The Alien and Predator Discussion Thread

[TokyoVigilante]

My favs. in order...

Alien/Aliens (They're equally great in completely different ways. I can't not love both equally).
Alien: R
Alien3

Predators
Predator
Predator 2

AvP: R
AvP

ALTOGETHER NOW!

Predators
Alien/Aliens
Predator
AvP: R
Predator 2
AvP
Alien3
Alien: R

[KaneLocke]

I'd love to make a fan edit someday that implements the theatrical ending, and the restored footage from the recent Blue-ray release.

Something like that does exist. It's called the "Re-Assembly Cut", which also uses the dog from the theatrical version instead of an ox.

As for the franchise I'd go like this:

Alien 5/5.
Aliens 3.5/5.
Predator 3.5/5.
Predator 2 2/5.
Alien 3 4/5.
Alien Resurrection 3.5/5.

Haven't seen Predators yet, and the AvP films don't exist in my world.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. What?

No. Alien is NOT a 5/5. Not even remotely. The only interesting performances were from Sigourney Weaver and the guy who got chestburst'd. The acting in Alien was so damn weak, THAT was the scary part.

[Arrow]

My favorites:

Aliens (1986)
Alien (1979)
Predator (1987)

These three are the movies I love or, in the case of the last one, really like. Aliens is my all-time favorite movie, period. There's a reason Alien is lauded as one of the best horror films. Predator is an entertaining, well-done action film. It's not the greatest, and I'd take Aliens over it any day, but it's still pretty good.

Predators (2010)
Alien 3 (1992)
Predator 2 (1990)

These are the movies I'm either neutral on or don't care for, but aren't terrible. I found Predators enjoyable enough, but I found the story and the characters a bit on the bland side. I don't care for Alien 3, but it and Predator 2 (which I'm also not a huge fan of) stand above the other films.

Alien vs. Predator: Requiem
Alien vs. Predator
Alien: Resurrection

I hate all these. AvP: R is the "best" (I guess), but it's still pretty bad. As disappointing as it was, A3 at least added some closure to the Alien series (it's kinda like Godzilla vs. Destoroyah in that regard - a disappointing sequel, but at least provides a satisfactory "end" to the series).

[Arrow]

The tone and the surreal feeling along with Giger's artwork makes Alien a 5/5 movie if you ask me.

Not just that, but the sexual imagery and subtext going on as well. I thought the cast was very strong and don't believe the film would have held up all that well if the performances were weak. Ripley, Kane, and Ash do stand out from the others, though. I honestly wonder what the film must have meant to people who saw it back in 1979, without the context of the sequels to consider. That being said, Alien isn't a film I can just pick up at any time. It's too slowly-paced for that and the fact that I have an idea of what the creature that lurks in the shadows looks like kills a lot of the more suspenseful scenes, like Brett's death. I prefer Aliens, one reasons being that it's a film I can watch and enjoy at any time.

Why dont yall catch a clue and rate your movies personally and professionally?

I hate numerically rating films. I just say the ones a love/like or hate/dislike and give a reason for that. Even though I sometimes use it, I don't really see the use of a numerical rating, really. And, while I don't think it's perfect, is it really that surprising that Alien would get a 5/5 rating?

[Mini-Godzilla]

AN EDUCATED rating, not some fanboy splooge endorsed opinion.

I do give Alien a perfect score professionally. It is better than any of the other films in either franchise, easily! Ridley Scott made one of the best sf films of all time in 1979, as well as one of the best films period. It is truly art.

It's also worth noting that the ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL CRITICS agree. The movie was heralded as a classic even before the sequels were released. If anyone's opinion is fanboy nonsense...I guess it would have to be yours.

[KaneLocke]

Alien is NOT a 5/5. Not even remotely. The only interesting performances were from Sigourney Weaver and the guy who got chestburst'd.

That may be for you, but not for everyone else. The tone and the surreal feeling along with Giger's artwork makes Alien a 5/5 movie if you ask me.

Give me a break. I've watched the movie 3 times. Twice I had to fight to stay awake. What you are calling "tone" is nothing more than a snail's pace. The movie plods along and never goes anywhere. It has moments of, "Oh, hey, that's pretty cool" surrounded by a ridiculous amount of monotony.

It's not even a slasher-in-space. It's attempt at being a "thriller" missed completely. About the only thing the movie did well as far as the "feeling" was creating a degree of hopelessness. Yes, the movie felt claustrophobic, but that was NOT a good thing, not with the horribly slow pace.

