Aliens

After getting through Alien, which has been critically praised and is heralded as a classic, but which just did not work for me here in the present year of 2010, I was looking forward to Aliens. James Cameron seemed a slight upgrade over Ridley Scott, the year 1986 seemed an upgrade over 1979, and the action genre seemed like it'd be a better fit for Sigourney Weaver and the film content than horror was. But at the end of the day, I think Aliens may have been just as cliche and regular as its predecessor. Some generic "characters" met non-emotional demises while Sigourney Weaver took on a maternal role for what seemed to be no reason. A few explosions occurred that were rather cheesy by today's standards and in the end the good guys prevailed in spite of heavy losses. Yawn. Look, this movie is older than me, so I get that I should have some respect for what a landmark film it was in its own time, but I would certainly stop far short of calling the film "amazing" or "revolutionary" by any stretch. Pardon me for using Star Wars as a benchmark, but I mean, better science fiction movies than Aliens had been made before 1986. I'm just a bit tired of all the genericness in this franchise so far. Aliens are depicted as monsters without any explanation for their animal behavior. Gunfire and explosions run amok. And, yeah, the films are now two for two at ending with a self-destruct sequence for a climax. How memorable! I'll watch Alien 3 pretty soon, but only because I already own it and need to overcome my own backlog; on the merits of the first two films alone, there's no way I'd rush off to see the next installment of Sigourney Weaver looking frightened while everyone around her dies.