One question...why?

Rating: Null/10 (12 April 2003)

This looks like one of those incidents where someone, sometime said "What would happen if..." and the idea spiraled into a film that really should never have been made.
Besides being totally unnecessary (as is the case with so many sequels), the movie takes the satisfying, hopeful ending of James Cameron's 1986 'Aliens' (which I loved) and brings it to the most miserable, depressing conclusion imaginable.
The major problems with this movie:
1. The characters from 'Aliens' (with the exception of Sigourney Weaver, of course) are all dead at the beginning of this film (this is not a spoiler, because it's in the FIRST SCENE). Tough luck to anyone who may have liked the little girl Newt or the android Bishop, and so much for our hopes that a love interest might arise between Weaver's character Ripley and the soldier Hicks (the only military survivor).
2. The characters who *are* in this film are, with few exceptions, uninteresting and difficult to feel for. The marines in 'Aliens' were a diverse, colourful, and fascinating group. We rooted for them. With very few exceptions (such as Charles S. Dutton and Charles Dance), we do not root for the prisoners.
3. The story is uninspired. We're back to the one-alien-killing-everyone-when-they-have-no-weapons scenario, just like in the original. So much for James Cameron's attempts to actually make the franchise exciting.
4. Sigourney Weaver shaves her head. She actually looks quite unattractive, which is a shame because she looked awesome in the tank top and carrying around the heavy artillery in 'Aliens'. Too bad she didn't use the weapons on the costume designer for this one.
Overall, it is a sorry addition to the Alien series because everything that follows it (such as the comic books) must accommodate its miserable and depressing plot. This is one of those concepts that should have died at the table.
(But do see 'Aliens'...it really does rock!)