They should have left Riply dead after the 3rd movie..or better yet..not even make the 3rd. The story began to revolve around Ripley's Character more than it did the Alien. Ressurection was a failed attempt to earn a few extra bucks.
I agree with sandman in saying that the humanoid alien at the end was horrible. Crying for its mother as it is being sucked out through the hull into tiny little blobs.
"Alien" is by far the best of the series
Like most people who've seen the entire franchise when compared to Alien or Aliens, Alien Resurrection and indeed Alien 3 for that matter are poor follow ups, for a start the latter entries offered nothing new to a franchise which firstly offered sheer terror and suspense then top notch action, then you have the evolution of the characters, the whole Ripley situation should have ended in Alien 3, there was no need to bring back Ripley and what made matters worse was the Ripley fans got too know had gone (i.e. firstly we saw her as the meek damsel in distress, then the reluctant hero and then the battle hardend survivor) Alien Resurrection brought her into the light as a hard nut, emotionless character. Apart from Ripley they also evolved the Alien creatures into gentic, CGI rubbish that lacked the sheer nightmarish creations that we saw in the first three encounters.
there was so much they could have done with ressurection. So many different story lines to have been explored. all of which could have tied in directly with the previous movies. Seeing how sigourney weaver only agreed to do alien 3 and 4 was if she had partial script rights is what flushed this franchise down the toilet. hicks was never going to have died, There was to be more aliens, in the third. However weaver said it would be better to go back to the original. which failed miserably. The fourth movie was to much like a comic book. ressurection had no suspense, no character depth, and tried to hard to be like ALIEN, and ALIENS. With no story, and no thirlling suspense. Ressurection can never seriously be considered an alien movie. Not to mention the aliens looked like shit, the ten dollar fake creation in alien 3 looked better than the non moving aliens in ressurection. this movie was all around BULLSHIT. I mean they diddnt even have a good musical score.
see people who think like you, enjoyed alien ressurection. While the rest of the alien fans, HATED ressurection. Actually the most succesful alien movie,being the original had little to NO action. It relied soley on it's unique story, with chilling suspense. The second most popular movie of the 4 movies (ALIENS) was an elaboration on the story everyone loved so much from the first one, with a mixture of everything alien diddnt have. You say character depth isnt immportant, but you say acting is what counts most, well good acting gives depth to the characters. There was superb acting in the first two movies, which gave the characters great depth,A backround on the characters give the actors somthing to work with. i mean you actually cared what happen to these people. this was expressed best in the second. however 3 and 4 had the worst acting
Alien 3 had no story. It was just a recycled story from the original. It had plenty of action, but it still seemed to fail amongst the larger portion of the fan base, and the box office in general. Alien ressurection also had no story, it was the SAME premise as the original with a mixture of the second. REssurection had the worst story, and worst acting of the four. Everyone's performance in ressurection was terrible, very non believable. Ressurection also had plenty of attempted action, i say attempted because it was horrible action. So when you say the story doesnt matter in the alien franchise you should take a look at the fans, and box office response on the films. Or simply watch the movies again with a more open mind