why does everyone seem to hate Alien 4

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I have noticed that there seems to be a lot of alien 4 bashing on this site. I would just like to know what was wrong with it in your opinion?

I didn't mind it, personally. I thought Joss Whedon did a great job writing it, and the ideas behind it are cool. Not anywhere near as good as the first, but very few movies are as good as the original Alien.

I tought it was very, great action and all, but Aliens was better

because it and 3 were the weakest of the Alien movies.

you obviously never saw alien and ALiens. resurrection was a travesty. It destroyed the alien franchise.

yes it did sad^

II haven't even seen it . Seen the 1st 2 though.

i think that humaiod alien just ruined it for me. the whole alien ripley to me was cool.. she bacame a cooler character for me... but other wise...it was ok... but the alien baby.. with the tongue... gimme a break

the first movie suckt big time, only one alien in it, no action at all not scary either, IT DIDINT HAVE ANYTHING!!!

What? the 1st was the best.

A.D. Skinner
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

well do u mind telling me why??

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.

but like I said part 1, didint have anything, it was so boring, no shuting or anything, just talking

The horror of the first one came from the suspense, not the action or gore that we saw in it's sequels.


but it wasint scary at all

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.

the alien in the first movie was so badly done just a guy in a cheap suit, and who cares about character depth in a alien movie, action and good acting is what natters the most

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

some good points made there people(except for the first movie being crap and having nothing in it) The humanoid alien was disturbing but unneccesary and the transition of ripley is lame at best. But I think it was better than alien 3, which is why I think I was surprised that everybody hated it. Winona Ryder should only star in beetlejuice movies in the future, there is no way that someone like her would be journeying around space executing top secret missions on behalf of the government, even if she was a robot, she should never have gotten past the audition(the character and winona). On a side note, ALIEN was originally going to be called STARBEAST!!!

Lord Shadow Z
I have to agree with most people here because I felt Aliens Resurrection lacked direction with the whole idea of being scared and completely trapped with these aliens. The characters lacked the imagination of 1 + 2, the futuristic weapons were pants, the plot non-existent . (You would of thought the weird scientist guy would know about the acid blood and reinforce the floor of the cage so they couldn't escape) And that abomination at the end was just not Giger.

I agree, there is some good constructive criticism here (wicker man, rages remorse) but i also think that many of you are just following the crowd in your alien 4 bashing. I sick of hearing people come out with remarks like: "alien 4 was a travesty" or "It ruined the Alien franchise", this to me just shows how quick people are to jump on the bandwagon if an opinion is popular enough.

I myself feel that one of the main factors in Alien 4 being made was money, the film makers obviously felt it was too profitable a francise to put to rest. However, the movie itself wasnt bad at all, it did have the same feel as the others in the series but failed to emulate the suspense of the first and second films.

i didn't mind it. the aliens being hybrids with humans wasn't such a bad idea, it could help the aliens and it could lead to further movie ideas. if a alien can look like a human it could fit in with humans it could spread the aliens around futher, infesting planets with less chance of detection and such and soforth

not that it matters, but i tried very hard to like ressurection. i Tried so very hard BECAUSE i am such an avid fan. I even convinced myself that alien 3 was an okay movie, just no where near the previous set standards.
If a movie sucks, im not going to sugar coat it even if it is a franchise i love. The alien movies at one time were in a league of there own, setting standards for all other movies to be studied, and shattering expectations. Then we got alien3 which was nothing more than a mediocre sci/fi flick at best. It was a recycled concept of the first movie. Now to ressurection. This movie wasnt even an elaboration onto the series. It was just digging up the dead, literally. It was one long pointless story. With horrible dialogue, shamefull acting, despicable special effects, and a butchard comic book plot. If it wasnt for the ALIEN name tatooed onto this movie it would have went down as a bad B movie.

Alien Poor as we call it around here...

A bit tongue in cheek though. We have all seen way worse films, I am sure. Not as good as the first two but we all knew that would happen, didn't we?

yep, usually series with needless installments get crappy over time.

I wouldint say that, take Haloween for exemple, it gets better eveytime a new sequal comes, and Friday the 14th as wellsmile

In my opinion the movie has been bashed because :-

The plot is crap.
The acting is crap.
All sense of suspense was missing.

A shameless money making and punter conning, idea by hollywood (as usual)

i think saying the halloween series getting better with each new installment is a biased opinion

The first Alien movie is a maserpiece. It was the 70s, for god's sake! It was a horror movie. The suit os incredible.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.