Haters gonna hate. Just saw the Assembly cut for the n´th time and it is amazing. The symbolism. The layers. The cast. The mood. Such a deep and good film, almost as good as the first one.
All the criticism is childish. I wish Fincher would come to accept his movie. Its so weird to love a movie a creator hates.
agreed. my favorite after the original.
shareI did not like this installment the first time I saw it. Then I got a copy of the director’s cut. Some crucial scenes were exised from the film. These scenes added depth to the story.
It is a film I had to watch several times before I came to appreciate it. So different from the first two films. Great acting all around.
It has a great mood. Not boring, but slow paced. A feel of loss, emptyness. You can feel sorrow of lost loved ones. etc.
shareWell agreed. Well... sort of.
For all itss flaws, it's still the second best in the series, but I think the Theatrical Cut is better and leaner than the Assembly Cut.
But why all the hate? That is what I dont get.
The collective hate some movies get. Its loudmouth opinions exclaimed as TRUTH because many says its so.
Its annoying.
Aliens is the first of the series I saw, at a young age, and it made a strong impression on me. Alien3 is the first I saw in the theatre at a time when films were discussed in magazines and school playgrounds months before they were released, with very little spoilers, building enormous hype. So I don't think I'm prejudiced towards either opus.
I think Alien3 simply features better cinematography, editing, costumes, sets, character writing and explores more interesting themes than Aliens.
"But why all the hate? That is what I don't get."
***
Why indeed, my friend?
Most frequent explanation I've seen is that viewers didn't take well to Newt and Hicks, characters they got attached to in Aliens, be disposed of so unceremoniously. They wanted Ripley to have a surrogate family she can protect form aliens. A very different (and lesser) film it would have been in my opinion. Besides, it had already been done in Aliens. Don't care much for "surrogate mother Ripley" from Aliens, compared to her characterisation in the other films.
Another explanantion is some of the poor special effects on the creature throughout the film.
Effects are indeed a bit dodgy in some of the larger shots of the whole creature, especially at the end. But the creature design itself and the close ups of the animatronics are fantastic. And Aliens also features some very ugly blu-screens and rear-projection (e.g. crash of the Sulaco shuttle).
There's also the argument that the film is too bleak.
Fair enough. It is. But no more so than other David Fincher films like, say, Seven, which is almost universally regarded as a great film.
Then, there's that whole "where-does-the-second-face-hugger-come-from?-how-many-eggs-were-there?-writing-makes-no-sense- we're-being-lied-to" business.
No imagination. If an 8 tons creature can attached itself to a shuttle, stand right behind you and remain unnoticed until it rips you apart as it does in Aliens, then surely it's not too much to demand we accept there were two facehuggers onboard the pod in Alien3.
And then there's the somewhat "snobbish" explanation that most film viewers are not film-litterate and wouldn't recognise good cinematography, editing, shot composition or thematic writing if they bit them in the arse.
Which is absolutely fine. It's art, not an engineering degree exam. All opinions are welcome. They just can't all expect to be treated equally or as being equally relevant. One has the tastes one can, not the ones one wants.
"Most frequent explanation I've seen is that viewers didn't take well to Newt and Hicks, characters they got attached to in Aliens, be disposed of so unceremoniously"
Yeah, and I find it so annoying, because that is the NORM now. The "everyone can die" - trophe has been done to death now on TV-shows like a Game of Thrones etc. And "everybody" seems to love that show. Its DARK and GRITTY and REAL.
But in Alien3 its just "bad". And I will object on that point with a passion. Because in the average modern nihilistic show where "everyone can die" show or movie the deaths are usually "unceremoniously". They are killed and then the shock lingers for a short while before the show/movie moves along and forgets the character all toghether and the death doesnt really affect anything.
But in Alien3, the deaths LINGER. Especially Newts. Hicks death seems to be sidelined somewhat. Ripley seems to get over that somewhat quick... or not... But her short love affair with the doctor COULD imply that, or it could be a complex psychological statement of desperate longing for something after dark life experiences. But the ENTIRE movie is about the death of Newt and dying herself.
"Another explanantion is some of the poor special effects on the creature throughout the film."
Yeah, shallow people will focus on that ;-) Like saying The Exorcist is bad because of the head turning scene.
