Why didn't this become a classic like Alien?
Was sexism a factor?
>>63501425
wasnt directed by Ripley Scott
>>63501425
More like Skinemax classic
>tfw you will never be a teenager seeing Natasha Henstridge for the first time again
It is a classic though, just not on the same super mainstream level, it's referenced a lot in pop culture and the fact that you remember it and not the hundreds of other science fiction films from that time shows that it is a classic.
Because its a bgrade horror movie with corny sexcharged premise.
>>63501425
Weak 3rd act doomed it, plus the sequels went full direct to video tier.
>>63501425
I was always curious about this movie, is it actually any good or is it just a softcore porno dressed up as a horror B-movie?
It just wasn't very good
>>63501449
>Ripley
>>63501779
Its not bad, not as good as Alien, but ok sci-fi horror, and Natasha Henstridge's is cute and has nice tits
>>63501425
Less of a name director, a weaker writer, bad reviews, half the human characters were poorly drawn, all the characters were oversexed and not just the primal-urge alien, being spiritually more of a monster movie than a scifi or horror movie, a sexy leading lady who didn't really have room to act in the part, and an overused LA setting.
That's just a list of flaws though, both this and the first sequel are worth watching for Henstridge's body.
> Why didn't this become a classic like Alien?
Because it's not a very good movie.
Despite that it's enjoyable as fuck and she was absolutely stunning in it.
It was marketed as a sci-fi slasher film with tits.
More Kingsley and Madsen would've been nice.
Forest Whitaker was absolutely fantastic in it
really liked his character
also Henstridge aging pretty well
>>63503006
HIGH TEST
>>63501425
This movie has been aired to death in the Comet channel for the last month. I didn't remember Marg Hamburguer being in it.
>>63506373
she was hotter than Natasha desu
Because alien(s) are good movies.
Species was not.
>>63503006
Dang
>>63501425
sexism is a plus, the problem is that it doesn't have much going for it other than that.
>>63503006
holy fucking shit
Helgenberger and Madsen playing the leads..poor casting choice, they make everything look like a cop show on cable network...
Sil was the villain, but they made her the star and that didn't work. The movie needed a proper Sigourney Weaver-type sci-fi hero to balance it out.
The second movie is a mindless Splatter-Sex fest, can't believe they got away with some of those gore scences.
It's like Showgirls directed by Cronenberg.
>>63501733
AaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYyyyyyYyyyyYyYyYyyYyyyyy!
>>63506788
heh
that's a good one
>>63501707
Hundreds? Sci-Fi was dead and buried in the 90's...
>>63501425
the girl was the only good thing
Was this the movie where she seduces this guy in a huge pool and turns him into an egg? I caught that one scene somehow when I was 10 and fapped furiously to the memory.
>>63501425
It was mediocre and almost completely forgettable. Its only noteworthy element is how to use Giger's biomechanics style the wrong way. It's not even worthy to be categorised with those mostly late 80s early 90s bad but enjoyable horror/SF films.
It's just nothing special.
>>63501425
It's a shitty movie. The sequel is much better.
it was just a suped up x-files episode
Natasha Henstridge is super qt
>>63508404
she's more of a hottie
The only thing the movie had going for it was the raunchy sex stuff, but it didn't even have enough nudity to bother. It was like the r-rated version of those network shows that try to be hot and steamy but still can't show anything below the neck.
>>63501425
Because it sucked.
It was a shit soft core porno with a shittier story.
