It
was written in the general review for the film how disappointing it
was for the character of Ripley to return not as her true self, but
as some of sort clone variation. It always seemed to me that 20th
Century Fox, in wanting desperately to make another Alien
film, were caught between a rock and a hard place.
Ripley commits
suicide at the end of Fincher's third episode by jumping into a pool
of molten lava. Among the questions posed during the writing
processing, one imagines, were: 'How do we bring Ripley back or do we
need Ripley at all?' Controversial material for anyone involved with
the franchise and most certainly a touchy subject among the fans. At
the point where a fourth one was to be made, was it feasible to go
ahead without Ripley? A good writer arguably could have pulled the
job off well enough. After all, it is known among fans of the series
that as far back as the pre-production of Aliens,
only the second film, there were discussions of continuing the
story without the involvement of Ellen Ripley. By the fourth however,
it might have seemed a little strange to suddenly have a film without
Ripley, but on the flip side people at Fox wanted another Alien
picture. See what we mean by a rock and a hard place?
The
result is, forgive the atypical vulgarity, a half-assed one. Ripley
is 'sort of back', yet in a way that does not take advantage of
Sigourney Weaver's capabilities to inject rich emotion into her
performance. That is what disappoints the most about Alien
Resurrection, the fact that even though a familiar face has
returned, it never at one point throughout the entire film feels as
though the viewer is tagging along with the same character they did
for three entire episodes. It is as the script dictates: a hollow
reproduction of Ripley, not Ripley herself. By default, Weaver gives
her less inspired performance in the series. Not that much blame can
be laid at her feet, she is but doing as the script (written by non
other than Joss Whedon. I doubt his staunchest supporters would
approve of this script) and director Jean-Pierre Jeunet are asking of
her. The problem is, what they are asking for is not terribly
interesting. It feels as though the film is trying, whether
intentionally or not, to pass the torch from Weaver to Ryder, who
plays an android. It is not a bad move per say, although not many
would be convinced that Ryder carries more or even as much screen
gravitas than Weaver, hence even that story-driven objective,
provided that it is what the filmmakers want to accomplish, is a
letdown in of itself.
For
all of the film's script related weaknesses, there are tiny moments
which, short as they may be, that help make the plot somewhat
bearable. Acknowledging that we have but complained ad infinite about
the Ripley clone subplot, it does, admittedly, lead to a very cool
scene when, as Ripley and the surviving smugglers make their way
through the complicated passageway of the scientific space craft,
they discover the laboratory in which the Ripley clone was
artificially given birth. In this room are all of the previous,
unsuccessful attempts at cloning Ripley, one of which are in fact
still alive. Visually, the scene is arresting for its bleak,
science-gone-haywire mood, as well as provides one of the film's
precious few emotionally driven scenes. In this one instant the
Ripley clone feels something. Up until this moment she has behaved
with less character than any android seen in the entire series, nut
now, standing face to face with her relatively short history and what
it has meant to her less than fortunate predecessors, her emotions,
begin to slip in. It is a genuinely good moment and Weaver gives it
her best shot. It's just too bad the rest of the film is nearly void
of any other such moments.
I
like Ron Perlman. He is a far better actor than I think studios have
ever given him credit for. He is rarely the lead in a film, often
relegated to playing either a supporting role or a villain, and
oftentimes when he is a protagonist, he is a protagonist with some
serious issues. In fact, two of the few films which spring to mind in
which he is the one true hero of the piece are the Hellboy
films. Ah, that's right, he is covered in prosthetic makeup in those
films... Ron Perlman is another example why Alien Resurrection
is mostly a failure in virtually any department where script is
concerned. Here is an actor who can lend a role a surprising amount
of charm, wit and gravitas, yet he is relegated to playing some
vulgar slouch without any sense of character. Even his role in Drive,
in which he plays another grade
A jerk, had a sense of character to it. As much as the
treatment of Ripley and by consequence Sigourney Weaver feels like a
crime, much of the same can be argued about Ron Perlman's useless,
thankless role.
