad the dialogue was before translation, so the topic connects in that way, too.

I think Jeunet was merely a cheap hire for the studio. He was known for making very big LOOKING, stylish pictures for very little money (in big-budget US terms).  And like a lot of Euro directors, he was hungry for a shot at a Hollywood production. Sadly, the production he got a shot at, well, blew.

Jeunet can speak English now, by the by. Perhaps he'd know better now.

I don't even dislike the fourth Aliens that badly. Like I said, my biggest gripes are with Aliens 3, which I try to pretend didn't happen. Alien: Resurrection was stupid, but Aliens 3 had no heart or soul in my opinion. The last two films both bear the brand of "cash cow," thus neither rank very highly in my book. Neither would earn a skull either (I'd probably give Aliens 3 one -- *maybe* two slimes -- Res would get two).

[Chadzilla]

I remember when Alien: Resurrection came out, Whedon made a song and dance in interviews about how he was the only writer to work on the script during the production.  I remember sitting watching and thinking that script doctors might not be a bad thing.  All I can say is that solo writers can create the same kind of lack of focus and meandering whatever the hell story that dozens on left hand script doctors not telling the right hand script doctors what they are adding to the mix can create.

Also, William Goldman (one of my favorite writers) warns that, if you want to keep any kind of soul in your work, DO NOT WRITE SCRIPTS FOR HOLLYWOOD!!!

[Abby]

That's why you NEVER listen to the advice of other writers. Writers are a selfish, petty, backstabbing lot who will lead each other astray and will bring down an industry in the process.

To be honest, I don't think many writers with a heart get work in Hollywood (not to mention the fact that Hollywood is pretty inbred). Which is why I have no qualms pointing out when a script blows cows.

Actually, I find the whole "ew, don't blame the writers" theme here sad. When a writer's work sucks, it sucks. You know it. There's no missing it. FEAR.com is a perfect recent example. That's a film with a deplorable script. No two ways about it. The director might not have been so hot either, but the script was the real problem there.

[Chadzilla]

Abby wrote:
>
> That's why you NEVER listen to the advice of other writers.
> Writers are a selfish, petty, backstabbing lot who will lead
> each other astray and will bring down an industry in the
> process.
>
>

Hey!  I'm a writer and I resemble that comment!!!

Goldman's comment was in regards to always having to tailor scripts to particular stars (i.e. Robert Redford's characters are never BAD), the writing scripts is more about buffing egos (i.e. NO ONE CAN TALK BACK AT ERIN ,er, JULIA ROBERTS!!!).  If you want your writing to reflect your personal world view/soul whatever, don't write scripts in Hollywood.

That being said, I think misfire movies happen for a variety of reasons involving a large group of people.  Movies are team efforts, the director simply the coach (a weak coach will have the players - i.e. actors - stomping all over, each getting in the way of the other so that their great plays will win the game or the managers - i.e. producers/studio - calling the plays.  Very rarely are there really strong coaches (i.e. auteurs).

In his book I Am Spock (not to be confused with the earlier I Am Not Spock)Leonard Nimoy talked about William Shatner's disasterous Star Trek 5.  In it he recalls warning Shatner to work out all the story issues BEFORE anything else.  Shatner didn't and, as filming progresses and other problems presented themselves to the fledging (and quite overwhelmed) director it became clear that the production was "riding a bad script", something Nimoy was sympathetic to because it had happened to him (he uses "Holy Matrimony" his notorious bomb that starred Patricia Arquette as an example).

Oft times movies are written and rewritten countless times prior to filming.  The script Tommy Lee Wallace wrote for Amityville II: The Possession does not resemble the complete product very much, but he kept his name on the movie for professional reasons.  Steven Spielberg's script for Close Encounters was worked and reworked by countless script doctors, but he fought tooth and nail to not share credit (a sole writer evidently carries much weight).  Jaws had dozens of writers on it, only Peter Bencheley and Carl Gottlieb got the credit - John Milius, Howard Sackler, and Robert Shaw all got left out in the cold.  As did Dorothy Tristan's work on Jaws 2.  Who was responsible for Jaws 3, Richard Matheson or Carl Gottlieb?  A rumore fifty plus screenwriters toiled on The Flintstones for chrissakes!  The botching of his script for Waterworld led David Twohy to start directing, so for that we can at least be thankful.

But scripts are the blue print upon which a movie is constructed, so, in more ways than one, a writer shares just as much blame as anyone else.  Joss Whedon's proud chest puffing about being the only writer to toil on Alien: Resurrection was just hot air, it showed that one writer was just as capable of delivering a sloppy, messy, pointless series of events passed off as a script as something hammered out by typists told to "add a shower scene" or "we need the place to blow up at the end".  So yeah, writers can be blamed (Stirling Silliphant's work on The Swarm?  Peter Bencheley's script for The Island?  King's Maximum Overdrive?  Loughery's Star Trek 5?  Emmerich/Devlin's Deanzilla?).

[Abby]

"If you want your writing to reflect your personal world view/soul whatever, don't write scripts in Hollywood."

That line of thinking is the enemy. And that's what I mean by ignoring writers.

I didn't say MY personal world view or soul. I said heart. All written works need a heart -- be it ad copy or poetry. As a writer, you give it its own heart or soul. That's what it's all about.

Of course, don't listen to me. I'm full of crap.

