Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: November 26, 1997
5.7
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 257 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
99
Mixed:
108
Negative:
50
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
grandpajoe6191Sep 29, 2011
"Aliens: Resurrection" is a terrible movie filled with nothing but pessimism. Its a film that will make you grim and moody in a happy sunny day.
5 of 10 users found this helpful55
All this user's reviews
4
btzneb92Aug 13, 2012
Better than Alien 3, yes, but still an ill-contrived movie and a really weird and bizarre movie, at that. It feels like it's trying to hone back to "Aliens", but all it's doing is being a trashy space movie with no signs of visiblity that hasBetter than Alien 3, yes, but still an ill-contrived movie and a really weird and bizarre movie, at that. It feels like it's trying to hone back to "Aliens", but all it's doing is being a trashy space movie with no signs of visiblity that has a $70 million budget, compared to Aliens, which had ten times the brilliance this movie has, in a mere $18 million budget. The later Alien films do feel like dirty secrets to well-crafted filmmakers, particularly directed to David Fincher (who directed Alien 3) and Joss Whedon (who wrote the screenplay to this "movie"). Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
JohnnyStephensNov 9, 2013
Critics have ruined it!!!! Resurrection rocks!!!! Not as good as Alien but it still make sense and it's watchable and entertaining!!! Watch it!!!!!!!!
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
DirigiblePulpJul 28, 2017
A one-off goofy, campy, B-movie comic book throw-away Alien universe film. One last ride but knowing full well the Ripley saga was truly wrapped up in the last one. Again though, as is the case with this franchise, this film has its ownA one-off goofy, campy, B-movie comic book throw-away Alien universe film. One last ride but knowing full well the Ripley saga was truly wrapped up in the last one. Again though, as is the case with this franchise, this film has its own personality, look, feel and genre to call its own.

Ripley is a superhero now, and she's explained as emotionally autistic so as to not question why she's so benign the whole film (it's clear Whedon knew not to have her slinging quips the whole film, but he didn't know what else to do with her so he turned her into a superhero, surprise). Whedon apparently complained about the delivery of his lines in this film but I don't know. I think most of the actors are game and his dialogue is just OK.

The bigger problems are the lazy plotting (really, 200 years in the future the company still wants an Alien and they still weren't prepared for acid blood? or had a contingency plan in place...) and the lack of characterization of Ripley. There's nowhere else to take her. The only interesting thread involves Ripley kind of becoming an Alien queen at the end (there's mention of cross hybrid DNA) but this an end game play and it's interesting, it's just too bad it doesn't take up more room in the overall film.

Jeunet is not suspense generator, nightmare-maker, or an action stager. He has some pretty sets, and does well with the beautiful Alien special effects (not the CGI though, shudder). The only indelible image in the whole thing is the final shot of the new white Alien thing getting sucked out of a tiny hole. That looks painful, and it's harrowing to watch - notice that Ripley is almost crying seeing it. It's almost like the film made Ripley a mom again only to have her rip it away from herself, but I'm not entirely sure the film understood that, or knew what to do with it.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
rdaviesNov 9, 2010
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. To be fair, Alien 3 was too bad to end the franchise on, and out of what looks like an improvised storyline as a way to make up for Fincher's calamity, this is not bad at all, a LOT better than Alien 3. The story was here and there, not the best but not the worst and it was certainly believable. The characters weren't brilliant I was disappointed with Ryders' character and Ripley was somewhat interesting apart from that OK. The directing was a hell of a lot better than Fincher's, although that's not a difficulty. Special effects were brilliant compared to Alien 3, somehow not as good as the first two a saw a few iffy shots and aliens from a distance looked like tigers with paint on them but up-close: intimidating. Overall, compared to Alien 3 this was a good way to finish the story (unless another film is made after the prequels) and the only thing stopping me from scoring 7 was the human/alien's death and Ripley's pure weirdness. -----By no means overly gross and not AMAZING but better than a lot of films I can think of. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
johnmilasJan 29, 2012
As a young fan of the Alien film series, the worst news for me in 1997 came when I watched a VHS rental of Alien Resurrection and hated it. Now, looking back I don't hate it as much, in fact I don't think I actually hate it anymore, but it'sAs a young fan of the Alien film series, the worst news for me in 1997 came when I watched a VHS rental of Alien Resurrection and hated it. Now, looking back I don't hate it as much, in fact I don't think I actually hate it anymore, but it's just not a good entry in the greatest monster movie series to haunt the silver screen. Alien redefined monster movies permanently, Aliens gave us the greatest female action icon ever, and Alien 3 just pissed everyone off. So, to overcompensate, Brandywine decided to make Alien Resurrection as much like Alien and Aliens as possible, and...hired Jean Pierre Jeunet. I'm not saying he's a bad filmmaker, because they would be incredibly false. I'm just saying that he as director and Joss Whedon as writer may have not been the best direction to take things. Whedon is alright as a storyteller, but choosing him as the writer is obviously an overcompensation for the heavy-handed and often depressing perception that Alien 3 as garnered. So, what does this mean? It means that instead of getting a monster movie that was more intelligent and engaging than the run of the mill (the first three movies in the series), we get something more like...Predator 2 in space. If means that instead of actually being a good movie, Alien Resurrection just ends up being dumb fun. And I stress DUMB over FUN in most instances. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
