I think I was having an argument with someone about Alien 3 in the AVP thread a few weeks ago. I came across this review for A3 on IMDB, where the reviewer sums up everything I feel about this movie. Discuss.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103644/usercomments-367
In its complexity, "Alien3" is a failed story. It's bleak, it's flawed, it's stupid. "Alien3" is a sequel to two of the most memorable films of all time--and it completely ruins the ending of its 1986 predecessor, "Aliens," by killing off two of the lasting characters and entirely negating the emotional underpinning of the film. It practically scratches out the second movie with its mediocrity, and the fourth scratches out the first.
In its simplicity, it sucks.
If you recall the ending of the last film, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) survived her encounters with an alien colony, along with the marine, Hicks (Michael Biehn), and a young survivalist much like herself named Newt (Carrie Henn). They were put into cryogenic sleep and all was well. The story ended happily and should have stayed that way. It was the ending we all loved.
Now it's ruined. Ripley is picked up by a large space ship another number of years later. She is the only survivor. The spaceship suffered a malfunction. Hicks bled to death and Newt drowned in her cryo chamber. But Ripley believes that Newt may have been impregnated with a chestburster after finding traces of acid on the floor of the ship.
That's a problem with this film. Everything's contrived. I was willing to believe that Ellen Ripley could and would encounter aliens once again in the film "Aliens" because (a) the plot was strong and (b) the movie was good, so any minor contrivances set up by James Cameron were not very noticeable. It was a very good sci-fi film, and the more I view it on the new Quadrilogy DVD, the more I grow to like it.
Same with "Alien3." The new cut is better than the old one. But it's still an awful film--so bad that everyone associated with it has only bad things to say about it. Even its director, David Fincher, has reportedly disowned the film. He claims that the film is not his, that FOX controlled every aspect of it. He was the only director on the entire Quadrilogy DVD collection to refuse a DVD commentary track recording. Even James Cameron recorded a commentary, and we all know how hard it is to get him to do that for a film. (Come on, we need a commentary for the original "Terminator" already!)
"Alien3," even with the superior extended version, still stinks to high heaven. Fincher can disown the film all he wants, but he still made it, and he still ruined it in part with his odd direction style (a style that is splendid for "Se7en" and "Fight Club" but not in an "Alien" movie). The "Alien" series was always dark and brooding and somewhat disturbing, but this pushes the limit--it's too dark, too brooding, too disturbing, and almost feels evil. The characters are extremely strange and weird; Ellen Ripley is very different, and her new hairstyle--no hair--is just silly. This whole film is just too dark. It's the type of movie that makes you want to take a shower after it's all over to cleanse away the filth. (Which brings to mind Bob Gale's "Back to the Future Part II" documentary, in which he said throughout the filming of the "new 1985" scenes where Biff runs the town, the entire crew felt dirty after bringing in all the set decorations and biker gangs. It made them feel like they were physically and emotionally disturbed.)
Another problem? There's nowhere to go after "Aliens." In 1979, "Alien" introduced the new face of horror a year after John Carpenter's "Halloween." The two back-to-back slasher flicks were both very different and yet very similar. One took place in the future, one in the present. Both were films about killing creatures (for Michael Myers is not a human). And so to change the genre, in 1986 James Cameron made the sequel an all-out combat film, preparing audiences for the change with the tagline, "This time it's war." He wanted people to know that it wasn't "Alien." It was "Aliens."
"Alien3" is infamous for its awfulness. It is the movie no one wants to claim credit for. Not Fincher, not Hill, not the producers, and not even FOX, really. It made a lot of cash, but for the most part everyone hated it. Some die-hard fans enjoy it, but if you ask them, they'll always tell you that it's the worst of the series (sometimes they choose "Alien Resurrection," though).
I'll tell you what: It's certainly my least favorite. I hate this movie. I literally find it painful to watch. And I wouldn't even call myself a huge fan of this series. But it bugs me when directors take liberties to kill off characters. The story of James Cameron's hatred for "Alien3" is pretty well known. Some people say he needs to get over it. Now he's talking about making a sequel with Ridley and forgetting about the latter two sequels. I don't think this is a good idea (forgetting the other two--it would confuse audiences), but I don't blame him for despising "Alien3" and often referencing it as an awful film in his interviews. I'd be pretty p**sed if someone ruined big parts of my franchise, too. (A franchise Scott started, but one that Cameron certainly added more than a few pieces of the puzzle to.)
This is probably one of my longest film reviews. Good. I have a lot of problems with "Alien3," and if it takes up over 1,000 words to explain them, I don't care. But I know other people might, so I'm ending this with a quote. As Bart Simpson once said: "I didn't think it was possible, but this both sucks and blows." If you're ever in need of a rude summary of something, turn to The Simpson family. They summed this one up pretty well.
