free counter with statistics Alien Review | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

alien1.jpg
Water, My Ass! Bring This Guy Some Pepto-Bismol!


Alien / Drew Morton

Pajiba Blockbusters | July 30, 2009 | Comments (48)


Perhaps it was from discussing the styles of Ridley and Tony Scott a few weeks ago in my review of The Hunger (1983). Perhaps it was from being injected with a heavy dose of science fiction following this year’s Comic-Con (which included reading Philip K. Dick’s A Scanner Darkly and watching the Richard Linklater adaptation). Whatever the case, when I reached for a daily DVD to watch, I grabbed Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979). I hadn’t watched the film in a number of years, probably close to a decade, and I had yet to experience Ridley’s director’s cut (2003) so I figured it was time to revisit the crew of the Nostromo as they embarked onto Scott’s second feature film.

For those of you unfamiliar with the plot of the film, the Nostromo is a space vessel making its way back to Earth following a mining expedition. The crew, which includes Captain Dallas (Tom Skerritt), Executive Officer Kane (John Hurt), Navigator Lambert (Veronica Cartwright), Officer Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), Science Officer Ash (Ian Holm) and engineers Brett (Harry Dean Stanton) and Parker (Yaphet Kotto), have been placed into hibernation for the long trip home. Mid-route, the crew finds themselves awakened after the ship’s computer receives an encoded distress signal. The crew’s employer has urged them to investigate the transmission, which leads Kane, Dallas, and Lambert onto a foreign planet where they find a crashed alien ship. Kane encounters one of the species’ eggs and is placed into a coma. The rest of the crew brings him back onto the ship (never a good idea), an alien emerges from Kane’s chest, and the rest of the movie is spent trying to evade the ever-evolving creature.

Re-watching Alien, I was struck by how ominous and slow the first hour of the film was. Even the director’s cut, which features additional scenes as well as “tightened” pacing is tensely slow. The first ten minutes share more with Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) than they do with the genre it created: sci-fi horror (Predator, Pitch Black). Scott utilizes Jerry Goldsmith’s quiet, but foreboding score to complement his long tracking shots down the catacombs of the ship. Unlike Kubrick’s space vessels, however, the Nostromo is dirty and used, like a Peterbilt semi-truck with rockets attached. Scott’s pacing is used to great effect, pulling the narrative slack tight until, like Kane’s breastbone, it breaks with the violent emergence of H.R. Giger’s brilliantly designed alien.

If the first half of the film is science fiction, the second half smoothly switches gears into the horror genre. The evolution conceit of the alien’s design keeps us constantly on our toes, never knowing what to expect in the dark halls of the ship. Will it be a small, spider-like creature that grabbed Kane’s face or will it be in the form of the small phallic-worm that emerged from his chest? When Brett, the first crew member to meet his demise, is killed we are struck with our worst nightmare: a creature not only horrific but nearly impossible to spot due to its bio-mechanic design, making it blend seamlessly into the black PVC pipes and duct work (an effect utilized quite well in the final segments and paid homage in the invisibility cloak of the Predator). Scott shows us little of the creature, much like Steven Spielberg did in Jaws (1975) only four years previous and, for the most part, this is quite effective in manufacturing dread.

Yet, Scott’s framing also has its flaws. Once Ripley has been established as the sole survivor and activates the Nostromo’s self-destruct mechanism, hoping to flee to a emergency escape shuttle, Scott’s eye for style, with the aid of some script oddities, trip the narrative a bit. For instance, there is a strobe-lit sequence when Ripley finds the alien near the crew’s cat and decides to deactivate the self-destruct. Scott frames the alien and cat in a very tight close up, so we become unsure of the geography. Where is Ripley spatially in relation to the alien and cat and to the shuttle? Why is she trying to deactivate the self-destruct? I found myself re-watching the sequence a number of times and came to the conclusion that Ripley had left the cat near the shuttle and had become frightened at the fact that she would have to face the alien with only a few minutes before the ship would explode.

The ship’s self-destruct mechanism struck me as strangely designed. Is this the most convoluted self-destruct mechanism ever produced? There’s a series of four rising cones that must be activated in addition to two levers on a wall. Moreover, the logic to the system is that once it becomes activated, you have ten minutes until the ship is blown to kingdom come and five minutes to deactivate the mechanism. Yet, as Ripley discovers as she reaches the six minute till fireworks mark, the system is not only difficult to shut down in a few minutes, but impossible to deactivate in a few seconds. Thus, Ripley is forced to board the shuttle and evacuate the Nostromo and, due to the alien’s physical attributes, does not notice that it is hiding along the wall of the shuttle.

Ripley’s boarding of the shuttle, only to discover the alien inside, brings me to the final shaggy aspect of the film’s design. I’m able to accept that the alien is on the shuttle and that it has hidden, but why not attack Ripley right away? Throughout the film, the alien has exhibited “structural perfection…matched only by its hostility.” It took down five members of the crew, including Dallas and his flamethrower, with its double-jaw and wicked tail. Why is it playing it safe in the ship by hiding? When it finally does decide to attack, it moves slowly and awkwardly. Has Ripley wounded it, or has it simply decided to go into survival mode?

I have a feeling the alien’s lack of movement has two causes, one within the story world of the film and one motivated by the film’s production. First, from a production standpoint, the actual alien suit was cumbersome and Scott’s framing is prime evidence that the alien fulfills its horrifying function when seen in small doses. This said, its depiction in the final moments are probably motivated by producing the strongest feeling of suspense without sacrificing the effect of the creature’s design by tipping the audience off that it might be an actor in a suit. With regard to the motivation from the story or diagesis, Ash the science officer makes a note that temperature change can affect the creature. Perhaps Ripley stunned it with the air vents on the shuttle?

I’m not trying to bust through the chest of the film by criticizing its plot points to death, I just think it loses some of the foundation of the facts established in the science fiction portion of the film once it fully goes into horror mode. I love Alien and, like Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968) before it, Ridley Scott knows how to utilize pacing and mise-en-scene to amplify horror. Other than some slips in the third-act, it’s near-perfect, one of the finest horror films I’ve ever seen. Moreover, the film marks the beginning of Ridley Scott’s Hollywood career, which would reach perfection in Blade Runner (1981) only three years later. I hope, after his hit-and-miss track record of the last decade, that Ridley makes a return to the form of his early films with his forthcoming Robin Hood (2010). Of course, I’d love to see him make Alien 5 with Sigourney Weaver back in ass kicking mode, but I have a feeling that we’ll see pigs fly before that happens.

Drew Morton is a Ph.D. student in Cinema and Media Studies at the University of California-Los Angeles. He has previously written for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and UWM Post and is the 2008 recipient of the Otis Ferguson Award for Critical Writing in Film Studies.


Humpday Review | The Worst Movie MacGuffins



Comments

I'm just gonna come out and say it:

They also needed to do a Veronica Cartwright in her panties scene.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 30, 2009 4:16 PM

Shit Bslim, that is not something I needed to think about.

Posted by: badalamenti at July 30, 2009 4:17 PM

*sits quietly signifying his apporval*

Posted by: admin at July 30, 2009 4:23 PM

I saw this movie on the day it opened in theaters. I was 12. It gave me nightmares for a month. At the time it was unique and wonderful and scary and gross and all those 12-year-old adjectives I've forgotten. Thanks for the reminder; now I'll go watch it from an adult's pov.

Posted by: dawn at July 30, 2009 4:36 PM

Some critics have suggested that the alien's slow movement in the shuttle scene sexualizes the tension as it stretches and begins to move toward Ripley. I haven't seen the film in a long time, but isn't there a shot of its long phallic head in this scene, too? One critic (I forget who)actually compares the alien's movements to the sexual preening of male animals. This sexualization also seems evident in its earlier attack on Veronica Cartwright's character, when its tail curls around her legs.

Posted by: Miri at July 30, 2009 4:36 PM

I must admit: I still have yet to see this movie. This review just reminds me more of what I am missing.

Were you shocked to see the tonal shift from this to the more action-packed Aliens? Because I hear that quite a bit. While folks like both, it is like they are two completely different movies, instead of parts of a storyline.

Posted by: Vermillion at July 30, 2009 4:38 PM

Ripley’s boarding of the shuttle, only to discover the alien inside, brings me to the final shaggy aspect of the film’s design. I’m able to accept that the alien is on the shuttle and that it has hidden, but why not attack Ripley right away?

That's because the alien is really just a giant phallic symbol that's trying to Ripley. A lot of the movie involved penises trying to kill Ripley. You see, the alien and Ash are Mother's "children" and she hates Ripley and wants to kill her. Kill her with penises.

When Ripley first boards the shuttle she's in that giant space suit and, therefore, androgynous. The giant, alien penis wants no part of that action. But once Ripley strips down to her undies, the giant, alien penis awakens (grows erect) and is ready to resume his killing ways.

