Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:47:09 BST
From:         Kerr Avon <lcc@WIN.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      _Alien^3_
X-To:         CINEMA-L@auvm.american.edu

I saw _Alien^3_ last night and, well, even though I knew the plot
beforehand, I was still disappointed by the end result.  That's
not to say that it is a _bad_ film exactly, but that it is a waste.
A waste of what might have been, and, in a way, of what has gone
before.

************ Spoilers follow *************************************



There are far too many holes in the plot.  Not least of which is where
the hell did all the aliens come from?!?  There had to be at least two,
perhaps three eggs/facehuggers on the Sulaco.  All we see is a single egg.

The killing of the alien is inconsistent with previous films and, indeed
with itself.  We know that aliens are susceptible to fire, yet this
one survives being covered in molten lead.

They don't make very good escape crafts in the future, do they?  Three
out of four dead in an emergency landing..?

How did Ripley know that the alien inside her was a queen?

Why did it take so long to burst out?  One could theorise that the
drugs that the doctor kept injecting her with was what held the alien
at bay for so long, but that is speculation and not substantiated by
the film.

And so on...

The biggest mistake, IMO, was killing off Hicks and Newt (and Bishop)
in such a casual and confusing manner.  I have no problem with the
apocolyptic "no one here gets out alive" and "death is inevitable"
messages within the film.  Indeed, it is fitting that Ripley dies;
anyone who repeatedly goes up against the aliens is going to run out
of luck eventually.  However, the way that the film-makers so casually
cast aside the surviving characters from the previous film was, for
me, unforgivable.

Also, though I said it wasn't a bad film, there were some problems.
The sound was poor.  The dialogue was stilted and cliched.  There seemed
little reason for Ripley to get intimate with the doctor.  Talking of
whom, he was built up to have this big, bad secret which turned out
to be something of a damp squib.  The characters were two dimensional
(and that's being kind) and not in the least memorable.  Even Ripley
isn't given a great amount of characterisation this time, and so it's
just as well that we know her from the previous two films.  David
Ficher is best known for his pop video work, and there were times when
his background showed.

And I still say that the `alien-eye-view' is stupid given that they have
no eyes.

Talking of the alien itself, I wanted to see more of it, or at
least a clearer, more lingering shot.  On the whole, I am suspicious
of what they did this time, with the `new' alien.  It was already in
a recognisably grown up form when it burst from the dog, which, again,
is inconsistant with previous films.  I like the idea that the alien's
form is affected by its host, but think that the idea was poorly
executed.  Also, were there animals on Acheron with the settlers?
We never saw any weird aliens in _Aliens_.

All in all, I was deeply disappointed with _Alien^3_, when I think of
the possible stories that could have been told.  Also, it somewhat
invalidates what Dark Horse Comics have done with their _Aliens_
comic books (which have been much better than _Alien^3_, in general).

In all honesty, I can't condemn _Alien^3_ as a bad movie.  On a scale
of -5 to 5, I'd give it a high 0... maybe a very low 1.  In comparison,
I'd give _Alien_ a 4 and _Aliens_ a high 3.

Maybe if we all click our heels together three times, _Alien 4_ will
indeed show _Alien^3_ to be a bad dream.

			Liam.
			====-
                                   *"Did you just crawl over some
     KERR AVON    |   Work: ICL,   *   barbed wire, sir?"
 aka Liam Cairney |Reading, England*"No... I just put my elbow in a
  All e-mail to:- | Home: Glasgow, *   blob of ice-cream."
lcc@win.icl.co.uk |    Scotland    *     -- Baldrick and Blackadder
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU