There's no denying it. Both Alien, directed by Ridley Scott, and Aliens, directed by James Cameron, are two of the best sci-fi films ever made, and I love both of them for different reasons.
However, if I had to pick one of the two that I'd rather watch, I'd pick the sequel, Aliens, as it's more of a war movie with aliens rather than a haunted house movie in space like its predecessor. That said, I think my favoritism toward Aliens has more to do with my taste in directors than anything else. I'll explain.
Ridley Scott Often Likes To Take His Time To Establish Mood, Whereas Cameron Usually Has A Much Quicker Pace
Now, don't get me wrong. I LOVE Ridley Scott. That said, I'd much rather watch an historical epic from the director than a sci-fi film, because Scott really likes to establish mood and tension, which I think works better in historical films than sci-fi movies. Of course, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, as there's probably no better moment in all of cinema history than the chestburster scene in Alien. However, it takes a LONG time to get there, and that's because Scott is in no rush to freak you out. You're going to wait for that moment and like it!
Or not, which is how I feel on subsequent viewings, as the film takes a long time to get to the more interesting bits. You know what film doesn't take a long time to get interesting, though? James Cameron's Aliens, as it gets moving right away.
I think it's because Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is way more kick-ass and proactive in Aliens than she is in Alien. Now, to be fair, Ridley Scott made Ripley a strong protagonist in the first movie, too (I mean, he gave her a flamethrower for crying out loud), but Cameron makes Ripley even MORE kick-ass, very much in line with what he did with Sarah Connor in T2: Judgment Day. By doing so, Cameron gives Aliens a brisk pace, just like most of his other films.
I Also Think James Cameron Handles Sci-Fi In A More Fascinating Way, Prioritizing Characters Above All Else
Sci-fi is an interesting genre, and different directors handle it differently. For example, my favorite director, Stanley Kubrick, directed what is considered one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, 2001: A Space Odyssey. However, that's my least favorite movie of his since Kubrick was concentrated on the grandness of space, and also humankind's place in it.
Denis Villeneuve seems more focused on ambitious, epic sci-fi stories, whereas Nolan is all about that cerebral sci-fi. Ridley Scott seems to be more interested in the alien (pun not intended) aspects of the medium, and how the unknown can be quite terrifying in a lot of ways, just like with Alien.
As for Cameron? Well, he seems to always prioritize characters and action first. He does it with his Avatar movies (which I hope he makes more of), and he does it with the United States Colonial Marine Corps (USCM) in Aliens. This focus on the characters and action keeps me way more invested in the story than I am with Alien, which is more about dread.
In The End, It's Interesting How Two Filmmakers Could Have Such Drastically Different Approaches To Similar Material
As I already mentioned, I love both movies (Alien is one of the greatest horror movies of all time, after all), but I just find it interesting that two entirely different directors could take the same basic premise (deadly aliens in outer space), and make two completely different movies.
Whichever movie you prefer really depends on which director's style you prefer. Plus, I think both movies are a litmus test. If you like Alien, you'll probably like most of Ridley Scott's movies, and if you like Aliens, then you'll probably like most of Cameron's filmography.
It just goes to show that every great director has a vision. So, which vision do you prefer?