At least that's what I said in a paper I wrote about Alien in a film class when I was an undergrad. I also tied in the scene where Ash tries to kill Ripley via fellatio with a porno mag. When she knocks his head off what happens? He begins to spurt up Mother's position "milk." There was some more to it as well, but that was 15 years or so ago, so the details are fuzzy.

It was a good paper. I got an A.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at July 30, 2009 4:38 PM

Admin: "apporval?" How much have you had to drink today?

Posted by: BWeaves at July 30, 2009 4:42 PM

Vermillion,

I like that Aliens shifted gears and I wasn't shocked, per se, as I saw them long after they were released theatrically on DVD (I was like 3 or 4 when Aliens hit theaters). Cameron realized his strength was in action, not horror and that the best way to honor Scott and the original was not to re-tread but re-define.

Regarding the sexualization issue,

I realize the sexuality of the moment and yes, the alien's activity does fall in line with its interactions with Lambert.

That said, I still find that a hit and miss argument, as the alien is defined continuously as hostile, not sexual. For instance, it's not like the alien is looking at Ripley when she's undressing. It has its head down in the corner.

Forbidden, does your name happen to be Jordan? I knew someone in film school who wrote that paper as well.

Posted by: Drew Morton at July 30, 2009 4:46 PM

I saw this on the first day it was out. I was 19.

Still the best horror film ever made.

Drew, please don't over think every scene in this film.
It's perfect the way it is.

Posted by: OldSchool60 at July 30, 2009 4:48 PM

It was a good paper. I got an A. - Forbiddendonut

I got quite a few A's on papers that were pure dissembling drivel born of sleep deprivation and excess caffeine, those twin Saving Graces of many a college career. It's actually fairly amazing what creative bullshit you can get away with if you can write three-syllable words without sounding overly pretentious.

Now that I think of it, that pretty well sums up Pajiba's entire business plan, doesn't it?

Posted by: Neodiogenes at July 30, 2009 4:49 PM

Were you shocked to see the tonal shift from this to the more action-packed Aliens? Because I hear that quite a bit. While folks like both, it is like they are two completely different movies, instead of parts of a storyline.

Posted by: Vermillion at July 30, 2009 4:38 PM

Aliens remains one of the finest sequels of all times. It's definitely shift in genre from horror to action, but they really are part of the same storyline.

I don't think a horror sequel would have worked anywhere near as well, since a large part of why Alien worked so well as a horror film was the tension from not knowing what the Alien actually was, what it exactly looked like and what form it would be. By the end of the movie that's all been revealed, so any sequel would lose that and be much weaker for it.

I liken it to the difference between Mad Max and The Road Warrior a bit. While the difference between Alien and Aliens in terms tone is much more harsh, like Road Warrior, you have the same main character and same world but it takes place years later in which that world has undergone significant change.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at July 30, 2009 4:49 PM

"the alien is defined continuously as hostile, not sexual. For instance, it's not like the alien is looking at Ripley when she's undressing..."


It could still be sexual in the same way a serial rapist sees "sexual." Meaning is more about control over another being.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 30, 2009 4:51 PM

Forbidden, does your name happen to be Jordan? I knew someone in film school who wrote that paper as well.

Posted by: Drew Morton at July 30, 2009 4:46 PM

No, I'm not Jordan. But you could track him down for me? I'd like to sue his ass for plagiarism. I can't stand what it's doing to our instituitions of higher education.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at July 30, 2009 4:56 PM

OldSchool,

As I said, I still love the movie. Since when is overthinking the logic of a film a bad thing? Hell, even in Citizen Kane there are storytelling issues. For instance, who the hell hears Kane say "Rosebud" anyways?

The reason I find those slips in Alien so critical is because it sets the bar so high in the first part, establishing the science and logic of the world, which is starts to jettison into space at the end.

BSlim,

But couldn't that be an issue of aggressive control rather than sex? That seems to make more sense to me than generalizing that its purely a sexual instinct.

Posted by: Drew Morton at July 30, 2009 5:02 PM

apporval:

Noun: a state of confusion, often caused by computer radiation and cheap beer.

Ex. Shit dog, it only took 6 PBRs to get you apporvaled? Weak!

Antonyms: Lucid

Posted by: "Luker" the barbarian at July 30, 2009 5:02 PM

Drew,

Agreed, but still, there is a sexual component.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 30, 2009 5:09 PM

The only problem I have with Alien is that Ripley saves the cat. Leave the little fucker to be eaten and get the hell off the ship love!!

