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to put in some computer effects and even though they of course look quite good for early '90's standards, it's terribly outdated and fake looking now.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/

I have heard and seen a lot of negative reviews on this film, and while I can understand the reviewers' disappointments I think Alien 3 is a much better film than it is given credit for. True, the script is not as strong, being not as thought-provoking or as clever, the story does have its illogical parts(I can understand why people are upset at two characters being killed off, it was somewhat contradictory) and the characters aren't as well fleshed out as in the predecessors excepting Ripley and even she was better developed before. However, I do disagree it is one of the worst sequels ever, there are much worse I can think of. Yes it is the weakest of the series, but that's not to say it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The production design is excellent, and the editing is also skilled. David Fincher also does a surprisingly good job directing, by principally developing the maternal themes of Aliens. He has directed better, and he has done better films since, but that is no reason to dismiss his credible directing job on this film. The atmosphere once again is bold, the tone and feel here is more dystopian granted but there are still some good shocks and some unforgettable scenes especially the surgical operating scene and the final showdown, the latter of which is exhilarating. The acting is good enough, Sigourney Weaver is very good, while Lance Henrikssen's brief appearance helps too. Oh, and the tag line is the best of all the Alien movies in my opinion. Overall, Alien 3 is not in the same class as its predecessors, but I personally wouldn't go as far to say it is one of the worst sequels or movies ever. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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.