User reviews

I saw this movie for the third time now and I hoped that I might enjoy it a little bit more than the first two times. But, though I really did my best to like it, I was disappointed again.

But then, there are moments when I thought: hey, this could be very good, but it just doesn't work, it just doesn't touch me at all, so what is wrong with it? Maybe I just don't see it the way it is intended?

After all this is I think the truth about this movie: like it is, you can't see it the way it is intended.

I just can't believe that someone who directed such a solid and compact movie as Se7en, could make such a horrible mistake: there is no story, there is no center, the whole thing just falls apart in pieces when you watch it.

I think this is due to some wrong editing (and maybe this was caused by a not thoroughly thought trough scenario, but that I can't say). There were several moments when I thought: hey, why is this happening now, it should happen minutes ago and moments when I thought: why is this happening right now, it just spoils the enjoyment of suspense, they should show this way later in the movie. And there were scenes I thought: my God, why didn't they cut this piece away, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Like the 'running scenes' closing to the end: you just can't make head nor tale of it, they're just running around, while you never get what they're plan actually is and how they would like to make it work. You just wait till they're done and get on with the 'story'. This is just annoying as it is. But I think what the director meant was to create this feeling of being lost in endless tunnels without ever really seeing it from a bird's view, to run and hope you will get somewhere, with only the help of your fear and the intuition it brings with it. Done well, this could prove to be some really exciting and nerve-cracking sequence, a real build-up to the grand finale.

There were also moments when I thought the music was kicking in way too early or too late, making it some kind of a mere commentary instead of accompanying and enforcing the action (like it is so well done in Star Wars or The X-files just to name a few).

I think a better editing could make this movie a whole new experience, getting things at the right moments and making it one whole again, like it proved possible with "Blade Runner". I for one wouldn't mind to see it one more time, but only the way it was probably intended, so I hope they will give the director a chance to remake this movie and to prove that it is a good one after all.

What happened here then? It would be impossible to live up to the previous two, so why try? If you throw a coin up in the air and you shoot a perfect hole in the middle, why try it again? You're more than likely to fail. Dark film that tries to be like the first in the saga, but doesn't pull it off like the master Ridley.

I just watched this again. I've seen Alien and Aliens countless time, but have only seen Alien 3 once and that was pretty much enough for the last 15 years.

This movie is really just a waste of time, because the few good ideas and interesting things that happen are completely overshadowed by the illogical plot, worthless characters and slasher feel (you could replace the alien with any other movie monster, no problem).

I don't think this has anything to do with David Fincher, though.

He did not write the story or the script, and those areas are where the major problems lie.

Think of all the other movies he has directed since then:

Seven, Fight Club, The Game

Those are three of my all-time favorite movies, and the ones I didn't list above, like panic room, are still good movies.

I just can't believe that it was Fincher causing the problems here, but I can believe that he could be easily pushed around by a studio during his directorial debut (maybe even their fall-guy?). Blame the studio for letting this P.O.S. go into production in the first place.

After the brilliant Alien, and the maybe even better Aliens, what was the obvious progression? That's right, Alien Cubed. That's something of an optimistic title though, as this is certainly not Alien to the power of three. Actually, the only real problem with Alien3 is that everyone involved in it, with the exception of David Fincher, Sigourney Weaver, H.R.Giger, and maybe Charles Dance seems to be completely useless. The acting is (with the exception of the above) uniformly awful, truly dreadful. The clunking dialogue is not helpful to their cause.

Fincher does a decent job with what he has to work with and his past in music videos doesn't make the film too flashy and disorientating. Particularly impressive is the scene with the alien's point of view while it runs along the ceiling. But the whole film is let down by the disappointing visuals. Where the first two films had darkness and dinginess, or just sheer scale to impress you with, Alien3 just has a rust coloured prison planet that looks like something from Dune. Only worse. This is the downfall of the film - if the visuals had been better, the films other many bad points could probably have been ignored.