But I love Alien. Not quite as much as Aliens (review that please! You can never have enough Aliens reviews), but still, it's a brilliant film.

Posted by: Carrie at July 30, 2009 5:18 PM

Alien isn't as good as its sequel; but it's still silly to criticize Alien when the sequels, excluding Aliens, are so awful.

Seriously, Alien 3 is the absolute worst sequel to a great film ever made, only Hannibal could ever be described as more of a letdown.

Posted by: George at July 30, 2009 5:37 PM

I think that the sexual component works more as metaphor than as a literal interpretation of what is happening. I.e., snippets of the alien's behavior remind us, the viewer, of sexual situations which adds to the layers of horror inflicted on the viewer. But it's a mistake to project those emotional responses onto the alien's motivation.

The alien is not operating sexually vis a vis the crew of the Nostromo, take the alien out and put a rabid grizzly bear on the ship and you have on a very superficial level a similar film. But the reason the alien horrifies us so much more than something mundane like a bear is because the details resonate and remind us of things besides a vicious animal. The lover's hand running up a leg instead of a spiked tail, a mouth swallowing a cock instead of choking on an impregnating proboscis.

Rape takes a loving and beautiful act and warps it into a nightmare. Truly layered tales of horror work the same way. They don't just show you something gross, violent, or terrifying. They warp something beautiful so that the horror intertwines with something innocent or good. That's why torture porn so misses the point when it comes to horror. It starts from a place of darkness and never resonates with the light.

Posted by: Steven Lloyd Wilson at July 30, 2009 5:38 PM

Aliens remains one of the finest sequels of all times. It's definitely shift in genre from horror to action, but they really are part of the same storyline.

I reckon the best sequels are those that take the original movie's parts and do something entirely new with them, rather than the more modern staple of "Same characters, almost the same thing, eke another few million dollars out of it". Another good example is Terminator 2 - the same scenario again (clueless innocent runs from Arnie for another 2 hours) would have been shockingly bad, but by changing it from what was almost a horror-action film into balls-out explosions and mayhem, they kept it fresh.

Posted by: Shay at July 30, 2009 5:39 PM

I love you Steven. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: Drew Morton at July 30, 2009 5:42 PM

Don't give me too much validation Drew, my ego's already big enough that I can use it like a hot air balloon for short flights.

Posted by: Steven Lloyd Wilson at July 30, 2009 5:48 PM

I saw this in the theater, first run (yea, verily I am as old as the forests) and, since the movie was brand new, had only a vague idea of what I was in for.

It is the most frightening movie I have ever seen.

Your review is most excellent, Drew.

Posted by: Jerce at July 30, 2009 5:57 PM

I wrote a paper on Aliens in college. Not even for a film class. Anyway...

Isn't the whole point of the alien hiding and waiting to attack Ripley to give her a chance to strip down to her underwear first? For the benefit of us, the audience, of course.

Alien is just such an awesome fucking movie. I was too young to see it when it came out, so by the time I saw it I knew the story already. I can only imagine the impact that seeing that creature come bursting out of John Hurt's chest must have had if you were in the theater and knew nothing about the movie beforehand? ACK! MERCY!

I think the long, slow build-up makes the film. A lot of contemporary movies start off with mayhem and gore and then have nowhere to go but even more extreme mayhem and gore - more, more, MORE! - until you just don't care any more. I love shitballs-retarded explosions n'stunts movies and splattery ridiculous horror movies. A lot. But I wouldn't say they're great films. In a great film, a little goes a long way.

Posted by: MM at July 30, 2009 5:58 PM

They also needed to do a Veronica Cartwright in her panties scene.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 30, 2009 4:16 PM
---
Ouch. Age has not been kind. Google sunk the bunk.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 30, 2009 6:05 PM

George,

Alien 3 had a train-wreck of a production history. David Fincher was forced to shoot without a script, as the film was driven by completion for a release date and little else. The quadrilogy box set has a longer cut of Alien 3. Not a director's cut, but a fleshed out version.

I didn't rewatch the entire movie, but there are some very interesting things going on in it. Fincher's view is very bleak, as usual, and I enjoy that part of it but yes, overall it's not a good movie.

