What are your thoughts on Alien 3?

[SystemError]

With the (relatively) recent release of Prometheus, I went back and watched the Alien franchise from beginning to end - including the dreadful Alien vs. Predator films - to refresh my memory on the series before heading to the theater.

And I was blown away with how impressed I was by the third entry in the series. I'm very familiar with the rocky start the movie had, and there's probably no need to rehash those stories here. But for all that did go wrong during the production phase of the film, I felt that it was a minor miracle that it turned out as well as it did.

David Fincher is one of my favorite directors, and I'm not sure exactly what the studio saw in his music videos for Madonna that made them choose him to helm a project as prestigious to Aliens, but I feel they made the right choice. He definitely takes some cues from the original Alien, choosing to eliminate the action film vestiges of the first sequel, but it seems to me that he added his own European arthouse tendencies to the claustrophobic feeling of the original. And I feel that, thematically, the religious allegories he combined with the Freudian psychosexual symbolism of the first film work wonderfully.

I'm not the biggest fan of Aliens. I disliked how Cameron took the xenomorph concept and turned it into a Heinleinesque hive-mind insect race; what I took away from the first film is that the xenomorph is almost a demonic force-of-nature, with few real parallels in human experience except perhaps in nightmares tortured by sexual frustration. I appreciated that Fincher returned to that subtext and expanded on it in his film, and I think the series is better for it.

[Borgholio]

It wasn't a bad movie but I didn't (and still don't) like it for story reasons. I felt the Alien story reached an appropriate ending with Aliens.

Had I been able to choose the plot for Alien 3, it would have been on Earth, involving a whole lot of blood, acid, and gunfire. The final scenes in the movie would have involved Ripley standing on the bridge of a ship pushing the big red button that drops a nuke on the derelict on LV-426. Closure for Ripley...her nightmare began there and ended there, but still plenty of room for continuing the franchise later since there could still be some Xenos hiding on Earth somewhere.

The way they did it in Alien 3, taking everything Ripley had left in the world, shitting all over it and throwing it away only to let the Alien finally kill her? Well I don't mind less-than-happy endings to movies, but Ripley should have gotten at least a little break given everything she had survived previously.

[SystemError]

The way they did it in Alien 3, taking everything Ripley had left in the world, shitting all over it and throwing it away only to let the Alien finally kill her? Well I don't mind less-than-happy endings to movies, but Ripley should have gotten at least a little break given everything she had survived previously.

See, I dug that about the movie. The universe rarely has genuinely happy endings, and I think Ridley got the most out of an absolutely terrible situation: she kept the 'bio-weapon' out of the hands of the Company and she went out with her dignity intact.

Until Resurrection fucked it up, that is. >.>

[Alferd Packer]

If you treat Resurrection as a stand-alone story, it's actually not that bad. Also, Weaver actually made that backwards over-the-head shot with the basketball, so that's pretty awesome, too.

[Borgholio]

The way they did it in Alien 3, taking everything Ripley had left in the world, shitting all over it and throwing it away only to let the Alien finally kill her? Well I don't mind less-than-happy endings to movies, but Ripley should have gotten at least a little break given everything she had survived previously.

See, I dug that about the movie. The universe rarely has genuinely happy endings, and I think Ridley got the most out of an absolutely terrible situation: she kept the 'bio-weapon' out of the hands of the Company and she went out with her dignity intact.

Yeah like I said it's not a bad movie, I just feel Ripley got the short end of the stick.

Re: Alien Resurrection - Yeah by itself a fun movie but mainly put there to be a cash cow.

[SystemError]

If you treat Resurrection as a stand-alone story, it's actually not that bad. Also, Weaver actually made that backwards over-the-head shot with the basketball, so that's pretty awesome, too.

I don't remember who it was that posted this in an old Alien 3 topic on another forum, but I liked it enough to save it. It's about how the first three films form a really nice narrative chain:

Alien: How we react to trauma (or rape).
Aliens: How we overcome it and become empowered by it.
Alien3: How it stays with us the rest of our lives.

and then

Resurrection: How it makes us great at basketball.

Joss Whedon, folks.

[JLTucker]

I think it's easily the best sequel in the series because it maintains the horror feel of Alien. Don't get me wrong, Aliens keeps that claustrophobic feel as well, but the problem with that one is that it's pew pew action crap. Alien 3 takes a dump on that, thank God, and gives us a movie more about humanity than aliens. The fact that these scum of the earth, sent to this distant planet because they are irredeemable in the eyes of society, help Ripley destroy her demons is fantastic. That they would lay down their life for not only for her, but the inmates is quite optimistic. Couple that with Dillon using religion in a non-terrible way to get them to try and see the error of their ways is good too. Plus, the dichotomy between life and death is expertly inter-cut between the burial of those on board Ripley's ship and the birth of the alien that will hunt them all.

Alien 3 is about how your past can still haunt you well into the future and that sacrifice can be given by those we least expect it from.

Edit: It still amazes me that Fincher's eye for style has been present since his first feature.

[Terralthra]

For me, Alien3 isn't a bad movie, but I mentally add "and then she wakes up from her coldsleep nightmare" at the end. The movie is so stuffed with symbolism, and so replete with every one of Ripley's worst fears, that it being a dream is the best explanation I can come up with to make sense of it.

[Stark]

I think Alien3 is awesome. It's more about people than boring aliens, it has some really great shots,and I think it's really packed with powerful themes.

Most people's dislike of it (as above) boil down to 'not what I expected', which is a pretty poor reason decades later. :v

[TOSDOC]

For me, Alien3 isn't a bad movie, but I mentally add "and then she wakes up from her coldsleep nightmare" at the end. The movie is so stuffed with symbolism, and so replete with every one of Ripley's worst fears, that it being a dream is the best explanation I can come up with to make sense of it.

This. The Alien acts more like Jason Voorhees than the creatures of the first two movies, giving the film more of a feeling of a nightmare than what was presented before. (Ever since Ripley's line about the lion, whenever I watch the movie now my brain can't help but replace the creature with a CGI lion--and it looks like it's acting like just a hungry enraged animal instead of a mysterious alien creature). The killings seemed much more indiscriminate and senseless, and the autopsy scene was something I felt was in very poor taste (especially done on a kid she worked so hard to save) just to sneak in even more unnecessary gore. Clemens looks like one of the smartest guys to come around in the series so far, and I would have liked to see him try to tackle their alien problem intellectually. I also enjoyed Hicks' and Newt's characters and hated to see them go, so the plothole of facehuggers on the Sulaco and them dying was another facet of "her nightmare". The whole thing seemed rushed into production--I don't know why they couldn't wait to go to filming until everyone had settled on a solid screenplay.

Anyone see David Fincher's cut on the DVD anthology?

[Stark]

Like real people, I watch BDs. :v The 'assembled cut' is better in most ways, but I feel reintroducing the crap physical effects if the cowsplosion was far less emotional than the original dog scene.

Complaining about 'poor taste' is just so missing the point of the scene (and the first half of the movie) I can't even internalise it. How should the movie have dealt with Ripley needing to destroy the physical remains of her friends - make more sacrifices - to stop the horror? Her difficulty accepting even the possibility of normal life?

It's fascinating that people can take something like a dreamlike quality (ie Ripley is fucking insane) and turn it into some dramatic cop out trope to be more 'comfortable'. The movie is arresting and confronting and it shows in a very personal way Ripley's suffering and compares it to many types of suffering - that's the power of the movie. It shouldn't be dismissed because you find it uncomfortable.

[JLTucker]

This. The Alien acts more like Jason Voorhees than the creatures of the first two movies, giving the film more of a feeling of a nightmare than what was presented before. (Ever since Ripley's line about the lion, whenever I watch the movie now my brain can't help but replace the creature with a CGI lion--and it looks like it's acting like just a hungry enraged animal instead of a mysterious alien creature). The killings seemed much more indiscriminate and senseless, and the autopsy scene was something I felt was in very poor taste (especially done on a kid she worked so hard to save) just to sneak in even more unnecessary gore. Clemens looks like one of the smartest guys to come around in the series so far, and I would have liked to see him try to tackle their alien problem intellectually. I also enjoyed Hicks' and Newt's characters and hated to see them go, so the plothole of facehuggers on the Sulaco and them dying was another facet of "her nightmare". The whole thing seemed rushed into production--I don't know why they couldn't wait to go to filming until everyone had settled on a solid screenplay.

Anyone see David Fincher's cut on the DVD anthology?

The autopsy scene isn't about gore. It's about Ripley trying to escape her past and wanting to make sure some parasite isn't lodged in the child host. She doesn't want to go through all of that hell again. It's when the funeral takes place that she believes she has closure. She has survived. But the dramatic irony is that we, the audience, are seeing the birth of a new threat. Ripley cannot escape her past. That's why the movie shines.

Also, I don't think there is a Fincher cut of the movie. he hated the studio meddling and actually disowns it and calls it shit.

[TOSDOC]

Complaining about 'poor taste' is just so missing the point of the scene (and the first half of the movie) I can't even internalise it. How should the movie have dealt with Ripley needing to destroy the physical remains of her friends - make more sacrifices - to stop the horror? Her difficulty accepting even the possibility of normal life?

I thought the movie dealt with it perfectly--in the funeral scene. You can delete the autopsy itself and still retain the power of Ripley's internal struggle.

The autopsy scene isn't about gore. It's about Ripley trying to escape her past and wanting to make sure some parasite isn't lodged in the child host. She doesn't want to go through all of that hell again.

She didn't seem a bit prepared to deal with a parasite should they have found one in Newt.

It's when the funeral takes place that she believes she has closure. She has survived. But the dramatic irony is that we, the audience, are seeing the birth of a new threat. Ripley cannot escape her past. That's why the movie shines.

Yup, I agree. I liked that part.

Also, I don't think there is a Fincher cut of the movie. he hated the studio meddling and actually disowns it and calls it shit.

The assembled version then. Like Stark, I thought it was better in most ways, though the dog-burster scene is far more emotional.

