Not Like The First of the Series, But Still Very Good

Rating: 7/10 (1 April 2005)

I have only seen the first two of the "Alien" series, so my comments on both films are within this context. Despite being a sequel with a time gap that cannot be considered wide (1979 to 1986), I found the two films quite different in both style and essence: Whereas Ridley Scott in "Alien" made a typical thriller, James Cameron came up with a movie in which the focus was much more on the action and less on suspense.
In "Alien", we saw one by one the crew members of Nostromo getting killed by the mysterious and cryptic alien in a slow and painful pace (until the last scenes at least, where the tempo goes up). In "Aliens", the theme is completely different: Ripley (Weaver) is persuaded to return to the planet, which has been colonized by humans who are unaware of the lethal danger, and who have now faced the wrath and terrorizing of the aliens who inhabit there. The Company also sends a team of Space Marines with heavy fire power (with Ripley acting as their adviser), in order to clean up the place. As soon as the squad lands onto the unfriendly territory, the action begins: The aliens are tough nuts, and a devastating war between the two species takes place.
Contrary to the first film, "Aliens" is full of overwhelming sci-fi action, putting the film in the same category as say, the Star Wars saga (although the scenes in "Aliens" are much more brutal and horrific). Moreover, although "Alien" was a much more genuine and pioneer film, in "Aliens" I didn't get this feeling (although the fact that it was a sequel is in part responsible for this).
This does not mean that "Aliens" is not good. On the contrary, it provides us with vivid action, solid performances, stunning effects (for the 80's standards), and a very good direction. Yet, I can't help but give it a slightly lower grade than the superb "Alien". Overall mark 7/10.