English

العربية

Filipino

Français

हिन्दी

Indonesia

বাংলা

اردو

中文

123movies search icon

muted

Alien: Resurrection

6.2

/10

289882 rating

1997•1 h 49 m•United States

Two centuries after her death, a powerful human/alien hybrid clone of Ellen Ripley aids a crew of space pirates in stopping the aliens from reaching Earth.

Action

Horror

Sci-Fi

Pemeran (18)

Sigourney Weaver

Dominique Pinon

Michael Wincott

Carolyn Campbell

Anesthesiologist

David St. James

Rodney Mitchell

Soldier with Glove

Robert Faltisco

Soldier Shot through Helmet

Rekomendasi

Ulasan

Pradeepthenext

24/12/2024 05:03

What a disgrace this movie is to all ripley fans. The first one was a tense masterpiece. The second by james cameron was an all out action fest with a great score. The third one was watchable because it showcased the david fincher dark flair. The fourth one is pathetic. Who is this director? Why is midget wynona ryder in an action movie? Why does Ripley want to cuddle with the alien? Piece of crap, but any fan of the series will check it out anyways. Be forewarned that it is absolutely the worst of the series!

Namjoon👑

24/12/2024 05:03

Alien: Resurrection is much different than classical Aliens. As a result many Alien-maniacs are disappointed and give it bad notes in the reviews. In my opinion one should look at the movie in a different way. It is not a clear continuation of the story, but rather a variation on the subject. Alien 4 is not perfect, not even great, but still it is a good science fiction movie. The story is very well written. Many people criticize the idea of cloning Ripley along with the alien inside. Of course I agree that this is completely naive and unrealistic (even the general asks how it is possible), but we have to accept this as a convention. There was no other way to have Ripley back in Alien 4. Well I can imagine Ripley waking up and saying 'Hey, it was just a dream, I didn't jump into the burning lead', but this would be even more ridiculous to me. In Star Wars for example there are many naive and unrealistic things but it doesn't stop it from being a great movie. We accept them just as a convention. Other people note that Alien 4 is not scary at all. I agree. But I still think that it wasn't supposed to be very scary. In Alien 1&2 Ripley was scared as hell and so were we. In Alien 3 she wasn't scared as much, as she knew from a point, that the Alien wouldn't kill her. We were not scared that much either. In Resurrection Ripley is not scared at all, as she is a bit of alien herself. Why should we be scared then? In my opinion this confusion, whether Ripley is more a human or a alien and who to chose, is the best feature of the movie. It is not a pure action but also a bit of psychological drama. The newborn alien is a masterpiece to me. Ripley, who has strong maternal instinct (see Aliens) feels that it has some of her DNA, that it is her own child. She has real doubts whether to kill it or not. And what is even more interesting is that she probably kills it only to save Annalee. I think she would not kill it just to save a human, which were shown in the movie as beings not really better than the aliens themselves. She did it to save the robot, who in her opinion was probably much more of worth. And that is how I actually felt while watching the movie. "The newborn alien is so cute, maybe let him kill those freaking human beings." But then I would be sorry for Annalee... In my opinion this is a very good movie, with nice climate and many philosophical questions asked. But if you care only for good action or horror, then you might be disappointed.

DJ Neptune

24/12/2024 05:03

Budget constraints were a major issue at the beginning, throughout and in post-production- and it shows. As an avid admirer of the Alien saga, I am thoroughly disappointed with Alien4. And there are two major reasons; one they did a very poor effort in explaining Ripley's presence and Sigourney Weaver struggled to promote credibility to the resurrection. And two, and most importantly, the image, the sound and presence of the 'alien' was so removed from the past three movies it was atrocious. The general idea of how hosts for the queen were obtained were interesting as was the 'biological weapon' angle. Apart from that I could almost weep when comparing this trash to the first three. 6/10 in hindsight is extremely generous and is more to do with the love of the franchise than any true indication of this movie's worth. The last half of this movie is so bad I am embarrassed for the producers. The new alien is terrible and diminishes the power and chill of the alien. The supposed claustrophobic feel they were looking for was not realised, the aliens seemed pathetic in their tenacity to destroy human life and was opposite to what was established. The producers tried to be too clever and ended up not being clever enough.

user2447775288262

24/12/2024 05:03

There must have been some very good reasons for the release of this film, but on the evidence of how the film turned out, this film should not have seen the daylight. Almost everything is done wrong: Ripley's character is ruined in to a clone, supporting characters are simply idiots, the aliens only manage to be scary in one single scene and the ending is without any scientific base or sense of logic. The new alien, Newborn, goes only for a bad joke. What was about to be an exciting twist in the overlong tale of Ripley came out as as repulsing variation of a cheap splatter film. This film is horrifying in all the ways the makers didn't intend.

Sid'Ahmed Abdelahi

24/12/2024 05:03

Jeunet is a unique visual genius, and purveyor of rare pathos. What may be truly unique about Alien: Resurrection is the scene wherein Ripley discovers the 7 "mistakes" that preceded her. It is one of the most powerful, terrifying and ultimately beautiful scenes I have ever experienced in a film. The "please kill me" segment pops up in other scenes, perhaps other films in the series, and certainly other films in general, but where has one witnessed the great suffering of a version of oneself and the "chance" to end that person's suffering? Weaver plays the scene with just the right amount of emotional chaos. Jeunet typically softens the end of the scene with Ron Perlman's "must be a chick thing" comment, but thankfully that humorous interjection is no more jarring that a slight Shakespearean comic relief. Another terrifying-poignant-grand guignol, and perhaps a unique situation in film (mother killing son and being a hero for it) with the Newborn getting sucked out of the cargo window, one glob of flesh at a time, is also a visually stunning and beautiful realization of the ultimate, primal connection between Ripley and the beast, and the uncomprehending shock and horror the beast experiences when he realizes his own "mother" won't save him. I think Jeunet perfectly handled the movie: the humor, goofier than any in the previous episodes in the series, shows a very European director confident enough in his own style to inject a sacred cow with some sweet cream.

rhea_chakraborty

24/12/2024 05:03

While this is commonly thought of as the weaker installment of this line, personally, I believe it to be superior to Alien 3 in many important ways. 200 years after Ripley's death, she is cloned and brought back to life. The cloning process, however, also involved the DNA of the Alien Queen, giving her superhuman powers and abilities. After several failed attempts, they finally make good with a humanoid Ripley/Queen with superior intelligence and talents. According to the Making of documentary, this installment was very unlike the disorganized mess which was Alien 3 in that this attempt was together and ready to go a year before they actually started shooting. The story was polished and perfected, and was a unique and creative story in comparison. It was a big script in Hollywood. The buzz about it was that it had elements which made it a worthwhile successor to the first two, completely ignoring the third installment all together. Alien: Resurrection takes the Alien franchise to places fans would never have dreamed, without compromising the key elements of the Alien world, and does it successfully. The studios did not want a typical Hollywood popcorn movie to be part of this franchise, and therefore hired Jean-Pierre Jeunet (City of Lost Children, if you can dig it) to bring in a unique interpretive eye to the direction of this project. His visual style is quite distinct and permeates this work in a pro-active way. It was, perhaps, the most shrewd move Fox could have made in that his unique perspective was the single-most saving factor of this attempt. The action sequences are quite rousing, the story here is once again solid and convincing, and the performances are still the top row quality you expected from this line. The fight sequences are well choreographed and executed; beautifully done, as is the rest of this movie. While I cannot rate it as high as I did the first two, it is obviously superior to Alien 3 in all ways that matter. It rates a 7.9/10 from... the Fiend :.

Nelisiwe Sibiya

24/12/2024 05:03

The first three Alien films have a unique kind of "magic" about them that I think make up the ideal Alien experience. It is the "ALIEN" atmosphere: The first three films depict a very real world around a mysterious and terrifying ALIEN creature that you feared along with the well developed characters. Alien Resurrection has a very different flavor. Although it has some serious moments, there are several areas of this film that are out-of-place in both the film and the saga: Alien Resurrection has a number of humorous scenes which I feel take away from the above described overall ALIEN experience. The director goes straight into the action very quickly in this film so the only well developed character is Ripley. I think that the Alien creature loses a lot of its majesty in this film mostly because of these two critical factors. It is still a must-see film for any Alien fan. It is full of strong cinematic sequences that resonate in your head long after the film is over. But go in expecting something different. Enjoy!

Earl Ham

24/12/2024 05:03

Don't think of Alien Resurrection as an Alien film, but rather a Joss Whedon film. Yes it's different. But the others are separate types of movies also. Alien is a creepy monster thriller. Aliens is an action movie. Alien3 is a goth nightmare gone wrong. Alien Resurrection is a Whedon film. Me being a big fan of Firefly/Serenity and his Astonishing X-Men comic book series loved this film dearly. Yes it may require some thinking to understand, due to the cloning and cross-breeding stuff. But it isn't bad to have Hollywood make you think with an action/horror movie. If you think of this a different kind of movie I think you'll enjoy it like I did. But if you are looking for the same kind of movie a before you might a well pass this one.

chancelviembidi

24/12/2024 05:03

Audiences are automatically drawn to dislike sequels, which is understandable. I had the fortune to see all four movies in one sitting and this movie was just another part of the series, as it should be. I can see some of the arguments against it. It has some weak parts and is definitely different than the others but this one has its own powerful message and actually ends on a happier note. While I agree its the weakest of the series I don't believe it "sucks". It's not scary like the original and isn't as action-packed as the second. It's most closely related the the third one but it's its own story. I think it adds a whole new depth to the character of Ripley. If you like the first three Alien movies there's no reason why you should not enjoy Alien Resurrection.

DJ Neptune

24/12/2024 05:03

First off, let me say that I LOVE the Alien series, so please acknowledge that. Here's what I think: The first two Alien films were outstanding. The first is the scariest movie of all time, and the second is the best action film of all time. I think the third was okay, because it did achieve the dark and creepy feel it was going for, but was also a bit of a disappointment. What I think everyone didn't acknowledge about the film was the fact that it did a damn good job of resurrecting the aliens. Think about it. How else can you make a story that takes place after the third one and still star Sigourney Weaver? Don't say to say the third one was a dream, because then that would be corny and immature. I thought that the story was very good. The characters, although slightly wooden, were very well drawn. Several people say that the old Ripley was gone, but by the end of the film, she was acting just like the good ol' gal we all know and love. And something that only one critic acknowledged was this: the newborn alien. WOW! That thing was ugly and scary as hell! That's the type of alien you need for the ending. You've been seeing the same old alien for 3.75 films now, and you've pretty much gotten scared by the creatures as much as you could, why not bring some fresh meat on the scene? And plus, you have to include the alien tradition of battling a new alien at the end of each film. In the first one, Ripley battled a normal alien. In the second one, Ripley battled a queen. And in the third one, Ripley battled a dog alien. To continue the tradition, Ripley battled a human alien. And if I may say, that thing is the scariest of them all. What I don't understand is that everyone says that this series ran out of steam by the beginning of the third one. I disagree. The Alien films still have a flare going, but a fifth one would be all that you could have before the flame burns out. I expect the fifth to be REALLY good, but also tie up the entire story and give an accurate epilogue to the series. And think about this: You're not going to resurrect a series like this just so that you can end the series again just before the credits of the said film. Alien Resurrection was a good movie, and I think that it was as innovative as a third Alien sequel could be.