I guess it depends on what you’re looking for. I quite like the direction he took with these movies (I think the simple “Jaws in space” premise has been played out at this point).
I agree, the premise has been played out, which is why perhaps the best thing to do following Aliens would have been to leave the franchise alone. As for the direction being taken with the last two installments, while I actually love thought-provoking science-fiction, I don’t believe this is really the franchise to be doing it with (at least, to the extent Scott is trying achieve). It’d be like going to an Italian restaurant and getting a burrito — while I love Mexican cuisine, I don’t particularly want it if I’m expecting a nice pasta dinner.
That being said (and at the risk of sounding contradictory), I do feel there is some philosophical depth to the original Alien film, which comes primarily through Ash’s monologue:
Ash: You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? The perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.
Lambert: You admire it.
Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor…unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.
A brief, simple scene which succinctly addresses some of the film’s major themes. Is this thing really “evil” simply for following its natural instincts? Are we better than it or more deserving of survival simply because of our sense of morality? Similar to Predator, which asks us to consider the ethics of hunting if the tables were reversed, Alien asks us to consider our worthiness for survival in the face of a potentially superior force of nature. Unlike the Alien prequels, however, it doesn’t beat the audience over the head with it for the better part of the film’s running time.
I hope I’m not coming across as being combative. I’m not hating on you for liking a film I personally don’t. I’m just trying to explain where I’m coming from (maybe as much to myself as anyone).