Funny you should mention Hannibal, as I re-watched it the other night (Ridley Scott kick I guess). I remember being very ambivalent about it when I saw it upon its release and I still think its a mess of a movie. This said, I loved Scott's staging of certain sequences (when Starling meets Lecter in the train station for instance) and the attempt to move from horror to a twisted romance, which worked much better in the film than it did in the book.

Posted by: Drew Morton at July 30, 2009 6:08 PM

Drew,

I know it wasn't Fincher's fault, the man directed Fight Club. Although you do present an interesting point, with better production, and a set script, it would have been a quality film.

You are right though, a lot of sequels are hated based purely on irrational expecta- tions. When you look at many of the most hated sequels ever, they aren't as bad as you remembered. (Except Batman and Robin, which is still one of the best comedies of all time.)

Posted by: George at July 30, 2009 6:22 PM

I don't remember most of Alien 3 (that says something) but don't think it was THAT terrible, was it?

What are the problems we have with Alien 3?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 30, 2009 6:23 PM

When Ripley first boards the shuttle she's in that giant space suit and, therefore, androgynous.

See, here's the thing, though- look again at Ripley's uniform. (Not the space suit, I suppose, although it's been a while and I'd need to watch it again.) It is exactly the same as the male crew members' uniforms, save one tiny difference: It laces up the back, corset-style. It's subtle, but clear: she is most definitely a woman.

That, taken along with some other things (saving the cat; the self-destruct mechanism, which looks kind of like a stove), have long led me to question many people's reaction to Ripley as a feminist icon of some sort or dismissive to traditional characteristics of feminization.

Also, I have around a hundred credits now, and I'm still swinging my 4.0 GPA. That's half because I'm a genius, and half because I'm a genius at bullshitting my way through a paper.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at July 30, 2009 6:30 PM

Really Bucdaddy? THAT sunk the bunk? Her role in Witches of Eastwick has prevented me from seeing Veronica Cartwright as anything but a cherry pit spitting lunatic since then. It actually erased her role in Alien from my brain...which is an awesome reason for me to go watch it again! God I love that movie.

Posted by: JenVegas at July 30, 2009 6:32 PM

Alien 3 gets a bad rap. Fincher did a Herculean effort salvaging that movie, and the expanded cut is much better. There are several classic scenes in that movie, just have to accept it as a flawed part of the series. At least until Resurrection showed up and really lowered the bar. That Alien v Predator: Requiem stumbled over on the way to the throw up in a gutter.

The self destruct mechanism required them to vent the coolant, so there was no way to reverse it once it started. I think that was Mother just fucking with Ripley. And I have never had problems with why Ripley tries to abort, I thought it was pretty obvious the Alien was in her path toward the shuttle.

I agree every movie has flaws, but Alien is pretty goddam near perfect.

Posted by: TylerDFC at July 30, 2009 8:09 PM

I personally think that Alien 3 suffers from killing Newt and Hicks off screen, in the opening moments. It was wasn't a good place to put the story, given their dynamic from Aliens. I'm not saying Fincher shouldn't have killed them off at some point during the film for emotional resonance, but it would have had much more of an impact on-screen.

Posted by: Drew Morton at July 30, 2009 8:12 PM

I personally think that Alien 3 suffers from killing Newt and Hicks off screen, in the opening moments. It was wasn't a good place to put the story, given their dynamic from Aliens. I'm not saying Fincher shouldn't have killed them off at some point during the film for emotional resonance, but it would have had much more of an impact on-screen.

Word - I was thinking this as I read the last few comments. After the entire plot of Aliens centres around Ripley aiding in a rescue mission to a colony, and the last act of the film involves her trying to save the last few survivors (and in particular Newt, to the point that she fights off an alien queen and gets an iconic line in to boot), to have the other survivors die immediately was just...unnecessary. It's like hitting a reset button and putting Ripley right back where she was at the start of Aliens: alone, friendless and in a hostile environment she knows little about. And that makes it feel cheap and exploitative, which gives the film a bad taste from the get-go.

Posted by: Shay at July 30, 2009 8:48 PM

I think Scott says something about the alien nearing the end of its lifecycle in the dvd commentary. In the director's cut the alien tied Tom Skerritt up in a cocoon (then Ripley torches him). Scott says that originally that would become a new egg (since they hadn't invented a queen alien). So once the alien prepared a new egg, it would curl up an die. That's why it was so lethargic at the end.

Posted by: Andrew at July 30, 2009 10:15 PM

Really Bucdaddy? THAT sunk the bunk?

