Entitled opinions, simple observations...

Rating: Null/10 (16 September 1999)

I first saw Alien 3 in theaters on opening night back in '92, and I can still remember the sickening "grip" it had on me. The kind of grimy/feverish/dirty feel the set and production design induced on the audience - as well as the droll music score (heavy in dark reverberations). At first, I hated it for that, but soon I realized that's exactly what it was supposed to do. Film-making (no matter what genre) is meant to "tap" the sensitive side to a person's mind. Between Ripley's ongoing agony of feeling physically sick & her personal battle against the race of aliens, the almost inhumane conditions of Fury 161, and most of all the threat of the dog-bread alien who instills constant fear, though we hardly see him - these elements compose a lot of what was seen in the original. I'm a student filmmaker and writer; I'm guessing that there's a lot more out there. I wouldn't dare say you guys are wrong in anyway if you didn't like Alien 3; I've read your reviews, you're all well spoken - criticizing fellow critics is childish. Film Aesthetics doesn't allow that kind of behavior. Remember, we're writing to the IMDb to examine the concept of the films we see. I think it's fair to say though: keep more of an open mind, and instead of focusing on the negativity of the story (and yes, there is some of that in this film) just sit down some night when there's nothing else to do and watch it again. Make an outline of the story. The major focal points of the script. The drives of the characters & most importantly the setting. Not to dictate (I'm no authority), just realize this: the film has almost no gunfire and minimal explosions. 'Aliens' WAS LOADED with this. Guys, come on, don't forget the logic in it: firing 10,000 rounds of ammo and burning the world are cop-outs to movie-making. IF OVER USED, they do nothing but waste screen time; time in which the writer could think of nothing else better to put to his pen. The true path to action or suspense lies in what the general audience can relate to, which is not having an RPG fired at your face. None of us know that thrill, but almost all of us know what it's like to fall off something high or be endangered by something, or maybe be cornered somewhere - instilling claustrophobia. From the 1st film we ALL KNOW that Ripley began as a central character who became the lead protagonist through default. From the 2nd film, more of a shoot-'em-up than an masterpiece, we understand Ripley is willing to sacrifice to gain. From a simple FNG POV I realized that Ripley had become a virtual "prisoner" to her own commitments. Good recent examples of giving all you have, how 'bout 'Schindler's List' or 'Sling Blade?' Drawing examples of the strength of Ripley's character is just my way of (I guess you could say) "defending" the 3rd film. The elements of the story existed and were defined well. Metaphorically, how could the situation be anymore worked out? And last but not least, admit to yourselves, the film was a far better entry than 'Resurrection.' I guess the only other thing I can fit in is this: David Fincher wasn't trying to top Ridley or Cameron for their films - not at his status in Hollywood. He simply interpreted the film the way he thought the story should be told. Interpretation is all it is. Screenwriters are told: you can't make a good movie from a bad script, but you can make a bad movie from a good script. 'Alien 3' has very keen dialogue, direct to its premise - but, sure, I'll admit it's got a few lines that are like a butch-90's flare of bad jokes or tough-guy one-liners. Wait a sec, 'Aliens' does, so does 'Alien'. 'Resurrection' is loaded with it. That's ironic. I'm still not quite sure what it is. I view 'Alien 3' as a solid *** film, intense and suspenseful. I only hope to one day get a clear solid answer as to where all the negativity comes from for it? Making a feature film like this is extremely technical, sometimes the makers lose concentration of that 50/50 balance they need to accomplish. The film isn't an atrocity. Could it of used some help... sure. I still wonder: if 'Alien 3' wasn't the third film but was just the first one (like a one-and-only) would we have thought differently about it? Keep your minds open guys, it's all interpretation, and we're all just trying to entertain. -Chris J. nlappos chris@redbug