> Asking us to choose between "Alien" and "Aliens"? Ack! My few remaining brain cells just shut down completely.
>
> I loved both movies but they're completely different genres - unusual for a sequel to be every bit as good as the original but in a completely different way. The first one was a classic suspense/horror movie - the first (and probably still the only) really good example of the genre in a sci-fi setting. The second one was an awesomely good all-out action movie. How on earth can anyone choose which one was better? Assuming, of course, that (like me) you enjoy both genres.
>
> Anyway, I went with "Alien" in the end, but it was a tough choice.
>
> Brunnen-"the other three options were irrelevant"G

I went with "Aliens" for three reasons. Firstly, it was an awesome movie (see comments above). Secondly, it was the first R-rated movie I saw in the theaters, um, "legally". Thirdly, there was one big flaw in "Alien" that struck me so hard, it smacked me out of the movie for a few minutes: There wasn't enough space on the escape pod for all seven crew members? (Well, six or five at that point.)

There really wasn't anything in "Aliens" that jarred me as much.

Another possible reason why I tend to like "Aliens" better than "Alien" is that I've seen "Aliens" in it's original aspect ratio a heck of a lot more times than I've seen "Alien". The first time I saw the first movie, it was in Pan 'n Scan (aka the "Who wants to see all the movie?" format).

Random "Aliens" thought: My favorite cut of the movie would include the sentry guns scenes, the Ripley's daughter's scenes, but not the initial scenes of the colony when there were people about.

Another random "Aliens" thought: I think Ripley made up the part about Burke sabotaging the Marines' sleep chambers in order to get the Marines on her side.

-Faux "told you there'd be spoilers" Pas