Alien took my breath away, and was the defining movie that reeled me into Sci-Fi. Aliens had even more aliens and then came the queen. Alien 3 didn't need to be told, the story wasn't convincing. Perhaps the fatal flaw was setting it in a space prison. It's hard to care for characters who are murderers and rapists. I wouldn't waist the time to watch this but you should definitely watch the first two.

Alien 3 was a letdown of a sort when compared to both Alien and Aliens, classics in their own right. Sigourney Weaver returns as does Lance Hendriksen in two different roles. But even though Weaver is there, the movie just doesn't have the same power as the first two films.

Ripley (Weaver) crash lands on a prison planet and is taken in by a doctor (Charles Dance). But the Alien has followed her again in a different way, and goes about destroying the inhabitants of the planet. Once again its up to Ripley to destroy the monster.

The acting in this film was pretty good, and the visuals are amazing, but this movie, as directed by David Fincher, is way too dark and depressing when compared to the first and second films. This film leaves us with no real hope for anyone. Yes there are some genuine scares to be found here, and like I said the film has a good look to go with quality acting. Too bad that the director took it down this despairing road with a horrible ending that I never could accept.

When compared to the first two movies, this film is second rate. However, it is still much better than Alien Resurrection which followed. That movie, to me, was a waste of time and money.

I am one of the people who doesn't dislike this film because it is different, but because it wasn't different enough. Oh no, there is an alien behind you. Look out, it is picking you off one by one. I really didn't think it even tried to do something else. I would've preferred Alien 4 to this one if that one wasn't campy. However, if you liked the first Alien the best out of all the movies, you will probably enjoy this film more than I did. I just kinda enjoyed the combat of Aliens more than the thriller movies. However, Alien was one of the first to do this, so it is a testament to the timelessness of it's concept which we younger viewers take for granted.

The long delayed sequel to James Camerons Aliens turned out to be a mediocore affair. I remember going to the local movie theater in my teens to see this film with my brother and I was so dissapointed. It just seemed like an inferiour rehash of the first film. No characters to feel a true sympathy for (though Charles Dance's character gets more depth in the new special edition release). Watching the documentary that comes along with the new re-releae you can plainly see the rough time the producers and writers, etc. had in coming up with a story for the third film. In the end what we got was a brave effort but a failure in comparison with the first two films. The fourth one in the series was a better return to form for me anyway.

Not in the same league as the first 2 Alien films. The special effects were well done, and while the action scenes were excellent, there weren't nearly enough of them. Nothing against director David Fincher, but I would not put him in the same class as Ridley Scott and James Cameron (directors of the first 2 films). This movie did not have a great flow. For the better part of an hour, we're left listening to dull dialogue, before the action picks up. At least with the first Alien film, the suspense kept up the pace of the movie. Also, aside from Lt. Ripley, none of the other characters are the least bit interesting in this film. This movie is enjoyable, and better than a many sci-fi movies out there, but I would not consider this one to be a classic.

Great direction. David Fincher's first film, and he did quite well considering, but the script was 100% awful, a piece of crap from beginning to end. It completely ruins its predecessor, "Aliens," and was clearly only made to make a quick buck.

Fun to watch, but this movie is not a sequel. It's like an interesting nightmare Ripley had on her way to... wherever.

I blame the downfall of the Alien films partly to this movie. It's when the movies went from being masterpieces to pieces of s***e. It's not as bad as Regurgitation but it's leaning that way. More towards that than towards it's predecessor.

Weaver is almost unbearable too look at with her shaved head, and Hicks and Newt are dead. That right there is enough to p*** me off. This movie could have been so much better than this. And come on now, a prison setting? Please. Don't waste my time.

I usually like David Fincher so I can forgive him for this, but it still stinks. 6/10.

Alien 3 is not a bad film but it is the weakest of the four that have been made. Its just nowhere near as good as it could have been. If you take the premise that sequels need to introduce something new in order to keep the audience interest and progress the story, then this movie doesn't do a lot. The only new thing I learned about the aliens from this film, is that they can apparently use any creature as a host and that the resulting alien offspring inherit some of the characteristics of the host. And thats all.

Alien introduced us to the alien, Aliens gave us the hive structure and the rest of the breeding cycle, this gave us very little more, apart from the fact that most criminals appear to be English.

The casual killing off of two of the survivors from Aliens was a really weak way to get them out of the way at the start of the film.

This film is basically a rehashing of the first one - a single alien and a bunch of people fighting it with limited resources. Not good, not bad, just average.

Before Se7en and Fight Club but after Alien and Aliens came visionary director David Fincher's Alien³. The third in the popular franchise, but easily one of the most hated, Alien³ is a grim allegorical tale about life, death, sin and redemption. And it is perhaps because of the weighty themes of this film that many fans of the franchise quickly turned their nose up at it.

Directly following the events of Aliens, the film's surviving character's escape pod crash lands on a prison planet filled with Double Y Chromosome convicts who have now found religion. Unfortunately one surviving alien came with the pod and it is not long before it starts feeding off the prison population.

A stark contrast to director James Cameron's flashy sci-fi action romp 'Aliens', Alien³ is more of a grim psychological horror where the optimism of the first two films are crushed under a near nihilistic tone persistent in this one. However it is this dramatic departure from Cameron's sequel is what gives Alien³ an edge above its predecessors. In addition to a grim storyline littered with quasi and overt religious references, Alien³ also features all of the hallmarks that make David Fincher one of the most popular movie directors around today. Those low camera angles, stark lighting and filtered colors reminiscent of Se7en, Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, are all present in Alien³, in addition to some very stunning cinematography and a haunting score by Elliot Goldenthal.

The performances of the three main leads: Sigourney Weaver, Charles S. Dutton and Charles Dance, are amazing in spite of the weaknesses of the screenplay. It is remarkable that despite all this film had going against it, in its highly publicized development hell (that included a script that went through several extensive rewrites before, during and even after filming had finished), the final product is still a masterpiece, albeit a flawed one.

If you watch the 'Assembly Cut' version of Alien³ , which is over 30 minutes longer than the theatrical release, you will quickly understand why it is indeed one of the most underrated, but also one of greatest sci-fi monster flicks ever made, and why it quite suitably completes the trilogy in the most fitting manner. Although many complain about the doom and gloom of this feature, this final installment in the trilogy is also the most uplifting. Looking beyond the downbeat nature of the film, Alien³ is still essentially a story about hope, and the putting aside of differences to selflessly help achieve a common good. In other words, this film is about redemption. Alien³: Assembly Cut is not only one of the best films in the franchise but it is also one of David Fincher's best efforts to date. 9 out 10.

Although not quite as bad as most critics thought, this was a pretty bad movie. It looked great. All the cool camera angles, and style shots were very good. However, the story really sucked. I usually like Weaver. She is a very good actress. But, in this one, she just seemed to sleep through the movie.

If you want to see a GOOD Alien movie, see the second one, Aliens. If you want to see a good David Fincher movie, see either Se7en or Fight Club. Both are much better.

Unfairly maligned by fans and critics on its release, ALIEN 3 is a film that has a lot going for it. It's unlucky, really, that it follows up two very different movies involving equally brilliant situations: the small-scale claustrophobic horror of ALIEN and the action-packed, large-scale alien war of ALIENS. Yes, the plot follows the same template as in the first film, with a sole creature bumping off a larger cast, but so do many other sci-fi/horror movies. Playing to type isn't necessarily a bad thing.

One thing ALIEN 3 does have going for it is style. Along with SE7EN, this helped define new-look realist cinema, full of grittiness and lived-in grime. It's a harsh, pessimistic world we see on screen, incredibly downbeat in its killing-off of key figures from the series, and although David Fincher may have disowned it, I find it one of his finest films. ALIEN 3 is creepily atmospheric and boasts at least one full-on original horror scene, ironically involving video monitoring once again (although a far cry from the motion tracker sequence in ALIENS). The bit in which Ripley undergoes a body scan is one of the most chilling I can remember seeing in the 1990s.

It also helps that an ensemble cast brings to life the rather familiar storyline. Ripley, shaven-headed and scarred, is tougher than ever, and she has to be amid one of the most unsympathetic list of characters ever amassed in a film. Despite this, the likes of Pete Postlethwaite, Charles Dance, Paul McGann, Brian Glover, Ralph Brown, and in particular Charles S. Dutton bring warmth, humour, pathos and indeed charisma to their prisoner roles. Dutton in particular is outstanding, particularly during a stirring speech he gets late on ("Nobody ever gave me nothing!"). Bringing Lance Henriksen back helps tie up the series chronology, and while the CGI-animated alien may have dated slightly (although nowhere near as badly as you might think), Fincher's inventive, frenetic camera-work keeps the action scenes working. Add in an inventive climax (copied by TERMINATOR: SALVATION recently) and you have one heck of an entertaining sequel and the last decent movie in this series.

Update: I've recently watched the assembly cut of this movie, which makes it a much better viewing experience The story makes a lot more sense this time around and answers most of the plot holes from the theatrical cut, such as the disappearance of crazed prisoner Golic. The addition of 'trapping the alien' sequence is also a decent one, and I don't really buy the reasons for excising it in the first place; does it make the alien a less credible menace? Not a chance. On the other hand, the running time is now close to 2h20m, which spoils the pacing, and it drags a little in the mid section despite all the action going on. As a huge fan of the series, I think the assembly cut is by far the better version of the film, and I wouldn't go back to the theatrical edition.

After two extremely atmospheric, haunting and tense movies, this third Alien movie came as a bitter disappointment. It picks a more monster-horror approach, in which the 'monster' wants to kill everyone. Yes, it's true that in a way "Alien" wasn't much different, only difference was that in 1979 this approach was still new and original but not by 1992 standards anymore.

Problem is that this movie is fairly standard and mostly predictable. Basically this movie isn't much different from most other genre movies, in which a monster is on the loose and on a killing-spree. In this movie you exactly know who is going to die and when. It also really kills the tension the movie. The only thing that makes the killings still good and interesting is the amount of gore used for it.

The more 'monster' like approach of the alien also wasn't a good movie and it differs from the first two alien movies. The alien has a too prominent part in the movie and has way too much screen time. The mystery and horror of the character(s) in the first two movies was they the movie didn't showed them in many scene's, at least not fully. In the first two movies the alien was more presented as an animal, killing for their own survival. Not as a monster who kills for pleasure as in this movie is the case. This can be explained because of the reason that this alien in this movie is different from the aliens in the first two movies but this is not satisfying enough, considering that it is never explained in the movie why the alien acts and looks different.

The movie went too various re-writes, even during filming and suffered heavily from the studio's- and producers influences. No wonder that David Fincher doesn't want to have anything to do with this movie. With other movies he definitely showed that he is capable of directing both atmospheric and tense movies ("Se7en", "The Game", "Panic Room"), so it's definitely not has fault that the movie failed. As a matter of fact, the visual style and atmosphere of the movie still make sure that this movie is a better than average one.

There are some nice looking and claustrophobic sets featured in the movie. On the other hand the movie unfortunately felt the need to put in some computer effects and even though they of course look quite good for early '90's standards, it's terribly outdated and fake looking now.

The movie is carried once more by Sigourney Weaver's performance. Ripley is such a great and strong female character. It also shows courage and dedication to the movies and character that Sigourney Weaver shaved her head bald for this movie. Too bad that none of the other characters really work out in this movie. They mostly remain flat and uninteresting. The movie does feature some interesting actors such as Charles Dance, Ralph Brown and Pete Postlethwaite but all of their talent is wasted in the script, in which they get very little interesting to do or say. The re-appearance of Bishop also feels more of an obligation than it serves a real purpose, though fans won't complain about it and neither would I really. I love Lance!

Not the greatest, most tense, most original genre-piece around, not even on its own.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/