A potentially great movie ruined by some unorthodox stylistic decisions.

Rating: 3/10 (22 January 2006)

First off, I'd like to say that had Alien and Aliens never been filmed, Alien3 would've made a good movie just as it is. Unfortunately the reality is that since both of the first 2 movies were great, this movie had high expectations. Ultimately, Alien3 is not worthy to be accepted as part of Alien series.
Alien3 had some good acting and music and some excellent cinematography I thought. It was also darker than the first 2. Also, the concept of crashing in a maximum security prison was a good one I thought. But since this review only rationalizes a 3/10 for this movie, I will spend the rest of the time explaining what made this movie a bad one.
First of all, it completely ruins the second Alien movie for three reasons: Firstly by introducing the egg that had been on board that had hatched into an alien. How the heck did that egg get there anyway? No explanation is offered. Secondly by introducing the fact that Ripley somehow had a queen alien chestburster inside of her. How did that get there? No explanation is offered. Thirdly by killing off 2 of the main characters from "Aliens", Newt and Hicks, right at the very beginning, giving them senseless deaths. Many say this was for "shock value". Shock value my ass, it was just a letdown. Killing them off halfway through or something would've been more effective. Besides, they could've developed Newt and Hicks a lot more. The sole fact that the innocent child Newt has to live in a maximum security prison makes for some good character development. Hicks would've been a bit trickier, but with some creativity they could've come up with something (i.e. maybe Hicks went to prison when he was younger and he's scared of them now and has to deal with it). Maybe if Hicks and Newt were the first victims, it would've been more satisfying (and then Ripley would be a loner again, which is what her character is all about IMO, as nobody would believe her about the alien again, etc).
Another element lacking in the third movie is the absence of one of the dominant themes in the first 2 movies, about the protection of the innocent. Ripley went out of her way to protect Jones (in Alien) and Newt (in Aliens) but there was none of her "motherly" role in this movie. I felt this element was important to the first 2 movies, yet it became non-existent in the third.
Another negative point was that I feel this movie sort of ruined the image of the alien. Having the alien run after people at high velocities and having the people herd it like a sheep is not what the alien is supposed to be. The aliens are supposed to be slow, sneaky, and stealthy and pop out from behind you when you least expect it. By making the alien run, they were trying to make it scarier, but they actually made it less scary. Come to think of it, the scariest bad guys in movies are never fast moving creatures. And the aliens are supposed to be smart, not stupid. Remember in Alien how the alien was hiding in the escape ship at the end? Or in Aliens how the queen used the elevator and then stowed away? A final point that made this movie bad was a stupid stylistic decision: Kill off the main secondary character, Clemens, halfway through the movie. They had just begun to develop his character, and he could've been the next Hicks or Newt, but no, they kill him off halfway through. Then instead they try to develop the character of Dillon, however, they only get to developing his character halfway through as well. As a result, we have 2 half-developed characters (both of which die by the end), leaving Ripley the only character the viewer really cares about (unlike in Aliens where we had Hicks, Newt, Bishop, Vasquez, Apone, etc).
In conclusion, this was a well made movie with terrible stylistic decisions that essentially ruined it. The only good decision was to have Ripley sacrifice herself for the protection of humans at the end. This was done very well and ended off the movie well (albeit it was a sad ending).