Alien3 & Alien Resurrection (1 Viewer)

[Alex Spindler]

I'm one who likes Alien3 a great deal (although my preferences for the films follow their order - Alien, Aliens, Alien3, Alien:Res). I loved the movie from day one, although I never made the connection that David Fincher had made it until some years after Seven was released. Not to say that it isn't flawless. I can see where everyone is coming from in that they don't like the characters from Aliens not surviving, but I really liked having my expectations swept right away right from the beginning. And it just kept going places I never thought it would go. First that Ripley would remain the sole survivor of the Alien encounters(except Jones the cat), that she would be impregnated with an Alien, and that they would use that to help finally kill it.

The parts that I really wish were changed in Alien3 are mainly around the last shot as she is falling. There really is no need to have the Queen burst out of her chest right then. It just felt far too coincidental and shoddy looking. I was able to keep track of most of the characters, but it is really difficult given that they all dress alike and are covered in grime.


Alien Res is not bad as an overall film, but it has more flaws than the rest combined. I liked the visual style that they used in it, but I think the comedic angle to it drops most of the suspense. In concept, I have no problem with the Alien baby being kind of awkward looking, given that it is a first attempt at a cross species mating. However, the end result just drags the film down. I really don't think they should have even used the idea.

 

[Artur Meinild]

I absolutely cannot believe that there are actually people out there who BELIEVE that Alien3 is a good film...

I could say the same for Resurrection - now THAT's a horrible waste of time IMO...

 

[Jim_K]

I really hated Alien3 on my first viewing mainly for killing off 2 of the main characters (at the very start) from the previous film & the downgrade quality of the FX.

Something compelled me to watch this a couple more times since & it has grown on me a little. What appeals to me is Fincher's style of direction & the pervasive mood of impending doom throughout the film.

While it's not in the same league as Alien & Aliens, I am very interested in seeing the up-coming directors cut.

Alien Resurrection had the exact opposite effect on me. I (very mildly) liked it on my first viewing but each viewing since has made me downgrade it each time. While I've seen plenty worse sci-fi/horror films, this is worlds away from the first 2 films in the series.

 

[Kevin M]

I didn't hate Alien3 when I first saw it in the theaters in 92' but I was very disappointed, me and a friend went to see it and when the lights went up we looked at each other and shared an "Ehh" sideways head tilt...not a good sign.

 

[RickER]

I don't care for Alien 3 either...but i have to say i re-watched it when i got my old Alien box set. It is not a good movie, but compared to most of the movies we get NOW it is a work of art. I am lucky if i get 3 good movies a year now. And its not that i am getting old and out of touch. Movies are BAD now, and it all started in the early 90s, at the time Alien 3 was made.

 

[Scott Strang]

Resurrection was okay except for the stupid dialog by Ron Pearlman ("Earth, huh.." acting in discust) and Ryder's idiotic interface with the mainframe and then you can here her voice throughout the intercom or P.A. system. If those could be removed it would have been much better.

No, Alien 3 is far less stupid.

 

[Adam Brandner]

oops! double post. sorry.

 

[Adam Brandner]

I've already posted in a thread or two exactly what I hate about Alien3 and AR, so I'll avoid rehashing what pretty much everyone else here has said and offer a question I haven't seen in this thread yet. Assuming that you can look past all of Alien3's short-comings, it does give closure to the story. So why in the hell was AR even necessary? All I could think when I saw this movie was "why did they even bother to make this?" Even if it had been the best movie in the series, it just doesn't make sense to add a fourth movie to the series. It was a total, shameless cash-in. If they really wanted to make another Alien movie, couldn't they have just had different characters stumble onto another Alien Hive? Is Ripley really as important as the Aliens to these movies? It seems like they could have easily started up a whole secondary story line with fresh characters and avoided that terrible cloning bit, not to mention the newborn. The fact that Ripley is back yet again is just more evidence that this movie was made solely with $$$ in mind. Screw the integrity of one of the most popular sci-fi series in recent memory, there's money to be made!

