Monday, May 14, 2018

Must-See May Day #11: Alien 3 (1992)

You may know that Aliens is one of my favourite movies I have seen this month. There was therefore a lot of pressure on the sequel to be a worthy follow-up. Having heard from basically everyone that it wasn't, I didn't have high hopes for this one. However, in the end, Alien 3 (1992) ended up being a fairly decent movie overall. Nothing special, or even great, but not the pile of trash I was expecting it to be. Just a middle-of-the-road action film, but certainly not up to the gold standard of the previous Alien movies. Starring Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley, Charles S. Dutton as Dillon, Charles Dance as Jonathan Clemens, Brian Glover as Harold Andrews, Ralph Brown as Aaron, Paul McGann as Golic, Danny Webb as Morse and Lance Henriksen as Bishop.

Note: I should point out that for this viewing I saw the Assembly Cut. Typically I like to watch the theatrical cuts when I'm reviewing things, since that's the version of the film I would have seen had I seen it in cinemas. However, I couldn't for the life of me find a copy of the theatrical cut of this film, so I had to settle for the extended version. From what I've heard, the extended cut is much better than the theatrical cut, so this might have affected my score. Regardless, here's the review.


Alien 3 (1992)

The intro to this movie didn't start off an a high note. It's one of the biggest slap-in-the-faces to a previous instalment I've ever seen. The ending of Aliens doesn't seem to have any impact anymore, so that's already a huge negative the film has to work its way around. It's also a shame that, unlike the previous sequel, this film doesn't do much, or anything, in the way of expanding the lore of the Xenomorphs, just that they can incubate in creatures other than humans and that, for some reason, changes their biology a little. That could have been interesting, but this change offers very little changes to the Xenomorph's fear factor or effectiveness in combat. This begs to question why this film was even made in the first place. It doesn't expand the lore of the world, and it even disregards its previous entries, so why was it made? Also, for being made in the early 90s, the CGI of the Xenomorph, when they use it, looks terrible. The practical effects still look outstanding, but the CGI, which at times makes the Xenomorph look an entirely different colour, are pathetic, and further adds to the mystery of why they made the Xenomorph quadrupedic if they couldn't animate it properly.


Lance Henriksen as Bishop

One of the best things about this film, however, is its cast. This is a strong ensemble, especially considering the roles they had to play, and the fact that so many of these characters were so incredibly likeable despite their backgrounds is a testament to not only the performances, but also the dialogue and the way the characters are written. Charles S. Dutton is a great priest and a real anchor throughout the action-heavy sequences. Charles Dance is brilliant, though I would have liked to see a little more of him. Paul McGann is probably my favourite in the cast, though. He portrays this utter nutcase with a grounded sense of pity, if that makes sense, as he sort of plays the character like a scared puppy, which, again, is interesting considering the character's past. Plus, I'm biased because he would go on to play the Eighth Doctor. Actually, there are a few actors here who I recognise from Doctor Who. Danny Webb and Phil Davis are also here, and they both give great performances as well.


Paul McGann as Golic

On to Ripley and, I'm kind of torn on this one. Sigourney Weaver still nails her performance, but I'm not quite sure how I feel about her story in this movie. First of all, it seems a little weird to give her a love interest. Granted, they both have great chemistry together, and it doesn't eat up as much of the run-time as I'd expected, but Ripley was always this character that didn't need a love interest. In Aliens, she had great chemistry with Hicks, but they never hooked up, which I liked. Here... I don't know. I guess I'm also confused by it since it adds practically nothing to the film after the halfway mark, so why add it in the first place? Also, the path that Ripley takes in this movie I was initially sceptical about. I thought, 'this surely can't be what happens to her'. By the end, though, the movie won me over, and now I can't think of any other way they could have continued her story apart from what happens here. It all just feels so natural, and while it does initially feel wrong, it all makes complete sense considering Ripley's story, and I do think that it's very fitting by the end.


Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley

Where this film shines is in the last 30 minutes or so. The final fight against the Xenomorph, while not as entertaining or impactful as the previous films, is still heart-pounding exhilaration and one of the few things in this movie that truly feels like a classic Alien movie. The carnage, the mayhem, the twists, it's all amazing. The way the camera zips around the halls from the Xenomorph's point-of-view is a masterstroke, and it's one of the clever touches they've implemented to keep the CGI abomination off-screen as long as possible, which I like. What also helps here is the sound design in general. This is another great soundtrack. Again, it's not as memorable as the first films, but it still accomplishes what it wants to do with each and every track. It was one of the things that kept me afraid of the CGI disaster that was the Xenomorph. The way the film ends is also an incredibly smart move, and if this was intended to be the final film in the trilogy, I'd say it ended on the right note. Shame there are sequels, but I'll get to them.


The Xenomorph

Top it all off with a few plot inconsistencies that I can't mention here without spoiling things, and you get Alien 3 (1992), a mixed-bag of a film the feels like such a let-down to one of the greatest film series of all time whilst still not technically being a 'bad' movie. I'm not sure if it's the extended cut or the fact that my expectations were low, but I'd probably see it again at some point. It's got just enough redeeming elements to keep it in the 'good' pile. Just. 6/10.



Tomorrow: The Hunger Games return in Catching Fire.

No comments:

Post a Comment