Good, but not as great as everyone says

Rating: 7/10 (14 July 2004)

Certain genre films manage to strike a resonating chord with their audiences, and achieve not only popular success but a lingering cult that glorifies the movie into neo-scriptural status. 'Blade Runner' is such a film, perhaps the shining example of a genre film that too many people think is better than it really is; but 'Aliens' is another excellent example of a film that people elevate out of proportion to how good it really is.
To be fair, 'Aliens' is a strong film. It has interesting characters, an engaging set-up, and some of the better production design ever seen in a sci-fi film. It's also disturbingly pro-military, which is understandable given its Reagan-era roots, but comes off more than a little hawkish now. And it does achieve what it set out to do, and what most sequels never can; to be as good as or better than the original. Granted, Ridley Scott's 'Alien' was a different type of film, a suspense/horror movie, where this is an action film (and yes, I am aware of parallels to 'Mummy/Mummy Returns').
Watching 'Aliens' now is a different experience than seeing it back then; you have the following two movies in your memory (whether you want them there or not), and it's funny to see Paul Reisler (Carter Burke) doing anything other than watered-down comedy (he's very good here, by the way). The only other really recognizable actor is Sigourney Weaver, whom they unsuccessfully tried to build a franchise around; genre dorks like me can pick out Michael Biehn, whose career essentially peaked with this film, and of course Bill Paxton is in the background crying and bitching.
The film comes off as very eighties when viewed through modern eyes. Burke in particular seems to have gotten stuck in 1985 (though Ripley's civilian garb is also horribly dated). Most of the military production design still holds up, however; ironically it succeeds in that by not being too futuristic. The tanks, dropship, etc, all still look and feel pretty cool.
So why is this film not the be-all end-all that so many proclaim it to be? It's a good film, sure; the build up is particularly tense and effective, and the rough camaraderie between the marines is still enjoyable (though more of them seem to come off as dicks than I remember). The slow approach to the settlers' camp and the way Cameron chooses to unveil the aliens  remember, at that time we didn't all have little plastic dolls of them  is also very inventive, and while this is an action film, Cameron injects a healthy dose of horror into it.
My basic issues with the film (which my recent re-watching did nothing to dispel) really came down to two things: Newt, and Cameron's 'mother' issues. The entire last third of the film, from a plot standpoint, is wholly unnecessary, because of these two items. The characters battle and beat (or at least hold off) the aliens and are well on their way out when, inexplicably, the clever and nimble-fingered Newt falls down an air vent, and we get a long, pointless detour that not only sours this film but mostly poisons the next two and the very concept of the aliens altogether.
Kids are hard to do in genre films. Spielberg did a decent job with Short Round in 'Temple of Doom' and Alex O'Connell in 'Mummy Returns' manages to work well. But most of the other times, including here, kids are just annoying precocious plot devices. Newt doesn't bring anything to this film other than a lot of screaming; she tells us nothing about the aliens we don't learn from other sources, she sheds no light on the colonists, and she isn't even particularly effective comic relief. The only purpose she serves is to introduce the main sub-theme in the movie, Cameron's mother complex. By awakening Ripley's maternal instincts, Newt's presence sets us up for the ridiculous end-duel between Ripley, in a wearable forklift, and the woefully overdone Queen alien, an unnecessary invention that looks silly and cheapens the horror value of the aliens forever.
Viewed with hindsight now, one can see that 'Aliens' could also be called 'T2 version 0.95'. Many similar elements, and even similar shots, are used in both films (compare Vasquez's intro with Sarah Connor's; the misapprehension of the lead character, a non-combatant, upon their first encounter with an android; the role both Newt and John play in re-humanizing their mothers; and so on). There's nothing really wrong with this  and Cameron would hardly be the first director to mine himself for ideas, and, frankly, you could do worse than steal from 'Aliens' for inspiration. But it's interesting to watch Cameron test several ideas out in this movie before fleshing them out in what is arguably his greatest work (come on, you didn't think I was referring to 'Titanic', did you?).
'Aliens' remains an enjoyable and well-done film, if a bit dated, and I know I spent too much time here debunking myth and not enough praising the effective parts of the film, which are numerous. The longer-cut DVD adds nothing that you really missed in the first place (I could have lived without seeing Newt's parents) and imbues the early part of the film with pacing more appropriate for a novel (which probably explains why it was pared down). For sheer genre fun, the first two-thirds of this movie are hard to top, and it's not difficult to see why it has engendered such feverish devotion from genre fans. It's certainly worth a viewing if you haven't seen it recently. By and large the Alien franchise was pretty good ('Alien 3' being the extremely notable exception), and it never gets better than it does here. For most of the picture, anyway.