Aliens (1986)

[ravenus]

I wouldn't entirely blame the other movies in the series (haven't seen Resurrection) because the entire SP of the franchise had already been established in the first couple movies - sooner or later the onscreen action has to devolve into shaky shots of paople being chased by alien critters through narrow dark corridors or being jumped at from the ceiling. Just how many times can you do that without the ennui settling in? That said I thought Alien3 had a nice new location and premise to tell the story, with a nice twist of Ripley bearing the alien spawn...if only it hadn't been part of a big franchise and needing to satisfy the action film fans

 

[Quokka]

Actually ravenus, similar to what you said about Alien3, Resurection adds new premises and angles and asks some good questions, I guess ive enjoyed all the movies to some degree. I really liked the idea in Alien3 of Ripley carrying the alien and also of the alien changing with a new host species (a dog in this case) but I still felt that the third instalment is the weakest in the series for the same reasons you highlighted ravenus, it was more of the same action wise. Personally i'd love to have seen them take a risk and do another about turn on style, maybe no killer alien at all, just the one Ripley is carrying and basing the movie around her dilema or taking the idea thats briefly seen when the alien chooses not to attack her because she carries one of their offspring and developing that further?

 

[ravenus]

That's an idealistic though Quokka. I can readily imagine the studio execs staring at you like the proverbial mangy yellow dog if such an idea were presented to them.

 

[GrownUp]

About Aliens, I preferred the original version to the longer one. In the first Newt and that attractive chap are both largely there to be rescued and Ripley plays a version of the classic tough-guy-with-a-heart-of-gold. But in the long version there's this peculiar maternity obsession that I don't understand so I don't much like.
Except for the extra bit with the automatic guns counting down and nearly running out of bullets as the aliens arrive. That is a good extra.

 

[moviefan]

They are both outstanding and aliens is better then the first film . They could have put them both togeter to make one long movie . They should never have made 3 and ressrection

 

[Paradox 99]

I think I have to disagree with most peoples' comments on Aliens. I'll quote something I wrote the other day on the actual Alien thread:

I liked Aliens, but I think Cameron almost destroyed the uniqueness of the Alien species. He turned Alien from something that was very original into a hive of ants originating from a Queen. Geiger's alien life cycle was far more sinister and... well... alien!
Not only that, but the original film did an excellent job of portraying the Alien as something almost invincible - "Aliens" turned them into squealing marine fodder.

I did like the film, though I found the ending ridiculous. I mean, how the heck does somebody manage to stay holding onto a rung in an airlock that's sucking everything out into space, while a mahusive alien is holding on to your foot that also has a great big piece of machinery attached to it. What, did Ripley have a Terminator arm or something?

Sorry, but Aliens comes fourth in my ranking of Alien films:

1. Alien
2. Alien 3
3. AvP
4. Aliens
5. Alien Resurrection.

 

[Daezarkian]

I just watched "Aliens" for the 474th time (estimate) the other night, and there is still, in my estimation, no better science-fiction action film that ranks anywhere even close. I'm thrilled FOX is finally releasing this film (as well as the others in the series) for individual purchase on Blu Ray...WOOT!!!

 

[Starbeast]

"Put Ripley in charge before it's game over man!"

This movie is fun to watch, with of without extra scenes added, Aliens has great replay value, spectacular special effects and thrilling action. This movie is still one of the best "humans vs monsters" movie ever made.

 

[Lemmy]

I love the whole Alien-franchise (AvP doesn't count; more on that further down the post), but what I don't get is why people call Aliens a horror movie. In truth, it's actually a war-movie. Just watch it again, but imagine the aliens are nazis/vietcong/communists/whatever and pretend it takes place on Earth, and it's clear as day. Plus, Newt kinda spoils it. "They mostly come out at night. Mostly." Why would she say that when there are no sun, meaning no day? Or for that matter, night? Well, if you were in a real war against superior enemies, when would you prefer to strike? In broad daylight or hidden by the dark of night? Exactly. You'd strike at night. They would never know what hit them.

As for AvP, I don't consider that part of the Alien or Predator universes at all, but count it as a third franchise. While I enjoyed Predators, I see the Predators as hunters, not killers. Why then would they start killing off the aliens as a hobby? And as for the aliens, since when are they braindead cannon fodder? They are actually very intelligent. If they had been as braindead as AvP wants them to be, how do you explain the lone alien not going on a killing spree in Alien? Why do the aliens hide in Alien 3 instead of going on a rampage? It's because they know they are outnumbered and would be in danger if they attack head on. Attacking from the shadows is a much better option, as it would let them pick off the enemies one by one and be safer. Just like any other intelligent creature. Plus, in Aliens, the aliens captured the humans so they could be used for breeding. Mindless aliens would just kill them and be done with it.

