4.0 out of 5 stars
Not as shown, April 26 2012
I've seen Alien/Aliens a bazillion times and just wanted a hard copy. I paid less than $2 and all i got was Movie Gallery copies. No case, no box, just 2 cds. For me that was fine, but if you're thinking about getting a copy, the cheapest ones will be just the bare bones.
Disc 1 is 1979 Version and 2003(?) Directors Cut
Disc 2 is Making of. Quite long, lot's of content for a movie that old.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good combination of suspense and action, Feb 29 2012
Alien (1979)
Science Fiction, Horror, 117 minutes
Directed by Ridley Scott
Starring Sigourney Weaver, Ian Holm and Tom Skerritt
I first saw Alien during its original theatrical run in 1979 and appreciated it even more on the big screen. The first half of the movie is the best part. It's dark and atmospheric and there is an element of mystery. We are introduced to the crew of the mining ship and learn the relationships and personalities involved.
The computer screens on the ship seem dated now, but the overall effect of the movie is just as powerful. The story gathers pace when some of the crew investigate the surface of a moon and find a ship from an unknown species. The way this sequence unfolds is almost worthy of Hitchcock.
The purpose of the mission isn't immediately clear, but I won't reveal the details in case you haven't seen the movie. This is essentially a story of survival. While an actual encounter with an alien race might involve peaceful interaction, Alien never suggests for a moment that peace is possible. The creature is a killer and pursues the crew one at a time. Eventually, the battle focuses on Ripley (Weaver) and the alien. The second half of the movie doesn't quite live up to the promise of the first because most of the mystery is gone, but it's still a gripping story.
Like many movies featuring unknown creatures, we rarely see shots of the whole creature. We are shown glimpses as it evolves and our imagination fills in the gaps. When we are eventually shown the whole thing, it adds to the effect and comes as quite a shock as we realize its strength and resilience.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars
New Directors Cut 3 Star, while original is solid four star., Nov 6 2003
Alien is one of my favorite films of at time. It is a master-piece of tension, physical space, atmosphere, tidy special effects, ensemble acting, and the unrelenting desire to unsettle. Its gorgeous cinemascope frame remains one of the best photographed in the history of film, and its legacy lives on both in the trilogy of sequels it has spawned, the presence of its titular beast (one of the most influential move monsters ever) in our pop culture, and in Sigourney Weavers incarnation of the iconic Ellen Ripley. It remains one of the few films that I can watch over and over again and never get tired of.
All this explains why news of a theatrical re-release became my cinematic event of 2003. I had been looking forward to this for years. Too young to have seen the original film in theaters, I had hoped that eventually the opportunity would present itself.
The chance to see at the marvelous tracking shots through the corridor of the Nostromo, Brett's (Harry Dean Stanton) quest to find the cat Jones in the bowels of the ship, Dallas' (Tom Skerrit) trip into the ventilation system, the verbal and later physical spacing between Ash (Ian Holm) and Ripley, Parker (national treasure Yaphet Kotto) and Brett's comic interplay ... all of that, finally on the big screen.
What's unfortunate about this re-release is the same as most theatrical re-releases of moderate-to-classic films: The director has suffered from a cumulative attack of coulda-woulda-shoulda syndrome, and decides to rethink and rework the film for contemporary audiences. Apocalypse Now Redux. The Exorcist: The version that you've never seen. Those Star War's "special editions." What do all of these films have in common? All of them were diminished with the addition of unnecessary material. In each case, a director who just can't leave well enough alone sullies the classic status of the Original film. (Mad props are due to Brian DePaima, who refused to let Scarface be altered in any way for its limited theatrical reissue before its DVD release ... sense a pattern?)
In interviews, Alien director Ridley Scott has spoken of making little trims here and there to help the pacing of the film) and show more glimpses of the alien). He has said, too, that the addition of the often spoken of "cocoon sequence" now fits very well in the film (the exact opposite of what he had been saying for years).
The original version of Alien starts out slowly, building gradually until the last 25 minutes are as relentlessly paced as any action classic. To try and speed up the first part of the film, then stop dead the last act to include a shocking, previously-deleted scene seems nothing more than a sop to contemporary film-going audiences with no patience for '70s pacing and a fetishized devotion to the cuff of the deleted scene. This is the innovator, not the imitator, and each shift feels like a tiny betrayal.
For This version of Alien to be coiled "The Director it Cut" is a lie. Ridley Scott wasn't forced to cut any material from the original at the studio's behest, nor did he have grave censorship concerns which required toning down any sequences. The film as released to theaters in 1979 was his director's cut, because he and editor Terry Rawlings cut it. This new version, I strongly suspect, exists to promote Fox's up coming Alien DVD box set. The seven-person (and one cat) crew of the Nostromo is again expendable; the priority is delivering more of the alien.
Should you see it? Absolutely as a good 90 percent or more it is still the same film, and its' soundscape will mess you up in a theater with a good system, and the DVD directors cut sounscape definitely falls into the same category, regardless of how large your home TV screen might be. Will it replace the original? Defiantly, no. For new version I give it a *** rating, while rating the original receives a solid **** star rating.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No