"Game", "Fight Club", "Gone Girl"). "Alien 3", despite belonging to a long-standing franchise - quite, I would even say, a very Fincher film. The new director turned the series on the old path of atmospheric, chamber cinema. But if Ridley Scott, in fact, filmed a monster-movie, then Fincher alien nightmares and deadly mysteries of the Universe are not so interesting - he is primarily interested in people. The future master of a psychological thriller takes up business - and conducts an interesting experiment. A rescue capsule brings the lyceum and Ripley to the prison planet, where the few prisoners convicted of particularly serious crimes have united in a religious community. For years, these people have managed to restrain aggression and perverted tendencies, to cultivate humility; but first they are tempted in the person of a woman, and then Death herself, embodied in a disgusting alien monster. What's going on with these people? How do they perceive what is happening? Did their religion change them, or did they remain rapists, scoundrels, psychopaths? And each character unfolds in its own way. For some, religion helps to remain a person, and someone’s mind, “heated” by mystical moods, is already ready to take the Alien for a deity. Someone falls into demonic courage and throws himself at a monster with bare hands, and someone at the last moment does not dare to sacrifice himself to save others, cowardly and doomed running away from the monster. Everyone goes from a shaking alarmist to a berserker ready to sell his life. Or vice versa – from a dispassionate and unperturbed person, to a beast mad with fear. In “Alien 3” there is no division into invulnerable main characters and “red shirts”, serving as consumables. Fincher mocked the viewer enough: here we presented the character, revealed his character - but this character is already fluttering in the teeth of the monster. An alien is inescapable, like Death itself, everything is fair - it can only be defeated together. And Ripley is here, despite his special status in the plot, almost gone into himself and his doom man. It is already very difficult for her to believe that the struggle for survival still makes sense. A little about the film's flaws. First of all, it was a bit hurtful, though, when David Fincher "killed" Hicks and Newt. It felt like a kind of under-the-belt blow to me. Maybe it was necessary to kill Ripley morally, but I think that the military and the little girl just did not fit into the concept of the film, destroying the “tightness” of the situation. The director needed two "aliens" - a woman who personified life, and a xenomorph who personified death. Unnecessary characters Fincher bluntly "leaked" - as an artist, had the right, but still hurtful. Well, from petty faults - Sigourney Weaver shaved head categorically does not go, like any woman, imho. This is my personal preference. Bottom line: despite the fact that David Fincher already in this, the first directorial experience fully showed his “author’s handwriting”, greatly changing the entourage of the series and freely treating the characters of the previous part, he managed to create a real, canonical “Alien 3”. Moreover, he managed to return the series to the mainstream of atmospheric horror - that is, to return to its origins. A great film, which will especially appeal to those who found the second part too “bad”. That’s only to the first part, he probably does not reach – the mystical sensation and romance of meeting with the unknown that arose on board the alien ship, you can not experience again. At least in the Alien movies. However, Alien 3 is a film about something else. 9 out of 10 Original
The third film in the Alien universe was not bad, but very, very clumsy. Many script moments look unrelated, although given how many times the script was eventually rewritten, it is not surprising that the film is quite possible to watch.
The script does not shine with originality and some moments copy the first film. Alien Now again alone, the weapon capable of killing him is absent as a class, and people are forced to come up with a suicidal plan of struggle. But the contingent of the colony looks very colorful and amusing, especially of course the preacher.
But the atmosphere of mystery and fear has been lost irretrievably, the image of the alien does not cause any emotions. Plus, I don’t know how they did it, but it’s a lot less convincing than in previous movies. And the scenes of eating them people look more funny than really scary.
But with all this, the characters are written convincingly. Their behavior is reliably shown, as well as their feelings, moreover, they even develop during the film. Besides, I just liked the plan they developed, despite some madness, it is quite feasible and even logical.
In this film there are no new ideas or memorable monsters, but it logically concludes a series of films, which was not necessary to continue.
6 out of 10
If you believe in light, it's because of obscurity
Sunset. Elliot Goldenthal's depressive sound against a gloomy starry sky marks a new chapter in the fight against xenomorphs on the outskirts of space. Clip montage in the mode of the report conveys the tragedy of the "Sulako" - the ship on board which ended the film by James Cameron. They're all dead. All but Ripley, found amid mud and lice on a remote planet where an unruly shuttle fell. The harsh subworld here does not bode well, and the vile indiscriminate footage tacitly confirms this. The closing introductory credit with the inscription "Directed by David Fincher" deprives the viewer of the last hope of salvation.
The third “Alien” was born in hell. Studio-mother and Director-father began to swear almost immediately after conception: Fincher bet on black, Fox as usual on white, and script versions flew into the basket in packs. There was no agreement in this house. The studio got a promising neophyte in his bed, but could not control the man: David was too obstinate for her. However, nine months had already been measured and the release date hung over everyone like a sword of Damocles. Heavy shooting began, in which action occurred not only in the frame, but also on the other side of the camera. Throughout development, the studio behaved like a pregnant hysteria, changing writers, dictating conditions, conflicting with the director and sending Giger away. The bosses wanted to create a stranger in the cube on the principle of “bigger, cooler, brighter”, and received only one second from the director. As a result, the father left before giving birth - Fox herself ruthlessly wielded scissors, mounting the footage in a castrated theatrical version. Fincher, by the way, still in every possible way dissociates himself from his firstborn, refusing even to show the world Director’s Cut, which is why film fans have to content themselves with the studio editing of 2003. However, even for a false director, you do not need a DNA test for paternity.
The penetrating parasite brewhatts the next victim, and soon hatched with a nasty cry, the grudol takes its usual place in the labyrinth of ventilation, gradually transforming into a new species - Runner Alien. The hunt begins and history repeats itself. But being a clear underdog in relation to Ridley Scott and 1979, when the alien effect caught off guard, Fincher does not sink into the abyss of the lines and cliches of the franchise. The director builds his orthodox thriller in futuristic scenery, which in general he does not need at all. Although the intrigue in the tape is initially built on the obvious evidence - whether there was an Alien - but in the skilled hands of the master it works. Everything works here. Filmed with manic perfectionism, emotional scenes like bricks build a dramatic foundation - whether it's Newt's autopsy or the intimate conversations of a local doctor with Ripley. It's depth. On the foundation stands a strong framework that determines genre affiliation, structure and pace. And not an exaggerated version based on waiting for a trick around the corner, but a clever psychological concept is used. Finally, on the roof of Fincher is a religion that gives sacred meaning to the whole story.
If you believe in joy, it's because of sadness
The style of early Fincher is to cut the ground from under the feet of the viewer, before overwhelming him with the atmosphere. The tension is escalated from the outside and the scene plays a significant role in this, which becomes a full-fledged hero of the film. Fiorina "Fury" 161 - the most suitable place for criminals-non-returnees. On a godforsaken planet, a handful of sinners have built their own miserable world. A Christian cult on the verge of good and evil with a local spiritual leader. Semi-prison-semi-monastery, where the unfortunate believe and work. They work and believe that one day God will visit Fiorina and save their souls. But it is not God who comes, but a demon in the form of a stranger. However, one Ripley was enough to destroy their “harmony”. Repentance was imaginary, and sinful thoughts were real. The obvious looms, "Fury" = Hell, and a huge blast furnace is just right there. However, Fincher then explicitly hints that Hell is lower.
And if you believe in God, it's because of the devil
By and large, “Alien-3” is a prelude to the film “Seven”, a kind of light-version of the cult picture with religious and Christian overtones. We see a fictional society where everyone is a sinner. Even Ripley, who indulged in lust with the first man she met. The alien, on the one hand, plays the same role as John Doe - he punishes everyone for their sins, cleanses society of contamination. The beast takes people’s souls to Hell. In fact, all the characters of the triquel are obviously dead and the struggle is only for their spiritual salvation. From this perspective, the prison planet is Purgatory. Interpretations can be invented as much as you want, because Alien-3 is an unfinished creation of Fincher, where directorial ideas were chaotically mixed with studio decisions. But the religious subtext is unquestionable when we hear church chorals accompanying both the "cleansing rain" after the monster is captured and the opening of the "gates of hell." When we see a Christian funeral rite, synchronized with the birth of the xenomorph, who is called here by the names of Satan - the Dragon and the Beast. When we understand why the head of a stranger turns into a rusty trumpet, inside which creatures creep - his guise, and the heroine becomes a martyr, frozen in the pose of crucifixion in anticipation of death. The background of the film is the foreboding of the Apocalypse, and with it the coming of the Antichrist, which easily agrees with the ending. "... and the devil who deceived them is thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet, and will suffer day and night for ever and ever." Amen. Sunrise.
First rule of the club: Fincher is always right. Destroying the crew of the “Sulako” already on the opening credits, reversing technological progress and carrying out almost complete dexenomorphization, David Fincher pulls out a raw script almost on a bare atmosphere and a signature visual game tempered by dozens of music videos. The director acts as a bold tough reformer, ready to turn the genre and defend his point of view to the end. However, “Alien-3” became for the clipmaker a break of the pen, a debut in which he did not fully implement the ideas that were crowded at the beginning of his career. The semifincher film will not please the characters-turnovers, surreal games and ingenious techniques a la “Gwen’s head” or “Who are you, Tyler Durden?”. The studio car wouldn't let me. But there is a theme of loneliness that permeates all his work. Like a strange love for closed experimental societies. As well as psychological antagonism. Of course, a depressive atmosphere, a cold picture, manipulations with filters and spectacular installation are included. But as the legend goes, “Alien-3” received bad criticism in the United States for “lack of weapons and high technology, lack of colorful fights with monsters, emphasis on psychology and lack of a happy ending.” I think Fincher would find this review complementary. Why? Second rule of the club: Fincher knows what he's doing. And he's always right.
End of Transmission.
I’ll tell you honestly – when I first decided to watch Alien 3, I was only enough for the first thirty minutes, and then quickly turned inside out. First of all, I was sick of the ugly scenery. Two from bald Ripley. Third, of course, from the awfully nasty convicts. I managed to see this picture only once from the fourth, and even then constantly rewinding.
In short, our relationship with the film did not go right away. At that time it seemed to me that the fourth part, quietly existing without all the above aspects, was a thousand times better.
However, after learning a little bit about the history of the film and reviewing it, I suddenly realized that Alien 3 is not as bad as it seems at first glance. Of course, with the unsightly realities of life, I will tell you honestly, very, very much, but unlike all the same fourth part, it has a number of peculiar advantages.
The main of them (as it is not funny, after my previous statements) can undoubtedly be called all the same huge and gloomy scenery, creating a complete sense of insecurity. If on the light white Nostromo and in the gray colony of Acheronta, you could still feel at home, and therefore safe, then here - not. Among all these corridors and vents, a stranger can easily get lost, disappear into the dark, then suddenly attack and rum-chrum - rip off your head.
The second advantage of the film, as many have already said, is a well-written psychology of the characters. Of course, there is nothing to compare with the previous part, where each character (except for the most background) was a distinctive personality, but, unlike the whole of the long-suffering Resurrection, the characters are present at least in five of them, albeit in the rudiments. The biggest work, of course, was done on Ripley - from Ripley the Furious Fighter, she turned into Totally Desperate Ripley, Ripley, who has nothing to fight for. She is already dead, there is nothing left in her life that would keep her in the world of the living. Now her only goal is to prevent a terrible bastard from hitting the ground, and the rest doesn't matter. Also pleased with his ambiguity dissolute doctor and pastor of prisoners, as if after killing a lot of people who got on the right path. But, alas, the theme of redemption in this movie, even if it is touched upon, is rather poorly considered, and it would be worth it.
Also, special attention should be paid to a new kind of alien, able to run very quickly on the ceiling. But he was shown somehow lubricated, only with his head, muzzle, and in the director's version a pretty figure of a pest explosion. In the same place where he sits on the ceiling entirely - my mommy, computer graphics so cuts the eye that it is immediately clear that the animal is clearly glued here by some incompetent.
So we appreciated the merits, now we move on to the minuses. Here you can find three boxes and more. Let’s start with the most common – the death of the characters of the previous film. Alas, they're really sorry. So, did Ripley have to work her way up on Acheronte for two hours? Looks like it.
The second, also quite common claim - bald heads, creepy men and not one beautiful woman (pardon, there is a beautiful woman, Sigourney Weaver as always charming). This is definitely where the authors are too much. They wanted to make it worse, it got worse. What do you think is the horror of a good horror movie? I think that in the fact that we are worried about the heroes, we hope that they will still be saved and we are terribly frightened when someone still releases their guts / tears off their head. There's nothing to worry about. Zacs, and convicts, one face more disgusting than the other, the manners are such that I want a stranger to get to them all as soon as possible. As a result, the film seems terribly long and even fearless. So the main mistake of the authors we should look here. No sympathy, no interest. Here is the recipe for a failed film.
Of the other faults – again, incoherence and not the integrity of the plot (although this is quite forgiven, ten writers wrote, and in each scenario everything was completely different), and some key events that simply have no explanation. I think that in the end of the latter was the assumption to consider this film as a nightmare heroine lieutenant.
So I'm going to give Alien 3 a solid five. On a scale of ten.
Officer Ripley's ship crashed on a prison planet. Cut off from the outside world, inmates led by two guards rescue Ripley. The rest of the crew are dead. After a short search for the causes of the disaster, the facts emerge - a foreign organism got on board the ship.
As sad as it may be to admit, the film, which caused indescribable delight in a distant childhood, is now regrettable, tipping the scales towards a neutral impression only thanks to good acting and the idea of hunting Aliens for “lambs” on a planet-prison, where there are no firearms.
Screenplay and editing (not directing, mind you) are factors that contributed to the low criticism and the assertion of the third part as the worst series. In other words, the main plot seems ridiculous (how an alien egg could get on board a small ship), and the narrative, in most scenes, is excessively stretched in time.
The reason for this, I think, was that the producers after the period of completion of filming and the departure of Fincher got many hours of materials, composed on the principle of logical development of events in the editing room. The mass of film, which needs a competent editorial, and not someone, but the author of the film, in fact, was not edited in the right way, hence the sagging in the plot and the main reason for the lack of success of the film.
Behind the closed curtain you can see something more interesting.
My acquaintance with the Alien happened after watching the fourth part back in 2007. And already in this (2014), after defeating fear, I got acquainted with the other three. I think the whole franchise is great. But among many, there should always be one who is more different, because in similar or identical stories there is one feature - they happen to different people. “Alien 3” is the one that stands out among all. Whatever you think.
Religion
There is nothing surprising in the existence of a prison on an unknown planet, because for science fiction films it is a “funny thing”. But it is surprising to learn that in such a prison, despite the serious criminal record of everyone, everyone desperately worships God. They still manage to swear like hell...
Idea
Each sequel often begins at the end of the first part. Or simply continue the story of the characters, not recalling the previous one. But “Aliens” (the franchise) has always been different in that the end does not allow you to let know that there will be a sequel, and yet it is. Nothing worse than that. That is, it is good that there are people who are ready to contribute their thoughts to the continuation to support the interest of fans. I think it was worth it for them.
Producers
For the then young David Fincher, this film was a successful career debut, but terrible for its own reasons. After all, the producers, to put it mildly, considered him a “milk sucker”, like “Listen only to us boy, and everything will be fine.” But he didn't. Already in his, if I am not mistaken, 30 years, he had his own style, which he put into the film. And the producers only would not spend a lot of money, and then get a very large amount, because it is “a third part”. So we got our pie without cherries - horribly drawn by a computer graphics Alien.
It can be said that two and a half hour timekeeping (as opposed to the usual two-hour), in which more secrets are revealed, and the translation of the wonderful Dmitry Puchkov, known as the Goblin, gave me even more joy when watching.
I think the film is wonderful.
“Alien 3” talented, at that time little-known young director David Fincher – this is perhaps the darkest and most tragic page of the series. This film, unlike the previous two, is not a bright fantasy horror film or a fantastic action movie. This is a dark psychological thriller with philosophical motives and no happy ending.
All in all, Alien 3 is a pretty creepy and heavy film, hard to understand first and foremost. After all, the happy ending that we see in the previous picture completely ends.
The theatrical version of the film, which I first saw 10-12 years ago, didn’t impress me, and left a lot of questions (many important points were cut out). After watching the extended version, I was pleased. It runs for 145 minutes, and partially fills the gaps in the plot of the theatrical 115-minute version. This is why it is better to watch it.
Although, there are still gross shortcomings and inconsistencies in the plot. Events develop slowly, there is a prolonged and acute lack of action. Few memorable highlights. The visual effects are not particularly impressive either. It was for this reason that the film was received coolly.
And now on to the merits of the film.
I really liked the sound effects, and especially the music of Elliot Goldenthal from which goosebumps and blood freezes in the veins. Very atmospheric and fascinating. This is the main advantage of the whole film.
The atmosphere is in place. Fear, anxiety, despair, death. People are dying, and the company is eager to get the perfect biological weapons at any cost. The main idea of the film is still the fight against evil, as well as self-sacrifice for the sake of others. Attention is also paid to questions of psychology, faith in God, faith in oneself.
Actors are on top. You empathize and sympathize not only with the main character, but also with all those around her, and these are mainly especially dangerous criminals - maniacs, murderers, rapists, madmen, in a word, villains.
Xenomorph takes a back seat here. And yet, it marks the Day of Judgment, God’s punishment for terrible sins.
Maybe at the time fans were expecting something bigger, something revolutionary, like James Cameron's Aliens. But instead, we got something new, unusual, original.
Despite the fact that in the second part of the franchise everything is over, the authors decided on another sequel, which takes the action to another planet, which is essentially a prison. This is something we've never seen in fiction before. The third part turned out to be good, but much weaker than the first two, it looks especially poor compared to the second part, but it is out of competition - James Cameron knows his business. The second “Aliens” was the most dynamic and spectacular part in quadrology, and of course, special effects can not be taken away from it. And the plot of the sequel was the most active, and in comparison with it, all subsequent parts look somewhat pathetic, despite the fact that all parts turned out well, except for the film Alien vs Predator. Requiem, which was generally unclear what, how and why.
The withdrawal of the third part is caused primarily by the reluctance to "kill the chicken laying the golden eggs." You can shoot a lot of interesting stories about Aliens, it would be fantasy. There would also be money to make the film at the proper level. The third part turned out to be more or less interesting and spectacular, many pleasant surprises in the plot. I've seen this part once in the theatrical version and once in the expanded version. First I looked in the "director" to evaluate the full version, and then I watched the theatrical, which is on the Web with obscene subtitles from Goblin - it was something. Although these are not parody subtitles, but simply translations of the film, the mats made me laugh, although in fact I do not laugh when someone is stupidly swearing. It was just as fun to watch the characters’ “expressions” in the first Predator, which I watched in the same way. By the way, the difference between the two versions of the film: in the theatrical version, the Alien gets out of the dog, and in the expanded version, the cow. Of course, the second looks more spectacular. The scenery is at the proper level, the battle with Aliens is filmed qualitatively. But not as in the second part, which, apparently, can not be repeated.
Oddly enough, the fantastic film, built on the battles of people with monsters, turned out to be "not devoid of meaning" - the film shows the behavior of people who have long been considered "frozen" and scum of society, who were sent to serve a life sentence on another planet because they and on Earth have no place - and in such a deadly situation they showed themselves heroically and did everything to destroy alien evil. This adds to the movie.
The second film in a row from the Aliens franchise leaves an unambiguous ending and so pulls to watch the sequel. But the film rights holders were in no hurry again and released a sequel only after 6 years. After the epic films Ridley Scott and James Cameron it was difficult to come up with something at least about the same cool and took the then unknown newcomer David Fincher as director. I don’t know why the studio decided to take such a step, apparently none of the venerable directors did not want to shoot a triquel. But the poor guy Fincher, the producers constantly put sticks in the wheels, did not give creative self-realization. Therefore, predictably it turned out to be a rather incomprehensible and weak movie, noticeably weaker than its predecessors.
The film was not allocated a huge budget, special effects and camera work are made poorly. Scenes with the shooting of the moment when a stranger runs on the ceiling were conceived probably dynamic, but now look incredibly tasteless and thrashy. I also did not like that they did not show the nest of the Alien, it is a beautiful weaving of organic matter. Music again a kind of imperceptible background ambient, still unlucky franchise to music, unlucky.
Even the acting game Sigourney Weaver did not like, somehow she noticeably relaxed, there are almost no emotions, stale. She tried to rape 4 people with mental disabilities, and after 2 minutes, she forgets about it as if nothing had happened and begins to do other things. As if the actress knew that the film was not the same and did not try hard. Charles Dance embodied Dr. Clemens and I must say that he played very well, his character turned out to be a very intelligent, fair and deeply unhappy person. I also liked Paul McGann who played the prisoner Golick and very well embodied madness on the screen. We can also mention the actors Charles S. Dutton and Brian Glover who played albeit very average, but stood out from the rest of the extras. Lance Henriksen, although I respect this actor, but in this film he was absolutely superfluous, completely unwritten character.
Here before I said that the film turned out very gloomy, I don't know, I don't know how gloomy, well that there was a lot of blood flowing here, that's for sure. Here he sucks into the fan and punches his head, cuts his throat and even disembowels before pouring boiling lead. The most brutal film of the trilogy is definitely.
I liked the location, the planet itself, the prison, the boiler rooms, the corridors looked great and very technical. Atmospheric beginning with a walk of the lyceum on the SUNKO ship, and landscapes of the planet. All these port cranes, and cows added color to the film.
And here's what I didn't like, the terrible ending, crumpled, ill-conceived, sucked out of a finger. After that, to be honest, there is no desire to watch a fourth film.
Time to take stock. The film is weaker than the original sources, and in all aspects. The franchise began to stagnate. At the time of writing this review, I haven’t seen the final quarter of the franchise yet, but they say it’s even worse. Well, let's wait and see. And this film, taking into account the above, I will put a fair:
6 out of 10
“Alien 3” is a natural continuation of the first two films of the franchise, which acquired a cult status and brought considerable profits to the studio-producer 20 Century Fox. And if the first film was almost a classic horror film, the second made a deviation into a cool fantastic action movie, the third exploits the techniques of heavy, oppressive prison drama, which also found a place for a bloody slasher. The plot of the film unfolds some time after the happy finale of the last part, in which Lieutenant Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), as well as the young girl Newt, brave Corporal Hicks and broken, but not destroyed, android Bishop, manages to escape from the alien planet and safely go to such a desirable Earth. However, the curse of alien monsters does not let go of the main character and, as it turns out, the Queen Mother still managed to put her egg on the spacecraft, from which, of course, a malicious parasite emerges, infecting its carrier with embryos of a toothy monster. In addition, the alien organism provokes an accident, which eventually dumps Ripley and the company in a rescue capsule, which in turn lands on the surface of the inhospitable prison planet. Unfortunately, after landing, only the main character remains alive. Once in a closed community consisting of a couple of prisoners and two dozen criminals, Ripley has to re-enter the fight with the Alien. Only this time there will be no compromises for all participants in the confrontation.
"Alien 3" is a full-fledged debut in the direction of David Fincher , who previously worked for several years as a specialist in special effects at the studio of George Lucas ILM. However, he was clearly cramped within the framework of an ordinary apprentice and proved that he was able to single-handedly lead the process of making a film. And the choice to start a new career was more than successful, because Fincher instantly attracted the attention of the world community. And he, in turn, showed excellent creative qualities, which later adorned his subsequent tense thrillers, which became a model of the genre. However, “Alien 3” despite its mesmerizing gloomy atmosphere and screaming post-apocalyptic prison style, popular at all times, causes slight bewilderment. If you go back to the plot description, it becomes clear that Fincher and the company decided to take and tear up everything that Ridley Scott did, and even more so James Cameron. In fact, “Alien 3” erases all the positives of the previous part, making Ripley’s fight for the lives of Hicks and Newt just meaningless. These heroes are simply taken out of the plot, putting a bunch of shaved-headed criminals in their place. No, I don’t argue that “Alien 3” looks spectacular and skillfully pumps suspense with every minute of the story, but just such a tough beginning of the picture, simply depressing fans of the franchise can not but upset. Although sometimes some films plot shake-up is simply necessary. But in fact, whether it was necessary for the franchise “Alien” is still controversial.
However, as with the main plot twist of the series, Alien 3 is an indivisible part of the overall story and we have a duty to embrace it. Moreover, David Fincher tried to multiply all the darkness of the previous two parts and multiply it by two. For the sake of amazing reliability, most of the considerable production budget went to the construction of scenery and saturation of the frame with numerous antique details that showed us the distant future not so sterile. So in terms of entourage, Fincher repeated the path of both Scott and Cameron, only that the funds at his disposal were more. In addition, it is worth noting that the overall scale of the narrative is closer to the first part than the second. That is, “Alien 3” is a claustrophobic prison horror, for which the scope is not as important as the game with style and intimidation. Also prepare for the fact that you will not be shown an army of monsters: the heroes will be terrorized by a single Alien, who turns out to be much more dangerous than his predecessors. Its design was redesigned by the brilliant artist Hans Rudy Giger, who slightly reworked his old works. In addition to Giger, from the very first part, he moved to a new project and composer Elliot Goldenthal, who in some ways became a symbol of the franchise along with Sigourney Weaver, decorating with his famous melodies every moment of viewing.
Since only Ripley survived from familiar faces, and Bishop performed by Lance Henriksen received only a small cameo (plus a small surprise for fans in the final), the filmmakers were obliged to saturate the frame with new bright characters. And, fortunately, they actually appeared. Meet the courteous Dr. Clemens played by Charles Dance, the radical preacher Dillon from Charles S. Dutton, as well as the warden, Endus, who was embodied by Brian Glover in the best traditions of the famous headmaster of Strickland School from the Back to the Future trilogy. In addition, for the sake of interest, it is worth noting the role of the second, or even the third plan of Pete Postlethwaite (Jurassic Park 2, Omen, Dark Waters), who at the time of filming in Alien 3 was just beginning his ascent up the career ladder of Hollywood. As for the rest of the heroes, who are almost recruited about twenty, they are quite difficult to identify, because they all merge into one mass of shaved heads and rags. But even in this scenario, the screenwriters do not let the viewer get bored, putting a couple of memorable phrases into their mouths, in order to then tear them to pieces with great force.
In the end, I want to say that Alien 3 is a worthy continuation of its cult relatives, who tries to combine all the best in the franchise and bring something new, fresh. Of course, the general plot canvas is somewhat upsetting, which does not stand on ceremony with the final positive of the last part, but this, in fact, is the only drawback that I singled out for myself. In all other respects, “Alien 3” is an exemplary fantastic horror film, which is rightfully considered a classic of the genre.
9 out of 10
It would be possible to kick David Fincher (with the works of which, alas, I did not have an affair at all - I do not like him, that's all), but after reading the history of the creation, you understand that Fincher deserves his kick in the very last place, if he deserves at all - the pressure of the studio, a hundred-fold rewriting of the script, unfinished and reconstructed scenery led to what you should expect - a boring thriller with admixture of cosmic horror, in which the cosmos as such - and, in fact, an alien nose. The drooling cosmic image is the background on which the life of prisoners on Fiorin's planetoid "Fury - 161" is put at the forefront. Consequences of the often rewritten scenario in which they tried to add water in this way.
The first film, I remember, also sinned as such - rested on the life of space truckers, leaving the Alien in the shadows, but there was forgivable - the first film, the monster, although rarely shown, but he was remembered. And here? Successful for Cameron, who left aside the sci-fi suspense, replacing it with a sci-fi meat grinder - was there any point in showing so little xenomorph again? I could see, because I didn’t even understand what color it was here – whether it was light gray, like in the first part, or reddish (or it was the blood of the victims...). I do not dispute that he hunts here very bloody, but the handsome man is not allowed to see. Instead, they are allowed to admire the life of believing space criminals.
Fortunately, despite all the plot twists, they turned out to be quite charismatic and not flat guys. Plus, Henriksen returned, whose appearance in the final did not open any Americas, but frankly pleased. But Weaver is not to say that Ripley was here so little, and that she plays no role in the plot, but there is no feeling that she should rule the ball here. Ripley is one of the main characters, this makes additional adjustments to the perception of the film. There is also the fact that Hicks and Newt are not involved in the film, because the script adaptations sent them to the next world on landing.
I watched – based on numerous recommendations – the editing version of the film (because there is no such thing as a “director’s” version, because there is no such thing as a “director’s” version). Fincher, who came under pressure from the studio, refused to have anything to do with the tape - for such stubbornness he still deserves respect, no matter how I feel about him), because it was supposed to show a few new scenes and answer some questions of the rental version, but the main thing was not corrected either there or there - and how, in fact, the egg got on board the Sulako, and even in the rescue capsule? Especially considering that the Queen, who was on board the ship, had no opportunity to postpone it, and use one of her soldiers as a messenger (even if you think of such a perverted version), she also could not – ordinary Aliens were not on board the Sulako.
As a result, gaping this plot gap and a couple of smaller ones (how did Ripley get out of the rescue capsule?) from the very beginning, the tape further tries to distract the viewer from pressing questions with the upside-down bar of blood and a good visual row, and Fincher still builds a gloomy atmosphere, but - unfortunately - does not finish. And, again, the blame here is not him. The film went through the production hell, and as a result lost a lot - it can be compared with the first part of the slowness of the action, but at the same time you do not feel the cold, hopeless cosmic detachment that Scott had, and to compare Fincher's tape with Aliens is incorrect and stupid at all. Alien 3 was supposed to present us with fear in the cube (as hinted by the peculiar writing of the 3 in the title), but instead featured good blood scenes and a company of good actors playing atypical and interesting characters. I cannot add anything more to the merits of the painting.
Ellen Ripley is out of luck again. She fought with alien creatures first with Ridley Scott in Alien, then, having already gained experience and changed the situation, Cameron in Aliens. And now, it would seem, it is time to go to Earth, start a family, children. Or maybe just pour the horrors of the past with alcohol (although this is not the way out, kids are still the best option). But the mischievous fate did not let her do it (apparently because of suspicions of alcoholism), and arranged a new test. Now on another planet, in a prison full of men.
And everything could have been fine, but a stranger also landed with Ripley. There will be blood, there will be death. There will be a fight again. But don’t expect the film to scare you – in this respect, it loses to previous parts that have made such attempts, and sometimes even successfully. At the same time, the tension is also less and the visual is noticeably weaker, in my opinion. It does not attract as much to the screen as did the original and sequel, which were more atmospheric tapes.
However, watching is still not boring, there is a certain interest and intrigue. The plot is simple, but not bad. Yes, events for a two-hour film is not enough, especially in comparison with the rich “Aliens”, and there is no special originality. In general, the ending is even predictable. But I would like to note for the better that the film turned out really tough and harsh, without pink snot (although previous films did not suffer from this).
“Alien 3” had a mixed reaction. On the one hand, there is a thumb-sucking tie and a weaker atmosphere compared to previous films. On the other hand, a decent technical performance (I especially liked how the camera shows the action through the eyes of someone else) and a quite suitable ending. Compared to Scott and Cameron, Alien 3 is weaker than both. Which, however, does not say that the viewer of this film necessarily will not like – maybe it is the picture of Fincher for you will be the best in the trilogy. But, in my opinion, it does not look in the trilogy. It gets knocked out of it due to the fact that it simply does not reach the established bar.
Alien 3 is the darkest and creepiest part about these alien, cold-blooded and ruthless creatures, devoid of any emotions and living only by the rules of aggressive and primitive instincts. I love “aliens” movies, so I couldn’t help but watch the third one. This movie is the most hopeless and gloomy part, everything in it is harsh and hopeless. The film turned out to be a good and high-quality fantastic thriller that looks like nothing, and it definitely deserves attention. It is for this third part that many computer games were invented. The film turned out to be very sinister, but this is its feature and feature, which makes it exceptional and unlike anything else. Of course, it is more pleasant to watch movies with a happy ending, but such a movie is also worthy of attention. It keeps in suspense and in anxiety, and the ending is shocking and surprising, and this film will remain in memory for a long time.
We see survivors flying in a spaceship, but it crashes and falls to a planet where prisoners are serving time. Of the survivors, only one Helen Ripley, and again she will have to fight the “alien”, but this time everything is different, because the alien creature is in her.
This film differs from all the other parts in that it is very dark and tragic. In this fantastic movie, we see the alien again, but in a new light and in a new form. The film was original and interesting, although I like the first two. Sigourney Weaver plays very dramatic and emotionally in this film. She is a strong actress, and the role of this character is my favorite. In this film, the actress gave her all and played perfectly. In her eyes I felt all the pain and despair and everything that her character felt. Weaver is a great, strong actress who always copes well with complex roles, and in the third part of someone else’s she looks spectacular, spectacular and believable.
Alien? is an original but dramatic sequel, in which we see a dynamic and spectacular story in which the main character and convicts try to overcome a stranger and survive, but with such a creature it is very, very difficult. The third film is a worthy and kind of fantastic thriller, in which we see the same heroine and a bloodthirsty and ruthless stranger. This movie is criticized by many and do not like, but I like all the parts about someone else, and this film I enjoyed watching, it is spectacular, dramatic and gloomy turned out, and its fantastic story is original and shot interesting. I am convinced that the film deserves the attention of the audience and a positive assessment.
They are fussing about something there, making this undercover fuss with scripts, with the premiere date, with relationships within the team, and the audience suffers from all this, they somehow think about them last. And it turns out that Ripley seems to have killed everyone and flew, but it turns out that a little stranger came from somewhere in the capsule. The creators shrugged their shoulders and said, “Let it be so.” And it was. When you want to earn money on a promoted character, then any logic of past films is sent far and long.
And that's what we got. Sigourney Weaver is here. She's the only one who knows about xenomorphs, no one believes her. In order not to cause base desires in prisoners with their curly curls, and also to nullify the attempts of lice to settle in these curls, Ripley shaves naked and such a haircut suits her well. In addition, the idea came back from the first part: people are unarmed and they are slowly drinking monster. From the action movie back to space horror. The pluses include some episodes, for example, with barely talking Bishop, whom Ripley took out of the landfill. Well, a separate big plus is the ending, which, in theory, was supposed to put exactly the same big point in the alien universe.
But there are more downsides. First, the above-mentioned ears attracted the plot of the film, in which the lyceum simply came from nowhere in a flying capsule. The dampness started. And the survivors from the last film were immediately considered dead, since the movie did not foresee their appearance.
Secondly, the contingent of this prison, where all on one person. Negroes can more or less be isolated from the whole horde of shabby, but the rest merge into a homogeneous mass. Therefore, it is difficult to understand who the monster bit, who went where, who is still alive, and who is no longer.
Third. At first, the movie was built so that no one believes Ripley, they say that there is no monster here. It seemed that the situation with disbelief would only get worse, as the monster usually grabs people one by one. But the film decided very quickly and simply to make everyone believe Ripley – the monster in front of everyone grabbed a man and dragged into the ventilation. Yay, Ripley won't have to prove anything to anyone now, thank you monster.
Fourthly, the final errands along some corridors – this, in my opinion, was understandable only to the director. Who runs where, who closes what, what happens at all – everything passed by me. In general terms, I realized that they wanted to lure the monster somewhere, but this is only in general terms. How exactly they acted, I don’t think even the actors can explain.
It's not a good movie. Many where the Alien was drawn on the computer, which draws another drawback, because it is too noticeable and spectacular inferior to real models. And the whole storyline is sucked out of the finger. And the director's version is too long, although really bright scenes can be counted on two fingers of one hand. Well, what to do, like no third part already, by this time, as a rule, most films roll somewhere.
After I saw this line among the facts about the film, I realized that I could not think of a better title. I'm sorry about the series, honestly. After seeing the ratings and criticism, as well as reading the synopsis, I immediately knew that something was unclean and the film was not as good as it could be. It turns out. Yeah, it's David Fincher's debut. Yes, he was able to make a different movie than the previous ones. But! First, how can you entrust the debutant with the next sequel to one of the best sci-fi horror movies? Second, another movie is not a good one. It's not a terrible movie, it's average in itself. It's a disgusting sequel. I will try without serious spoilers to spread all the stupidities of the plot alternately.
The situation Ripley is in this time is ridiculous. From the synopsis of the film, a number of questions arise: why did the ship crash, where did the stranger come from again, how Ripley became a uterus (I do not consider a spoiler - a banal and stupid twist, not worthy of the Aliens series), and, finally, why did the small group left from prison remain on the planet? No question after viewing you will not receive an adequate and complete answer.
Okay, the uterus at the end of the second part would have had time to lay an egg, but then how did a small xenomorph larva crash the ship? Ripley was somehow sexually fertilized by the Alien, it is not clear where he came from, if without a carrier he can not fully grow. A small group of inmates, a doctor and two wardens remained on the planet and most of them were bored. I got into religion. What else can rapists and murderers do in prison? Prayers, of course. They naturally have no weapons and have nothing to defend, which strikes even Ripley. In addition, Ripley, brainwashed by the military danger of Aliens, now does not share his suspicions even with a doctor. To escape his questions, she slept with him (!), despite her sympathy for the deceased Hicks, and after all, not a week has passed. I do not see any point in listing everything, so without further words I will say that logic has gone for a walk and, apparently, for a long time.
The video series is absolutely “bastard” montage (sorry, but I just can’t find another word). The titles opening the film in parallel with clumsy cutting, look to nausea unpleasant. All scenes with traps for a stranger look as disgusting as the credits. The running of prisoners from one end of the screen to the other, even dyed with meat and blood, is exhausting. It's too blurry. And maybe I'm not a chemist, but I don't remember that when you combine molten lead with water, there's an explosion -- it smells like complete nonsense.
Every minute since the first appearance, the quality of the appearance and movements of the stranger will deteriorate. This affected his behavior: throughout the plot (both the series and specifically this part), the viewer was brainwashed about the fact that the Alien is an ideal organism, in fact it turns out that this applies only to physical characteristics, and mental development does not affect. Is an ideal organism no more intelligent than an ordinary dog? Well, that's fine, but then why was he smarter the closer to the end of this picture?
I thought it was impossible, but in the third picture the characters became much worse. If Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) still has a face, then among the other characters, no one has a really interesting image, except that the Warden Andrews was saved thanks to the acting of Brian Glover. Only one character begins to reveal a little, and you try to somehow empathize with him, when suddenly he is eaten. It seems that you are watching a cheap slasher of the end of zero, not a sequel to the cult series. The only thing is that it's not cheap. $50,000 budget - where is that money? Let’s omit about a fifth of the money spent on unused sets and the fee of Sigourney Weaver ($4,000,000). The remaining amount is quite large, and about one and a half times the combined budget of the first two films. Once again, you are convinced that the fat purse of producers is not able to solve the problems of cunning and inexperience of the director. What a pity that the employment of Ridley Scott did not allow him to engage in the project, but even if Cameron took up again - they would have saved the project.
Results
I will give a full sentence, the quote from which is given in the title of the review:
In a hurry, no one was worried about how the egg of the “alien” got on “Sulako” and other logical inconsistencies – it was only necessary to write something sane to make a film by the long-announced premiere date.
Didn't worry... Nothing to say. I'd be ashamed if I were Fincher. Like a separate movie, not bad. How disgusting the sequel is, and Fincher shouldn’t be excused for making “another movie.” What if Kruger had kids like Chucky in the third? Would you excuse me? The film is good only because, compared to its predecessors, it finally showed what everyone had been waiting for: Alien in action, meat, blood and so on. If you close your eyes, the disadvantages clearly outweigh even for a separate picture. A simple slasher based on worthy sci-fi horrors, diluted the dullness and anemia of predecessors, no more.
6 out of 10
The third film of the trilogy, which tells about the adventures of officer Ripley and her struggle with alien creatures, was released in 1992. The new film was directed by David Fincher. This was the first work of the young director and naturally the film has a number of differences from the previous parts.
Let's start with the plot. Ripley's life capsule crashes on a godforsaken planet used as a prison. In this faraway corner of the galaxy, where maniacs, murderers and rapists are kept, it is not easy for a fragile woman to survive. However, the situation is complicated many times by the appearance of a xenomorph known as an Alien. A terrifying monster begins to make his "bloody trial" and soon the convicts realize that their only chance to survive is to join forces with Officer Ripley. The plot turned out to be very interesting. But, unfortunately, it was not without some nuances.
First, some parts of the narrative can make the viewer get bored. Fortunately, there are not many such moments and for the most part the film looks cheerful.
Secondly, there are several stamps in the plot, of course, they do not cause much harm to the film, but still negatively affect its originality.
There was a movie and one good thing about it was the atmosphere. The creators worked hard to fame and in this regard, perhaps, were even able to surpass the legendary previous parts of the franchise.
As for the cast, it was selected very well, not ideal of course, but at a high level. In general, the actors worked hard for fame. In the picture there are practically no scenes where the characters do not finish or replay.
And of course, you can not ignore the “Alien” itself. This time the monster is significantly different from what we have seen before. Especially - it is noticeable by his manner of movement in it there is nothing similar to human. The appearance of the monster also changed. Numerous tubes no longer stick out of him, and his body has become more streamlined and somewhat resembles a cat. In general, the monster looks new and colorful, which is an absolute plus.
Despite all the shortcomings of this picture, the continuation of the history of strangers was successful. Although this film may be a little inferior to the previous parts, but it rightfully occupies an honorable place among the fantastic films about space adventures. And if you like the Alien universe or horror movies about space monsters, then you should see this picture. A worthy continuation of the legendary series!
It was time for the third film. This is not just "Alien 3" (degree, if you will), this is a real picture-martyr. And the monster himself, having learned how much it cost to apply in order to remove the triquel, would chew his veins and dissolve in his own blood.
Yeah, it all started with a script. Then they chose the director. Mutual betrayals followed. The studio has become similar to Wealand Yutani, doing everything possible to make it work. What? Cut the budget? Time to go? Follow the canonical Alien? Or create something new.
At least there is something new. And it is the brightest and most important. He's a stranger. We've never seen one like this before. New project, new monster. It is clear that everything will be explained later. At the time of the film, something had to be done. As an essay on the subject, the assessment for which is already in the balance.
I'm just crazy from the start. Yeah, their boat fell. But Newt! Hicks is still understandable, but... I resented. And then I thought I shouldn't do that. I have to watch the movie.
And it turned out to be more of a good picture than a bad one. It is not comparable to the first two parts. But it's a completely different tape. And David Fincher, despite all his renunciations of the film, influenced Alien 3.
The gloom that characterizes all of Fincher's films is over the edge here. I have not seen such a hopeless and hopeless atmosphere in a long time. They didn’t have the slightest chance, so to speak. But even if there was still a lack of air.
Shaven Ripley also emphasized this. It's quite an interesting performance. She's definitely the main character. The way others die is simply amazing. And so many victims were really unexpected.
You can feel the influence of the films that came out at the time. All sorts of fonts, domains and stuff. But this suggests that we had to hurry. So I had to play on what had already worked. American viewers didn't buy it. But the world took the bait. So there are two opinions, as well as two versions. By the way, Fincher never touched the installation even after 11 years, when a special version was made on the DVD.
Gloomy and primitive. But not bad. Very good. Well, it might.
There's no typo. It's a combination of the words "lubricated" and ... well, I think it's clear.
8 out of 10
For example, I have formulated at least four claims of varying levels of criticality.
For example, the new haircut of the main character. It is commendable, of course, that special attention was paid to this change, took upon themselves, so to speak, the task of inventing and then explaining the reasons. Put your hand on your heart... Agree that there was really no special need. And it’s not even that Helen Ripley of the sample of “Aliens” is an order of magnitude more effective than herself in “Alien 3”. Just... What's the point of this frank detachment?
Or the second thing. It's called "Contingent Iron." It feels like the freaks were recruited on purpose. One to one! The only question is why? Why was it necessary to build a garden with this high-security prison, if all the same its inhabitants, allegedly, one another is more beautiful (except in the literal sense of the word) in fact turned out to be “flagging heroes”?! And then. In the "Air Prison", for example, were the guys more modest in terms of past merit? I don't think. However, this did not prevent them from at least looking like people. What is this about? I don't understand.
Last but not least. That's where it all started. The question, not just formulated, but voiced, posed by the edge in fact and still remained unanswered. How? How did it happen that “along with Ripley on this planet gets the embryo of an alien, which was the cause of the death of the ship”? "I don't know," the main character replies. It is evidently spoken by the director himself. This is completely unacceptable.
I understand that neither the little girl who miraculously escaped in the second part of the saga, nor the valiant hero of M. Bien, the authors of Alien 3 were interested. No problem. But does this give them the right to unilaterally change the facts, to invent not just what did not exist, but what could not exist in principle? I'm sure not. I believe that the rich material inherited from venerable predecessors should have been treated much more carefully.
Those are my remarks. Moreover, with discontent I would note the specific (again, the question arises, why?!) manner of filming the movement of the Alien and the feeling of computer drawings in relation to him. What is it? New technologies or a desire to simplify the task?
And yet I probably won’t be able to show due principled attitude towards the “freak in the family” of the legendary franchise. So...
David Fincher, formerly known clipmaker, who shot unforgettable in style and presentation of video clips for the songs of celebrities such as Madonna, Paula Abdul, and others, began his full-length film career with the sequel to the Aliens dilogy. David Fincher is the last person to receive an offer for this film. Before him, many other applicants were considered for the post of director, such as director Rennie Harlin, screenwriters Vincent Ward and Walter Hill, and the script itself was rewritten many times - as soon as it was changed! At first, the main character Ellen Ripley was absent (!), then they wanted to exclude the Alien himself from the script, in general, the work on the film was accompanied by numerous difficulties with the selection of actors, writing the script, final editing, and other creative disagreements in the team.
The action of this film takes place many years after the terrible events on the planet L.V. 426 and is transferred to the so-called prison planet, where especially dangerous male prisoners - rapists, murderers, robbers, and other dangerous elements for society - were exiled. A ship from Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) crashes at this space prison. But, as it turned out, Ripley flew to her not alone - the embryo of the Alien somehow penetrated her ship and the newly brave female lieutenant with her "new friends" will have to fight this unknown and dangerous creature, which will certainly arrange a bloody massacre on a new planet. The question is whether this time she will be able to stay alive and not lose in the third unequal battle with space aliens, because in view of the fact that on the planet prisoners – they have no weapons at all.