Posted by: JenVegas at July 30, 2009 6:32 PM
---
Well, considering I haven't thought much about her since I used to whack it to Penny Robinson in "Lost In Space" ...

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 30, 2009 10:21 PM

Is 3 the one when Ripley tries to convince everyone not to go back - and then she goes and sees all the eggs? I can't remember which one that is.

The original holds up beautifully for me - like Halloween - even though I know just about every moment before it occurs, I'm still frightened and I still jump. Scares the shit out of me over and over, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

Posted by: Cindy at July 30, 2009 10:53 PM

That was Angela, bucdaddy.

Posted by: Eep at July 30, 2009 11:17 PM

Ridley Scott and the people at Fox seem to have acknowledged my desire. Let's see if Weaver returns.

Scott to direct Alien Prequel

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118006722.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2563

Posted by: Drew Morton at July 31, 2009 1:09 AM

Drew I don't know if others didn't notice or just didn't acknowledge, but rock on with the Spaceballs quote.

Posted by: Eep at July 31, 2009 1:58 AM

If I'm not mistaken, Alien 3 has been discussed ad nauseam in recent posts. George does not like it. I don't know if he ever bothered to watch the directors cut yet, but he hates it with a passion. Or at least me for defending it so staunchly.


Funny side story, the last time I watched Alien was on halloween, and I was sitting in the dark at my desk and a one inch cockroach crawled up my pant leg.

Giddyup.

Posted by: Some Guy at July 31, 2009 2:36 AM

Alien stands as one of the premier Holy Shit! moments of my life.

The first would be wandering into the Ambassador Theatre in D.C., paying $1.50 and seeing a then unknown British band change my idea of what was possible with a guitar.
Went back the next night and saw Hendrix do it again.
Holy shit!

Later, I was tending bar in Dupont Circle and we used to trade free drinks with the staff of a nearby theater and attend their after hours previews of new movies.
One night around 3am, sitting with maybe 20 people in a huge theater, drinking and smoking and goofing around...the evening's fare is Alien.
We hadn't a clue.
Comes the chestburster scene and...Holy Shit!, movies are never the same again.

I love that movie.

Posted by: clocker at July 31, 2009 8:51 AM

Quote [I’m able to accept that the alien is on the shuttle and that it has hidden, but why not attack Ripley right away?]

The Alien is smart - it waits at the shuttle to make sure it can get off the ship that will self-destruct - and then doesn't attack Ripley because it wants to make sure it is on its way to somewhere safe. From what I can remember (long ago now) doesn't it wait till Ripley has set the co-ordinates for the shuttle and thus knows it can kill her without endangering its own life. I always thought the slow speed by the alien in the fight was due to the lack of room in the shuttle.
Who knows - does it matter Alien and Aliens are both awesome.

Posted by: Wreckeddeco at July 31, 2009 8:52 AM

Drew,
I didn't think that the alien was acting any differently in how it went after Ripley and how it stalked and killed everyone else in the crew. It would methodically maneuver and corner each person and then kill them. Maybe it's because they are both on a much smaller vessel at the end that it just seems like the alien should move in faster for the kill(?). I've not seen the director's cut of the movie so I don't know what Scott's ideas were on this aspect. By the way, I really enjoy you're reviews--they're smart with out being too academic (you know...boring), so thank you!

Posted by: slim at August 1, 2009 7:33 PM

Also, it doesn't really need to move in quickly for the kill--the confidence of an ultimate killing machine--it WILL be successful no matter where you try to hide (isn't that the reason why The Company wanted it as a bio-weapon?).

Posted by: slim at August 1, 2009 7:43 PM

Dammit! I meant *your* reviews, not you're--sorry, I think my blood sugar is crashing.

Posted by: slim at August 1, 2009 7:49 PM

I second the choice of title quote - you have pleased me today. And believe me, I needs me some pleasing. It's been a bitch of a week, what with moving in a heat wave with severely limited internet. So props to you, I've quit sharpening my knife.

For now...

Posted by: lordhelmet at August 2, 2009 12:06 AM

I also saw "Alien" when it opened at the Stanley Warner Quad (a HUGE theater in my hometown) with two male friends. The place was so packed, we had to sit in the front row.
The local paper had dismissed it as "a dragon" chasing a "doomed crew" horror film.
We left with our popcorn untouched and ate it in the car once the ability to speak had returned.
I have NEVER seen a film that froze me like that one.
I still consider it one of the greatest moments of my movie watching experience.

Posted by: Krissy at August 2, 2009 10:49 AM