"Alien" (1979) - Director Ridley Scott's Science-Fiction Thriller-Nightmare Starring Sigourney Weaver

[DonRocks]

What are your favorite movies, and why?  For the purposes of this discussion, let's define "favorite" as "movies that you come back to, again and again, or years later, and always enjoy."

For me, in no particular order and probably left out a bunch of big ones due to "record store syndrome":

...

Alien

About ten years ago a restored version was released and I saw it at the Uptown. I can honestly say that it is the only movie I went back to years later that was actually better then I remembered. I don't even like thrillers, but this movie is great.

...

porcupine, two questions:

Will "Alien" suffer from the small screen (my obvious guess is "Yes"), but where does that leave me, wanting to see it in full for a second time?

What did you think of "The Martian?"

[porcupine]

On 3/25/2016 at 0:10 PM, DonRocks said:

porcupine, two questions:

Will "Alien" suffer from the small screen (my obvious guess is "Yes"), but where does that leave me, wanting to see it in full for a second time?

What did you think of "The Martian?"

Well... yes, it will suffer.  Alien really needs the immersive experience a theater provides.  If you must watch it at home, draw the curtains, turn off all the lights, shut off the computer and cell phone, and don't interrupt the movie for anything.  Hopefully you have a big screen.  Pay attention to the details, and the way things unfold.  BTW another semantic quibble - I see you tagged this as "science fiction" and "horror".  I really don't see it as a horror film.  Maybe that's a matter of perception rather than language usage [shrug].  I'd call it a thriller first, SF second.  There's the one famous gory scene but all the rest is about the buildup.  Remember the scene where one nervous crew member realizes it's just Jones, until...?  damn, now I want to watch it again.

As for The Martian, I'll do you a favor and answer the question in the correct thread.  

[DonRocks]

On 3/26/2016 at 8:32 AM, porcupine said:

There's the one famous gory scene but all the rest is about the buildup.  Remember the scene where one nervous crew member realizes it's just Jones, until...?  damn, now I want to watch it again.

What about when they cut the tentacle, and the acid spurts out? Why didn't that burn a hole right through the victim's skin? It happened not to touch his face at all? Hmm ... Ridley Scott has obviously never removed a contact lens after eating jalapeños. 

Okay, suspending disbelief ...  That Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode I referred to yesterday contained a *blatant* error also (for the curious: John McGiver's character marked a book modifying a "car theft" statistic with a pencil, then when you saw the book, no pencil mark was there - trust me, it was blatant).

Amazon X-Ray says the slime used for the Alien was K-Y Jelly.

I love the way this gang of mercenary pirates are forced to come together as a team. I haven't seen this film in a *long* time, but it has sort of a "Funker Vogt" feel to it, not unlike the end of "The Terminator." That said, I don't understand why their "twisted wires and cables" motif became a standard for portraying an indestructible alien (refer to The Borg). It's ugly to look at, but then again, I guess so are spiders and snakes.

If they don't kill that darned cat that keeps jumping out, I'm going to kill it myself.

I found it refreshing that Ripley was unable to stop the self-destruct mechanism just as it counted down to 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... but I didn't remember the movie that well, and am wondering why they would allow the crew to self-destruct the ship at all - I thought it was going to be a ruse.

I just finished watching the film, and since I rented the Director's Cut on Amazon, I still have *an hour* to go. 

One thing that amazes me in the interviews is just how close this was to being a "B" movie, and if it wasn't for Ridley Scott, it would have been - they had to get several *really* key things right (the facehugger, the chestburster, the large alien, the insides of Nostromo, etc.), and if any one of these had been poorly realized, the film could have flopped. I also think they did an incredible job at cast selection - this was truly a wonderful ensemble cast. And when you see how they created the set to make a sense of claustrophobia, it was really a remarkable feat considering this was a *low budget film* (I wonder how many people even realize that).

BTW, I have no problem adding a "Suspense" tag, except that if I want it at the beginning (where "Science-Fiction" and "Horror" are), I have to re-type *all* the tags again! I think all three apply here - it definitely has strong overtones of a horror film.

[TedE]

On March 26, 2016 at 8:32 AM, porcupine said:

I see you tagged this as "science fiction" and "horror".  I really don't see it as a horror film.

I think the "horror" tag is perfectly apt, and that is how it is usually described.  "Suspense" is probably the better descriptor, but you can't have a good horror film without building suspense.

I can't think of another film series that comprises two entries that were so genre-defining.  Alien as the archetypical sci-fi/horror/suspense film, and Aliens was a ground-breaking sci-fi/military/action piece that laid ground for Predator, etc.  Both are personal favorites of mine, but given the timing of the release the sequel is near the top of my all-time list (can't say how many times I've watched it, and can recite most of the dialogue by heart).

[DonRocks]

*** Gross-Out Alert ***

I'm linking to this video clip instead of including the video because it's *disgusting* - this is the scene where they re-plug in Ash.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I see a pretty big goof - several seconds in, when they're adjusting Ash's head, is there not (very briefly) another man's head that appears just behind his? You may have to watch it several times to be sure - it happens right during the *second* time they adjust his head, just a few seconds into the video.

Yuck!