Very slow and boring, I never understand why some people claim it's better than Aliens

Moronic responses.

Alien came out two years after Star Wars, which was a huge hit. So, people went in expecting a movie about aliens, adventure, etc and got an intense horror film, and that was original.

No one had seen effects like the alien creature before. There was never a "guy in a suit" like that before. And, it wasn't always a guy in a suit, but it had unique effects on the creature's head, mouth parts, saliva, and so on.

There were almost no female action characters in 1979. The character was consistently shown to be determined, assertive, and ultimately the one who defeated the enemy, so your point about her not being a hero is equally stupid.

Yes.

I love movies including classic films from the 30s and 40s.

Only an idiot watches a film from 1940 and says they have seen the plot a million times or that it looks like they filmed i ton a stage instead of location!!!

Why was it in black and white....they had color film...what garbage!!

There was nothing like Alien when it came out.

You are wrong, it's a well-known fact Alien got bad reviews when it was released, even Wiki said that:

Critical reaction to the film was initially mixed. Some critics who were not usually favorable towards science fiction, such as Barry Norman of the BBC's Film series, were positive about the film's merits. Others, however, were not; reviews by Variety, Sight and Sound, Vincent Canby, and Leonard Maltin[b] were mixed or negative. A review by Time Out said the film was an "empty bag of tricks whose production values and expensive trickery cannot disguise imaginative poverty". In their original review on Sneak Previews, critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert gave the film "two 'yes' votes." Ebert called it "one of the scariest old-fashioned space operas I can remember." Siskel agreed that it was scary but said it was basically a "haunted house film" set "in a spaceship" and was "not the greatest science fiction film ever made." Siskel gave the film three stars out of four in his original print review, calling it "an accomplished piece of scary entertainment" and praising Sigourney Weaver as "an actress who should become a major star," but listed among the film's disappointments that "[f]or me, the final shape of the alien was the least scary of its forms."

Yeah I mean that’s obvious, that’s why Alien 3 reverted to no guns.

Even so, Aliens introduced the idea that bullets and grenades will blow an alien to pieces - that in itself diminishes the awesome power of the creature set up in Alien.

I'd rather have had a sequel that was faithful to the original creature than a cash cow personally. We're not gonna agree. You like the sequel and not the original, and I'm the exact opposite.

It's always annoyed me that Cameron took what was an almost unkillable monster and basically turned it into a glorified space bug. And as Ripley knew they had acid for blood it probably wasn't the best idea to be pumping bullets into them but that was another thing that Cameron seemed to hand wave away.

well , thats a cheap hack comparison to make column inches .
Every film can be reduced to a cheap one liner plot summary.
Did he say the same thing about Predator?

Sci fi on its own it rarely if ever the genre , its just the setting , and always has to be combined with another genre for story / plot