[Mini-Godzilla]

I'll provide both my own comments on the original Alien and some links to reviews by various professional film critics.

The following is my blurb review in a series on the whole franchise:

Alien (1979)

"In space, no one can hear you scream." So read the tagline of Ridley Scott's classic sci-fi/horror film. It (and its sequels) secured Sigourney Weaver's name in movie heroine history. Does it still deliver the scares today?

The cargo ship Nostromo, with its "blue collar trucker" crew, picks up a distress signal from an unknown planet. Instructed by the company (via "Mother") to investigate, the crew finds one of its own attacked by an alien parasite. They think their trouble is over when it detaches, but the horror has just begun as the male crew member "gives birth" to what soon becomes a 7 ft. tall, hissing reptilian monster. The crew is picked off one by one, much like in another 70's film that influenced this one, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

This film certainly lives up to its reputation, even with the advent of "better" technology. Frightening, unsettling, disturbing, and most certainly entertaining. It exists in two versions, theatrical and director's cut, and both are equally good (which one is better is a matter of taste). 10/10

This alternate review is from my "Five Favorite Films" commentary series:

#3 Alien (1979) Dir. Ridley Scott

Dan O'Bannon passed away recently, and although he has a respectable list of Hollywood screenwriting credits, it's certain that his most influential work has been Alien. The story that O'Bannon and Ronald Schusett conceived appears at first to be a rehash of any number of science fiction stories and films from the 1950s (and basically a horror version of the O'Bannon-penned John Carpenter sci-fi comedy Dark Star). However, unlike those tales, their monster on the loose would not be a metaphorical Communist trying to corrupt American society from within. Instead, it would be a far more personal and disturbing threat: a rapist.

Although the script would see numerous rewrites by the film's producers, the essential horror remained the same: there is something lurking in the shadows intending to violate you. Although the xenomorph life cycle would lose its power to unsettle as the series dragged on over the decades, the initial idea of a creature that replicated itself by forcibly impregnating its victims was almost too much for audiences of the time to take.

Director Ridley Scott was fully aware of the sexual undercurrent to the script, and he had no qualms about exploring and exploiting sexuality throughout the film. O'Bannon introduced Scott to the surreal, nightmarish, and disturbingly-erotic art of H.R. Giger, and they agreed that a piece from his Necronomicon collection would be perfect for the monster. Giger revised the design for the film, playing up the biomechanical physiology and the intentionally phallic appearance of the head and tongue. The costume designers augmented the horrific-erotic nature of the monster by covering it in a lubricant jelly.

Beyond sexual undertones, the film also touches on sexual politics. O'Bannon deliberately refused to assign gender to any of the characters in the script, and Scott opted to make the anti-traditional decision of casting a woman in the heroic lead role. Since the script lacks any of the conventional damsels in distress, the male and female characters in the film are truly presented as equals. Scott went so far as to suggest that some or even all of the characters could be bisexual, thus eliminating the need for direct sexual tension between the humans. Indeed, the only way that the movie exploits gender directly is by having a man be the one impregnated by the alien.

While Giger's designs for the alien and its spacecraft employ obvious representations of both male and female sexual organs, and while Scott plays with gender roles in his casting choices, a controversial addition from the Brandywine producers unintentionally led to the inclusion of a character without gender. While the android character was initially a hackneyed "traitor in our midst" character (a la Donald Pleasence's Commie spy in Fantastic Voyage), Ash would prove to be another rapist figure under Scott's direction. In attacking Ripley, Ash attempts to use a pornographic magazine as a phallic tool, which is Scott's way of implying that the apparent male gender of the robot is as artificial as the rest of it. Ash's admiration of the alien further emphasizes the longing that Ash has to engage in sexuality. Like the monster, Ash wants to rape the humans, but unlike the monster, he lacks the equipment to do so.

The alien itself often lurks in shadows and dark corridors, waiting for the moment to strike. Scott often chooses to turn away at these moments and show the aftermath, leaving the act of rape/murder to the audience's imaginations. The obvious exception to this approach is the chestburster scene, which is shown in all of the glory gory required to corrupt the image of birth. This "haunted house movie" technique was influenced by Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which Scott admitted to using as a template. Even beyond the disturbing implications of the story, Scott masterfully employs scare tactics throughout the film, even managing to pull off the old screeching-cat gimmick without compromising the film's integrity.

The alien is hardly ever seen until the end of the film, in which we get a number of lingering shots of its head interspersed with voyeuristic shots of a terrified and scantily-clad Ripley. The implications of the moment are obvious, but far more disturbing is the fact that the scene invites us to join in the alien's lustful observations. Is Scott testing the audience to see if we will unintentionally relate to the monster, thus revealing some of its horrific tendencies in ourselves?

Moving away from the themes of the film, I would like to say that second-time film director Scott delivers a beautiful film here, fully employing the visual skills that he developed as a commercial director. He makes the lovely design work by Ron Cobb and H.R. Giger look even better than they did in the initial illustrations, and he manages to create a lingering mood of terror even as he adopts a very deliberate pace in the vein of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. His work is enhanced by the excellent effects teams and the alternatively romantic and chilling score by Jerry Goldsmith (borrowed somewhat from his score for Freud).

Also vital to the film's impact is the cast, all of whom bring verisimilitude to the story. The decision to portray the characters as truck drivers in space makes them far more relatable than the noble spacefarers of earlier science fiction films. Sigourney Weaver stands out as Ripley, whose analytical reasoning ensures that she is the one who will stand the greatest chance at survival. The rest of the small cast (Tom Skerritt, Yaphet Kotto, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, Ian Holm, and John Hurt) are all spectacular in their own right, as is the ultra-tall, ultra-thin Bolaji Badejo as the alien. Considering that they are quite literally the only actors in the whole film, it is amazing that they can carry the story so well.

Sigourney Weaver would return to Brandywine Productions and the studio stages of England two more times to continue Ellen Ripley's character arc in James Cameron's Aliens and David Fincher's Alien 3. While these sequels are delightful in their own right and bring fresh ideas to the story while effectively building off of the original film, it is the first movie that has undeniably been my favorite since childhood. Its atmosphere and psychological horror have intrigued me enough to visit the crew and deadly stowaway of the commercial towing ship Nostromo countless times. Even as the series has destroyed its credibility with the disgraceful Alien: Resurrection, the soulless Alien vs. Predator films, and the excessive comic books and other merchandise, the impact of the original Alien still remains strong, more so than any of its successors or imitators.

The following quote is from Leonard Maltin's review of the director's cut:

Space-age horror film reverts to 1950s formula, but unfolds at a deliberate pace, populates the story with interesting, colorful characters, and plants its (genuine) shock moments with exceptional skill. Imitated but seldom equaled.

Here is Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" review of Alien:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 301%2F1023

And Kim Newman's review for Empire:
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/Rev ... p?FID=9531

And Entertainment Weekly's review of the Director's Cut:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,490186,00.html

And a solid review from Maryann Johanson:
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/200 ... eview.html

[Arrow]

Examine Alien from a critical standpoint? Isn't that what he did - even going as far to quote two reviews he wrote? He also linked to reviews from professional critics and pointed out that Alien had been hailed as a classic long before the sequels came out. He definitely makes a strong case for the movie.

[Goji]

I love films that expand a universe. Predators IMHO did this quite well with the Super Predators and other alien species (besides Xenos and Jockeys).

I can actually agree with this.

I'll use your format for listing favorites

Personally:
(Alien series): ALIEN/ALIENS (tie) >>ALIEN 3>>>>>A:R

I love the first two films equally. They both succeed at being classic genre films, on top of being two of the best films period. *dodges unwarranted tomato*. They're classic. ALIEN 3 is definitely an acquired taste . I can't argue that it's a great film, but at least it gave us some closure to the series, and has some really great elements (great musical score, good acting, and above average SPX). A:R is just not for me. After a recent viewing, I feel exactly the same. The hammy performances are just down right embarrassing at times, and Sigourney Weaver's acting is hampered by the fact that she's a "clone", and therefore has to "act" differently. Don't even get me started on the ridiculously awful dialogue, and one liners strewn throughout the entire film. Bleck. A very bad, and equally pointless film.

(Predator seres): PREDATOR>>PREDATORS/PREDATOR 2 *tie*

The original PREDATOR is fantastic. It definitely feels like a typical 80's action film at times, but somehow it seems like the best of the bunch (FIRST BLOOD was great though). McTiernan knew how to build suspense, by not showing the Predator at all for the first half of the film. The feeling of not knowing what's watching them is extremely effective, and I liked that they the characters were always looking over their shoulders, knowing something was there, but really having NO idea what the were really in for. Good stuff.

PREDATOR 2 is just fun a movie, plain and simple. I really can't pick it apart because it really does deliver in most areas, and I think it was a very serviceable sequel for the most part. Is it a "good" movie? Eh, not really, but who cares. It has it's share of goofy moments, but I think that's why the film works. It doesn't take itself seriously, and isn't too derivative of the first PREDATOR, which was nice. I just can't imagine many people "hating" this movie.