There
are some positives, almost all of them derived from the visual side
of the production. Jean-Pierre Jeunet, not one to make movies with
ordinary stories or ordinary aesthetics, has an eye for some fun
visual cues. There are plenty of moments in Resurrection when
one cannot determine if they are meant to be funny, gross, amazing or
horrific. Familiarity with Jeunet's style as a filmmaker leads one to
believe it is probably a healthy mixture of all four possibilities.
The extended cut of the film opens in a completely different manner
than the 1997 theatrical release, wherein the picture frame is
overtaken by a monstrous set of teeth. As the camera pulls back, the
teeth are revealed to the that of some kind of beast. Pulling back
further still, the beast is nothing more than an insect standing by
the window in the cockpit of a space craft. The pilot, having now
detected the insects presence, squashes it, puts it in his straw and
spits it out , splashing onto the window. What in heaven's name is
this doing in an Alien film is anyone's guess, but it is very
funny and tremendously playful. Another moment which may be aiming
for laughs or earn them unintentionally is when Dominique Pinon's
wheelchair condemned character notices an alien crawling above,
visible through the gated shafts. Mixture of terror and courage, he
pumps up his shotgun and takes fire upon his would be attacker. The
bullets tear some of the creature's thick skin, thus releasing a
droplet of acid, which slowly oozes through the shaft and onto
Pinon's ear. Again, it is unclear whether this is supposed to be
funny or not (yet another one's of the film's problems. It either a-
is unsure or b-has intentions of being funny but realizing this is an
Alien film wants to pull it back but not all the way).
Nevertheless, amidst the dreck, little moments like these are more
than welcomed.
Obviously
the two most talked about elements of the film, perhaps the only
talked about elements of the film, is the underwater sequence and the
alien/human hybrid. One of these is very cool and the other less so.
I've never tried to take the pulse of Alien fans in the hopes of
understanding which of these two ideas they more readily accept. One
suspects it is the underwater sequence. Considering that the beasts
can evolve with the characteristics of whichever animal they sprout
out of, one can safely assume they are also equipped, by instinct
most likely, with the skills to survive most environments, including
wet ones. That being said, after tree films, because the only time an
alien has been seen dealing with water was the iconic Aliens
moment when one such warrior emerges out of the sewage water behind
Newt, it never really dawned on me at least that these things could
swim. Therefore, when Ron Perlman turns back as the gang is swimming
from one end of a room to the next and notices not one but two alien
hunters rapidly catching up with them, it comes as a genuine
surprise. The fact that the sequence transpire under water adds
another layer of tension given that the character must reach the
other side before running out of air. The fear of being caught up
with the aliens means they dispense even more energy, in all
likelihood releasing some air in the process...it's all handled
rather nicely I must admit.
The
human-alien hybrid is executed with less skill unfortunately.
Interesting enough, reading up on the history of the franchise, one
learns that the idea of the human-alien hybrid was in the minds of
screenwriters during some of the many failed draft attempts for Alien
3, not Alien 4, hence the idea originated a long way back, even
by the time Resurrection was made. As a visual effect it works
decently enough, even though it pales in comparison to anything we
have seen up until then. It seems like the filmmakers are hoping that
because the creature exhibits even greater semblance to humans it
will comes across as scarier than the typical franchise foes, but
that doesn't work. The titular aliens are scary (less by the fourth
film, mind you) because they are somewhat difficult to make out, to
understand physically and biologically. What we do not know instills
fear into us, hence the human-alien baby fails to creep us out
enough. As part of the plot, well, its purpose is not clear. A
bastardized monster which originated from the fact that Ripley's DNA
gave birth to a queen alien, therefore said queen possessing the
ability to somehow give birth to this defect? Fair enough. In some
ways it also mirrors the existence of the Ripley clone. Just as she
is but an imitation of her real human counterparts who cannot fit in,
the newborn is a terrible imitation of its peers and thus no more
fits in than its grandmother can. An interesting idea, but the film
does not really do anything with it. Like the other nuggets of
potential, it gets lost in the sea of mediocrity.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment