114 min
6.376
1992
USA
After escaping with Newt and Hicks from the alien planet, Ripley crash lands on Fiorina 161, a prison planet and host to a correctional facility. Unfortunately, although Newt and Hicks do not survive the crash, a more unwelcome visitor does. The prison does not allow weapons of any kind, and with aid being a long time away, the prisoners must simply survive in any way they can.
Overview
Reviews
Wong wrote:Aliens, a great action movie, cheapened the original by replacing one hyper-intelligent, indestructible monster with an army of gormless critters. This third entry has only one creature, but unfortunately it's just as gormless. When Ripley (Weaver) crash-lands on a prison planet full of hard-nut slap-heads, they haven't seen a woman in years. Discovering that there's an alien loose, Ripley asks the warden to break out the guns, and can't believe it when she is told there aren't any. Nor can we. Good acting has salvaged many a poor script in the past, but not here. Dance is slaughtered in the first act, as is the regulation bastard warden (Glover), leaving only Sigourney, impressive as ever, and a motley cast of extras. Though wasteful of the expensive sets, Fincher's tight close-ups do add to the sense of claustrophobic panic.
John Chard wrote:Don't feck with The Baldies!
Special Edition.
I love it, I really do. OK! So it's basically a monster on the loose piece, but the setting at a sci-fi prison colony - complete with nutty religious shards - makes for a thrillingly atmospheric ride. Of course if this was merely a stand alone film, where there was no Alien and Aliens previously, I feel sure the special edition cut would be thought of differently.
A roll call of Brit thesps line up for some tension filled entertainment as director David Fincher and cinematographer Alex Thomson provide a look that is both beautiful and scary. The metallic nightmare of chambers and cold concrete fused together for some hellish stalk and paranoia. Industrial Punk? Steam Punk? Cyber Punk? Fincher Punk? Hey man, we gotta give it a name! And of course there's Siggy Weaver front and center, the reassuring presence among the murderers, rapists and child molesters.
I could live without the attempt at a transcendent finale, but in extended form this has much to light your fires. It also showed that Fincher would be a director to watch - imagine if had he been left alone to craft his own vision? His subsequent career and standing makes a mockery of the studio execs involved in the making of Alien³. 8/10
Charles Dance wrote:**Superior in every department to the basic shoot em up, Aliens,**
Alien 3 returns the franchise to its artistic horror roots established by Ridley Scott. No more Disney kids, happy endings and machine gun wielding irritants.
This movie is a beautifully bleak experience and is the true sequel to Alien (1979). Performances are excellent all round - especially Charles Dance as prison doctor, Clemens, and, of course, Sigourney Weaver - who gives us her best performance as the downtrodden Ripley.
A masterwork by David Fincher that restores the horror and dignity to the series. Thank goodness for Alien 3!
- Charles Dance
5rJoud wrote:**The end of an epic trilogy**
_Mild spoilers:_
Everything has been said about this movie already, but let's find out why the rating of it (on a different, shabbier website) is so low. Here are some points of a popular reviewer, who has almost 100 percent support of their readers.
1. At some points the audience is bored stiff and at other moments they are confused by the outlandish action sequences.
Outlandish action? Was it too alien? And sorry you were bored by the exceptional cinematography, underlined by a pace that was just right not to rush things, which brings me the second point.
2. ...a disjointed mess that feels forced and rushed.
Story seemed linear to me. And which one is it, boring or rushed?
3. The direction is never clear and there is no real screenplay here at all.
This is just saying it was bad, without saying anything at all. How is this helpful.
4. Charles Dutton is pretty good, but his character lacks the development to really make him interesting. Everyone else is just present...
Dutton's character needs no development. What do you want, him finding Jesus again? Dance's backstory is interesting, and we get to know little details about everyone else like for example the IQ of one of the guards who then later unexpectedly gives his life for what he believes in, pretty strong character development for a minor player in a Sci-Fi Thriller. And that is the main problem people have when rating "Alien³", they don't know it's not a horror film like "Alien" and it's not an action flick like "Aliens".
5. Overall a disappointment that is not very impressive at all. 2 stars out of 5.
More bashing without sound reasoning behind it. This film is clearly underrated, and if the aforementioned reviewer had seen what we have seen in 2017, especially in the Science Fiction genre, he might even agree and change his opinion about how a "disjointed mess" looks like.
I give 5 stars not to up the overall score, but because "Alien³" ends Ripley's ordeal in a stylish and original way, without insulting the intelligence of the viewer, or rehashing previous plot lines.
4 August 2017
I am migrating my reviews from a different site which has become simply garbage. TMDB looks awesome and I look forward to be a part of it.
r96sk wrote:Did Gordon Ramsay direct this? F-bombs galore!
Sigourney Weaver remains a joy to watch, while Charles S. Dutton and Charles Dance are strong additions; Dutton especially. As for other positives, I enjoyed the score and the fact that we (seemed to) get way more of the alien itself; which is what I wanted from the first two, personally.
The plot isn't the greatest but is very watchable, the ending is pretty good. One criticism I do have is the dialogue, as alluded to at the top of my review. I've nothing against the use of swear words whatsoever, but man does this film overuse the f-word; it feels like every other word across the conclusion.
Overall, it's a definite drop down from the two very good predecessors, though I still got the required entertainment from 'Alien³'. A noteworthy directorial film debut for David Fincher.