Alien: 5/5 Aliens: 5/5 Alien3: 1.5/5 Alien Resurrection: 2.5/5
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103644/usercomments-367
In its complexity, "Alien3" is a failed story. It's bleak, it's flawed, it's stupid. "Alien3" is a sequel to two of the most memorable films of all time--and it completely ruins the ending of its 1986 predecessor, "Aliens," by killing off two of the lasting characters and entirely negating the emotional underpinning of the film. It practically scratches out the second movie with its mediocrity, and the fourth scratches out the first.
In its simplicity, it sucks.
If you recall the ending of the last film, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) survived her encounters with an alien colony, along with the marine, Hicks (Michael Biehn), and a young survivalist much like herself named Newt (Carrie Henn). They were put into cryogenic sleep and all was well. The story ended happily and should have stayed that way. It was the ending we all loved.
Now it's ruined. Ripley is picked up by a large space ship another number of years later. She is the only survivor. The spaceship suffered a malfunction. Hicks bled to death and Newt drowned in her cryo chamber. But Ripley believes that Newt may have been impregnated with a chestburster after finding traces of acid on the floor of the ship.
That's a problem with this film. Everything's contrived. I was willing to believe that Ellen Ripley could and would encounter aliens once again in the film "Aliens" because (a) the plot was strong and (b) the movie was good, so any minor contrivances set up by James Cameron were not very noticeable. It was a very good sci-fi film, and the more I view it on the new Quadrilogy DVD, the more I grow to like it.
Same with "Alien3." The new cut is better than the old one. But it's still an awful film--so bad that everyone associated with it has only bad things to say about it. Even its director, David Fincher, has reportedly disowned the film. He claims that the film is not his, that FOX controlled every aspect of it. He was the only director on the entire Quadrilogy DVD collection to refuse a DVD commentary track recording. Even James Cameron recorded a commentary, and we all know how hard it is to get him to do that for a film. (Come on, we need a commentary for the original "Terminator" already!)
"Alien3," even with the superior extended version, still stinks to high heaven. Fincher can disown the film all he wants, but he still made it, and he still ruined it in part with his odd direction style (a style that is splendid for "Se7en" and "Fight Club" but not in an "Alien" movie). The "Alien" series was always dark and brooding and somewhat disturbing, but this pushes the limit--it's too dark, too brooding, too disturbing, and almost feels evil. The characters are extremely strange and weird; Ellen Ripley is very different, and her new hairstyle--no hair--is just silly. This whole film is just too dark. It's the type of movie that makes you want to take a shower after it's all over to cleanse away the filth. (Which brings to mind Bob Gale's "Back to the Future Part II" documentary, in which he said throughout the filming of the "new 1985" scenes where Biff runs the town, the entire crew felt dirty after bringing in all the set decorations and biker gangs. It made them feel like they were physically and emotionally disturbed.)
Another problem? There's nowhere to go after "Aliens." In 1979, "Alien" introduced the new face of horror a year after John Carpenter's "Halloween." The two back-to-back slasher flicks were both very different and yet very similar. One took place in the future, one in the present. Both were films about killing creatures (for Michael Myers is not a human). And so to change the genre, in 1986 James Cameron made the sequel an all-out combat film, preparing audiences for the change with the tagline, "This time it's war." He wanted people to know that it wasn't "Alien." It was "Aliens."
"Alien3" is infamous for its awfulness. It is the movie no one wants to claim credit for. Not Fincher, not Hill, not the producers, and not even FOX, really. It made a lot of cash, but for the most part everyone hated it. Some die-hard fans enjoy it, but if you ask them, they'll always tell you that it's the worst of the series (sometimes they choose "Alien Resurrection," though).
I'll tell you what: It's certainly my least favorite. I hate this movie. I literally find it painful to watch. And I wouldn't even call myself a huge fan of this series. But it bugs me when directors take liberties to kill off characters. The story of James Cameron's hatred for "Alien3" is pretty well known. Some people say he needs to get over it. Now he's talking about making a sequel with Ridley and forgetting about the latter two sequels. I don't think this is a good idea (forgetting the other two--it would confuse audiences), but I don't blame him for despising "Alien3" and often referencing it as an awful film in his interviews. I'd be pretty p**sed if someone ruined big parts of my franchise, too. (A franchise Scott started, but one that Cameron certainly added more than a few pieces of the puzzle to.)
This is probably one of my longest film reviews. Good. I have a lot of problems with "Alien3," and if it takes up over 1,000 words to explain them, I don't care. But I know other people might, so I'm ending this with a quote. As Bart Simpson once said: "I didn't think it was possible, but this both sucks and blows." If you're ever in need of a rude summary of something, turn to The Simpson family. They summed this one up pretty well.
Alien: 5/5 Aliens: 5/5 Alien3: 1.5/5 Alien Resurrection: 2.5/5
