What're We Supposed To Use Now, Harsh Language?

Rating: 8/10 (20 April 2001)

I felt so soiled after watching the mindless train wreck called `Alien: Resurrection' that I was compelled to watch `Aliens' immediately afterward, in order to cleanse my palette and to remind myself why Hollywood keeps the `Alien' franchise on life support. Man, if only some new director could recapture the essence of `Aliens', or if only James Cameron could be convinced to direct the next film in the franchise. `Aliens' is that good.
`Aliens', for the uninitiated, picks up sixty some-odd years after the end of the original `Alien'. Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), the lone survivor of the doomed spaceship Nostromo, is found by a passing galactic freighter and revived from suspended animation. Ripley learns that the lethal lessons learned by her ship's crew went unnoticed by the rest of the universe  the planet where her crew found the original deadly Alien creature has been partially terraformed and colonized by human settlers. But, surprise surprise, the colony's been wiped out, and now a hard-bitten group of Space Marines are going to the planet to find out what happened. Ripley is conscripted as an advisor and goes back to the planet with the Marines, where they discover that the colony hasn't been wiped out by a single Alien. . . but by an Alien brood mother and her legions of hungry, vicious, offspring.
In making `Aliens', James Cameron created a great sequel to a great original film, one that manages to remain true to the original while offering a fresh take on old ideas. Cameron took the original look and feel of the Alien creatures, remained faithful with the character of Ripley . . . and then moved forward with a brand new story. `Aliens' isn't simply a rehash of Ridley Scott's `Alien'. While they possess certain common denominators, they're two distinctly different films. `Aliens' is wall-to-wall pulse-pounding action, while `Alien' is more straightforward horror. Cameron deliberately didn't try to copy Ridley Scott, which is why this film works so well . . . and why the later sequels don't. Those later films have nothing new to say.
The fights between the Marines and the Aliens are gripping as well, masterfully directed and choreographed by Cameron. The Marines, while mostly personality stereotypes, are fairly memorable as well  it's quite a shock to see their bravado before they encounter the Aliens, and the shreds of what's left afterwards. A great ensemble cast  Michael Biehn is very good as the vulnerable Sergeant Hicks, as is Lance Henrikson as the android Bishop (in a nice nod to the `Terminator' films, it's implied that androids were originally created by the Cyberdyne Corporation), and Paul Reiser is outstanding as Carter Burke, an oily government executive. Besides Sigourney Weaver, though, the best performance comes from Carrie Henn as Newt, the little girl who also happens to be the only survivor of the original colony massacre. Her character's vital to the film  Ripley wants to protect Newt at all costs, much as the Alien Brood mother wants to protect her lethal progeny. If Newt was unlikable, or if she was just a two-dimensional cardboard cutout, a lot of Ripley's motivations  and the plot  would fall flat on its face. Fortunately, she's terrific. And so is `Aliens'.
There are a few plot holes that keep `Aliens' from being a classic, but the film moves along at such a rapid pace, you really don't have much time to notice them. Still, `Aliens' is one of James Cameron's best films. It's a pure adrenaline rush from start to finish. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend renting it sometime soon. You won't be disappointed. Grade: A-