From: gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Alien^3?
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:19:59 GMT
Reply-To: gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley)

In article <1992Aug21.005658.25530@socrates.umd.edu>,
caruso@socrates.umd.edu (John Caruso) writes:
|>
|>	Alien^3 was, quite simply, the worst film I've seen this year,
|>and possibly in several years.  When I came out of the theater I felt
|>like I needed to take a shower.  And I have reasons why I felt this way.
|>
|>	First of all, Alien^3 was relentlessly mean-spirited.  When
|>we're told that Newt and Hicks have died in the crash, my first reaction
|>was surprise and disappointment.  But I thought about it for a few moments
|>and decided, ok, they want to take this film in a new direction, away
|>from Aliens; let Newt and Hicks go and see what happens.  Unfortunately
|>I was wrong...they wouldn't let them go.  Instead we were treated to
|>the scene of Newt lying dead on a slab, and Ripley probing for a growing
|>alien (ignore the illogic of thinking the embryonic alien could survive
|>in a dead host).  Probing wasn't enough, though--now Ripley demands an
|>autopsy, though it obviously would be sufficient just to cremate both
|>Newt and Hicks.  Why do an autopsy, then?  So you can show the audience
|>a little girl having her chest split open with a bone saw.  Because gore
|>sells and the audience will love it.

   Hooray! Hear hear! Get the bone saw out!

|>For the sake of accuracy, we don't
|>actually see Newt being sliced open...we just hear the crunch of the bone
|>and get to watch her blood trickle out into the pan.

   Boo! I wanted to see it ALL!

|>	This same ethic informs the rest of the film as well.  We see
|>the inmate sweeping out the exhaust chute, and we see the giant fan
|>just past him, and it's easy to put two and two together.  But that's
|>never enough in this film; instead, after he's killed and takes the
|>painfully obvious slide into the fan, we're treated to the sight of
|>the scattered chunks of his flesh hanging from the chute.

   Hooray!

|>Later there's
|>the dog.  No, it's not enough that it lies down and starts to whimper
|>and we know exactly what's going to happen; we get to watch the entire
|>sequence of the alien bursting through its ribcage.

   Hooray!

|>	Ok, so Alien^3 was a gritty, brutal film that just showed life
|>like it is, and I'm a whining pantywaist who can't deal with Real Life
|>Movies.  What drivel!

   Agreed 100%. That's drivel (well mostly, only you know if you are
pantywaist). The truth of the matter is I enjoy gory blood-spattered
movies and you don't...nothing more.

|>This is the kind of nonsense spewed by people who
|>can only address an argument by attacking the person.  There are plenty
|>of films that use violence effectively and in different ways; take Witness,
|>Toxic Avenger, and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer as wildly varied
|>examples.

   Witness? What gore? You have been criticing GORE haven't you, not
violence. If it's violence you want to condem, let's start with Tom and
Jerry cartoons. Nip it in the bud! Toxie is a good example of
contrasting gore. I call this cartoon gore. This is much more accessible
to most people than "serious gore" (e.g Day of the Dead). However, I
wonder if you have seen a cut (hardly gory at all, but still cartoony)
Toxie, or an uncut (90% cartoon gore, but 10% extremely tasteless gore)
version??? As for "Henry"...what a wimpy film. I was really disappointed
by the lack of gore in this. Otis' eyeball was the only piece of this
shit film worth watching. Anyway, let's move on to more of your comments...

|>The violence in Alien^3 (with just a few exceptions) is unlike
|>that in any of these films--it's more in keeping with the spirit of Friday
|>the 13th, where the only reason for showing graphic deaths is to pull the
|>audience into the vicarious thrill of.

   Hooray! I'm looking forward to it more now!

|>Alien^3 pretends to be an "art"
|>film, but the style of its violence reveals it for the exploitist crap
|>that it is.

   So basically you are saying an "art" film cannot have exploitative
gore in it. YOU have defined what is art in film. Bzzzzzztttt. Gore is
art too as far as I am concerned! I recommend you sieze a small south
American republic and force your people to agree with your views using
military intimidation (but no shooting, or you might see blood :-).
Okay, I'm being silly, but so are you, IMHO.

|>	But to even talk about Alien^3 in these terms is to give it far
|>more credit than it deserves; I've gone right past the complete incoherence
|>and rampant idiocy of the plot itself.

   I certainly support plot critcisms where they are deserved. But leave
the gore alone.

   [a lot more non-gore-related criticisms of Alien 3 deleted]          
   Okay, I've taken a lot of time in reading your article and a lot of
the points you make seem very valid. However, I must disagree with your
hammering of gore. The major point of the follow up is this: EACH TO THEIR OWN.

+---------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Gary Bradley        |   "You receive a love letter from me and |
| ORACLE Corp, UK     |                  you're f*cked forever!" |
| Edinburgh, SCOTLAND |        - Frank Booth ("Blue Velvet")     |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------+
| "God damn the censor man"                                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+