CinemaSerf wrote:This third instalment in the franchise reverts more to the original, more claustrophobic environment as "Ripley" (Sigourney Weaver) crash lands onto a penal colony run by "Andrews" (Brian Glover) where the inmates are all pretty unsavoury characters. It's not long after she arrives that one of them gets minced by an huge ventilation fan - but, was he? Her suspicions are further confirmed when one of the guard dogs has a very bad attack of gastroenteritis! With the help of the ex-convict doctor "Clemens" (Charles Dance), she has to galvanise her sceptical fellow humans to prepare for the impending onslaught whilst also dealing with some rather horrific personal information too! This has much more of a British feel to it, and that doesn't always work. Glover overacts badly, and Paul McGann, Dance and an out of his depth Danny Webb ("Morse") don't offer Weaver anything like enough support to create the sense of peril from "Alien" (1979). That said, though, the tightly shot photography in the interior scenarios and the deft pace from David Fincher do create quite a sense of menace without the need for gore or excessive special effects. It ends rather lamely, I thought, but is still quite a watchable sci-fi horror film that though not in the same class as the first two, is still very watchable.
GenerationofSwine wrote:At the moment it has 60+% and that makes me happy. I spent a lot of time defending Alien 3 as a stellar addition to the franchise. And, honestly, I think a lot of the hate on it is because of the fate of those that we grew to know and love from Aliens.
The Dog concept was cool. It gave the alien a great new spin. And David Fincher...seriously, his style fits the franchise so well it's unbelievable. It is bleak and stylistic and it fits great into the world of Alien's future...in a Mad Max kind of way.
It was the Alien movie that the 90s deserved, unlike Resurrection.
You have a film that is darker than Aliens and a lot more horror. It fits more into the mold of Alien, with a darker theme. It's a nice departure from the over-the-top Aliens mega block buster action film, and brings the franchise back to it's singular alien ground point.
It works very well. It just followed Aliens and I believe that people were expecting more action, more xenomorphs, more everything. Alien 3 gave you less in the same way that Alien did, and the pay off is there...so long as you don't walk into it expecting space marines.
Filipe Manuel Neto wrote:**A film that starts badly cannot end well. Even so, the film has values worth highlighting.**
There is no doubt that the first two films in the “Alien” franchise are classics in their own right and figure in a certain pantheon of the best horror and sci-fi films ever made. These are films where everything went very well, and everything came together in such a way as to make great works of cinema. This film cannot match them, and the reason for this has to do with its origins. As we say in Portugal, what is born crooked never straightens out.
In fact, this film was born and grew under the sign of chaos and confusion, with almost constant discussions between the studio, the producers, director David Fincher and the team responsible for the script. Right from the start, Ridley Scott refused to direct because he understood that it should be tied to the hypothetical origins of the alien (Scott will be able to carry out this idea in his most recent films, “Prometheus” and “Alien Covenant”). Fincher agreed to replace him, but the studio's constant interference in his work led to intense controversies and a very tense atmosphere. Millions were spent on scenes cut and re-filmed as the script was changed and rewrote, and sets were even built that were never used because the script changed. Let's face it: it was virtually impossible to make a great film in the midst of these conflicts.
The film continues the story of Lieutenant Ripley: a mysterious fire forces the ship in which she was traveling to eject the hypersleep capsules. Of the three survivors from the previous film, only she is rescued alive by the inmates of a space penal colony. The place is remote, there are not many inmates, and most have taken refuge in a certain strange spirituality. Ripley will have the help of the resident doctor, who will confirm that there was a live Alien on board the ship where she was, and that the threat is already incubating in that penal colony.
The film has its qualities: the cinematography, the sets and the costumes are excellent and completely match what we have seen in previous films; the sense of threat and tension is still very present, and it is quite effective, although there is no surprise about the Xenomorph's murderous capabilities. The soundtrack, sound effects, editing and special effects are still excellent, notoriously expensive and elaborate. The work done by the actors doesn't leave us dissatisfied either: Sigourney Weaver takes her character, defending her and giving her a development and strength whose responsibility lies, totally and entirely, with the actress, and the way she committed herself to this work. Charles Dance still gives him welcome support, with a job well done, but they are almost alone and the rest of the cast is much weaker than they are. A caveat, however, for the brief appearance of Lance Henrikssen, who does a good job even though he contributes little to the film.
There are, however, some issues that make the film much weaker, and which are linked to the script. One that came to mind while watching the film is how easily the film discards the surviving characters from the previous film, killing them in their sleep. Another thing I thought about was that Xenomorph, even though it's huge and very effective at killing, it's not acting like any animal would normally act. When we observe the natural world, we see that animals only kill for two essential reasons: food and self-defense. The Xenomorph does not. Although he feeds on the humans he kills, he also seems to kill for pleasure, which may betray a certain type of human-like intelligence. The film never explores this, limiting itself to releasing the beast to kill at random. As a horror element, it works, but it lacks the wit that would make things more interesting. The consequences of this, in light of the religious and spiritual issues so dear to prisoners, are also not addressed: we limit ourselves to seeing them in somewhat apocalyptic prayers. And if they are all vile men, ex-murderers and dangerous people, how is it that the film was not able to make them use this violence and “criminal experience” in favor of their own self-defense?