 

[Daezarkian]

I love the whole Alien-franchise (AvP doesn't count; more on that further down the post), but what I don't get is why people call Aliens a horror movie. In truth, it's actually a war-movie. Just watch it again, but imagine the aliens are nazis/vietcong/communists/whatever and pretend it takes place on Earth, and it's clear as day. Plus, Newt kinda spoils it. "They mostly come out at night. Mostly." Why would she say that when there are no sun, meaning no day? Or for that matter, night? Well, if you were in a real war against superior enemies, when would you prefer to strike? In broad daylight or hidden by the dark of night? Exactly. You'd strike at night. They would never know what hit them.

As for AvP, I don't consider that part of the Alien or Predator universes at all, but count it as a third franchise. While I enjoyed Predators, I see the Predators as hunters, not killers. Why then would they start killing off the aliens as a hobby? And as for the aliens, since when are they braindead cannon fodder? They are actually very intelligent. If they had been as braindead as AvP wants them to be, how do you explain the lone alien not going on a killing spree in Alien? Why do the aliens hide in Alien 3 instead of going on a rampage? It's because they know they are outnumbered and would be in danger if they attack head on. Attacking from the shadows is a much better option, as it would let them pick off the enemies one by one and be safer. Just like any other intelligent creature. Plus, in Aliens, the aliens captured the humans so they could be used for breeding. Mindless aliens would just kill them and be done with it.

I really despised the AvP films. I just thought they didn't do justice to either franchise.

The original Alien and Predator films are excellent. Aliens and Predators are also high quality films, with the former earning a spot on my personal all-times favorite list. The rest of the films in either series, not so much.

 

[Lemmy]

That's exactly why I don't consider them part of the Alien- or Predator-franchise. I love Aliens and I love Predator, but putting the two of them together almost ruined both franchises at once. Interestingly, I've read a story where Batman fight the Predator and one story where Superman travels to a planet that left Krypton before the planet exploded (it's explained in the story, don't worry) and fights a horde of Aliens. Both stories are pretty darn good, and all four of the franchies really fit the lore they came from. Superman is too far away from the yellow sun to be... um... super, but he's strong enough to stand a chance against the aliens. Even so, he loose his powers gradually, until he can't even fly anymore. And without spoiling too much, he can't leave because he sent the last ship back to Earth with the lasts survivors. But... where to the chestbursters come from? Whoopsie... _

 

[Anne Spackman]

I actually bought this film on Laserdisc and watched it many times when I was young. It scared me so much I think I had trouble sleeping afterwards. But there hasn't ever been anything like it before or since, to my mind. I saw the third Alien film and didn't care for it, so I never watched any further Alien films, but I did enjoy the first two films.

 

[TWErvin2]

My daughter and I were just reminiscing about her watching the movie for the first time about a year ago, laughing about some of Hudson's comments. If you ask me, his character bumped the movie up a half notch.

 

[reiver33]

I prefer the original version to the extended, as the sentry-gun sequence undercuts the 'last stand' tension. There can't be more than 200-odd aliens given the maximum number of colonists to act as hosts, less those killed rather than captured, and those who die during face-hugger extraction. The aliens move between the atmosphere processor and the main base along a straight communications tunnel. The 4 sentry guns set up to fire along this corridor turn it into 'a shooting gallery' (without checking I can't remember who says this). So, lots of aliens crammed together with no cover, plus 2000 rounds at point-blank range, equals few survivors. Thus instead of a 'Rorkes Drift' wave of bad-guys, Ripley and the boys could probably have gone xenomorph hunting with a fair chance of wiping them out...

Or do I over-think things?

 

[TWErvin2]

I prefer the original version to the extended, as the sentry-gun sequence undercuts the 'last stand' tension. There can't be more than 200-odd aliens given the maximum number of colonists to act as hosts, less those killed rather than captured, and those who die during face-hugger extraction. The aliens move between the atmosphere processor and the main base along a straight communications tunnel. The 4 sentry guns set up to fire along this corridor turn it into 'a shooting gallery' (without checking I can't remember who says this). So, lots of aliens crammed together with no cover, plus 2000 rounds at point-blank range, equals few survivors. Thus instead of a 'Rorkes Drift' wave of bad-guys, Ripley and the boys could probably have gone xenomorph hunting with a fair chance of wiping them out...