Just because most tinsel town writers typically pen sloppy vehicles doesn't mean all vehicles need or should be dreck. I'm sure there's a "Requiem for a Dream" out there for Julia Roberts in someone's mind. Not in the minds of the incestuous elitist scum normally hired for such tasks. And maybe not one she'd be willing to accept. But it's out there.

Regardless, I've actually said that Aliens 4 (I'm tired out typing out the silly title) had more heart than 3, which had like what, 103 writers? Aliens 4 (similar to part 3) was a Sigorney vehicle; she was the most expensive thing about the film. The studio declared in advance she would star -- which assured a cloning angle; I'm pretty sure it pushed other stars; it hired the writer; it hired the director. A studio assembled Aliens 4.

BUT I did feel as if someone involved in the project was vaguely thinking about the audience -- in a creative sense, not just in dollars and cents. It was faint but there. It wholly absent in Aliens 3. For me.

You're right -- if he wrote it all himself, it's nothing to be proud of. The script is stupid. However, the film didn't feel like the cheap shot Aliens 3 did. To me. But then, haven't you and I playfully sparred over these two films before, Chadzilla, or am I recalling someone else?

[Chadzilla]

Yeah, we did spar, over at williamgirdler.com a fews months back (or was it last year, has it been THAT long?).  It's kind of like arguing over what side of the coin is best Heads or Tails?

If I had screenwriter idol, it would have to be John Sayles.  I just like his work.

Sad fact is that most writing in Hollywood is without soul.  I guess that's why so many writers get around to writing bitter/anti-Hollywood rants.  I watched Flashdance (my wife MADE me) and Tourist Trap last night, man you could taste the difference in the storytelling.  Like Stephen King said, It's all about the story, man.  Then again he wrote Maximum Overdrive (uh...story?), so why listen to that ass fart out Pearls of Wisdom?  Sometimes the name calling ATMs are right on the money.

Then again, I'm a writer, sensitive and full of s**t at the same time, that would rather waste time writing short stories and the every now and then novel than anything else.  Scripts are just not a format that I like, too fluid and subject to change.

Speaking of writing....how's the Girdler book coming along?  I'm looking forward to putting it on the shelf with The Zombies that Ate Pittsburg, Nightmare of Ectasy, and The Ghastly One.  If it ever comes out, that is.

I should also add that, while Bradbury (who I referenced elsewhere) is a beautiful writer, his screenwriting leaves me cold.  Matheson is much better at it (just don't mention Jaws 3-D).

[Abby]

The Girdler book is chugging away. You'll have to settle for the 13,000+ word, two-part Fangoria article (currently available at newsstands everywhere) or the Asylum of Satan DVD  if you want Girdler on your shelves for the time being.

Researching a high-quality biographical book is a totally different writing animal. One that requires patience. I am not patient, which is why I have a website. Actually, I always saw the site as the way to generate interest in the subject to warrant a decently distributed book. Though there's a book's worth of content up there now. (More like a smaller incomplete Re/Search volume.) I could have put out a piece of crap a year ago with a crap genre company. But then, I wouldn't have learned that Girdler actually worked on another movie that isn't documented anywhere. I would have had facts wrong because people who aren't listed in credits or who were forgotten hadn't surfaced. I'm still hazy on filming dates for three flicks because word of mouth conflicts and the titles/copyrights were all filed or produced wrong. I could write a book about the drama surrounding one movie alone. Three years down (the site's been up two); probably another year of research to go. Likely two. The best bios are years -- usually five or more -- in the making. And I've had a few diversions.

[Abby]

Back to screenwriting, I do tend to prefer writer/director types. It's like singing/songwriting.

But I really do see horsecrud like Fear.com, and think to myself that the guy who slices my ham at my local deli comes up with better ideas when he flosses his teeth in the morning than anything that made it onscreen during that film. The only thing separating the guy who slices my ham and the dimwits who wrote Fear.com are who they know and where they went to school ... that's gotta be it. Because no one who has ever sliced my ham has ever managed to p**s me off for two straight hours like the people who wrote Fear.com. And he's a funny, bright guy. If it was up to me I'd give the guy who slices my ham a couple million bucks to come up with something better.

FEAR.COM 2: SCREENPLAY BY THE GUY WHO SLICES PATTY'S HAM

In that sense, I understand the Aliens 4 review author's rage. And it's brutal, and it's base. But it's the root of heartless crud.

[Cullen]

I don't think I, or anyone on this thread, said writers were perfect, that Whedon was above blame, or that Jean-Pierre Jeunet was the sole problem on the film (or even that he should be held accountable for every little thing that went wrong).  What was being said (at least by me, and at least first) was that writers do not get enough credit when the movies are good.  In fact. I did say (eventually - I admit it should have been first thing) that I agreed with most everything else in Dano's review .

[Edit - and maybe I did blame Jeunet.  Who knows.  I sure as hell don't]

In fact, now that I've had time to cool off a little (over a point I readily admit was probably not as well expressed as I should have made it), I can admit that Dano's review was a success by any definition.

It saw print, after all.  After a fashion.

That's the point that matters, in the end.  Not what I think or anyone else thinks.  It's what the guy whose going to publish the work thinks.  You can write hundreds of stories, plays, and the like, but it doesn't matter if no one ever sees them.

But then again, what do I know?  I'm just petty.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Cullen]

Edit - This was another ill thought out attempt at humor.  I'll spare y'all the hassle of looking at it.

Forgive me for wasting this space.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-