“The story of Ellen Ripley isn’t a mother who loses her child, and then has the child restored to her. Ellen Ripley is the story of the cycles of death and creation. By the very nature of herself and the xenomorph doppelganger that forever lives in her shadow—she is doomed to constantly repeat these cycles of life, death, rebirth.”
Tumblr user Sarah Horrocks wrote quite a fair defence of the often black-sheeped entry of the Alien quadrilogy (or is it “Quintilogy” at this point, if we’re including Prometheus as part of the series?). I’ve had a soft spot for this entry despite never fully understanding why. It may at the very least be a significant entry point in to my fandom of David Fincher films. It may be that it dared to take a fresh approach to the franchise despite the success that Ridley Scott’s Alien and James Cameron’s Aliens enjoyed employing MUCH of the same formula.
I just thought it an important point to revisit. The film is not the piece of garbage a lot of fanboys make it out to be. It just carries in it an approach that’s especially non-traditional for the entertainment industry it takes up space in. Neill Blomkamp did kinda dump on it a bit when he announced his own work on this treasured science fiction property, but let’s not forget that he himself admits he can make some stinkers (not to mention the fact that his films always seem to have one particular obvious story-device flaw).
So, I don’t know, I suppose what I’m saying here before you move on to Horrock’s article is that let’s take a second to review things legitimately before we shoot of our opinion gun from the hip.
“Ellen is positioned as Eve arriving in the garden to bring the end of paradise, she is also the holy mother who offers redemption for these men that wait on the edge of space for god to return, and finally she is the woman of revelation on the run in the desert from the antichrist…”
[via Mercurial Blonde]