Those who watched the second part of the tetralogy “Aliens” (1986), or just perfectly remember it, certainly ask the perplexed question “how and when the Alien managed to lay his eggs on the rescue ship Ripley?”. Many agree that the creators of the series should have stopped on the first two parts, since both are actually ideal in the genre of sci-fi horror - both the first film of Sir Ridley Scott, and its very successful sequel, ideologically and conceptually skillfully picked up by American director James Cameron. David Fincher, unfortunately, chose not the best start of his career (remember, he said that after that he wanted to leave the cinema, but his next work, as time will show, will be recognized masterpieces), not for the better changing the basic concept of “Aliens”. Free script assumptions and deviations from the concept, as well as the intimacy of the production with extremely tedious-looking panic and the running of prisoners through the prison corridors in the second half of the film, one can say “killed” the entire series. Only the center of attention remained in the form of Lieutenant Ripley, as always talented, impeccable and lovingly performed by actress Sigourney Weaver. The rest of the actors pale against her background and play the role of extras, and the "Alien" appears unforgivably rare and even undergone some changes - in places it looks like hastily drawn on a computer for an arcade toy of the 90s.
Of course, in the wake of the success of the previous parts, “Alien 3” with a budget of $ 50,000,000 three times exceeded it in the world box office, although in the United States barely paid off. The film surprisingly got into the Oscar nominations and the British Academy Award in the category of “best visual effects” – they are almost not impressive here, but this is an important component in the films of the genre of science fiction. Everything looks more than monotonous and average, given that in the previous parts, despite their age, special effects and the technical side looked much more worthy and spectacular, and about the appearance of “Alien” in certain moments I have already mentioned earlier. The music of the composer Elliot Goldenthal (“Interview with a Vampire”, “Fight”) at least somehow gives color to the whole action, trying to help out in tense moments, to emphasize the missing tension.
“Alien 3” is definitely an unsuccessful project, which, thank God, did not kill the future successful director, who will soon present to the viewer such films that have become iconic as “Seven” (1995), “Game” (1997), “Fight Club” (1999), etc. Unfortunately, this film, as the idea of restarting the franchise “Aliens” gave rise to a number of sequels, which qualitatively only went down the waning path. But in the previous dilogy there were no ordinal numbers of parts "1-2" (first "Alien" (1979), then "Aliens" (1986)), that is, the second part was planned to put the end, so the third part in the official English name has the number "3" in the form of a degree icon (cubic). Only here no "Alien in the Cube" did not come out - it is just so catastrophically missing!
In two words: Unnecessary sequel to the successful Alien Dilogy, which was better to remain a dilogy.
After the stunning success of Alien, Ridley Scott and Aliens, James Cameron, there was no doubt that a third film would soon be made. And of course, many were interested in where the film will take place, where the alien and main question will again appear: “Will Sigourney Weaver play Lieutenant Ellen Ripley?” Let's start in order.
This time, the director’s chair was taken by David Fincher, a man who did not shoot anything good during his life (in order not to anger the readership, I note that such films as Fight Club, Seven, The Game were shot a little later). As expected, this left its imprint on the universe of “aliens”. No, to say the movie is terrible doesn't turn the language - it's just different. If in the first part we observed the eerie atmosphere of dark space, narrow corridors and everything that is happening and the misunderstanding of what the crew of the "Nostromo" faced, and in the second part naturally resembled an action movie with elements of horror, then "Alien 3", as it should, takes its place in the alien universe.
The action takes place on the remote planet Fury 161, which is a high-security colony and there is no local population, except for a handful of prisoners and two employees of the company. It is still unclear - what was the reason for the appearance of this setting, due to financial difficulties, or the decision of the director and screenwriter? Yes, many people, like me, have probably never imagined what would have happened if the setting in Alien 3 was the planet Earth? The main disadvantage of this film can be noted a somewhat strained plot. At the beginning of the viewing, you may feel that this picture is shot rather about the lives of prisoners, and not about the cosmic monster - an alien, but in the last half an hour the film takes its own - the atmosphere heats up, survivors in panic and are already exhausted to the limit, both physically and morally. There are a lot of actors, they conveyed the feelings you feel when a stranger kills your friends and crawls through dark corridors and ventilation shafts. Musical accompaniment only enhances this feeling. It was interesting to see how a handful of particularly dangerous prisoners, armed only with hexes, axes and sharpeners, would confront this horror. In nature, there are 2 versions of the film - ordinary, or theatrical and special, with a longer time. I recommend you look at both of them, because they are very different from each other.
In conclusion, we can say that the film turned out to be atmospheric and quite interesting. “What would have happened if Alien 3 had been directed by James Cameron?”
8 out of 10
The film, thanks to which David Fincher, a well-known and now beloved director, became popular, turned out to be the third part of the fantastic horror / action films about the appearance of a bloodthirsty monster among people who found himself near us from another planet. The only survivor is that in the first film, in the second, it is a woman named Ellen Ripley, who invariably performs Sigourney Weaver. Now she finds herself among the prisoners who have created a kind of religious community on their base on one of the deserted planets of the vast cosmos. With him together Ripley brings, she does not want, another alien monster, who again does not mind killing members of our race. But everything would be very banal and almost completely repeat the main milestones touched upon in the creation of "Alien" and "Aliens"; the creators of "Alien 3" decided that now Ellen Ripley will connect something more than lust and hatred for each other and a huge desire to kill the enemy. What is it? It is better to see it, learn new plot moves and even more resist the race of alien monsters.
Many fans of the first two parts of the franchise were very negative about the third series. They called such moments that influenced their perception, as a noticeable slowness of the film, loss of dynamism, and call the genre as a horror film can only be strongly adjusted. Fincher here indicated his commitment to the thriller genre, added even crime, which could not please the ardent fans of the very similar first two films. They also noticed the loss of that unforgettable atmosphere of horror and fear.
However, all this applies only in the comparative characteristics of the three epic tapes. Taking for consideration only "Alien 3", it can be noted that many current paintings similar in genre and structure are very, very far from it. The filmmakers managed to shock the depressed state of our future on other planets. The alien evokes superstitious horror, and Sigourney Weaver is still as strong as the game and its power of charisma. Their epic confrontation with representatives of the bloodthirsty race still does not lose its momentum. And the final battle (in any other way I can not name) and a somewhat unexpected finale became the decoration of the entire film "Alien 3".
I see this film as a direct and good continuation of the legendary franchise. The human mind and self-sacrifice defeat the deadly enemy, as well as his killer instinct, as well as the instinct of self-preservation - albeit pathetic, but in Alien 3 it is laid down on a subconscious level.
It would seem that James Cameron put a fat point in history, sending Ripley, Higgs and Newt away from the damned planet. But Fincher literally breathed a second life into the franchise. And all that was worth that let one face grip in the capsule, and the story is gaining new momentum.
This time, Ripley is sent to a space prison where convicts have formed a kind of Christian apocalyptic sect. Hypertension infects the bull, and we get acquainted with a new species of xenomorph, smaller in size, but no less dangerous. So to speak, a little restyling.
In my opinion, the film is probably the strongest of the first three parts. The indescribable depressive atmosphere of despair is given by the location itself – a planet on which there is nothing but prison. There is nowhere to wait for help, there are no weapons, and the convicts, who have different perceptions of the xenomorph, are not the best allies in the fight against a deadly enemy. In terms of intensity, the film resembles the first part, where the action took place on a spacecraft. But in the third film, the effects will be more serious, and the characters will be selected ambiguous.
The script is also not bad, despite some delay, interest does not disappear to the final. Predicting the ending is also almost impossible, so in the endgame someone is clearly waiting for a surprise, or even more than one. It would seem that everything, the monster is defeated and the danger has passed, but an unexpected turn of the plot literally begins the story of the struggle for survival anew.
The result is, in my opinion, the best part of the franchise. An interesting script, a physically palpable atmosphere of hopelessness and a confident play of the already hardened Sigourney Weaver elevates the film to the rank of strong heavyweights. At least the fan audience of the picture is provided.
I really do not like when one character passes all the tests and gets into the same events several times in a row - usually from the franchise squeeze everything you can (and before especially loved to do - remember the same Friday 13 or Nightmare on Elm Street). At the stage of the third part of “Alien” such a franchise begins to become, but no – they do also the fourth.
A lifeboat from Ripley falls on a planet forgotten by God: there are about twenty prisoners who are serving their sentences. Soon it turns out that one stranger got on the boat. The starship "Company" flies to the planet ...
This time at the helm of David Fincher (who, by the way, after the shooting altogether left the project and did not engage in editing), so I could not miss the third part. Now, in fact, according to the film: this is kind of the first film in the series, in which a stranger was drawn on a computer, and this is very striking - in the previous parts in the costumes of strangers walked live people.
There are no terrible moments here as such, and they do not try to scare us. At the end begins a frank drain of characters. The soundtrack is mostly normal, but some tracks are completely inappropriate here.
Of course, Alien 3 came out worse than the second and first part, but the film itself is good - it's interesting to watch, but here you no longer feel so empathetic to the characters as when watching the first part: there really are characters of all drawn on "hurrah" and you really do not want them to die. Honestly, the fourth part does not want to watch, because such franchises in the end bend to the level that is only possible.
7.5 out of 10
Lt. Helen Ripley, the last surviving crew member of the Nostromo, reports.
Part Three: Desperation and the End.
If the first Alien is negation, the alien is anger and bargaining, the third Alien is depression and acceptance. Alien Three is the personification of despair, the end of the road, a dead end, ending in one of the darkest places in the universe. Fury 161 is the best set for such a final. Convicted criminals are the best participants in such an action.
From the very first minute you can see that there is no hope. An alien is too perfect an organism to die for nothing. He still penetrates the ship and becomes the cause of the crash (better so than a safe flight to Earth with a creature on board). Once the crash occurs, a long night reigns over Fury 161. There's no turning back. Weyland-Yutani already knows about the fate of Sulako and send a rescue expedition. Or punitive? After all, we remember a line from the protocol: Crew members do not value, the primary goal is the preservation and delivery of an alien organism. For the third time, Lieutenant Helen Ripley won't be fooled. When faith dies, there is hardly any room for trust.
Old foundries, endless half-abandoned industrial corridors, tunnels and squares, rusty chains and again nothing that would somehow help to defeat the creature looking in the dark. Just fire and your own feet to save yourself. Animal fear has returned, but it has never disappeared.
Beyond that, the third alien now has human madness and senseless cruelty. Fincher did the impossible: by making a third film, he rediscovered Aliens, creating a whole new atmosphere of hopelessness. In the previous parts, there was always a chance for salvation, but there is simply no one here, everything is rolling into the abyss. Everybody understands that. And how organically a huge dirty factory-prison, similar to a certain male monastery, fit into the universe of Aliens!
Despite numerous attempts to prevent the director, he was able to make a worthy conclusion to the fantastic trilogy. The third alien is in no way inferior to its predecessors, and each film of the trilogy in general is a work that does not resemble the rest in spirit (I am talking about the trilogy, because it is better not to watch the shameful fourth part of Jean Pierre Genet, sucked from a finger). Philosophy returns to the third part, a little to the detriment of spectacle. But this film is not a loser.
It is worth mentioning separately about the installation: gentlemen, be sure to see both versions! The difference between directorial and theatrical cuttings is significant and it determines the perception of the viewer, and also affects the attitude to the essence of a person.
The finale of the film is brutal and completely devoid of any optimism. Well, it should be. The story of Helen Ripley is too merciless and bitter to have a good ending.
There is no doubt about it:
The third part of the famous fantastic horror about Alien and Ellen Ripley in the permanent performance of Sigourney Weaver was probably the darkest and cruelest in the entire series. Dan O. Bannon took part in writing the script for the film, and therefore the film again approached the first film stylistically. Transferring the action from the space station to the space prison, the plot of the tape acquired an even darker shade.
The third film was directed by video maker David Fincher, for whom this picture was the debut. In the process of shooting there were many problems; for a long time the studio could not approve the candidacy of the director, the concept of the main monster was constantly changing, the script was repeatedly rewritten, and the locations for shooting too often were not quite suitable, the film became a very successful continuation of the familiar story. David Fincher shot in a purely clip style the story of the renegades, forced against their will to fight the Alien and united around Ellen Ripley, in which this part feels a certain fatigue and hopelessness. Sigourney Weaver is still great in her usual role and attracts much more attention than all the male characters in the film.
The special effects in this part of the film have become much scarier; the emphasis is on the greater physiologic and bloody nature of what is happening. The third part surpassed even the first part in its brutality, and therefore the film became a real horror for fans of the genre.
For the musical accompaniment in the tape was responsible Elliot Goldenthal, who wrote a beautiful and gloomy motif, ideally suited to the overall visual series created by the operator Alex Thomson and in fact relied on the stylistic elements of the first film.
Alien 3 is the darkest and toughest part of the saga, a real intense horror and one of the best science fiction films of the 90s.
10 out of 10
I wish I hadn't started watching it. Strangely, I'm an Alien fan and Sigourney Weaver hasn't seen it before the third installment. That's the worst part. Depressive, grim, again bad scenario. Too much blood, rotting corpses and all that kind of abomination. I'm outraged to the core. There are a few questions:
Who was the film made for? I believe that for potential and real maniacs perverts and psychopaths - only this category of people can give pleasure.
Why did the writers kill the characters with such hard work surviving in previous parts?
What does it mean to have an extra Y chromosome? I didn't see any downs or cripples in the movie. All the prisoners were healthy people.
Why do I want to say ' I don't believe it!!'?
Science fiction should be different from just fiction, that everything invented in principle is possible in real life and explainable.
0 out of 10
This is the third film in the Alien series, again shot by a new director, namely David Fincher. In general, the film dragged me from the first minutes of viewing, and throughout the entire film I simply could not take off the screen for a second. The script turned out really good, and most importantly thoughtful. There is not a single extra scene, and not a single unnecessary dialogue that would prevent you from enjoying the film in full measure. I was also pleased with quite good camera work from Alex Thomson, he did well, tried to fame. About the soundtrack, I personally liked it very much. However, not all of the songs played in the film, I could really remember. Oh, well, God be with him.
It's about artists. Charles Dance is the only one who was able to play his character very, very believable. The rest of us didn’t say we played terribly, no, just not as well as Charles, that’s all. I was definitely not disappointed with them.
Bottom line: Another successful sequel to the Alien franchise and a really entertaining film of the fiction genre, which is not at all boring to watch. I advise everyone.
It is hard to imagine that such a director as David Fincher, in the distant 1992 filmed the third part of “Alien”. But even in a fantastic film about an alien, you can feel the style of the director. Fincher, even on an alien planet, can create an atmosphere where the world rolls down, is on the verge of a cliff, and the prison wall is the best place to let an alien.
Many may think that the film is weak, too much running, talking about faith, and the alien was sent to the background. In my opinion, the film is not so much about an alien, but about the fact that people of different faiths, with different sins, gathered in one place to become a team, and rebel against the enemy. Ripley raised the prisoners, they have no weapons that were in the second part, between them there is no trust and understanding, there are only instincts, they are mice in a maze, chased by a cat.
Alien 3 is a great movie, it has not lost a single storyline. Fincher created his world, his atmosphere, even though he didn’t have the technology of James Cameron, didn’t have the classic spark of an artist like Ridley Scott, but he created his cinema, showed how people with nothing can become a team and win.
10 out of 10