There's one thing that fascinate me, it's all those critics who just saw the movie once when they wrote their article, and talk about things doesn't exists in the movie. One critic saw the head of Sprog was rolling on the road (instead of the ball), another said he was knocked out by the bikes and the sound of the machine guns ! Some other saw blood everywhere... It's interesting, because even if the critics doesn't like what they saw, they didn't undrestood, at the time, that they were under the power of the movie... like Laurent Bouzereau said in his book (Violent Movies) :
« I remember people talking about the death of the baby, saying that they actually saw the infant being ripped apart by the Bikers. Of course, none of this was show in the released prints, but the power of the film and horrifying situations depicted in it led the audience to believe they sew more than they did”
With the same idea, Jean Pierre Putters, from Mad Movies, compared Mad Max to Texas Chainsaw Massacre. People saw more than what on the screen, and many disliked what they thank they saw, and blamed the movie for that. Only clever movies can do that, I think it was exactly the same for Alien.
Another funny critic from France :
"These apocalypses for comic strip can effectively impress the leather amateurs, the mildly retarded persons and the madmen of the violent. These interesting social categories still constitute, Thank God, only a minority from our place" D.J. Quotidien de Paris. January 1982