"There's also the argument that the film is too bleak."
It is bleak. But that is what I like about it. A nice dark ending for the Ripley story (yeah, then came Alien Ressurection...)
"No imagination. If an 8 tons creature can attached itself to a shuttle, stand right behind you and remain unnoticed until it rips you apart as it does in Aliens, then surely it's not too much to demand we accept there were two facehuggers onboard the pod in Alien3."
Totally agree. I also like the Bishop theory that he took them aboard because he really is a Weyaln-yutani property.
All fair points.
Especially about the lingering psychological effect of Newt's death on Ripley.
Hadn't heard of the "Bishop theory" before...
A couple of other points (from a previous post) in praise of Alien3 over Aliens:
Thematically speaking, I find 'Alien 3' is "about" something at the same time more complex, grander and more relatable than anything 'Aliens' is about:
- Grief for the tragic loss of a “child”, and acceptance of the intrinsic unfairness of existence (something I understand the immense majority of people who disliked Alien3 for "killing off" both Newt and Hicks had the most difficulty coping with).
- The depression and difficulty to stand up and fight in the face of what seems like insurmountable odds: Ripley is at the same time so much stronger (she stands her ground amidst a group of violent male criminals and rapists) and vulnerable (she can’t take it anymore and decides to end her life at some point… before deciding to fight again) than in the other films.
- The sheer terror and hyper-reality of the moment you realize something with your x-ray is not quite right, with all that it could imply about how much time you have left to live (the EV pod scanner scene).
- The living for so long with something inside of you that will eventually kill you, that it becomes a part of who you are.
- Acceptance in a community that is so fundamentally different from yourself, and learns to "tolerate" the "intolerable". Turn on the news today and see how crucial and difficult this is.
But basically, not themes that would appeal or even speak to teenagers or immature adults (as opposed to those developped in Aliens), that's understood.
Also, although Alien3 is a 33 year old film NOTHING obviously screams early 1990's when watching it today (not the haircuts, not the costumes, not the music, notthe editing...Maybe the photography a little, but that's merely because Fincher, with Alien3 and Seven would go on to define the grungy look of nineties films, one that is still seen in some films to this day).
The editing in Alien3 is fantastic (watch that autopsy sequence again! https://youtu.be/8xzSZYaeBcU?t=58).
Yes. Although the xenomorph has been a cancer metaphor in other Alien franchies instalments as well its never more clear than in this movie. She coughs, and are weak. She loses her hair (although not because of the parasite), nosebleeds and that x-ray scene.
Yes. Its a great autospy scene. But what about the cremation scene?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vSYMrVZdcw
I am glad I am not alone in appreciating this movie :-)
"The collective hate some movies get. Its loudmouth opinions exclaimed as TRUTH because many says its so".
***
Would you agree that what's important is what the film is to you, not what it is to others (and certainly not how well it performed at the box-office, unless you're a studio exec, which it would appear many posters on these boards are...)?
How many "Am I the only one who thinks so-and-so?" posts have you come across on these boards? Most people (me included, I'm sure) want two things: validation, and appear smarter than they are.
Producing an honest critical analysis of a film is difficult. Takes time, effort and knowledge of film history.
But don't worry: Cinema History has a way of avenging films such as this one (or The Thing, or Blade Runner, or Miami Vice...) that are almost universally disliked and performed poorly on release, and are reevaluated decades later, once the consensual thinking fades out and the critical analysis has been performed. And in the case of Alien3, one can sesee the reappraisal work is well under way.
Similarly, Cinema History is full of award winning, hyped on release films that have completely faded from memories a mere few years after release.
"But don't worry: Cinema History has a way of avenging films such as this one (or The Thing, or Blade Runner, or Miami Vice...) that are almost universally disliked and performed poorly on release, and are reevaluated decades later, once the consensual thinking fades out and the critical analysis has been performed. And in the case of Alien3, one can sesee the reappraisal work is well under way."
I agree. I wonder if Joker 2 will get that treatment. Its not the greatest piece of cinema I watched, but it did NOT deserve all that hate either.
"I agree. I wonder if Joker 2 will get that treatment. Its not the greatest piece of cinema I watched, but it did NOT deserve all that hate either."
***
Well, I don't want to make a habit of it, but I agree with you again on this one!
Saw the first Joker in theatre and ABSOLUTELY did not care for it. Saw all the terrible critics about the second one but ended up watching it anyway, exopecting to hate it. And I actually quite liked it and found the writing quite ballsy. However, just like Alien3 maybe, it is an extremely depressing story.
Tarantino had very good things to say about the second Joker by the way.
Michel Mann's 'Blackhat' is another excellent movie that was universally panned by viewers and critics alike on release in 2015 (IMDb score around 3 or 4, at the time...).
the script is still full of plot holes and doesn’t make any sense, it’s the best movie they coulda made with what they had, but it’s just too flawed to be salvaged as a good movie. Sigourney weaver just had way too much influence with it.
share"the script is still full of plot holes and doesn’t make any sense"
Like in the first movie when Ripley goes after the cat? Or the second one where the shoot aliens point blank and doesnt get acid on them? Oh, right. Those are masterworks. They dont have plotholes. Such hubris. WHAT PLOTHOLES?
"Sigourney weaver just had way too much influence with it."
Ive heard the producers medling, but I´ve never heard Fincher complain about Weaver.
Its a great movie. Better than the second one. All movies have flaws. This ones greatness outweigh that.
What you just mentioned aren’t plotholes. Unlike Ripley “magically” being impregnated. Among other things.
Fincher is a bit of a hack, so I don’t really care what he has to say. He was a director for hire at that point. The issue with Alien3 was Ripley being an executive producer and demanding all these dumb stipulations like no guns and Ripley dying/having sex with an alien. She basically ruined the series.
It is no way shape or form a great movie due to the complete lack of suspense. Unlike Aliens.
Its funny. Its just a movie. But I still get irritated, borderline angry when reading "Unlike Ripley “magically” being impregnated." Because its so stupid to say. Its like you dont understand anything.
At the credit ends in Aliens you can hear a SFX of an egg opening. Is it a joke? Or is it suppose to be a hint of a third movie? Who know. But in Alien3 its still explained what happned. You see an alien egg being on the Sulaco. It opens and then attacks one of the beds. It seems to start with Newt but regrets it and goes for Ripley instead.
Its not magically. Then for 2/3 of the movie Ripley complains about her throat which is suppose to be a hint of her being the one who had the facehuggger. What is MAGICAL about it? Nothing at all.
Again, its already established in Aliens that an egg may be on the solaco. Why? The queen was on the ship. Also Bishops allianses has always been in question (he was an Weyland-Yutani property).
"Fincher is a bit of a hack"- The guy who gave us Seven, Fight Club, Gone Girl... is a hack?
"the complete lack of suspense"... It has plenty of suspense, but a stronger emotion is in this movie. Sorrow. It captures SORROW better than suspense. But there are plenty of suspense as well.
Okay genius, please explain how the facehugger impregnated both the dog and Ripley when in previous movies it was clearly shown every facehugger dies after impregnating just ONE person? And why didn’t Ripley check the Sulaco for any remaining aliens after the Queen clearly snuck onboard? Is the ship’s best safety system simply to jettison people into the nearest planetoid without any kind of landing system for the escape pods.
And don’t give my any of that “super facehugger” crap because that explanation still doesn’t work.
Alien Cubed fanbois are something else
A new facehugger? I actually thought it was a non-terminal facehugger when watching the movie. The parachute system was damaged, things are going wrong. Ripley forgot about the possibility of an egg since she was so happy to return to cryo-sleep with Newt after beating the Queen Alien. She didn't want to think there was anything else to deal with subconsciously... It was a happy time. Or the deity which may be supporting the Alien cast the spell for space-fare to fold out like that. Destiny must be controlled on a space level.
shareThat’s a shite response. What “new facehugger”? I told you there is no super facehugger. It’s a plot hole.
Parachute system was damaged how? How can the Sulaco not extinguish one measly electrical fire?
I don’t buy your bullshit explanation about Ripley forgetting to check for aliens either. The Ripley from Aliens would have swept the ship up and down for any remaining xenomorphs before feeling safe enough to go to sleep.
Your deity was just a hack Hollywood screenwriter who decided to take a giant dump on the franchise,
Well I thought it was a non-terminal facehugger and that's a good new idea for the movie. They don't necessarily die. They're special. The Sulaco was not desgigned well enough to extuingish the fire. It was overlooked. With things going wrong the parachute system similarly hesitates and turns into junk for the situation - maybe it's the deity's vision.
shareThe movie tried to add a “super facehugger” to lay two eggs but it was only included in the assembly cut. But still doesn’t work because Ripley is shown with a regular facehugger on her. Sooo where did two facehugger come from?It still doesn’t work. Space is very big. Ship just happens to be passing by a populated planet? Odds of that are astronomically small.
The script is a mess
1) Bishop brought more than one egg on board
2) The Queen lay more than one egg on board.
3) Unknown mysterybox aka does the entire movies hang on this issue?
1) Bishop never woulda had time to retrieve an egg from the nest
2) if the queen laid a whole bunch of eggs on the ship then Ripley definitely woulda checked for that. Ripley suddenly became stupid overnight in this movie and the entire events were basically her fault now?
3) mystery box is a JJ ABRAMS technique of lazy storytelling
You know I am getting tired of having to defend this movie to someone who cant fill in the blanks himself out of LACK OF IMAGINATION.
But fine.
1) Could be from the lab they were in earlier in Aliens (not sure if it was stated that the two facehuggers who got let lose were the ONLY ones who lived or not) / you dont know how much time he had or where he was while Ripley was down with the queen looking for Newt. Hitch was passed out if I remember correctly.
2) Maybe she did and didnt find any. But there is a paradox. You seem to think its farfetched that there WERE eggs on the Sulaco. Why would she then think it would NOT be farfetched?
3) I agree.. But the point is that you as an audiencemember sometimes can FILL IN THE BLANKS.
1) your explanation still doesn’t work dumbfuck. I’m not required to “fill in” your shitty plotholes. Bishop wouldn’t have found an egg at the lab, he wasn’t even at the fucking lab. He was calling down the drop ship: do you really think he carried an egg with him crawling all the way through that pipeline? Lol
2) stop misquoting. I never said it’s far fetched there were eggs on the Sulaco. I said it’s far fetched that Ripley wouldn’t EVEN CHECK for any remaining aliens in the Sulaco. She would’ve searched the ship high and low.
3) no, audiences are not required to excuse shitty writing and plot holes bud
I am done now.
Happy new year :-)
"And don’t give my any of that “super facehugger” crap because that explanation still doesn’t work."
- Well I have to add that one, because its clear that the facehugger in Alien 3 Assembly cut has a different, bigger type and its seems that its stated that a super facehugger has a queen and a protector.
But fine: Here are other possible solutions:
1) there were more than one egg on Sulaco. One egg, or many eggs. Why not.
2) If you dont suspect eggs on the Sulaco, why should Ripley
3) Could be hidden by the queen (we dont know her intelligence)
4) Could have been hidden by Bishop (we do not know his allegiance)
I dont know how escape pods work in Alien, but its clear form the very first alien movie (landing sequence) that spacetravel is dangerous and uncomfortable. Its industrial and rough.
No the facehugger is not bigger or a different type because the one on ripleys face is a normal one
shareYou talk of the dog. Does that mean you havent seen the assembly cut?
Here is a picture of the facehugger in the assembly cut.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LV426/comments/16xyd3x/in_the_assembly_cut_we_see_the_royal_facehugger/
Again:
1) It could be more than one facehugger. Bishop or the queen may have brought / layed more than one. or...
2) The queen facehugger can lay more than one embryo.
Except the super-facehugger never appears trying to get inside Newt’s cryotube or on Ripley face in the opening, so it’s still a plot hole
shareI think the criticism is valid. Fincher doesn't like the film because he was forced to begin shooting the movie before the screenplay was even done. It's my least favourite in the series, but I wouldn't say that I hate it.
shareThis is where I stand regarding the third film as well. I do not hate it; I just like the other films more than it. I even find myself going back to Alien Resurrection more frequently than Alien 3.
shareI love Alien3 and it is seriously underrated but the first two films are classics. It is an excellent film but not as good as the first two.
shareI think Aliens (1986) turned the epic strange aliens into ants that threat lied in NUMBERS not in it being a "perfect organism". Basically bugs.
But I did like the characters in that movie. But it turned the aliens into cockroaches that sometimes have acid for blood when the plot needs it.