NicoDaFlagburnaJan 30, 2011
All the fears we learnt from the first films have been completely wiped with this abysmal attempt at an Alien movie. If only there was some narrative significance, some fear to terrorise the screen or some philosophy relating to sexuality.All the fears we learnt from the first films have been completely wiped with this abysmal attempt at an Alien movie. If only there was some narrative significance, some fear to terrorise the screen or some philosophy relating to sexuality. Instead we are watching a visual representation of a theme park ride. Fortunately theme park rides are over very quickly. This isn't...and being forced to watch would be almost torturous. 43/100 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TokyochuchuFeb 17, 2013
Alien: Resurrection has some great memorable scenes (underwater aliens! chestbuster meets head!) and is ultimately quite an entertaining monster movie. That said, however, it's "let's walk from A to B and escape" style plot does nothing forAlien: Resurrection has some great memorable scenes (underwater aliens! chestbuster meets head!) and is ultimately quite an entertaining monster movie. That said, however, it's "let's walk from A to B and escape" style plot does nothing for the franchise as a whole, and there are more than enough misfiring moments to drag the whole package down to 'inconsequential'. Alien: Resurrection is not a bad film but it's nowhere near great either. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
HalfwelshmanAug 2, 2012
The only real praise I can give the fourth instalment in the Alien series is that after re-watching it, it's not quite as bad as I remembered it. It's not quite a bad film, but is incredibly mediocre, with lazy plotting, a sub-par scriptThe only real praise I can give the fourth instalment in the Alien series is that after re-watching it, it's not quite as bad as I remembered it. It's not quite a bad film, but is incredibly mediocre, with lazy plotting, a sub-par script (from the usually immaculate Joss Whedon) and paper-thin characters. The aliens look better than they ever have, however, and Dominique Pinon and Ron Perlman give good performances, along with some first-class hamming from Brad Dourif. Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet's usual post-apocalyptic steampunk aesthetic style should be well-suited to the Alien universe, but though it's striking, it sometimes comes across as a poor imitation of the work of Terry Gilliam or series mastermind Ridley Scott. Tragically, for the first time in the series, Sigourney Weaver looks bored, the passion for the role as Ripley having completely left her eyes, likely due to the ridiculousness of the character's resurrection in this film. Winona Ryder is also pretty awful, woodenly delivering her dialogue and unable to convey any kind of emotion, and the predictable twist involving her character does not make up for this lacklustre performance. Resurrection commits its worst atrocities in the final ten minutes, which are truly moronic, and succeeds only in completely castrating the alien threat and removing all menace and jeopardy. While a couple of scenes work (the sequence where multiple aliens hunt down survivors underwater is thrilling, and Ripley's shocking discovery in an abandoned science lab is an effective moment of pathos), a criminal amount of the film's runtime feels like it has been copied from earlier Alien instalments, or pasted from other unfinished projects - a telltale sign of Resurrection's troubled production. With such talent behind a project like this, the final film should be much better, but at least it provided Whedon with inspiration for a far more satisfying future project - the uninspiring rag-tag crew of space pirates we follow in this film were developed into the wonderful cast of characters in Firefly, and that is something to be truly thankful for. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Rox22Mar 17, 2013
A really desperate attempt to follow the same formula that made Aliens such a success, only, it failed. At best I can say this movie is average. It does toy with some really interesting ideas, but they just don't get realized they way theyA really desperate attempt to follow the same formula that made Aliens such a success, only, it failed. At best I can say this movie is average. It does toy with some really interesting ideas, but they just don't get realized they way they could have been. Ripley is very different in this movie, and I know this met with ALLOT of criticism from fans. But I get why she is this way, technically she is not Ripley, merely a clone that looks like here and with her memories, but she's OK with that and has embraced her new self. It might not have been a bad idea if they would have shown this transition of acceptance, to allow the audience to accept her they same way. The "new" alien idea was just daft and ugly, I'm sure H.R. Giger read the script and just design it with same effort as the writers. Winona Ryder and Ron Perlman are perhaps the only characters that are interesting adding a bit of fun and class to an otherwise bland cast. Overall: This movie was more of a disappointment to me than it was bad. In hindsight I actually thought that it was rather enjoyable, it just had some really stupid moments that kind of spoiled it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MeritCobaOct 30, 2015
This is a pretty weird movie and the term "a cast of thousands" springs to my mind because of the bloated cast. The only other two Alien movies I even saw where the first two, both of them with a rather small cast, which allowed for moreThis is a pretty weird movie and the term "a cast of thousands" springs to my mind because of the bloated cast. The only other two Alien movies I even saw where the first two, both of them with a rather small cast, which allowed for more screen-time for each death, I suppose. But now, with so many people dying, it was just another death among the many. Perhaps I should stop watching movies like these before I get too numb to care.
