I am going to oppose popular opinion and state that “Alien” is far superior to its sequel, “Aliens.” This sequel has been praised for providing more violence, more special effects, and a better look at the aliens (plural this time), but you need to read my prior post about why these things actually make the sequel weaker. The unwritten rule of sci-fi sequels states that they must feature more action and longer looks at the creature than the original to hold the audience’s attention. The “Jaws” sequels are a prime (and painful) example. Where the original used methodical suspense and suggestion to engage our imaginations until the big payoff at the end, the sequels required extensive shark violence from start to finish because we have already seen the previously unknown. “Aliens” follows the same pattern. The aliens themselves hold up remarkably well after 30 years (especially the terrifying queen) but their overstated appearance takes away from their intrigue. Moreover, the film’s more intense use of the aliens actually weakens our fear of them. In the original, the alien was so vicious that the characters couldn’t even get near it. It transported us into Ellen Ripley’s nightmare, helpless to protect ourselves from this creature. But the characters in the sequel are facing an army of aliens which means that they have to continually dispose of them to keep the story moving. The prospect of encountering one of these aliens is much less scary when they can quickly be blasted away en masse and with ease. Most of this disconnect with the original comes from the fact that two different directors are imagining two completely different stories that occur in the same universe. Ridley Scott took a Hitchcockian approach while James Cameron opted for “Rambo In Space.” I do like that the story offers a unique allusion to the Vietnam War in which a technologically superior group struggles to take down a hostile enemy in enemy territory. I prefer the setting of the original (helplessly stranded on a spaceship with an alien) but encountering the aliens on the ground gives this sequel an interesting new direction. It also better fits the action movie approach to the story with large-scale battles instead of crew members hiding on a small ship. “Aliens” lacks a gradual buildup of tension as the cast seemingly kills time between the exciting alien encounters but that’s the trade off when creating an action film instead of a thriller. Along those lines, the film is driven by action instead of acting. Sigourney Weaver gives a dominant performance but the other crew members seem like each is an exaggerated caricature of their stereotype, especially Bill Paxton and Jenette Goldstein. I also found Carrie Henn’s child performance to be rather weak, though it can’t be easy to find a 9-year-old that can give a dramatic performance amidst a bunch of aliens. I wish that I could judge “Aliens” for its own merits but it is so hard to separate it from the iconic origin of the series. Someday, I will have to watch this film out of context as if it were a standalone film. Until then, I will just have to accept that the only similarity between the films is that they exist in the same universe.
[Pictured: The moment when Weaver appears in the power loader is one of the most iconic shots from the entire series]
No comments:
Post a Comment