By the way, does anyone know if the Alien Tetralogy will be available in separate discs? I really want 1 & 2, I wouldn't mind owning 3 & the bonus disc, but I will not have 4 sitting on my DVD rack. If I have to buy the 9-disc set to get the new versions, I guess I'll just have to burn my copy of AR.

 

[Andy Olivera]

The only thing about the cloning plot that I didn't buy was the amount of time it took them to clone her. It does seem contrived, but it's also a perfectly logical progression. After Ripley dies, what would be the only way to get the creature out of her?

As for the newborn, they needed to introduce a new breed of alien just like in the other three films.

 

[Adam Brandner]

Oh, but that scene was awful where they encounter a dozen or so failed Ripleys clones. Just gore for the sake of gore. Definitely my least favorite scene in any of the Alien movies.

I like your idea of having the confrontation take place on LV-426. That would have been much better. They wouldn't have needed to bring Ripley back for that, either. I'm okay with having her in the first 3 movies, but I still consider her far less important than the Aliens themselves. People go to these movies to see the creatures, not Sigourney Weaver. Am I wrong?

 

[Andy Olivera]

In Aliens and especially Alien 3 Ripley was as important as the aliens, because destroying the species turned into her quest. The producers probably weren't sure whether an entirely new cast would work with audiences, so they decided to play it safe. Cowards.


Hey, I love that scene.

I'm guessing Whedon wrote the scene to give Ripley a "character moment", so you can't say it's there only to show off some (very cool) creature effects. Also, again, it's a logical product of them cloning her: in order for the cloning to work, you'd have to have both her and the alien's DNA. Getting them to grow together without combining would probably be impossible(there's a plot hole for ya) and it would obviously produce some interesting hybrids.

I watched it today and I was thinking how they could've used the same characters/story, but left Ripley dead and the film would've worked just as well(not saying much, but...). It might even have worked better. They could leave #8 dead at the beginning and include the Betty's crew finding the lab later to give Ripley a little cameo.

Jeez, I spend way to much time thinking about these films. Maybe I should write a book...

 

[Adam Brandner]

You're absolutely right. If they had just found more Aliens on another ship or an asteroid or something, it would have been better. It also could have cast some light on where they originate from and what their capabilities are. One of the things I liked about Alien3 was that it suggests that the Aliens' genetic structure borrows heavily from the host organism. The Alien in that film always seemed more dog-like to me and the ones in the prior films seemed almost humanoid. I always thought it might have been cool to have had Alien4 center around a small colony that was overcome, possibly with livestock or other animals (some sort of zoo maybe?) that allow for more variation in the Aliens' make up, without fundamentally changing/ruining the concept (like the newborn did). Large animals like an ox, tiger, elephant, etc would allow for a much larger Alien. If the concept was stretched further, you could have something like a fruit-bat or a seal as a host, which could create Aliens more suited to other environments. At any rate, it never happened, and it seemed like a concept that was hinted at in Alien3, and I personally think it would have been much cooler than the way AR turned out.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I'm hoping the new Alien Quadrilogy set from Fox will have a Whedon commentary so he can explain this sort of thing.

 

[Andy Olivera]

Funny you should mention that, because that extention was actually explored in one of the totally unused Alien 3 scripts. It was alot like AR, but no Ripley. It brings back the original concept of people mutating into eggs, opening with a group soldiers finding the Sulaco, except Ripley/Newt/ Hicks are eggs(can't remember what happened to Bishop). A few new revelations are entered, too(mutation directly into aliens; aliens merging with technology). I seem to remember an alien mosquito, at one point.

I can send it to you if you'd like. It's a good 2-3 hour read. Written by Eric Red, if you can believe that.

 

[Anthony R]

The one thing that always bothered me about the scene where Ripley encounters her failed clones was when the live one asks for a mercy killing and Ripley responds by setting her on fire with a flame thrower! Were there no less painful weapons available?

 

[Kevin M]

Maybe...but there wasn't a more theatrical weapon available, not in an Alien film, that's for sure.