[Stark]

Removing things because they might upset the weak stomached is probably not artistically defensible. It's a turn on the action genre - gore isn't always heroic one liners. Sometimes it's the personal agony of lying to have your family chopped up because the truth is impossible to consider or confront.

[Flagg]

I love Alien 3, but hate that they killed off Newt and Hicks. So like, as a movie it works for me, but as part a series I feel like it's not as good, if that makes any sense.

[Stark]

That's because you wanted wish fulfilment typical movie sequel. That's one of the biggest strengths of Alien3 as a movie; it wasn't just YET MORE SAME SHIT. Indeed, it used that expectation to really hammer home Ripley's insanity, loneliness, loss, the repeated themes of motherhood, struggle and suffering in an uncaring universe.

[TOSDOC]

Removing things because they might upset the weak stomached is probably not artistically defensible. It's a turn on the action genre - gore isn't always heroic one liners. Sometimes it's the personal agony of lying to have your family chopped up because the truth is impossible to consider or confront.

Just the opposite--I've quite a strong stomach and attended/conducted enough necropsies to lose count. In it's depiction I wouldn't have called it laughable, but it did seem over the top in comparison.

[Stark]

It's confronting by design. Most people probably found it extremely disturbing, and the parallels to he alien lifecycle were certainly intentional. It reinforced the distance between ripely and the regular world (and the audience) so I think it was effective.

[Flagg]

That's because you wanted wish fulfilment typical movie sequel. That's one of the biggest strengths of Alien3 as a movie; it wasn't just YET MORE SAME SHIT. Indeed, it used that expectation to really hammer home Ripley's insanity, loneliness, loss, the repeated themes of motherhood, struggle and suffering in an uncaring universe.

I have a yet unburned bluray of it I'll have to watch some time since the last time I saw it was in the 90's.

[Stark]

Look any time we wish for Aliens 2 - and at 15 we all did - is look at the video games and novels.

[Flagg]

Well I didn't really go in with any preconceptions when I first saw it. I think I was 12 or 13. And I saw 3 first, and then rented Aliens afterwards, so that's probably why I like the movie.

[TOSDOC]

It's confronting by design. Most people probably found it extremely disturbing, and the parallels to he alien lifecycle were certainly intentional. It reinforced the distance between ripely and the regular world (and the audience) so I think it was effective.

I dunno, maybe you're right and I'm approaching it this way because it didn't have the effect on me that it did most others as the filmmakers intended. Clinically I was interested in how an autopsy looking for an alien parasite would be approached, and I thought Clemens was spot on in his responses and reactions--he's easily my favorite character in the film.

Having seen the first two films first, I felt the filmmakers were looking elsewhere than the alien itself for arresting and confronting situations, at the same time making the alien just another big killer animal. No more mystery, just malevolence.

[Sinewmire]

I actually saw this one before I saw Aliens. I had a vague idea of who Newt and Hicks were, but their deaths didn't affect me as they would had I seen Aliens.

I'm in two minds about their deaths. I'm annoyed that they were offscreen, and seemed a lot like a writer's inability to work them into the plot he'd already constructed.

On the other hand, Ripley cannot be safe and comfortable at the start of the movie. She can't have the emotional stability that those two represent, especially Newt. I also realise it'd be pretty much impossible to kill them off during the film and not have it be awful. Perhaps it was best to just get it out of the way? Either way, I regret the necessity of their deaths.

The first version I watched was VHS and I really liked you never quite got a look at the Alien until near the end, and the poor quality recording negated a lot of the poor effects work. After watching the "Assembled Version" the major change - the ox - seemed much worse for precisely that reason. We got a good look at the monster, right at the start.

The setting, an old abandoned mine, filled with malcontents, is pretty much idea setting for Aliens. Hazardous, poorly maintained, dark, nobody trusts one-another. Only Clemens and Aaron really made an impression, the others being "Superintendant" "Cool black guy" and "crazy guy" and "others" and this is one area where the film fails where the other two films shone. Minor characters like Brett and Drake felt very well fleshed out, and there were very few monster-food non-characters to be found.

Overall, the film was was suspenseful, threatening, and the end was good closure - I think we all knew, in our hearts, Ripley could never truly walk way from the Aliens. Also it wasn't Resurrection.

[Stark]

I think thats the part of the scene that works for me too - that Clemens wants to help Ripley, and Ripley is fundamentally unable to be straight with him (because she's totally unable to deal with her experiences). As the audience we know what they're both thinking, but Ripley is separate and apart. Her increasingly bizarre requests and behaviour (and her obvious distress) are big parts of the first part of the movie.

[Terralthra]

Look any time we wish for Aliens 2 - and at 15 we all did - is look at the video games and novels.

None of the video games or novels come anywhere close to the tone or atmosphere of Aliens. It's easy to forget in all the bullshit that there are exactly two COLONIAL MARINES HOO-AH v. aliens battle scenes in the whole movie. The first one doesn't take place until what, an hour or more in? And the second one 45 minutes after that? The movie works so well because of the build-ups, lulls, and peaks of surprise. The marines getting prepped, the actual drop, the exploration, finding Newt, etc.