Or do I over-think things?

No, probably not overthinking things. Maybe that was one of the final motivations to remove it from the theatrical release? I remember reading about the automatic guns in the novelization, and they weren't in the original movie.

 

[HanaBi]

I am playing the heretic here by preferring Alien over Aliens.

Aliens, is still a terrific film - a rollercoaster ride of emotions, action, thrills and spills. And I will admit when I first watched Aliens back in 86/87, I thought it was far superior to Alien.

But over the years I have become more appreciative of Alien; especially the way it ramps up the tension in such a confined space as the Nostromo.

Moreover, H.R. Giger's visionary alien and spacecraft designs were outstanding; especially the weird/eerie Space Jockey discovery in the derelict spacecraft Kane and co were exploring.

Yes, it's nothing more than a slasher in space film, but for me its more than that. Aliens was very much a "wham bam, thank you, ma'am" experience; whereas Alien was far more subtle at ramping up the tension; even the music by Jerry Goldsmith set the tone for what was to come.

 

[TWErvin2]

I am playing the heretic here by preferring Alien over Aliens.

Aliens, is still a terrific film - a rollercoaster ride of emotions, action, thrills and spills. And I will admit when I first watched Aliens back in 86/87, I thought it was far superior to Alien.

But over the years I have become more appreciative of Alien; especially the way it ramps up the tension in such a confined space as the Nostromo.

Moreover, H.R. Giger's visionary alien and spacecraft designs were outstanding; especially the weird/eerie Space Jockey discovery in the derelict spacecraft Kane and co were exploring.

Yes, it's nothing more than a slasher in space film, but for me its more than that. Aliens was very much a "wham bam, thank you, ma'am" experience; whereas Alien was far more subtle at ramping up the tension; even the music by Jerry Goldsmith set the tone for what was to come.

I get what you're saying, but I enjoyed Aliens far more. The pacing for Alien was just too slow for me. Personal taste/preference.

 

[HanaBi]

I get what you're saying, but I enjoyed Aliens far more. The pacing for Alien was just too slow for me. Personal taste/preference.

The one thing I would have loved to have seen in Aliens, is Burke being severely tortured/impregnated/generally buggered about with at the hands of the alien. Yes, we see a quick shot of him coming face to face with it, but we never get to see what happens next: the director preferring us to use our imaginations instead. And fair enough I suppose. But Burke, like Ash, was a despicable little toad, and I would have loved to see him ripped to shreds before our very eyes

 

[Toby Frost]

There is a scene in the novel - and I think filmed, but not in any version I've seen - where Ripley finds Burke in the depths of the hive at the very end, and gives him a grenade with which to finish himself off. That said, I'm glad it didn't make the end cut. Alien and Aliens were good enough to show that there were some things you were better off not seeing.

Personally, I prefer Alien. Aliens is brilliant, but Alien is something closer to real, serious art. It's quite hard to describe why. It might be because the (normal) alien is slightly better-made in the first film, or that there's less of a sense of it being just a big insect than a sort of demon. Strangely, in the circumstances, Alien feels more epic to me than Aliens. That said, it might be because Alien affected me more when I first saw it. I remember being absolutely staggered by Ash's death: partly horror and disgust, but mainly a sense that I just couldn't make any sense out of what I was seeing.

 

[HanaBi]

There is a scene in the novel - and I think filmed, but not in any version I've seen - where Ripley finds Burke in the depths of the hive at the very end, and gives him a grenade with which to finish himself off. That said, I'm glad it didn't make the end cut. Alien and Aliens were good enough to show that there were some things you were better off not seeing.

Personally, I prefer Alien. Aliens is brilliant, but Alien is something closer to real, serious art. It's quite hard to describe why. It might be because the (normal) alien is slightly better-made in the first film, or that there's less of a sense of it being just a big insect than a sort of demon. Strangely, in the circumstances, Alien feels more epic to me than Aliens. That said, it might be because Alien affected me more when I first saw it. I remember being absolutely staggered by Ash's death: partly horror and disgust, but mainly a sense that I just couldn't make any sense out of what I was seeing.

Couldn't put it better myself!

Alien was full of surprises and amazing sets, along with the amazing Alien itself. And both Ash's "death" and Kane's were top-drawer experiences, with the latter parodied many times over the years ... including this gem...