(AvP series):AvP:R>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AvP

I can't stand the first ALIEN VS. PREDATOR film. I waited 10 years for the film to materialize, after figured with tons of great source material, what could go wrong? Bad acting, bad music, absolutely AWFUL looking Predators (decent mask designs though), and just a very underwhelming feel to the entire thing. Alex was a TERRIBLE replacement for the character of Machiko Naguchi from the original AvP story/canon. Her character could have easily translated to film, and not seemed like a cheap replacement of the Ellen Ripley character. This films only redeeming quality for me personally was being able to see the Alien Queen in action again. That was pretty exciting the first time around, but in the long run I preferred the Queen when she was brought to life with more traditional/analog SPX.

What can I say, I can't help but like AvP:R. (I already expressed my opinion on it a few pages ago)

[Arrow]

Personally, I have few issues with the acting in Alien. Like I said earlier, I enjoy Ripley, Kane, and Ash more than the others but the supporting characters - Brett, Parker, Lambert, and Dallas - all turn in credible roles. To be honest, I prefer the characters in Aliens - Newt, Hicks, Burke, etc. - but I don't necessarily think there's much wrong with the actors in this. If I did have gripes, it'd be with Parker (the black man, one of the characters you forgot). His delivery of a few of his lines come off as awkward to me ("Ripley, come back here!" "Why don't you freeze him"?), but overall he does just fine. Not sure what your issue with Brett is either. Overall, the performances in Alien work a lot better then the sequels. The actors in Aliens are my favorite, though.

[Arrow]

Aliens offers more likeable and rememberable characters. More depth. I felt Ripley's mothering skills, I felt Hick's forced leadership wavering skills, I felt Lt Gorman's idiocy, Hudson's half-ass coward attitude.... Aliens gets a 5/5. Alien 4/5.

I actually agree with this and I said so in my previous post. I liked the way Aliens expanded on Ripley's character and I also felt Hudson's fear once he had his first encounter with the aliens. It's one of the reasons that Aliens is, IMO, on an equal standing with Alien. While Alien offers a disturbing rape theme and (my personal favorite) Alien design, Aliens offers - to me - the more memorable characters. However, the actors in Alien do just fine as "truckers" in space and because of that, they contribute to the movie almost as much as the monster scenes. I stand by that.

[KaneLocke]

What you are calling "tone" is nothing more than a snail's pace.

The tone helps set up the mood and feel to the movie, the movie has the best suspense and art director in a horror movie I have seen so far in my life.

Holy shit, dude, you really have either a strange definition of suspense or haven't seen NEARLY enough thrillers.

Aliens had moments of suspense. MOMENTS. I don't understand ANYONE who says this movie is "full of tension and suspense." It's not. It's slow, predictable, and overall, a mediocre flick that only succeeded because it had a unique creature. By the same token, Predator is the same. The acting was mostly mediocre, the drama forced, the plot trite, but the creature astounding. The differences are the pace, and the fact that Predator was more of an action flick (the reason for the former difference).

IMO, both films' sequels did far better than the original. Both had better, "fleshier" characters, both expanded on their respective races perfectly, and both had far more solid performances from their leader (Sigourney Weaver in Aliens FAR outshone her role in Alien).

[KaneLocke]

Sigourney Weaver in Aliens FAR outshone her role in Alien.

Mainly because the movie was ALL about her. Alien was made so you didn't know who was going to be the final crew member.

That is more about the character. I was referring to her actual performance in the role. She was much more... believable in Aliens.

[Arrow]

That is more about the character. I was referring to her actual performance in the role. She was much more... believable in Aliens.

That's probably because Alien was one of Weaver's earlier films and her first time playing Ripley. In Aliens, Ripley as a character is already established and Weaver probably felt a lot more comfortable in the role. It's just my guess, though.

If you compared the two - Alien is a thriller and Aiens is an 80s action film. But the acting and writing for the characters is so much more vibrant and enthralling.

I agree with a lot of that. I easily found Hicks, Hudson, Bishop, Vasquez, Gorman, and Burke a lot more memorable than Dallas, Parker, Lambert, Brett, Kane, and Ash. But I suspect the reason for a lot of that are the different stories. Other than Ripley and Ash in Alien, the other characters are mainly cannon fodder whereas in Aliens, we get to spend a bit more time with Hudson, Vasquez, and Gorman before they bite it. Ripley, who was already introduced in Alien, not as the main character but just another one of the crew, is allowed to be expanded on more as a character. Newt, Hicks, Bishop, and Burke actually contribute to the plot once the aliens get going. And I LOVE Apone, even if we don't see a lot of him. Honestly, a lot of this ties into why I prefer Aliens to Alien.

But I also think that has a lot to do with Alien and Aliens being entirely different films. Alien is pretty much a slasher film, where characters exist only to be killed. It certainly succeeds in doing that and its success shows in its accolades, influence upon the sci-fi and horror genres, box office and critical success. Like it or not, the film struck a chord with the general audience and film critics - in 1979 and today. It's held up for thirty years and is commonly cited as one of the best horror films ever, as well as (depending on who you talk to) the best or second best in the series. It had to have been doing something right.

And while a lot of what you guys are saying is your own opinion, I'd argue that Alien starts out slow (necessary for that type of film) and picks up once the creature bursts from Kane's chest. It's predictable, yes, but the horror doesn't come in whether or not the characters will die - it's a matter of when and how, and by what. You know they're going to die, it's a horror film. And pacing-wise, Aliens honestly does the same thing as Alien - the action doesn't really start until midway through the movie and when it does the film really picks up the pace, and I could tell from the onset that people like Hudson, Vasquez, and a good amount of the marines were going to buy it. There are things I enjoy in Alien. I think the reason that a lot of the characters aren't particularly memorable is because they weren't made to be. They're ordinary, average, unremarkable, regular workers in space. That's part of the appeal of those guys. The actors drive that home pretty well, IMO. Mini-Godzilla mentioned that the cast brought "verisimilitude" to the movie. I agree with that and I think that the cast plays a large role in bringing this out. I don't think the film would have been as effective as it was if the cast weren't strong.

Just my thoughts, though.

[KaneLocke]

That is more about the character. I was referring to her actual performance in the role. She was much more... believable in Aliens.

That's probably because Alien was one of Weaver's earlier films and her first time playing Ripley. In Aliens, Ripley as a character is already established and Weaver probably felt a lot more comfortable in the role. It's just my guess, though.

And I understand that. That, however, doesn't change that her performance was still fairly weak. By Aliens, she'd grown as an actor and put forth a MUCH better perfomance.

Maybe it's not a fair comparison, since most actors DO grow between films, but it's one of the reasons I'll always say Aliens was a better film, if only because it achieved it's goals better.

[Arrow]

I think we're on the same page as far as Aliens goes. I don't think Weaver's performance was weak in the first film, but I will agree that she made much more of an impact on me in the sequel where Ripley was unquestionably the main character and had something more to do than simply survive a single alien monster. That's also one of the reasons I like Aliens more - Ripley has an external conflict (to survive the aliens of LV-426; to get away from the planet before it blows) and an internal conflict (her fear of the monsters due to her experiences in the first film; her bonding with Newt). But I think that's because Aliens is a louder film - focusing more on drama, thrills, gunfights, etc. than the creeping, slow horror of Alien. Both styles work for the individual film. I couldn't imagine Weaver acting the same way in Alien as she did in Aliens, where she had to be much more dramatic. She wasn't meant to be an action hero in Alien. No one in that film was. The crew of the Nostromo weren't soldiers, they were down-to-Earth workers who happen to have come across a hostile alien life form. I've seen it said elsewhere that that was part of the horror and the cast, IMHO, pulled that off quite well. Ripley trying to take charge, Lambert breaking down, Ash secretly sabotaging the crew to protect the alien. They had to have been effective to people for the film to have been as frightening to audiences as it was.

I guess if there's a point in all that, it'd be that the cast in Alien and Aliens were both strong and did a lot to make both films the successes that they were then and continue to be today. And while I prefer Hicks and co. to Dallas and co., I also believe that the cast in Alien did a lot to make it such a terrifying film. They were believable in their roles. Just like I felt Hudson's fear in Aliens, I felt Lambert's in Alien. I love both films, though, and EASILY prefer them to anything else coming out of the series.

[Zilla103192]

^ do you ever make a serious post at all? lol I LOVE YOU!

[Zilla103192]

yes...

yes they are...

[Arrow]

I got a Predator/Predator 2 DVD-combo at Walmart the other day, and took the time to watch the first one. It's a well-made action film (with a nice musical score), but I'd honestly rather watch Aliens. Still, the original Predator is a pretty cool monster in its own right and the actions pretty cool.

Will watch Predator 2 later.

[Zilla103192]

^ i got the same dvd arrow.

the special features suck... only one featurette on P2. but the movies are both great