The story hovers somewhere between the funny and the scary, a sentiment that is strengthened by the fact that I watched it on commercial television, which meant that every fifteen minutes the pacing was broken by the same beer commercial: I am still pondering if the advertisement detracted from the fun or not.
The cast does a decent job really, with Weaver acting out her weird human/alien breed attitude, Perlman being sufficient gruff and rude, and the small Ryder being nasty and vulnerable at the same time. The rest of them are just meat for the grinder. Dourif acts the mad scientist, a role he later reprises as Wormtongue in the Lord of the Rings. His comical over the top role is probably one of the reasons this movie isn't as scary as it could be, which is especially important when he comments on a key scene in the movie: the birth of the new alien/human hybrid, which is witnessed by Weaver at the same time and turns the whole event into a comical farce.
The biggest problem with the movie is the abysmal script coupled with the bad directing. The script is run-of-the-mill: evil organization wants to breed homicidal aliens on a space station, the aliens escape and go on a killing spree, while a group of survivors makes a break for the spaceship that is located at the other end of the spacestation before the spacestation crashes onto earth while being thinned by the ravenous aliens.
The director, who made a debut with excellent movie Delicatessen, isn't fit to direct movies like this: a big budget action horror movie. It is just not his cup of tea. The camera shots are just boring, the music is dull and the art is a weak redo of the Giger art, lacking his touch of brilliance. Which is especially noticeable when the new breed of Aliens pops up, despite Giger's praises for it: it just looks bad.
The movie might have done better with a smaller cast and less aliens, especially in full view of the camera. Weaver's mixed human/alien features should have allowed for more duplicity and infights in the group, just as Ryder's secret should have. Can they be trusted? Will they turn against the group?
It is here where the movie noticeably fails and could have shined by spending more time to develop a tension that leads to disaster. But nothing comes of it.
The movie ought to be watched with pretzels and beer. Perhaps the beer advertisement wasn't so far of the mark.

(Note: I do not like a scoring mechanism that runs from 0 to 10 and therefore I devised my own value system, which works as follows: 1 for bad, 5 for mwah, 9 for good. 10 for superb.)
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
marcmyworksJan 11, 2014
Even Joss Whedon, who wrote this instalment, calls it a dud. The biggest problem in this film is the casting, as everyone is over-the-top to the point of being comical.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
demolisher7778Oct 14, 2014
What can i say? this movie is a mediocre action film with a sub-par plot but highly entertaining action. I would recommend to only die-hard alien fans.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
lukechristianscJan 11, 2015
I was glad that Ripley gets "resurrected" so when i watched this movie i thought could ripley be her self again? Nope......cause some company clones her. Now she's on the bad side? Yep but then she realizes human feelings and has a good heartI was glad that Ripley gets "resurrected" so when i watched this movie i thought could ripley be her self again? Nope......cause some company clones her. Now she's on the bad side? Yep but then she realizes human feelings and has a good heart and that's one thing that the script got right, the action sequences are good. The thing i hate in this movie is Ripley tries to be funny at times BOO! she's okay in this movie. Alien 3 SUCKS!!!!!!! The original writers of Alien kill Ripley! who thought that was a good idea? Grade C- Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Supersaiyan9000Jun 8, 2014
Honestly, I don't think this movie is that bad. Sure it has tons of problems with it's plot but it has a decent set design, some pretty cool effects, and I also really like the fact that they make the Xenomorphs look a lot more realistic inHonestly, I don't think this movie is that bad. Sure it has tons of problems with it's plot but it has a decent set design, some pretty cool effects, and I also really like the fact that they make the Xenomorphs look a lot more realistic in this. It's definitely not a great movie, but it's at least a lot better than Alien 3. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Jim222001Jun 15, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. They tried to bring back Ripley to please fans. However, she's just not the same. This Ripley isn't as likeable since she's a clone with very little emotion. While the fine cast is just wasted in a movie that drags the series down to B-Movie status.
The cable rating gives this *** but part 3 **. What drugs are they on ? Despite it's flaws and killing off Ripley, Hicks and Newt. Yes, even that film is way better than this. Since it had better direction at least. While I was at first was shocked to be reminded that Joss Whedon wrote the screenplay. Since it feels more like fan fiction. However, the Avengers has that feeling to it at times as well. Despite coming out two years before Deep Blue Sea. It's pretty much that movie with aliens, except Deep Blue Sea is actually better. Winoma Ryder looks lost but Call is still the only character I cared about.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Le__XenomorphDec 16, 2014
As a ridiculously fun and silly movie, Alien Resurrection has great action but a really shallow story and characters. It's just a shame it's not directed by James Cameron. 6/10 (Decent)
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
FuturedirectorJun 25, 2017
A surprisingly clever, dark and well-acted new sequel for Scott's saga, even if this is just an unsatisfying and unremarkable trapped-in-space picture.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews